1

Improving Transition Outcomes in Richland County
_______________________

A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Special Education
_______________________
by
Heidi Roush
College of Education, Slippery Rock University
July 2025

Keywords: transition services, perceived parental barriers

2
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Committee Chair: Dr. Toni Mild, Department Chair, Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Joseph Merhaut, Ed. D
Committee Member: Dr. Jason Hilton, Ph. D.

3
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the challenges and barriers that parents in
Richland County perceive when working the County Board of Developmental Disabilities when
planning for the child’s transition. Also examined was other local agencies like Opportunities
for Ohioans with Disabilities. The importance of transition planning and the effects it has on a
student’s life has been studied.
A mixed methods design was chosen for this study. An online survey was utilized to
acquire the feelings of parents about the local transition services. A small group of parents
volunteered to participate in a semi-structured interview. Parents has several positive things to
report about their experiences with Richland Newhope.
Future studies would benefit from have a better turnout of parents who struggle to
connect with their local services and have expressed dissatisfaction in the past.

4
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Research Topic………………………………………………………………………..7
Significance of Study………………………………………………………………..…...11
Definitions of Terms……………………………………………………………………..15
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………17
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….20
Purpose of Study…………………………………………………………………………20
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………………..21
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………48
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………49
Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………….50
Research Sample and Data Collection………………………………………………….. 51

Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………………..52
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….55
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………57
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………………..59
Characteristics of Research Sample……………………………………………………...60
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….61

Research Question 1……………………………………………………………………..61
Research Question 2……………………………………………………………………..67
Research Question 3……………………………………………………………………..70
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...73

5
Chapter 5: Recommendations …………………………………………………………………...74
Data Analysis Summary…….…………………………………………………………………...74
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………76
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………….81
Limitations of Study……………………………………………………………………………..83
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….89
References………………………………………………………………………………………..90
Appendix A- Letter to Families………………………………………………………………….98
Appendix B- Survey Questions…..……………………………………………………..…….…99
Appendix C- Semi-Structured Interview Questions……………………………………………103
Appendix D- Consent Form……………………………………………………………………104
Appendix E - IRB Approval……………………………………………………………………108

Appendix F - Permission Letters……………………………………………………………….109

6
List of Tables
Table 1. Relationship of Survey Question to Research Question………………………………..53
Table 2. Primary Disability of Student…………………………………………………………..61
Table 3. Response to survey question rank of importance of transition planning elements..........62
Table 4. Barriers parents identified…………………………………………………………...….64
Table 5. Programs, agencies, resources parents perceived as helpful…………………………...65
Table 6. Ranked perceived barriers during transition planning……………………………….....71
Table 7. Improvements that could be made to transition services in Richland County……….....72
Table 8. Proposed solutions to communication barrier………………………………………….86
Table 9. Proposed solutions to general inconvenience barrier………………………………..…87
Table 10. Proposed solutions to overall confusion barrier………………………………………88

7

Chapter 1: Research Topic
The term “disability” is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of an individual” by the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Sec. 12102, para 1). Life activities include, but are not

limited to, taking care of oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping,
walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating,
thinking, communicating, and working (Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990). The impairments
that cause difficulties in these areas can vary in severity, onset, and type. Under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), within a school setting, there are thirteen
recognized disabilities that qualify students for special education services. The categories are

intellectual disability (ID), hearing impairment, speech or language impairment, visual
impairment, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, other
health impairment, deafness, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities or developmental delay (A
Guide to Parent Rights in Special Education, 2017). While attending school, these individuals are
eligible for transition services. The three areas on transition services that are addressed in the
individualized education plan (IEP) are postsecondary education/ training, employment, and

living skills if deemed necessary by the IEP team. Transition goals are created for each student
of transition age in these area areas. Planned activities to help achieve these goals are to be
administered by the intervention specialist. These activities should facilitate growth and to
achieve the goal set in the areas of postsecondary education/ training, employment, and living

8
skills. The plans for these three areas should improve employment outcomes in theory.
Unfortunately, those outcomes are not always improved.
Underemployment of individuals with disabilities is a problem despite the transition
services established by the IDEA. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an estimated 85.3
million people in the United States identified themselves as persons with disabilities (2014).
Over 55 million of those individuals identified as persons with severe disabilities (Taylor, 2018)
which is almost 18% of the counted census population. Individuals who live with a disability
face many challenges over their lifespans. One challenging area that affects other facets of their
lives is employment. Employment is an element of social functioning and provides a person with
an opportunity to develop personal and financial independence. Unfortunately, people who have
disabilities are less likely to be employed, more likely to rely on government assistance, and
more likely to be considered living in poverty (Taylor, 2018).

The U.S. Census Bureau reported at the end of 2013 that only 47.2% of people with a
disability between the ages of 18 and 64 were employed. Employment rates of 34.8% were even
lower for individuals who identified as having a severe disability (Taylor, 2018). Comparatively,
almost 78% of individuals without a disability were employed during that same year. Similar
findings were reported by the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
(PCESE, 2002). According to the report, 70% of the people with disabilities in the United States

between the ages of 18 and 64 were either unemployed or considered grossly underemployed.
Sixteen years later, the United States Census Bureau estimated that in 2018, only 24.0% of
people with a disability aged 16 and over were employed compared to a 67.3% employment rate
for non-disabled people aged 16 and older. One attempt to remedy this disproportionate
employment rate was the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

9
Legislation
The ADA was passed in 1990. Within this law, Title 1 protects both employees with
disabilities and people with disabilities looking for employment (U.S. Department of Labor,
2021). Specifically, the law “prohibits private employers, state and local governments,
employment agencies, and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with
disabilities in the job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job
training, and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment” (U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2021, para. 1). This legislative attempt to protect individuals with
disabilities in the workplace requires a business with more than 15 employees to make
reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Examples of such reasonable
accommodations include installing ramps to make the workplace more accessible, altering work
schedules to align with taking necessary medications, and providing equipment that allows jobs

to be completed successfully (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2021).
Legislation was implemented to improve employment outcomes while students were in
school. Beginning with the Education for all Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the educational
process for students with disabilities began to be reevaluated. The law has been revised several
times and is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). This
version of IDEA incorporated transition planning into the Individualized Education Program

(IEP). An IEP is “a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed
and revised” and covers the student’s present levels of performance, measurable annual goals, a
description of how those goals are met, and the services and supplementary aids that are needed
to meet those goals (IDEA, 2004). When a student reaches the age of 16, the IEP contains
transition planning and is updated annually (IDEA, 2004). Transition planning consists of

10
“appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessments
related to training, education, employment, and where appropriate, independent living skills”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The transition services decided upon by the team help the
student with a disability achieve the post-secondary goals within the IEP. When creating a
transition plan for a student with a disability, the school district and the vocational rehabilitation
(VR) agencies work together to identify the transition needs of the student.
School personnel are responsible for preparing students eligible for transition services. In
2018, 56% of the students ages 14 to 24 who were referred to vocational rehabilitation (VR)
agencies were referred by school personnel (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Once a
person of transition age who has a disability contacts their VR agencies, they expect to
participate in programs that help them prepare for their futures. These programs consider the
individual’s strengths, resources, abilities, interests, capabilities, and choices. VR services not

only include job exploration and training but also daily living services. A VR counselor helps
clients apply for housing and transportation services. In order for VR services to be utilized by
transition-aged individuals with disabilities, schools and local agencies must work together.
While legislation has changed to stress the importance of transition planning, a greater
proportion of individuals with disabilities is unemployed than their non-disabled peers. The
United States Census Bureau (2018) estimated that only 24.0% of people with a disability age 16

and over were employed compared to a 67.3% employment rate for non-disabled people age 16
and older. Multiple state- and county-based agencies whose purpose is to help improve transition
and employment outcomes for people with disabilities of transition age have been established,
but individuals with disabilities still are employed at much lower levels.
Significance of Study

11
In a rural community in north central Ohio, a low employment problem persists for
people with disabilities. In a small sample population (N=17) of current and former students of
transition age, only 11% have found employment of any kind. The majority of these students
spend their time at home. Others participate in local day habilitation services (programs designed
to maximize a person’s independence in activities of daily living, personal health and
socialization that take participants on outings in the community). While competitive employment
is not an appropriate setting for all people with disabilities, other options exist. While the low
employment rate is frustrating for the parties involved, the lack of utilization of community
services designed to involve people with disabilities, improve employment rates, and foster
independence also is a frustration. Despite the struggles that parents of children with disabilities
face, they do not always consult with community resources to improve transition outcomes and
employability options, which limits individuals with disabilities in their transition outcomes and

causes them to spend their adult years lacking opportunities to engage with others and develop
independence.
Previous research demonstrates that parental involvement improves academic outcomes
and transition outcomes for all students of transition age (Cheung & Pemerantz, 2012; Fay &
Chen, 2001; Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). Studies prove that parents impact the transition
outcomes for students with disabilities. Research demonstrates that the expectations of parents of

students with disabilities are a strong predictor of improved employment outcomes (Doren, Gau,
& Lindstorm, 2012). Also, individuals with a disability who are employed competitively tend to
be better off financially than those employed in a workshop setting or unemployed (Cho &
Schueermann, 1980; Conley et al., 1989; Lam, 1986). Transition services are beneficial to
remedy the concern of individuals with disabilities employed at lower rates. Yet despite this

12
research there are some parents who do not use community resources to assist in planning their
child's transition to adulthood.
Parents must explore the public services in place in their community because services
lead to better transition outcomes for their children. Through the course of experience, not every
parent in Richland Country has accessed the resources available. This research study examines
why parents are not contacting the board of developmental disabilities (DD) for county and other
state-run agencies. This study is significant because improving relationships between parents of
students with disabilities and the county board of DD potentially leads to better employment
rates and transition outcomes for transition-aged students with significant disabilities. The goal
of this study is to improve the relationship between the parents of students with disabilities and
the county board of DD. Strengthening these relationships potentially will improve employment
and transition outcomes. The following research questions will be explored.

1. What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental
Disabilities (DD)?
2. What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being
helpful for transition planning?
3. What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would
increase parent satisfaction?

Organizational Context and Methods Overview
This study is presented in five chapters. The first chapter provides an overview and brief
introduction to the chosen research topic. The first chapter also exposes the need for an
overarching goal of the study. The second chapter presents a review of the available literature.
The topics of focus are the origin of transition law, the importance of transition, current problems

13
with transition services, poor employment outcomes for people with disabilities, ways to
improve employment outcomes (including parent involvement), and the barriers prohibiting
parent involvement. Chapter three presents the methodology of the planned research study.
Chapter four presents the findings from the mixed-methods study, and chapter five derives
conclusions from the research study that may be used to implement programs to improve access
to community services.
This research study utilizes a mixed methods approach in which participants first will
complete a Likert survey online to serve as a small quantitative element. The survey identifies
the areas of concern that parents have in making transition plans for their child(ren). Those
members of the sample who agree to additional participation will take part in a semi-structured
interview. The interview will allow participants to detail their previous experiences when
working with community resources in greater depth or share reasons for not including

community resources in their child's future plans.
The participants in this study represent a small sample of parents who have children in a
specific Richland County school district. Their children are of transition age (14 to 24 years old)
and eligible for services through the county board of DD.
Existing Research
To prepare for this study, previous studies and dissertations were read and reviewed to

better understand the possible issues affecting quality transition and employment services for
individuals with disabilities who are of transition age. Specific topics were examined to improve
the level of understanding of the topic. Studies outlining quality transition programs and
employment outcomes also were reviewed. Quality transition planning needs to be “driven by a
young person’s dreams, desires, and abilities,” and “build on a youth’s participation in school,

14
home, and community living,” (PACER Center, 2015, para. 1). Reviewing these studies proved
that quality programs accessed by individuals with disabilities and their families resulted in
better employment outcomes and less stress for family members (Brown et al., 2006; Hirano et
al., 2018; Timmons et al., 2011). Research shows that through the use of supported employment
and vocational rehabilitation services, employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities
improve (Brown et al., 2006; Dean et al., 2013; Nord & Hepperlen, 2016). Supported
employment services are the “ongoing support services, including customized employment, and
other appropriate services needed to support and maintain an individual with a most significant
disability” (WIOA, 2017, Employment section). Supportive employment is used to assist
individuals with some of the most significant disabilities to obtain and keep competitive
integrated employment. The term “integrated employment” means that a job held by a person
with a significant disability is in a typical workplace setting where the majority of people

employed in the workplace do not have disabilities (Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.). Brown’s study on supported employment over the span of 24 years makes a strong
argument for the importance of integrated employment. Through supported employment and
maintaining a job in integrated employment, individuals with disabilities have succeeded in other
facets of their lives. These individuals create and maintain friendships they would not have in a
segregated employment setting. Individuals with disabilities who are competitively employed

make more money than their segregated peers. Employees working in a sheltered workshop
earned less than their peers working in a non-sheltered workplace. Those in a segregated,
sheltered place of employment earned $118.55 per week verses those supported in a competitive
environment who earned $137.20 per week (Cimera, 2011). This underscores the value of
competitive employment when possible.

15
Delimitations
This research study will take place in a village in Richland County, Ohio. The sample
population will include parents whose children have a disability that makes their child eligible
for services through the Richland County Board of Developmental Disabilities. The children will
be of transition age, 14 - 24 years old. The researcher will examine barriers that parents perceive
regarding their child's transition likelihood and transition experiences, as well as their overall
opinions of the process.
Definitions of Terms
•

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - Provides rights and protections to
children with disabilities and their parents from birth through age 21. Transition planning
became a guideline mandated by IDEA 2004.

•

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - A civil rights law that prohibits discrimination

against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life. This includes jobs, schools,
transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.
•

Rehabilitation System - Federal system that delegates money to each state that has submitted
their annual plans and budget. The state makes funds available for their approved vocational
rehabilitation programs based upon availability.

•

Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) - The state agency that works with

Ohioans with disabilities to improve employment, independence, and Social Security
disability determination.
•

Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR) - Organization under the Opportunities for
Ohioans with Disabilities or OOD umbrella that provides disability services and support
necessary to help them obtain and maintain employment.

16
•

Vocational Rehabilitation - Services provided for people with disabilities who want
assistance obtaining and maintaining a job. Services are individualized for each person and
their needs.

•

Supportive Employment - Competitive employment in an integrated setting with ongoing
support services for individuals with disabilities.

•

Integrated Employment - Jobs held by people with disabilities in a typical workplace setting
where the majority of people employed do not have a disability.

•

Developmental Disabilities System - Federal program that disperses money to each state to
use for their own programs. In Ohio that is OOD.

•

Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) - Federal program from the Department
of Health and Human Services. CMS works with the states to run the Medicaid and
Children’s Health Insurance programs.

•

Transition age - People ages 14-24.

•

Transition services / Transition planning - Coordinated sets of activities for a child with a
disability that are designed to help the child move from school to post-school activities
(supported employment, competitive employment, independent living).

•

County Board of Developmental Disabilities (DD) - In Ohio, each county has its own Board
of DD that supports individuals with disabilities. There are 88 counties in Ohio.

•

Improved employment outcomes - Being employed in some capacity, exploring employment
options and job training.

•

Improved transition outcomes - Engaging with community, showing increased independence
and self-care.

17
•

Intellectual Disability (ID) - A condition in which a person has certain limitations in
intellectual functions, like communicating, taking care of him- or herself, or impaired social
skills. Previously the state of Ohio used the term cognitive disability (CD).

Summary
The 2014 U.S. Census population is comprised of 18% of individuals who have
disabilities. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were 85.3 million individuals in the
United States who identify as a person with a disability. Over 55 million people identify
themselves as an individual with a severe disability (Taylor, 2018). One continued barrier for this
population is finding and maintaining sufficient employment. Only 47.2% of the individuals
between the ages of 18 and 64 who identified themselves as a person with a disability were
employed at the end of 2013. If an individual considered him- or herself an individual with a
severe disability, the employment rate was even lower, at 34.8% (Taylor, 2018).

The attempts through federal legislation have improved the employment rates for
individuals with disabilities. In 1990 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed.
Broadly, this law protects an individual with a disability from discrimination by state and local
governments in the areas of public accommodation, commercial facilities, transportation, and
telecommunication (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990). Title 1 of the ADA protects
individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the area of employment. Any employer with

15 or more employees must provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity
to benefit from the full range of employment-related opportunities available to others (Americans
with Disabilities Act, 1990). A person with a disability cannot be discriminated against in
recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, and other privileges of
employment.

18
Further legislative attempts at improving employment outcomes took place within the
educational system. With the reevaluation of IDEA in 2014, the individualized education
program (IEP) must now contain transition planning for all students by the time they are 16 years
old. The transition planning must contain “appropriate measurable post-secondary goals based on
age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where
appropriate, independent living skills” (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of Education,
2020, p. 1). Even with these legislative moves to encourage employment of individuals with
disabilities, low employment numbers persist. In 2018 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that
only 24% of individuals with a disability ages 16 and older were employed compared to an
employment rate of 67.3% for non-disabled people ages 16 and older. Other agencies can play a
role in remedying these poor employment numbers. With increased collaboration between
schools and vocational rehabilitation (VR) services, more students of transition age are gaining

access to programs that improve employment outcomes. There are VR services in place to help
individuals of transition age plan for their futures. These services include job exploration, job
training, and daily living services. Vocational rehabilitation services, quality transition services,
and supported employment improve employment outcomes (Brown et al., 2006; Dean et al.,
2013; Nord & Hepperlen, 2016). Despite these available services, individuals with disabilities
continue to be employed at a lower rate than their non-disabled peers.

Even with the available federal, state, and local agencies in place to improve employment
and transition outcomes for individuals with disabilities, there are people who do not utilize these
options. This study examines why individuals with children of transition age in a rural county in
northwestern Ohio elect not to utilize the county board of DD. This study also examines what
barriers these parents perceive as impacting the utilization of county board services.

19
Transition planning has attempted to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities through legislative changes for the last twenty years. This shift was an attempt to
improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Even with these changes,
employment rates for individuals with disabilities are lower than for their non-disabled peers.
The following chapter examines preexisting literature on these issues. The research includes the
changes in transition planning, employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, the
importance of parent involvement, and the frustrations families experience with the educational
and adult services system.

20
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Despite attempts by schools, local agencies, and legislative bodies, individuals with a
disability continue to display lower employment rates than their non-disabled peers. In 2018 the
U.S. Census Bureau estimated that only 24% of individuals with a disability ages 16 and older
were employed, compared to an employment rate of 67.3% for non-disabled people ages 16 and
older. Existing research shows the importance of transition planning and vocational rehabilitation
services for individuals who have disabilities; however, individuals continue not to utilize the
local agencies in place to improve employment outcomes. This chapter examines the previous
research on transition planning, vocational rehabilitation (VR) services, parent involvement, and
parent frustrations.
This chapter will also examine the topics that are integral to understanding the struggle to
connect families and their transition-aged children with quality opportunities for transition

success. The evolution of transition programming is examined, and an explanation of transition
programs provided. The benefits of quality transition services and the positive outcomes that
result are discussed. This chapter also provides an explanation of supported employment and the
potential this method of employment has for transition-aged individuals. It also considers
research on the problems encountered by families and transition-aged individuals when planning
for transition, including the perceived barriers and frustrations parents feel. Finally, this chapter

examines why some parents opt to forgo the vocational rehabilitation and developmental
disabilities services offered.
Purpose of the Study

21
The purpose of this study is to improve the relationship of a population of students with
disabilities in a local school district in northwest Ohio and their families with the Richland
County Board of Developmental Disabilities.
Research Question(s)
1. What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental
Disabilities (DD)?
2. What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being
helpful for transition planning?
3. What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would
increase parent satisfaction?
Review of Literature
Research shows that well-developed transition plans and work training programs result in

better employment outcomes for people of transition age who also have a disability.
According to the Ohio Department of Education, “a truly successful transition process is the
result of comprehensive planning that is driven by the student’s preferences, interests, needs and
strengths” (Federal and State Requirement, Ohio Department of Education, 2020, para. 1). A
quality transition plan is a collaboration between family, transition-age student, the school, and
community agencies. With a quality plan, a transition-aged individual with a disability has

access to “a continuum of services to achieve employment outcomes in competitive integrated
employment or supported employment” (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of Education,
2020, p. 12). Two services that improve the change of employment for transition-aged
individuals are vocational rehabilitation and employment training.

22
Vocational rehabilitation (VR) services are available to individuals with disabilities who
want to join the workforce. Specifically, in the state of Ohio, VR services include evaluation and
treatment of an individual’s disability, referral services, vocational counseling, vocational
training, job search and placement assistance, transportation services, occupational tools and
equipment, and a personal services attendant (Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020).
These programs are in place to help an individual with a disability find and maintain
employment. When youth with disabilities participate in employment training and VR services,
they have better outcomes. Vocational rehabilitation services are available to students as early as
age 14 with Pre-Employment Transition Services(Pre-ETS). There are five services provided for
student of transitionage while they are school age. The five services include job exploration
counseling, work based learning, post-secondary opportunity counseling, workplace readiness
training, and self-advocacy instruction.(Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020).When

VR services are utilized, youth with disabilities are more likely employed when they receive job
placement services, job search assistance, VR and other guidance from their VR services
(Awsumb, Balcazar, & Keel, 2019). Research has also shown that transition programming and
services are important to youth with disabilities and help increase successful outcomes
(Awsumb, Balcazar, & Alvarado, 2016), which implies that families would willingly utilize such
services.

Despite the potential positive outcomes of utilizing DD and VR services, families still
struggle to make sense of the adult services and post-secondary options that are available for
young adults with disabilities. Research shows that parents struggle to navigate the new systems
as their child leaves their familiar school system. “Parents expressed apprehension and fear

23
associated with learning how to navigate through adult agency support systems and frustration
with the inability to secure necessary supports” (Bianco et al., 2009, p. 186).
There are several possible reasons for the feelings of frustration and apprehension.
Parents point to extensive paperwork, confusion, lack of programming, and a lack of consistency
from adult service providers (Bianco et al., 2009). One potential problem parents have in
utilizing post-secondary services for individuals with disabilities is the mandated services are
gone. School and the services associated with school typically serve as a support for families.
While in school, the transition services and planning are mandated by IDEA 2014. Once a
student leaves their educational setting, all available services must be “actively pursued by the
youth and/or their family” (Awsumb et al., 2019, p. 62), meaning in order for individuals to be
enrolled into programs like VR, county boards of DD, and Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities, the responsibility falls on the individuals and families. When students graduate or

age out of their educational setting, the loss of services and supports that they had for years adds
more stress to families and caregivers of individuals with disabilities, leading to a disconnect
between families of transition-aged students and the very organizations put in place to assist with
transition services (McKenzie et al., 2017).
The purpose of this study is to improve the communication between families and
available resources and improve transition and employment outcomes in the Richland Country

Community for the population of individuals with intellectual disabilities. An improvement in
communication would allow people with disabilities to shrink the employment gap, make more
money, and enjoy more independence in their daily lives.
Evolution of Transition

24
Over 40 years ago, children with disabilities did not have the right to be educated
alongside their peers in a public school. In 1975 the Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(Public Law 94-142) was signed by President Gerald Ford. Even though this law has been
reevaluated and changed over the course of more than 40 years, Public Law 94-142 is now
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA (U.S Department of
Education, n.d.). IDEA 2004 is the law that ensures a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
to all children who qualify. IDEA was written to “govern how states and public agencies provide
early intervention, special education, and related services to more than 7.5 million eligible
infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities,” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.
About IDEA, para. 2).
Through IDEA infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families are eligible to
receive early intervention services. These services begin at birth and continue through age two as

early intervention under IDEA Part C. Once a child is three years old, the school district of
residence begins their own intervention services. From the ages of three to 21 a child with a
diagnosed disability is eligible to receive special education and necessary related services under
IDEA Part B (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). As mentioned earlier, there are thirteen
categories of disabilities that qualify students for special education under IDEA 2004. During the
2019-2020 school year 7.3 million public school students received special education services

under IDEA (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). The most common disability type
to be identified in a public school is that of a specific learning disability (33%, or 2.4 million
students). Students with a speech or language impairment have the second most identified
disability (19%, or 1.4 million students). Students with a developmental delay or intellectual
disability rank fifth and sixth in disability type served in a public school. An intellectual

25
disability, as defined by Section 300.8 (c) of IDEA, would require a significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning, that also exists with deficits in adaptive behaviors (Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). A developmental delay is not one of the 13 recognized
disability terms of IDEA. However, a school district can elect to use the definition of
developmental delay in finding children who would qualify for special education services. The
Ohio Department of Education classifies a developmental disability as a child aged three through
five years who is experiencing a delay in one or more areas of development. These areas are
physical, cognitive, communication, social and emotional, and adaptive development.
Developmental delays account for 7%, or 511,000, students in public schools, and students with
intellectual disabilities account for 6%, or 438,000, of the identified students in public schools of
the United States.
IDEA has evolved over the years as deficits in the education of students with disabilities

and their peers led to further guidelines. Beginning in 1990, the amendments to IDEA resulted in
the incorporation of school-to-postsecondary education transition. A focus on transition
improvement continued in 1997 when the IDEA amendments factored the transition plan into the
IEP document as well as stated within the law that “publicly supported education should
culminate in post-school employment and independent living” (Certo et al., 2008, p. 86).
Transition planning is now the guideline mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA, 2004). While in public school, a student identified as having a disability
must have a transition plan in place starting at age 16, or younger if deemed appropriate by the
IEP team. A goal of IDEA 2004 is for the schools to “prepare [students with disabilities] for
further education, employment, and independent living” (Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, n.d. IDEA Purpose section). These topics are the building blocks of transition.

26
Continued Education
Planned continued education is one element of the transition plan that must be
considered. Continued education, also know as, post-secondary education is enrollment in a job
training program, vocational program, two-year college, community college, or four-year college
or university. Transition-aged individuals with disabilities do not attend post-secondary
educational settings at the same rate as their non-disabled peers. “Only 14% of people with
disabilities graduated from college, compared to 32% of people without disabilities” (Ipsen et al.,
2019, p. 95). According to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS),
transition-aged students with disabilities are less likely than their non-disabled peers to enroll in
post-secondary school. Those individuals enrolled in post-secondary school, “were more likely
to be enrolled in a two-year or community college (44%) than in a vocational, business, or
technical school (32%) or a four-year college or university (19%),” (Office of Special Education

and Rehabilitative Services, 2015, p. 6). Having a lower educational peak impacts potential
earnings and job security in the future. One of the goals of transition plans is to improve
secondary education outcomes for students with disabilities.
Transition plans are beneficial for students enrolling in post-secondary education when
the plans promote self-advocacy skills and educate the students on their rights and
responsibilities at a post-secondary school. A transition plan that is created for a transition-aged

student who is planning on attending a two-year or four-year university should foster skills of
self-determination and self-advocacy (Gil, 2007). Individuals with disabilities need to understand
how their disability affects their learning and what accommodations worked well in the past.
These are some elements that should be considered in a transition plan in the area of continued
education.

27
Employment
Another element of the transition plan is a goal that addresses the plans the student has
for future employment. Individuals who identify as having a disability are less likely to be
employed than their non-disabled peers. In 2018 the Office of Disability Employment Policy
reported that among youths aged 16 to 19 who have a disability, the employment rate was
26.5%, versus an employment rate of 33.7% for their non-disabled peers. The trend continued as
the students progressed. The employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 20 to 24 was
50.5%, compared to 72.1% for their non-disabled peers (Awsumb et al., 2019). Employment
goals in a transition plan are an attempt to change this trend.
For an employment goal to be an effective part of the transition plan, the student and his
or her interests should be considered. Both formal and informal assessments should be used to
find the student’s employment interests, aptitudes, and work-related values (IRIS Center, 2022).

The results of these assessments allow the transition team to use the student’s current abilities
and interests to plan for future employment possibilities. Exposure to work and work-related
settings is important for all students of transition age. The National Collaborative on Workforce
and Disability for Youth (NCWD) recommends students with disabilities obtain work experience
whenever possible. Individuals who have work experience as a student are more likely to find
employment after they graduate. Students who participated “in occupational education programs

and special education in integrated settings,” are more likely to be competitively employed than
students with disabilities who do not have these opportunities (A Transition Guide, U.S.
Department of Education, 2020, p. 4). These employment opportunities are formal or informal
and paid or unpaid. The chance for students to get exposure to a work setting occurs within the
school curriculum, community-based employment opportunities, internships, apprenticeships, or

28
the more standard paid employment (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
These employment opportunities and employment education are built into the transition plan
within the IEP.
Transition Requirements
According to IDEA 2004, these three elements create a quality transition plan. A
transition plan needs to prepare students with disabilities for further education, employment, and
independent living. For individuals with a disability, a quality transition should “ensure equality
of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for
individuals with disabilities,” (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 2004, para. 1).
Transition planning, to meet the standards set forth by IDEA 2004, begins before the student
turns 16, be individualized, be created based upon the student’s strengths, preferences, and
interests, and include an opportunity to develop the functional skills needed for employment and

life in the community (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2013). In Ohio, transition
planning for students identified as having a disability begins at age 14 or younger if deemed
appropriate (Ohio Department of Education, 2020). The transition plan is created with the input
of the IEP team, student, and parents. The IEP team ideally consists of the parents of the student,
a regular education teacher, an intervention specialist, a representative of the local educational
agency who is knowledgeable about the student and the resources, and possibly an individual

who is able to interpret evaluation results. When appropriate, the student is involved in the
planning process and meeting. Finally, at the discretion of the family, other individuals who have
knowledge or input to share about the student may be on the team (U.S. Department of
Education, 2020). This could be a Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation representative or case
worker for a county board of developmental disabilities. A BVR representative would be

29
someone who works for the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation and provides disability services
and support necessary to help an individual obtain and maintain employment. These individuals
are key to bridging transition activities in the school setting and planning for after graduation.
The entire team uses the student’s strengths, abilities, and interests to find activities that
lead to improved employment outcomes and community involvement to create the transition
plan. In order to pinpoint a student’s strengths, abilities, and interests, the school district
conducts both formal and informal age-appropriate transition assessments. A formal assessment
is a standardized survey or test that is normed. These assessments range from a college entrance
exam to a vocational inventory. A vocational inventory is a test that can quickly determine a
persons career interests. Informal assessments involve gathering information from various
resources that are not standardized, such as work samples, observations, and interviews (IRIS
Center, 2022).

In addition to IDEA and its reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004, there are several other
federal laws designed to encourage improved transition and employment outcomes. The
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
Goals 2000, Educate America Act of 1994, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994
represent legislative attempts that prove that the federal government has tried to address the
problem of underemployment of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, despite the federal

mandates, changes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, disability rights policy,
and increased funding, transition from high school to post-secondary outcomes are an area of
concern for students with disabilities. The National Council on Disability in 2000 found that the
following issues were still apparent: poor graduation rate, low employment rates, low postsecondary education participation, and an increase in the number of young individuals receiving

30
Social Security benefits. Transition services are designed to improve these problems, yet the
issues persist.
Available Transition Services
Transition services are a positive and helpful experience for families looking toward the
future. These preparatory steps to independence and adulthood are individualized and cater to the
needs of each individual. Transition services cover many different facets of life as an adult.
Services may include vocational training/rehabilitation, postsecondary training/education,
guardianship, transportation needs, financial services, residential planning, employment,
community outreach, recreation activities, and support groups (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2004).
The school-to-work transition ideas from the 1980s emphasized certain elements of
education and adult life in the created transition plans. Areas of emphasis included improving the
functionality of the high school curriculum, allowing opportunities to learn in a real-life setting,

increasing student and family participation in transition planning, and increasing cooperation
between educators, potential employers, and community service such as the county board of
developmental disabilities (The National Council on Disability, 2000). For Richland County,
Ohio the county board of developmental disability (DD) is commonly called Newhope. The
county board of DD has programs that positively impact employment and transition outcomes
when utilized. Programs such as service coordination, supports, employments services,

residential supports, and transportation improve independent living outcomes for individuals
with disabilities (Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, n.d.). The relationship
between public schools and the possible services available due to the Rehabilitation Act is meant
to work together (Certo et al., 2008). Collaboration is more likely to take place if parents,

31
educators, and service providers work together to create a transition plan that meets the student’s
needs and goals.
Approaches to Employment Transition
Studies and examinations of previous transition methods highlighted elements that
proved to provide better transition outcomes. Transition programs that offer authentic
instruction, project-based learning, service learning, apprenticeships, internships, career
education, and mentoring show positive transition outcomes (Blank & Harwell, 1997; National
Council on Disability Social Security Administration, 2000). Each of these will be discussed
further within the section.
Project-Based Learning
Project-based learning is a teaching method where the students learn by “actively
engaging in real-world and personally meaningful projects” (Buck Institute for Education, n.d.

PBL section). Project-based learning gives students the opportunity to “gain knowledge and
skills by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond” to similar problems
they may face in the real world (Buck Institute for Education, n.d. PBL section). Project-based
learning is effective for students of transition age, as the timeframe for the project is a semester.
During the semester, students develop skills tied to college and career readiness. Transition plans
that incorporate project-based learning allow transition-aged students to work on real-world

problems and find solutions helpful for their futures.
Service Learning
Service learning was first defined in federal legislation in 1990 in the National and
Community Service Act (youth.GOV, n.d.). Service learning is a teaching method that
challenges students to learn about a topic through active participation in service projects. These

32
projects are designed to be in a community and to meet a need in the community. Examples of
service learning in different subject areas include creating an area to support bird migration or
having older students help support and encourage reading activities of younger students
(youth.GOV, n.d.). One of the goals of service learning is to develop civic responsibility for
those students who participate (youth.GOV, n.d.). Service learning is another element of
transition planning that has contributed to better transition outcomes.
Apprenticeships
Apprenticeships are “formal, sanctioned work experiences of extended duration in which
an apprentice learns specific occupational skills related to a standardized trade” (A Transition
Guide, U.S. Department of Education, 2020, p. 6). Apprenticeships are common in plumbing,
HVAC, carpentry, and electrical jobs. Many apprenticeship programs include some payment to
the trainee. During an apprenticeship, the trainee learns through hands-on job experiences as well

as additional academic courses that pertain to the trade (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of
Education, 2020). In the studied field, upon successful completion of the program, there are
available employment opportunities.
Career Education
Career education helps students make a connection between academic learning and their
possible future careers (Welde et al., 2016). During the elementary years, the goal of career

exploration is to increase students’ self-awareness and interests. When using career education,
students learn to “develop positive attitudes, habits, and competencies...[and] connect classroom
learning with real-life demands” (Welde et al., 2016, p. 426). Career education helps students
develop feelings of empowerment and decision-making skills. The goal of career education is not
to determine the career in the student’s life but to give the student an opportunity to engage “in

33
self- and career exploration well before the transition-related pressures that affect graduating
students” (Welde et al., 2016, p. 427). A strong career education program aids students in
exploring their own potential.
Mentoring
Any young person who utilizes mentorships has an opportunity to develop a better
understanding of their employability. Mentoring is described as “an employee training system
under which a senior or more experienced individual (the mentor) is assigned as an advisor,
counselor, or guide to a junior or trainee (mentee)” (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of
Education, 2020, p. 6). The mentor is responsible for providing the mentee with support,
suggestions, and feedback to improve the mentee’s job performance and better prepare them for
future employment.
Mentorships are utilized in other formats than employment. A mentor is an older adult

who has experienced success in areas such as employment, abuse recovery, parenting, older
college students, etc. For young people with disabilities, a mentor who has overcome similar
obstacles to lead a successful life is valuable to both the mentee and their family. “Interaction
with successful role models with disabilities enhances the disability-related knowledge and selfconfidence of students and youth with disabilities as well as parents’ perceptions” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2020, p. 6). A transition program that utilizes mentorship is an option

that improves outcomes for transition-aged students.
Internships
An internship normally is a formal agreement that results in temporary on-the-job work
experience. The individual performs specific tasks over the course of a predetermined period of
time. Internships are paid or unpaid. In a study of over 3,000 students with disabilities who

34
participated in a standardized internship program, 85% of participants completed the 12-month
program and 77% received offers of ongoing employment with their host company (Luecking,
2000). With this high success rate the use of standardized internship programs proves an
effective transition method in the area of employment. Although programs with these elements
show improvement in employment and transition outcomes, there is no universal or consistently
used approach.
The lack of follow-through in transition services implementation affects more than just
employment. In a nationwide survey of 1,000 Americans with disabilities, significant deficits
were evident in different aspects of life. Participants reported gaps in employment, education,
income, socialization, and community utilization (Taylor, 1998). Without quality transition
planning and support, individuals with disabilities continue to experience these gaps and miss
opportunities to earn an income and expand their social circle.

Problems Encountered in Transitioning to Adult Services
In theory, transitioning from high school to adult services should be a positive experience
that builds toward independence, employment opportunities and economic responsibility.
However, the current practice of transition to adult services has been analyzed, resulting in
suggestions for improvement (Certo et al., 2008). Through IDEA 2004 a person with a disability
is entitled to an education and provision of related services from birth through the age of 21.

During this time, the home district is financially responsible for that student’s education.
Currently, students with disabilities and students educated at home or in a facility not operated
by the district are serviced by their school district until the student’s 21st birthday. When the
student leaves the public education system, there are three different possible adult services that
are funded by the federal government. In Ohio, the three different agencies that were created to

35
serve this population are the rehabilitation system, the developmental disabilities system, and the
Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) (Certo et al., 2008).
Rehabilitation System
In Ohio, individuals with disabilities who want to be employed but are having trouble
finding and maintaining employment utilize the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, or BVR.
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) is available beginning at age 14 to all Ohioans who have a
disability. The purpose of the BVR system is to help those with disabilities find and keep
employment (Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020). The services provided by the
BVR system include vocational counseling, vocational training, job search assistance, job
training assistance, transportation services, occupational equipment, and personal attendant
services (Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020). A personal attendant is a person
who provides a service to the individual with a disability that helps them perform their job.

These services include but are not limited to acting as a reader or interpreter.
Developmental Disabilities System
The developmental disabilities system in Ohio is spread over 88 counties. Each county
board of developmental disabilities is tasked with providing assessment, service planning, and
service coordination to adults and children with developmental disabilities. Each county board
also is in charge of helping service providers maintain adequate services and reach Ohioans with

developmental disabilities. The county board is responsible for ensuring each client with a
developmental disability has an initial assessment when enrolled into the program and at least
every 12 months afterward. These assessments, as well as input from the individuals and their
family, go into the individual service plan, or ISP. The ISP is developed using person-centered
planning. Once the plan is in place for the year, the case manager for each individual with

36
developmental disabilities considers how to coordinate funding for the services the individual
chose for the ISP. The ISP is reviewed and revised every 12 months. The ISP is reviewed more
often if the client is not receiving the services planned or other issues arise (Opportunities for
Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020).
When students are enrolled in a public school, they are entitled to educational rights.
Once they graduate or age out, the support system moves from an entitled benefit of education
and service to one of availability and eligibility. If a person with a disability (or their guardian)
seeks services from the rehabilitation system, they are not entitled to services. Services are
provided only if funds are available. “Funds for Rehabilitation Services are administered by the
Executive Branch in the U.S. Department of Education through the Rehabilitation Services
Administration” (Certo et al., 2008, p.86). The federal rehabilitation system delegates money to
each state that has submitted its annual plans and budget. In any state that takes funds from the

Rehabilitation Services, “it is possible to be eligible and not receive services due to lack of
funds”(Certo et al., 2008, p. 86). The lack of defined funding means that rehabilitation services
(VR) from this agency are short-term in nature; if long-term support is needed, the support must
come from another funding source (Certo et al., 2008). If this funding source is not identified
before rehabilitation services are started, the individual loses support at the job site, and a new
position is found. Again, this is short term in nature. Individuals with significant disabilities will

not have the necessary support to maintain employment long-term. Certo et al. (2008) reported
there is no federal or state entitlement services in place to provide long-term funding for
individuals with ID who wish to remain employed. This cycle promote short-term job
placements and will not encourage long term employment with consistency.

37
In Ohio, the rehabilitation system that receives money from the Federal Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 is the Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD). The mission of OOD is
“empowering Ohioans with disabilities through employment, disability determinations, and
independence” (Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020). According to OOD’s Quick
Stat Scorecard from June 5, 2020, the Department of Rehabilitation issued an eligibility
determination for VR services in an average of 23.3 days. The average amount of time for a case
to be closed with an employment outcome for transition-aged people wanting VR services is 24
months. The research presented by Certo et al. (2008) proved that rehabilitation services are
short cycled in nature and designed to end. This problematic issue will continue to cause
impediments for the future success of those with disabilities until it is resolved and parents see
the value in utilizing the developmental disabilities system.
Ohio Medicare and Medicaid Systems

In addition to OOD and supported employment, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
(CMS), under the Department of Health and Human Services, also can access federal funds. Low
levels of funding are available and are difficult to utilize for long-term daily support and care
(Certo et al., 2008). In Ohio, the Department of Medicaid is in place to support the healthcare of
individuals considered low-income, pregnant women, infants, children, older adults and
individuals with disabilities (Ohio Department of Medicaid, n.d.). While this program is

designed to help people with disabilities, the funds are limited and based on specific need
categories. CMS is considered a “provider of last resort”, and funds are reserved for individuals
who are at highest risk or have severe medical conditions, making long term care and accessing
daily services challenging (Certo et al., 2008, p. 87). Individuals can apply for a waiver program
that allows for home and community-based care services (HCBS). Home and community-based

38
care services, HCBS, are types of care that is delivered in the home. The goal of HCBS programs
are to help individual with functional limitations to remain in their homes for care instead of
moving to a facility. The HCBS programs fall into two categories: health services and human
services (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2022). Health services meet the medical
needs of an individual. This could be therapies, nursing care, necessary medical equipment, etc.
Human services could be financial services, transportation, meal programs, and home safety
assessments. The majority of individuals who received a waiver providing HCBS were
individuals with a developmental disability. There is often a waiting-list for applicants to access
a waiver through Ohio Medicaid. Two other extreme examples of waiting-lists were documented
in 2002. Wisconsin had a waiting list of 20,046 individuals and Texas had a waiting list of
74,224 individuals who hoped to access HCBS (Certo et al., 2008).
The VR system, DD system and CMS were created with the intention of supporting those

with disabilities and their families. These programs all have options for families and individuals
with disabilities to explore and gain assistance in planning for the future. Despite the mission
statements and available programs, the employment outcomes and lack of financial
independence continue to be problematic. Evidence shows that when students with disabilities
leave high school, their parents often struggle to locate and access appropriate adult service
programs and potential training programs (Anderson & Butt, 2018; Bianco et al., 2009). Without

improved resource utilization, individuals with disabilities continue to be employed at
significantly lower rates than their non-disabled peers.
Poor Employment Outcomes of Individuals with Disabilities
Although Federal Acts are passed with a focus on transition and improving employment
outcomes for all students, people with disabilities continue employment at a lower rate than their

39
non-disabled peers. According to the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education (PCESE), in 2002 about 70% of the people in the United States between the ages of
18 and 64 with disabilities were either unemployed or considered grossly underemployed. United
States Census Bureau estimates from 2018 indicated that only 24.0% of people with a disability
ages of 16 and over were employed, compared to a 67.3% employment rate for non-disabled
people ages 16 and older.
Employment is a powerful tool, both emotionally and financially. Having better
employment outcomes and utilizing vocational rehabilitation training for people who have
cognitive disabilities is more cost effective than spending money on “dayhab” and workshop
employment settings. Adult day support or “dayhab” does not involve employment but provides
activities and outings in the individuals community. A sheltered workshop is a place of
employment for individuals with disabilities that is supervised and provides extensive support to

their employees. Competitive employment is “work that is performed on a full-time or part-time
basis” and “is at a location where the employee interacts with other persons who are not
individuals with disabilities” [29 U.S.C. Sec. 705(5)]. When Migliore et al. (2008) examined the
earnings of 291 individuals who moved from a sheltered workshop to competitive employment,
the following compensations were noted: A person in a sheltered workshop earns an average of
$2.30 an hour or a monthly average of $175.69. When that same individual moved to

competitive employment his or her wages substantially rose. Hourly earnings increased to an
average of $5.75, and monthly income rose to an average of $455.97 (Migliore et al., 2008).
The increase in income lead to an unfounded concern for persons with disabilities and
their families. Historically, if a person with a disability is employed gainfully, they will lose their
government subsidies and not be able to earn enough money through employment to be cost

40
effective. During the 1980s and 1990s several studies were conducted to evaluate this claim.
These studies determined that a person with a disability who was employed competitively was
better off financially than one who was unemployed or working in a workshop (Cho &
Schueermann, 1980; Conley et al., 1989; Lam, 1986). In December of 2021, about 1 million
children blind or disabled students were receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to
their significant disabilities. An individual with disabilities who remains a recipient and does not
seek employment is commonplace. Families are concerned that once their child loses SSI, filing
a claim to be a recipient again is more difficult due to the strict program eligibility. There also is
a concern of potential loss of medical coverage (Annual Report of the Social Security Income
Program, 2021). In response to individuals who are concerned about losing SSI and Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act
(P.L. 106-170: Conference Report 106-478) was signed into law in 1999. The law takes steps to

encourage individuals to consider job training and employment in an attempt to reduce or
eliminate dependence on federal income subsidies. With the Ticket to Work legislation a
person’s SSI benefits are reduced $1 for every $2 earned. Employed individuals with disabilities
who formerly received SSI benefits also can request their benefits to be reinstated if employment
does not work out or if the individual is terminated. The loss of SSI and SSDI is not an economic
barrier to better employment outcomes.

Vocational Rehabilitation is among the services offered under Ticket to Work. While
spending money on VR training appears costly at the time of administration, the mean long-term
benefits exceed the mean cost by a value that ranges four to six times the investment and is a
largely positive return on the investment (Dean et al., 2013). Individuals with an intellectual
disability (ID) who have some sort of postsecondary training are more likely to be employed and

41
earn more money and be less reliant on their Supplemental Security Income (Sannicandro,
2019).
In order for employment rates to improve for people with disabilities, systemic change is
necessary. With the introduction of the ADA, individuals with disabilities were protected legally
from discrimination in all areas of public life, including employment. While the ADA offers
legal employment protection, the opinions and attitudes of employers and fellow employees
hinder employment. In a review of 37 studies on the attitudes of employers toward workers with
disabilities and the ADA rights they have, discrepancies between what employers believed and
how they hired were noted (Hernandez et al., 2000).While most employers surveyed in the
studies examined shared positive attitudes toward the hiring of people with disabilities,
employment rates of this population continue to lag behind their non-disabled peers. When
pressed to become more specific about hypothetical situations, employers indicated they were

less likely to hire a person with a disability. “There appears to be a veneer of employer
acceptance of workers with disabilities,” and positive appropriate talk about employing people
with disabilities is socially acceptable, however the unspoken concerns about hiring a person
with a disability still hinder employment (Hernandez et al., 2000, p. 5). While over the last few
decades legislation has changed, there are still people who doubt the abilities of their peers who
have disabilities. In a survey of 800 Americans conducted by the Special Olympics in 2003, over

40% of participants believed individuals with ID should work in a special workshop. Slightly
less than 40% of participants believed individuals with ID should work in an unskilled job. Only
20% of participants believed that individuals with ID should be integrated into the workforce
with their non-disabled peers. These opinions are mirrored in the employment rates of people
with disabilities in the United States.

42
Improving Employment Outcomes
In an attempt to improve the employment outcomes for people with disabilities,
legislation and earmarking federal funds have been tried for many years. Researchers found
evidence that federally funded vocational rehabilitation (VR) positively impacted the
employment rates of people with disabilities. Individuals with ID who received three job related
services using VR where 16 times more likely to become employed then peers who did not
utilized VR services (Nord & Hepperlen, 2016). Increased employment, through the access of
VR services, allows for socialization and recreational activities (Brown et al., 2006).
Supported Employment (SE), a type of VR service, showed positive employment results.
Supportive employment is a long-term supportive service that strives for competitive, integrated
employment opportunities for people with ID or CD. Supportive employment increases the
competitive employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities (Brown et al., 2006; Wehman

et al., 2014). In a sample of 23,298 individuals of transition age who had intellectual and
developmental disabilities, only 36.38% received supportive employment as a vocational
rehabilitation intervention. Individuals in this study who received supportive employment had an
employment rate that was 12.49% higher than their disabled peers in the sample who did not
receive SE (Wehman et al., 2014).
Further supporting the use of SE as a rehabilitation intervention is a study of 50 workers

with documented disabilities whose work histories were recorded from 1981-2005 (Brown et al.,
2006). These individuals were employed from two months to just over 27 years at an
employment setting using SE. While there were instances of a change in job placement, not one
of the 50 individuals moved from a supported but integrated work setting to a segregated or work
shelter type environment. Brown et al. showed that these 50 individuals had the opportunity to

43
work alongside their non-disabled peers and build many healthy, enriching relationships that
would not have been possible in a sheltered, non-inclusive work environment.
While this is encouraging news, the amount of money earned annually while participating
in SE varied based upon disability. Individuals with ID only earned an average of $623.77 a
month for a yearly income of $7,485.24. Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)
earned more, with an average of $793.34 a month and $9,520.08 a year (Cimera, 2012). This
yearly amount is still below what is considered the poverty line in the United States. While SE
offers many advantages, the wages earned when using this service need to be improved, which
might lead to improved employment outcomes for those utilizing the service.
Importance of Parent Involvement
In order to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities, transition plans
require the input of the students’ parents. Parent involvement is important at all levels of a child's

education. Involvement begins before the student even walks into the school building. Previous
studies show that parent involvement is a predicting factor in achievement in school (Fan &
Chen, 2001).
The importance of parent involvement continues into the years of transition from high
school to adulthood. A study was conducted to examine parent impact on typical adolescents and
the impact the family had on employment readiness and transition success (Way & Martin

Rossmann, 1996). In that study, the researchers found families that were proactive, supportive,
and expressed high work values were more likely to have adolescents better prepared for
employment. Adolescents in the study shared with researchers that their families had clearer
expectations regarding post-secondary training and employment. When the parents had a strong

44
work ethic that was relayed to the adolescent, the adolescent made employment a priority,
thereby improving transition (Way & Martin Rossmann, 1996).
Parental impact on transition has also been studied for families who have a child with a
disability. The expectations of parents are one of the most positive supports and predictors of
improved employment outcomes for people with an ID who are of transition age (Cater et al.,
2012; Doren et al., 2012). Research found that parents with high expectations for their child with
a disability tended to be more likely to employ some method of transition training at home. For
example, a parent who believed that their child might live independently was more likely to ask
their child to perform chores or have other responsibilities in the family home (Holmes et al.,
2018). Family members often are the first people to talk about employment and jobs, leading to a
level of independence in their child with disabilities.
When individuals with ID were asked about influential people in their lives in the area of

employment, they normally named a family member (Timmons et al., 2011). Parents with high
expectations for their children with autism made employment and transition preparation
activities a priority (Holmes, 2018). Similar outcomes have occurred in studies of young adults
with severe disabilities that when parents had expectations that their child with a severe disability
would get a paying job, the employment outcome was five times better than if the parents had
little to no expectation of employment (Carter et al., 2012). This correlation demonstrates that

families are influential in the formative years of a child's life. Families are the role models for
employment and are instrumental in instilling an expectation of working as an adult. High
expectations from parents of young adults with disabilities often translate to a more positive
transition to adulthood as well as improvement in functional performance for that young adult
(Kirby, 2016). Parental participation during these important years facilitates successful transition

45
and improves outcomes for students with disabilities (National Council on Disability, 1989).
With all the positive outcomes from high rates of parental involvement, one must wonder why a
parent would choose not to be highly involved in their child’s academic and transition
experiences.
Barriers to Parent Involvement
A lack of parental involvement is not only an issue during the years of transition.
Research shows there are many different reasons why parents are not involved in their child's
education, despite the positive outcomes. Yoder and Lopez (2013) conducted a qualitative study
that examined the perceptions of parents regarding their ability or inability to get involved in
their child's education. Though this study sample was small (n=12 parents), a wide range of
ethnicities were included. All parents in the sample lived in low-income housing with their
children. After interviews and analysis were completed, the researchers determined there were

factors that impacted the involvement and engagement of parents. Tangible barriers were “any
external task, activity or responsibility that [made] involvement difficult” (Yoder & Lopez, 2013,
p. 425). These barriers were a lack of time, transportation issues, technology to access grades, or
language barriers. Other times parents reported feeling dismissed and marginalized when they
attempted involvement or asked questions of the school. Some parents, who were minorities or in
a lower socioeconomic class, did not feel confident enough to push for involvement or voice

frustrations about having to “jump through hoops” (Yoder & Lopez, 2013, p. 427). Similar
problems, reported by parents in a qualitative metasynthesis, focused on barriers families dealt
with when planning for transition. When analyzing 22 qualitative studies that examined the
perceptions of barriers families felt they faced when working through transition, Hirano et al.
(2018) found more evidence of the struggle to get involved.

46
In both studies, families reported similar perceived barriers. Having limited resources and
an abundance of stress created perceived barriers for parents. Parents spoke of a lack of support
from their own families that contributed to additional stress. Parents felt compelled to attend to
other stressors in the life of the family and sometimes that meant a child’s transition plan was not
the current priority. Parents also reported feeling that a lack of knowledge about the school
system, special education laws, and the rights of the student contributed to the challenge of
transition planning. In some situations, families reported feeling that their race or cultural
background was a barrier to completing a successful transition plan (Hirano et al., 2018).
Transition Frustrations for Parents
Parents who are able to overcome these barriers to transition planning often remain
frustrated and confused by the transition process. Unfortunately, these frustrations begin before
the age of transition. An inability to become involved and advocate for the child with a disability

was linked to a lack of knowledge about available resources or parents who did not feel they had
the support to fight a battle with educational staff (Rehm et al., 2013). These same parents
reported not wanting to have a confrontation or having difficulty coming up with a plan of action
with which they were confident, limiting progress in advocating for their child’s education.
Considering the confusion that stems from transition planning, the frustration of these parents
makes sense.

Research shares the frustrations of parents of students with autism and other disabilities
of transition age (Chen et al., 2019; Hetherington et al., 2010). Parents report that the process of
finding adult services is a challenge. One parent surveyed stated, “No one tells you anything.
Mostly everything I’ve ever found out is from another parent. [It’s how] I got every service that
he’s ever got,” (Chen et al., 2019, p. 1368). Parents reported feeling like outsiders and that

47
transition planning was “too little, too late” (Heatherington et al., 2010, p. 167). To many parents
who feel that they are constantly looking for transition-related supports, this compounds the
feeling of uncertainty. Parents feel as if they need to navigate this confusing time on their own.
Other research reports that finding reliable transportation services and finding the correct
funding are also challenges to navigate (Chen et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2018). The frustrations
and stressors that come from transition planning are linked to increased feelings of anxiety.
Sadly, even after receiving transition services, parents still feel a high level of distress (35.5% of
participants), as well as a decrease in the support before transition took place. Parents share
feelings of disappointment in the transition services provided (McKenzie et al., 2017; Neece et
al., 2009; Hirano et al., 2018).
Despite these issues in accessing a successful transition plan and putting the plan into
action, many parents still desire to embark on transition planning. Parents obviously want what is

best for their children, but transitioning to adulthood as an individual with a disability creates
challenges.
Parents of students with intellectual disabilities of transition age have specific desires for
their children. Bluestein et al. (2016) surveyed 1,065 parents of a child with an ID. A total of
79.9% of the parents surveyed felt that having a child involved with part-time employment was
very important to them. Only 40.1% of parents believed that full-time sheltered employment was

important. Parents hoped their children would someday be employed. The most important feature
of employment to parents was personal satisfaction. Parents also desired a match in their child’s
interests. Opportunities to interact with people was also a sought-out feature (Bluestein et al.,
2016). Despite the desires for their child’s future, the confusing process of transition planning
continues to limit transition outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

48
Summary
The literature proves that improving transition and employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities is a concern. Legislation has been passed, and funding has been increased, yet a
discrepancy between many facets of the lives of adults with disabilities and those of their nondisabled peers persists. Increased parent involvement during the years of transition demonstrate
positive effects on outcomes. In Richland County, Ohio there needs to be an improvement in
parental involvement in transition services. This study examines what can be done to improve
parental involvement and increase employment and transition outcomes for the population of
transition-aged students with disabilities in the local community.
The next chapter will outline the methodology put in place to examine the relationship
between the parents of transition-age individuals and the community transition programs that are
available.

49
Chapter 3: Methodology
This research study was designed to gain an understanding of why parents are not
contacting the Country Board of Developmental Disabilities in Richland County, commonly
called “Newhope”. The study provides an examination of parental attitudes, perceptions, and
concerns they have when trying to plan for the transition to adulthood for their children with
disabilities. The goal of this this study was to discover barriers that might be preventing parents
from exploring Newhope’s services and what can be done to improve the employment and
transition outcomes for people with disabilities in Richland County. To examine this problem
clearly the following research questions need to be explored:
1. What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental
Disabilities (DD)?
2. What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being

helpful for transition planning?
3. What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would
increase parent satisfaction?
Study Location
The Richland County Board of Developmental Disabilities (Newhope) is located in
Mansfield Ohio. Richland County is home to nearly 121,000 people (Richland County, 2019).

Richland county is a predominantly rural area. Population estimates from the United States
Census Bureau in 2022 show the population of Richland County as 87% white. Black or African
American individuals accounted for 9.5% of the population of Richland County. The median
home value of homes in Richland County from 2017-2021 was $123,900. The median household
income during the same time from was $52,605 (United States Census Bureau, 2022). The

50
largest city is Mansfield which is home to 47,821 people. The majority of the incorporated
communities are classified as villages and have a population of less than 2,000 people (Richland
County, 2019). With so many people living outside of the Mansfield area and a lack of public
transportation outside of Mansfield, accessing the resources at Newhope can be challenging. The
mean travel time reported for working individuals in Richland County who were 16 year of age
or older was 22.4 minutes (United States Census Bureau, 2022).
According to an annual report released by Newhope, 1,641 individuals with disabilities
were served in some capacity in 2018. This number increased slightly from 2017 when 1,602
individuals were served. Of the individuals with disabilities served in 2018, 31.3% were of
approximately transition age.
Problem Statement
Despite the slight improvements, the problem remains that the majority of students with

disabilities enrolled in a classroom of transition-age students were not taking advantage of postsecondary transition services in Richland County, OH. Some families falsely assume they have
no options other than to care for the child at home as an adult. Other families have explored their
options only to be disappointed, terminating their services and keeping their child predominately
at home as an adult. This study explored what can be done to improve transition and employment
outcomes in the Richland County area. To achieve this, a small group of parents were asked to

participate in a Likert survey online. A smaller group was asked to participate in an interview to
better determine what experiences and barriers could be improved to increase enrollment and
transition outcomes in the Richland Country community.
The parents asked to participate had students who were identified as having a disability,
eligible for services at Newhope, and be between the ages of 14-24 years old. Some parents have

51
cases open at Newhope and meet yearly. Other parents have allowed their cases to lapse. Still
some parents have not made contact with any community resources that would assist in transition
planning for children of transition age with a disability. This wide range of parents and their
experiences allowed for a thorough examination of potential strengths and weaknesses in the
program and the outreach methods used by Newhope.
With the information obtained from the survey and interview, the perceived barriers and
frustrations from parents will be observable. This information can be used to improve enrollment
and transition outcomes for future students with disabilities of transition age.
Research Sample and Data Collection
Participants of this study are parents of children with disabilities. To be eligible for the
study their children must be of transition age, 14-24 years old and are eligible for services
through Newhope. All parents who fit these criteria and live within district lines of a certain

Richland County school were initially contacted to participate in the study. The school district
granted permission to pursue the study and contact parents. Some parents from the initial sample
provided the contact information of other parents who also fit the requirements. The sampling
technique for this research study is considered both purposeful and convenient. Purposeful
sampling allowed the researcher to select participants who have direct knowledge and
experiences related to the purpose of this study (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). These

parents are known to have various experiences in transition, and their input allowed the
researcher to help answer the research questions. This sample is also a sample of convenience in
that the parents live in the area, are accessible, and their contact information was already in the
hands of the researcher. Using parent participants to suggest other willing participants is also
utilizing a snowball sampling process.

52
Parents were sent an email explaining the purpose of the research study as well as the
reason the input from parents was needed. The explanation email can be found in Appendix A.
After the email was sent, follow up e-mails took place to verify interest in participation of the
study. At this time the consent form, Appendix D, was explained and signed. The researchers
email and phone number were available on the informational letter mailed home. The letter also
explained that if the prospective participants had any questions, they were free to use the
provided contact information. A link to the survey was be sent by e-mail. After two weeks a
reminder e-mail was sent to encourage participation.
In the survey, no identifiable information was obtained from the parent. The child's
primary disability was obtained by the researcher. This information was necessary to obtain as it
allowed the researcher to consider if different disabilities had different concerns and perceived
barriers to transition services. This study was approved by the Slippery Rock University

Institutional Review Board (IRB).
After the completion of the survey, parents who expressed a willingness in the survey to
meet with the researcher via Zoom were contacted about participation in a follow-up interview
that was recorded and transcribed verbatim. To show their willingness to participate in the
interview, parents entered their contact information in the last question of the survey. The
researcher interviewed five parents who expressed an interest in participating in additional

research. Those parents were emailed information about the interview as well as a consent form
to allow recording of the interview.
Instrumentation
Parent participants completed a Likert Scale survey designed by the researcher to
determine parent opinion on transition and community services, specifically Newhope. The

53
Likert Scale survey can be found in Appendix B. The goal of the survey was to collect
information on the parent opinions of transition, the services available at Newhope, and the
perceived barriers of obtaining quality transition services. The information gained from the
survey will begin to answer the research questions.
Table 1: Relationship of Survey Questions to Research Question
Research Question 1:
What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the
County Board of Developmental Disabilities
(DD)?

Survey Question - 2, 6, 16, 17

Research Question 2:
What programs, agencies, or resources do parents
in Richland County perceive as being helpful for
transition planning?

Survey Question - 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 , 17

Research Question 3:
What improvements could be made to transition
services in Richland County that would increase
parent satisfaction?

Survey Question - 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17

The Likert Scale is used to measure the attitudes and opinions of the sample. The scale is
usually a statement with categories or choices that range from one extreme to the other. In this
study, the survey will present the researcher with “the collective opinion of the group” (Tastle &
Weirman, 2007). Specifically, the researcher collected the participants opinions and thoughts on
transition and community transition services. The survey was sent to parents using the email

address provided when parents agreed to participate. Two weeks after the initial email a follow
up email was sent to the parents who had not yet completed their survey online. The survey
consisted of 12 questions. Ten of the questions were a Likert scale question. The eleventh
question asked the participant to rank their priorities of transition concern. The twelfth question
was an open response question looking for any experience or opinion that the participant would
want to share. Each question had a scale that progressed from strongly agree, somewhat agree,

54
neutral / no opinion, somewhat disagree, to strongly disagree. There was also an opportunity for
a parent to share any specific experiences with the researcher in the survey. One additional box
asked for the primary disability of that student. The final question of the survey asked the parent
to enter their contact information if they had an interest in participating in a more in-depth
interview.
The survey was first used in a pilot study to assess validity, ease of use, and clarity of
questions. The instruments utilized by the researcher were created for this study and a pilot study
allows for the “trying out” of a new, unvalidated, instrument. The use of a pilot study also gave
the researcher an opportunity to find errors before beginning the actual study (Van Teijlingen &
Hundley, 2001). For this pilot study, a small group of parents from a neighboring school district
took the online survey and allowed the researcher to collect data and evaluate the reliability of
the instrument.

Once the surveys were completed the interviews took place. The goal was to interview
between 5-10 parents who responded were contacted for a follow up interview. Of the 12
submitted survey’s, five people were interviewed. The interview questions were developed by
the researcher. The interviews were important as this gave the participants an opportunity to go
into depth about their concerns, experiences, perceived barriers, and intentions for their child in
the area of transition to adulthood and provided community services. The interviews were held

via Zoom for the convenience and confidentiality of the interviewee. At the beginning of the
interview, participants signed a consent form to participate and be recorded via Zoom. The
interviews ranged in time from 10 minutes to 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview
participants were asked if they would be available for any follow up questions and all five
agreed. Upon completion of the study, participants were emailed a summary of the findings.

55
Participants who participated in an interview were emailed a transcript of the interview for their
review. The interview script can be found in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data from the Likert survey will be collected using a Google form
emailed to potential participants. The information was then examined for measures of central
tendency and variability to see what areas of transition the participating parents were most
concerned about. The survey also showed the level of comfort and understanding parents have of
the transition resources in the community.
The interview portion of the study allowed for more specific conversation about
experiences the parents had when considering transition to adult services. This qualitative
information will be analyzed using sequential steps that allowed for the analysis process
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Specifically, the following steps were utilized.

Step 1: Organize and prepare the data for analysis. Transcribe interviews.
Step 2: Read all data.
Step 3: Begin coding all the data by writing a word that represents a category in
the margin.
Step 4: Generate themes using the codes. Themes should be supported by
quotations from the interviews.

Step 5: Represent the themes in a narrative that accurately shares the findings of
the of the analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p.193-195).
These steps allowed for the data analysis of the interviews and interpretation of the
answers to the research questions using open coding or initial coding. After data immersion, the
interviews were numbered and read again. Notes were taken and themes began to develop. This

56
is the first phase of coding that allowed the researcher to uncover words or phrases that captured
the substance of the interview responses (Tracy, 2013). Once the initial codes revealed
themselves, the interviews were read again looking for specific elements of each theme which
were highlighted in different colors for each theme. Once primary coding was complete,
secondary coding took place. The goal of the secondary coding was to explain, theorize, and
synthesize the information (Tracy, 2013). It is possible that during the initial coding, information
will have to be reconsidered under a different code as themes develop.
Site Permission
Before conducting any research, an IRB application was submitted and approved by the
Slippery Rock University IRB. Before the online survey was sent out, informed consent was
obtained from the participants. All participation was voluntary, and participants could opt out of
the study at any time. Consent was verified again before the interview portion of the study began.

Names of parent participants and their children were changed to pseudonyms to protect privacy.
This information will be kept on a password and fingerprint protected laptop computer in the coinvestigators house.
Presentation of Results
The results of this research study were presented as a dissertation for consideration. With
the approval of IRB and the review board, the information will be shared with Newhope. The

goal of this study is to improve referrals, transition, and employment outcomes of individuals
with disabilities of transition age in Richland County. The results of the study may be valuable in
helping Newhope achieve those same goals.
Limitations

57
The sample size for this study is small and limits generalization. Only 12 participants
took the online survey. Only five participants continued to participate in the interview. The
sample also comes from one public school district in Richland County. Newhope serves a total of
nine public school districts and three private schools that serve students of transition age. In the
future it may be beneficial for Newhope to survey the entire county to gain a clearer picture of
the perceived barriers and parent opinions of services.
The researcher, while not employed by Newhope is a teacher in the school district used in
the sample and had previous familiarity with the participants. While this may be seen as an
opportunity for bias there was also a positive. The rapport developed over the years with the
parents resulted in interviews that were very open and honest.
Summary
This mixed-methods research study was designed to explore the experiences and

perceived barriers that a small but varied population of parents in Richland County have been
faced with as they consider their child's future. The information obtained from the participants
was used attempt to answer the following research questions:
1. What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental
Disabilities (DD)?
2. What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being

helpful for transition planning?
3. What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would
increase parent satisfaction?
To answer these question participants completed an online survey. The survey site
generated a report outlining the parents’ concerns for the future and previous experiences

58
accessing community transition services. A small group of the original participants also engaged
in an in-depth interview with the researcher. This interview gave the parent participants
additional opportunity to verbalize their plans and concerns regarding their child’s process of
transition from educational to adult services. This study worked towards improving the
enrollment into transition services as well as employment outcomes.
The findings of the research project will be discussed in the next chapter. Participants
answers to the survey and interview were examined and common themes were found. The
ultimate goal of the project was to improve the understanding of transition services in the
Richland County area.

59
Chapter 4: Results
This research study was designed to gain an understanding of why parents are not
contacting the County Board of Developmental Disabilities in Richland County, commonly
called “Newhope”. Other community resources like Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
(OOD) and the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR) also were a part of the study. The
goal of this study was to provide an examination of parental attitudes, perceptions, and concerns
they have when trying to plan for the transition to adulthood for their children with disabilities.
The intent of the study was to discover barriers that might be preventing parents from exploring
the community services in Richland County and what can be done to improve the employment
and transition outcomes for people with disabilities in Richland County. To examine this
problem clearly, the following research questions were explored:
1. What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental

Disabilities (DD)?
2. What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being
helpful for transition planning?
3. What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would
increase parent satisfaction?
To examine these questions, parents of transition-aged students in a local school district were

asked to participate in an online study. The school district is in Richland County and is a
predominantly rural area. Richland County is home to nearly 121,000 people (Richland County,
2019). The district is a public-school district that serves approximately 2,400 students, grades K12. Parents who agreed to participate in the study had the opportunity to continue their
participation by being interviewed by the researcher via Zoom.

60
Characteristics of the Research Sample
To be eligible, parents needed to have transition-aged (ages 14-24) students with
disabilities that would qualify them for the community resources available. The community
resources parents were asked about were Richland Newhope, Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities, and the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. The participants for the survey were
emailed a consent form along with an explanation of the study. Parents who responded and
provided a signed consent form were sent a survey via Google Forms. Eighteen initial emails
were sent to parents. If parents had not responded after one week, a follow-up email was sent.
Twelve parents filled out the consent form and participated in the online survey portion of the
study. Of the 12 parents who completed the survey, five parents also agreed to participate in a
semi-structured interview that was recorded and transcribed. The interviews ranged in time from
10 minutes to 45 minutes. All interviewed parents had a previous relationship with the

researcher. The researcher, while not employed by Newhope, is a teacher in the school district
used in the sample and had previous familiarity with the participants. While this may be seen as
an opportunity for bias there was also a positive. The rapport developed over the years with the
parents resulted in interviews that were very open and honest. The parents who participated did
so on their own accord. There was no incentive offered. All perspective parents were emailed the
same informational letter. Of the 12 parents who completed the survey, only one was a parent of

a current student. Three parents filled out a survey but their child was never student in the
researcher’s classroom. The remaining eight participants have children who have moved to other
grade levels or endeavors and are no longer a student of the researcher. The parent participants
disclosed the primary disability of their child during the survey. This information can be found in
Table 2.

61
Table 2
Primary Disability of Student
Primary Disability as Disclosed by Parent

Number of participants out of 12
Frequency
Percentage

Autism

6/12

50%

Down Syndrome

2/12

17%

Rett Syndrome

1/12

.08%

Cerebral Palsy

1/12

.08%

Neurocognitive Disorder

1/12

.08%

Specific Learning Disability

1/12

.08%

Data Analysis
Research Question 1
What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental Disabilities
(DD)?
This research question was addressed through the survey questions and from the
responses in the semi-scripted interview. Four questions from the survey directly asked about
barriers in utilizing the County Board of Developmental Disabilities (as shown in Table 1).
When asked about handling independent living skills and employment skills at home, all 12
participants acknowledged the need for outside help. Parents were asked if overall they were
pleased with the available transition opportunities in Richland County. In response to that
question, six of the 12 surveyed or 50%, were pleased with the post-school transition
opportunities available in the local community. This suggests that the other 50% were not

62
satisfied with the transition opportunities available in Richland County. One parent rated the
opportunities available as the lowest possible score. Parents were asked in the survey what
elements of transition planning were the most important to them when considering their options.
The possible transition elements and the ranked outcomes based on the parent survey can be
located in Table 3.
Table 3
Responses to survey question to rank importance of elements of transition planning
Transition Element

Average Rating between 1 and 5*

Independence

4.00

Safety

3.75

Social Interaction

3.67

Enjoyment

3.58

Feeling of Satisfaction

3.27

Earning Potential

2.50

*1 meaning not a concern, 5 meaning a strong concern

According to the survey responses, the most important elements of concern to the parents
in planning for their child’s transition were safety, independence, enjoyment, and social
interaction. These would be the elements that parents would be looking for when exploring the
options available to them in Richland County. The least important element rated by parents in
relation to transition services was the earning potential of the service.

63
During the course of the survey, parents were asked to enter an example of a barrier or
struggle they faced when planning for their child’s transition to adulthood. One response clearly
states, “biggest problem was always paperwork” (Parent 4). Other parents responded with
varying concerns about the available placements. One parent wrote, “No dayhab program in the
area will become provider for Student’s waiver. His significant needs limit our options” (Parent
2). Another parent answered “Finding the right dayhab. Newhope did help us solve this problem”
(Parent 3). Two other parents have similar concerns in the area of employment options. “She
didn’t really want to work, she would like to volunteer but places have liability concerns, so I
just find things to keep her occupied, not just watching TV all day” (Parent 4). A parent voiced
frustration they have been unable to find an appropriate job placement for their child. “We do
feel like our service providers have tried very hard, however, we haven’t found our match”
(Parent 1). These statements all support the conclusion that parents would like to see an increase

in the types of programing offered with varying levels of support.
This research question was also addressed through qualitative data analysis using the
semi-structured interview. Each of the five semi-structured interview participants were asked
about the drawbacks and negative experiences they encountered when utilizing the county
provided services. Another interview question asked participants to share an experience or
obstacle that they felt ‘held them back from reaching out for a resource.’ During analysis of the

answers, common words and phrases were identified. The theme and sub-themes that emerged as
barriers are organized in Table 4.

64
Table 4
Barriers parents identified in utilizing the County Board of Developmental Disabilities (DD)
Theme

Subtheme

Participant Quote

Parents find the
communication to be
lacking.

Parents are finding out
information from other
parents.

“I felt out of the loop. If I
don’t catch wind of it, I
don’t know about it.” (Parent
2)
“I don’t feel like there is a
direct pathway. It seems
most things aren’t over
public knowledge, but you
find out word of mouth,”
(Parent 3)
“There are things to do, but
we don’t know about them.
No communication.” (Parent
4)

“Everything is a secret; you
have to know who to ask.”
(Parent 4)
“People that are new to this,
they don’t even know about
Newhope. They don’t know
about waivers. Again, they
hear it from other moms.”
(Parent 4)

“I have asked, like how do I
find out about community
activities, but no one can tell
me.” (Parent 2)

65
Parents find working with
Newhope to be confusing.

Changes in team members
and working with so many
people is challenging.

“The red tape and paperwork
have prevented me from
reaching out at times.”
(Parent 3)
“Parents are relieved when
they are out of Newhope,
they don’t keep ties.” (Parent
2)
“Special ed students have
special ed parents.” (Parent
1)

The terminology and
acronyms frustrate parents.

“Hard to navigate if you are
not with it.” (Parent 1)
“If you could go and say in
plain English, this is what is
available, this is who you
call.” (Parent 1)

“Quit talking in initials!
What does it mean?” (Parent
4)

At several points during the interviews, parents mentioned three recurring issues when
working with the Richland County Board of Developmental disabilities (Newhope). The first
perceived barrier determined was a lack of communication. Two parents made repeated
statements about the frustrating lack of communication. They reported finding information from
other parents and used that to their benefit. For example, “I felt out of the loop. If I don’t catch
wind of it, I don’t know about it.” (Parent 2) Another parent said, “There are things to do, but we
don’t know about them. No communication.” (Parent 4) This statement and several others can be
located in Table 4. This perceived barrier is similar to the feelings of parents in previous research

66
studies. In these studies, parents reported that the process of finding adult services is a challenge.
In 2019 a surveyed parent stated, “No one tells you anything. Mostly everything I’ve ever found
out is from another parent. [It’s how] I got every service that he’s ever got,” (Chen et al., 2019, p.
1368). This statement continues to ring true in Richland County six years later.
A second perceived barrier is the inconvenience of working with Newhope. Paperwork,
meetings, and “red tape” were mentioned. For example, Parent 2 stated, “It’s annoying.
Inconvenient. So many hoops and meetings. You get tired.” Parent 3 shared that “The red tape
and paperwork have prevented me from reaching out at times.” Again, these statements align
with previous research. A 2009 study found that due to extensive paperwork, confusion, lack of
programming, and a lack of consistency from adult service providers, (Bianco et al., 2009)
parents felt frustration and apprehension when planning for their child’s transition services. In a
second study conducted in 2013, parents voiced similar frustrations of having to “jump through

hoops” (Yoder & Lopez, 2013, p. 427). The paperwork, hoops, and red-tape continue to be a
perceived barrier for parents in Richland County.
Finally, parents found working with Newhope and other local transition services to be
confusing. The changes in personnel and terminology was found to be overwhelming to several
parents interviewed. The statements in Table 4 show the confusion, frustration with acronyms,
and changes with personnel as issues. The available local resources are new to parents at this

point in their parenting journey and learning a new system and meeting new people was found to
be frustrating. In previous research conducted in 2009, parents shared the struggle to navigate the
new systems as their child left the familiar school system and enrolled in something new.
“Parents expressed apprehension and fear associated with learning how to navigate through adult

67
agency support systems and frustration with the inability to secure necessary supports” (Bianco
et al., 2009, p. 186).
Research Question 2
What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being helpful
for transition planning?
This research question was examined by seven questions from the online survey. Parents
were asked if they had opportunities to make contact with the County Board of Developmental
Disabilities, commonly know as Richland Newhope. Survey participants were also questioned
about their opportunities to make contact with Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
(OOD) and the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR).
Richland Newhope is perceived as the most helpful local resource available. Most of the
surveyed parents, 10 of 12 or 83%, felt that there had been opportunities to contact Richland

Newhope. There was less confidence in the programs Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities
(OOD) and the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR). Fifty-eight percent of parents did not
know what OOD was, and 75% of parents did not know about BVR and their possible services.
During the semi-structured interview, participants were specifically asked about the
programs and services they found to be satisfactory. Three of the 5 parents interviewed or 60%
mentioned the monetary resources Newhope has and disburses to families for various needs.

According to the surveyed parents, the funding from Newhope allowed for dayhab services
(services that promote socialization and community involvement, not employment), health items
that insurance would not cover, equine therapy, and community outings with peers. These
comments can be found in Table 5. Parent 4 shared that when her child with down syndrome was
born, she made a point to move to Richland County from a neighboring county. Parent 4 had a

68
sister (also with down syndrome) and saw the board of developmental disabilities in other
counties. She believed that Richland Newhope was one of the stronger, more generous boards of
DD compared to neighboring counties.
Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) was not well known among the
parents surveyed. As previously mentioned, 58% of parents did not know what OOD was or
what services they provided. The few parents who have used OOD shared during the interviews
that they were pleased with what was offered. Parents liked that the program offered a job
experience program that got their child out into the community and provided job training.
Table 5
What programs, agencies or resources do parents perceive as being helpful?
Theme

Subtheme

Participant Quote

Community resources have
had a positive effect on
families.

Newhope is recognized by
parents as a generous fund
that helps them.

“There are no providers who
will take Student’s waiver.
Newhope gifted us 2 days a
week at RNI.” (Parent 2)
*RNI stands for Richland
Newhope Industries, a division
of Richland Newhope

“Funding for the things
insurance wouldn’t cover and
giving him a place to go.”
(Parent 2)
“Newhope provides the
funding for Raemelton.”
(Parent 3)
*Raemelton is an equine therapy
program

69

“Overall, Newhope is
awesome. They provide the
monies and opportunity.”
(Parent 4)

Though rarely used, OOD has “Biggest thing was OOD got
positives.
Student out in the community
and gave experience.”
(Parent 1)
“OOD had a job training
program that I thought was
great.” (Parent 1)
“They have lots of fun
activities, if you can find out
about them.” (Parent 4)

Previous research studies found being a part of job training and utilizing the offered
community services had a positive impact on the employment outcomes for students of transition
age. The National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD) recommends
students with disabilities obtain work experience whenever possible. Individuals who have work
experience as a student are more likely to find employment after they graduate. Students who

participated “in occupational education programs and special education in integrated settings,”
are more likely to be competitively employed than students with disabilities who do not have
these opportunities (A Transition Guide, U.S. Department of Education, 2020, p. 4). The
interviewed parents found the job training programs to be beneficial and this program could be
utilized in the future.

70
When surveyed, 75% of parents did not know about the Bureau of Vocational
Rehabilitation (BVR) or the services offered. This is concerning as the services offered are
designed for individuals with disabilities who want to be employed but are having trouble
finding and maintaining employment. The services provided by the BVR system include
vocational counseling, vocational training, job search assistance, job training assistance,
transportation services, occupational equipment, and personal attendant services (Opportunities
for Ohioans with Disabilities, 2020).
Ultimately, the conducted research study showed parents were pleased with the services
they were aware of and had used in the past. Parents commented on the generosity and funding
of Richland Newhope and the job training program provided by OOD. However, several
available programs in Richland County are unknown to parents and are being underutilized.
Research Question 3

What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would increase
parent satisfaction?
Parents are rightfully concerned about their child’s transition to adulthood. One third of
parents were “very concerned” about their child’s transition to adulthood. The survey asked
parents if they felt heard and included while planning for their child’s future and 58% of
respondents strongly agreed they did. Participants were asked to rank possible barriers and

problems they have faced during the course of transition planning. These responses are reflected
in Table 6. The individuals surveyed were not feeling dismissed, nor were they feeling that
racism or cultural bias is an issue when planning for their child’s transition. The biggest concerns
and perceived barriers were red-tape / paperwork, confusion about programing, and limited
programming that did not meet the needs of their child.

71
Table 6
Responses to survey question to rank the barriers faced or perceived during transition planning
Perceived Barrier Ranking from Survey

Average Rating between 1 and 5*

Programs did not fit the needs of my child

3.17

Confusion about available programs

2.42

Red Tape / Paperwork

2.18

Feeling Dismissed

1.58

Racial or Cultural Bias

1.00

*1 meaning not a concern, 5 meaning a strong barrier of concern
During the parent interviews several suggestions were made by parents to improve the
transition services in Richland County. These suggestions and comments are summarized in
Table 7. Concerns about the communication between Richland Newhope and families were
verbalized repeatedly during the interviews. Parents felt improved communication would be
beneficial. Parent 4 remarked, “I just wish they would communicate with the parents about
things that are coming up.” Parents would like some clarity as to what options are available for
their children. Parents also expressed concerns about the services provided. The programing was
limited and did not meet the needs of every person of transition age. Richland County is a
predominately rural area and public transportation is limited. This was another area of
improvement parents verbalized. Parent one commented, “Transportation is expensive and
limited what our options were. Transportation costs were what he was going to make in wages.”

72
While there were many positive comments, some parents believe that there was not an
appropriate setting for their child and their needs.
Table 7
Improvements that could be made to transition services in Richland County
Theme

Subtheme

Participant Quote

Parents had specific
improvements in mind

Communication

“I just wish they would
communicate with the parents
about things that are coming
up.” (Parent 4)
“I think making it clear what
the options are. I don’t know
what is out there.” (Parent 5)
“We need a one stop shop,
like websites and let people
know what is out there.”
(Parent 4)

Programing

“There are limited choices and
a lack of options. Only one
possible dayhab for our
needs.” (Parent 2)
“Richland county is lacking in
so many areas.” (Parent 3)
“Transportation is expensive
and limited what our options
were.” (Parent 1)
“There isn’t overlap so he is
only with other individuals
like him. Everyone is
nonverbal and he doesn’t have
the social interactions I
wanted.” (Parent 4)

73

Overall parents reported feeling included in the planning of transition services for their
child. The majority of parents felt heard during the planning process. Sixty-seven percent of
respondents strongly agreed with the statement that they were never dismissed or marginalized
by the individuals trying to plan services. All respondents to the survey felt included and heard to
some degree when planning for their child’s transition services.
Conclusions
This chapter contained the results of the Likert survey and the semi-structured interview
and connected the results to the research questions. Twelve parents participated in the online
survey. Five of those participants took part in a semi-structured interview with the researcher. All
parent participants had children of transition age who were eligible for services through Richland
Newhope. Overall parents were satisfied with the available transition programs offered in the
Richland County. However, there were repeated suggestions on how programs could improve.
Parents would like to see improved communication and a streamlined process that is not as time
consuming.
The next chapter will present recommendations for how to improve the relationship
between parents and the transition services available in Richland County. The chapter will also
make suggestions for future research and how this study could be improved.

74
Chapter 5: Recommendations
Chapter five presents the results of the online survey and the semi-structured interview as
well as establishes connections to the review of literature. Conclusions will be discussed in order
to answer the proposed research questions. The limitations of the study as well as
recommendations for future research will also be discussed.
Data Analysis Summary
Transition planning has attempted to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities through legislative changes for the past 20 years. Even with these changes,
employment rates for individuals with disabilities remained lower than those of their nondisabled peers. Underemployment of individuals with disabilities is a problem despite the
transition services established by the IDEA. The U.S. Census Bureau reported at the end of 2013
that only 47.2% of people with a disability between the ages of 18 and 64 were employed.

Employment rates of 34.8% were even lower for individuals who identified as having a severe
disability (Taylor, 2018). Comparatively, almost 78% of individuals without a disability were
employed during that same year. Similar findings were reported by the President’s Commission
on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE, 2002). According to the report, 70% of the people
with disabilities in the United States between the ages of 18 and 64 were either unemployed or
considered grossly underemployed

While transition plans are a point of emphasis during an IEP meeting, parents still
express dissatisfaction with their choices and outcomes. During the course of this study, three
barriers to utilizing the community resources available in Richland County were made evident.
These perceived barriers were a lack of communication, general inconvenience (paperwork, redtape), and confusion. Parents who were able to overcome these barriers to transition planning

75
often remained frustrated and confused by the transition process. Considering the confusion that
stems from transition planning, the frustration of these parents makes sense.
Similar results and concerns surfaced as a result of the current study. Parents found
working with Newhope and OOD to be confusing and inconvenient. Parents also found a lack of
clear communication to be frustrating. The current study used a small sample size of twelve
individuals and utilized a researcher created survey (see Appendix B) that was specific to the
Richland County area. Of the twelve individuals who took the survey, five parents agreed to
participate in an interview that examined their own particular experiences with the services
available in Richland County.
The parents who completed the survey and who were interviewed voiced similar
concerns as parents who participated in previous studies. In previous research, parents felt
apprehensive and struggled to navigate through the adult agency systems. Frustration securing

the needed supports for individuals of transition age with disabilities was felt by parents
historically (Bianco et al., 2009). These struggles persist for the parents surveyed and
interviewed for this research study. Parent participants in the current research study shared
frustration with a lack of communication, inconvenient processes, and confusing terminology. In
previous studies, parents reported finding the correct adult service to be a challenge. Parents
reported feeling like an outsider and that transition planning was “too little, too late”

(Heatherington et al., 2010, p.167). In the current research study, parents feel there is a lack of
programing that fits the needs of their child. A lack of understanding caused parents in previous
studies to not feel confident enough to push to be involved, or felt they needed to “jump through
hoops” (Yoder & Lopez, 2013, p. 427). Parents in the current research study also did not feel

76
confident and were overwhelmed by the terminology and acronyms used by staff. The excessive
paperwork also frustrated parents and was intimidating.
Results
This research study was designed using an online survey and semi-structured interview to
identify the barriers parents perceive in utilizing the community resources for their children of
transition age. Parents also shared their previous knowledge of working with these community
resources and what they would like to see improved for the future.
Research Question 1
What barriers do parents identify in utilizing the County Board of Developmental Disabilities
(DD)?
The survey results concluded that parents do want to explore outside the home options for
their children’s independent living and employment skills. Only 50% of those surveyed were

pleased with the transition opportunities offered by the local community. During the interview
process, three recurring issues were considered barriers. These barriers were a lack of
communication, general inconvenience, and an overall confusion. Parents found the “red tape,”
paperwork, and changes in terminology and staff to add to the confusion and inconvenience of
working with Richland Newhope.
The lack of communication was mentioned in multiple interviews. Parents believe they

are missing out on opportunities that are available to their children. Other comments shared a
frustration of finding out about events from other parents, not from a Newhope representative.
This is similar to how parents in previous studies have felt. In a 2019 study, parents reported that
the process of finding adult services was challenging. One parent surveyed stated, “No one tells
you anything. Mostly everything I’ve ever found out is from another parent. [It’s how] I got

77
every service that he’s ever got,” (Chen et al., 2019, p. 1368). A check of Richland Newhope’s
social media platforms had many exciting and fun events. However, they were all posted in the
past tense and took place before the post was made. Announcing upcoming events or
opportunities would be a start to improving communication. Using email or text alerts to get
upcoming dates and announcements directly to clients and their families could improve the
communication. The use of technology to communicate and prepare for meetings with parents is
emerging in schools and can be utilized by other organizations (Kerry-Henkel & Eklaund, 2015).
Overall an increase in the promotion of these events would be helpful. Emails to school districts
could help spread the word about upcoming events. Hiring a designated social media manager to
promote events in a more up-to-date manner on all social media platforms may increase
participation in events.
General inconvenience was a second barrier perceived by parents. During the interview

portion of the research study, parents talked about the inconvenience of working with community
organizations. Parents felt there were “hoops” one needed to jump through and the paperwork /
“red-tape” was both frustrating and time-consuming. In a 2015 article for the National
Association of School Psychologists, authors created a list of ways to improve the special
education documentation to enhance parent understanding. Many of these same ideas could be
utilized to improve the lack of communication, inconvenience, and confusion of working with

community service in Richland County. To improve parent understanding in special education
forms and transition services, organizations should increase the readability of material and the
use of plain language. (Kerry-Henkel & Eklaund, 2015). Other professional fields, including
healthcare and law, have already adopted language that is easier to read for their intended
audience. Creating forms that are universally designed and easier to fill out can be beneficial for

78
both special education forms and community agencies to assist with transition services. Parents
could also benefit from having examples of the needed forms provided.
Parents perceived overall confusion as being a third barrier to utilizing the County Board
of Developmental Disabilities. During a parent interview, the term “one stop shop” was used
multiple times. Parents want to be able to go to one website and be given clear instruction on
what services are available and how to contact those services. One parent said she had even
offered to create a singular website for Newhope to try and help other parents. Newhope declined
to allow that to happen as she is not an employee of any state organization. The creation of an
updated, valid website that has clear and simple language could help parents overcome the initial
confusion in locating services. Several parents in the survey were unfamiliar with OOD and
BVR, two state agencies that offer services to improve employment options. Combining these
options with the more familiar resource of Richland Newhope could help parents locate more

resources for their child. Parents also struggle with the changing acronyms and vocabulary.
Having an informational sheet that is made available to parents before their yearly meeting could
make these events less stressful. This informational sheet could be available on the Richland
Newhope website to allow for access at any time. Educating staff on how to create a more
inclusive and inviting environment for a meeting with parents could also be helpful.
The aforementioned suggestions to address the three perceived barriers by the parents

surveyed and interviewed for the study are supported by previous research. Before parents are
navigating the world of transition services, they are making sense of the terminology and legality
of special education in public schools. A common complaint during this research study was the
use of acronyms and terms parents did not understand. For example, Parent 4 stated, “Quit
talking in initials! What does it mean?”. Parent 1 commented, “If you could go and say in plain

79
English, this is what is available, this is who you call.” Limiting the jargon and acronyms and
creating guidance documents to assist parents during meetings can be helpful (Kerry-Henkel &
Eklaund, 2015). Families navigating transition services could also benefit from a document or
table that outlines and defines the types of service provided by different agencies. Having an
updated person to contact for each agency could help address the communication barrier.
Research Question 2
What programs, agencies, or resources do parents in Richland County perceive as being helpful
for transition planning?
Despite the barriers and frustrations identified by parents, Richland Newhope was the
most familiar resource. When asked about the three different programs that could be beneficial to
families of child with disabilities of transition age, Newhope was the most recognized. Most of
the surveyed parents, 10 of 12 or 83%, felt that there had been opportunities to contact Richland

Newhope. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) and the Bureau of Vocational
Rehabilitation (BVR) were recognized at a lower rate. Fifty-eight percent of parents did not
know what OOD was, and 75% of parents did not know about BVR and their possible services.
Several parents mentioned the funding provided when aligned with Newhope. The funding
through the Richland Board of Developmental Disabilities provided respite care hours, equine
therapy, and home modifications that insurance would not cover. The activities offered were

enjoyed and found helpful, but parents did struggle to find out about the availability and details.
Parents mentioned how much their families enjoyed a holiday party and spring dance that
Richland Newhope sponsored and planned. There was an improvisational comedy show that
promoted actors with down syndrome that was well received. Other outings organized by
Richland Newhope included trips to the bowling alley and a waterpark. These activities, while

80
not employment based, are also an important aspect of transition planning. The social activities
promote opportunities to expand individuals social circle and community involvement. In a
nationwide survey of 1,000 Americans with disabilities, significant deficits were evident in
different aspects of life. Participants reported gaps in employment, education, income,
socialization, and community utilization (Taylor, 1998). Without quality transition planning and
support, individuals with disabilities continue to experience these gaps and miss opportunities to
expand their social circle and have varying life experiences.
While parents were in favor of these activities, they reported finding out about these
events after they occurred or through word of mouth. Knowing about these events sooner would
allow for better participation and less stress for families. Using email or text alerts to get out
upcoming dates and announcements directly to clients and their families could improve the
communication. When Richland Newhope does have an event, it could be beneficial to include

individuals from OOD and BVR. These employees could have mini-presentations for parents or
clear, concise literature about the services offered. Since Newhope was the agency most familiar
to parents, having basic information about other agencies that are less familiar (OOD and BVR)
on the Newhope website could promote those agencies. Using technology to communicate with
parents is emerging in schools and can help enhance parent understanding (Kerry-Henkel &
Eklaund, 2015). These same ideas can be used to improve communication between parents of

individuals preparing for their child’s transition to adulthood.
Research Question 3
What improvements could be made to transition services in Richland County that would increase
parent satisfaction?

81
Parents were concerned about their children’s transition to adulthood. There were two
recurring themes when asked what improvements could be made to the transition services
offered in Richland County. Parents would like to see an increase in communication and felt
unsure about what services were available for transition planning. There was a general need for
communication about upcoming events. These events often were viewed as positive social
experiences, but parents and clients did not hear from their case managers or know about the
upcoming events. Finally, parents felt there was a lack of programming that fit the needs of their
children. Parents who found programming that they felt was adequate struggled to find
affordable transportation.
The struggles of transportation and a lack of options that best fit the needs of an
individual are not new. Finding reliable transportation (Chen et al., 2019) has been an issue for
parents in previous studies. Other parents have voiced concerns at the transition plans for their

children in other studies (McKenzie et al., 2017). To remedy these issues, more funding is
needed to allow for more transportation options and create other transition placements. To make
the process more streamlined, previous research suggests streamlining the transition process by
immersing students into the community before they graduate or age out of public education
(Certo et al., 2008). School districts and community resources need to work together closely in
the last years of schooling to create a smoother transition. This will be especially important in

rural areas where transportation is not readily available.
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research
Newhope has been considered the best option of only a few possible resources in
Richland County when planning for the transition of individuals with significant disabilities.
This study provides possible ways to improve the interactions between parents who need support

82
in planning for their child’s future and the local transition services in Richland County. Further
research could be beneficial as 80% of the participants interviewed had ongoing interactions with
Newhope and showed the ability to connect and maintain that relationship. A study that recruits
more parents who struggled to connect and maintain a relationship with local transition service
providers could be beneficial in addressing the weaknesses of the local services.
This study focused on the perceived barriers that parents face when planning for the
transition to adulthood for their child. Richland Newhope, OOD, and the BVR also would
benefit from improving outcomes and reaching more people. To better understand what is
impeding the transition progress, research could be conducted from the side of the agencies.
What barriers are these agencies facing as they try to reach and plan with families? What could
schools and county boards of developmental disabilities be doing to further support the agency
and assist in the communication of programs and events?

The current research study only focused on families in one school district in Richland
County. There are nine public school districts in the county. There are fifteen total school
districts if parochial and private schools are included in the count. The difficulty of connecting
families to the local services may vary by district and location. A study that compares the
parental involvement by district could shed light on what is preventing parents from utilizing
available community resources.

The focus of this study was the barriers that parents perceived when planning for their
child’s transition to adulthood. No current clients or students were interviewed or surveyed. The
clients of Richland Newhope, OOD, and BVR may perceive things differently than their parents
and guardians. The transition organizations could benefit from contacting and talking with their

83
clients to find out what programs and activities they enjoyed and found beneficial. During this
research study parents shared what elements of transition were most important to them.
According to survey responses, the most important elements of concern to the parents in
planning for their child’s transition were safety, independence, enjoyment, and social interaction.
These would be the elements that parents would be looking for when exploring the options
available to them in Richland County. The least important element rated by parents in relation to
transition services was the earning potential of the service. Without consulting the clients and
knowing what matters the most to them when planning for the future, a large piece of the
transition plan is missing. A quality transition plan is a collaboration between family, transitionage student, the school, and community agencies. A study that further involved the clients and
students in the midst of transition planning could be beneficial to the team in the future.
Limitations of the Study

The parents who participated in the study historically were involved in their children’s
education, and despite challenges, would persevere to solve problems that developed during their
child’s adolescence. The parents interviewed shared that they were well-educated and had the
means and resources to plan and participate in their child’s transition planning. While these
parents had good insight, parents who struggled to navigate transition services would have been
able to share the challenges they encountered during the transition planning journey. The

participation of only parents who typically are involved in their child’s education is potentially a
threat to internal validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Only 12 parents participated in the
survey. Five parents volunteered to be interviewed. Each of the participants has a connection to
the researcher’s place of employment. The small sample size and the sampling procedure are
limitations of the current study. This study was limited to one school district in Richland County.

84
Using a larger geographic area or comparing a rural and urban location within the county, could
have yielded different results.
Future studies could examine the perceived barriers and frustrations of parents
throughout Richland County. This study was limited to one school district and other districts
may have higher rates of transition satisfaction among their parents. The school district surveyed
is in a rural area with very limited public transportation. Comparing the outcomes of a more
urban area in Richland County that has better access to transportation could be valuable.
Small Sample Size
The sample size for this study was small. When the study was proposed, there was an
email list of students of transition age who lived in Richland County. Upon closer examination of
the list, it was found that many of the students no longer qualified for services with Richland
Newhope. Parent emails were obtained through the list, and by contacting other teachers and

known parents. Eighteen parents were emailed information about the study. A second email was
sent if there was not a response. Ultimately, 12 parents participated in the online survey, and five
of these participated in a semi-structured interview. All the parents had students of transition age
who live in Richland County. While there is not a specific number needed for validity (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018), the participants were similar in their responses and having a larger group of
parents to survey and interview would have yielded more credible results. Future studies would

benefit from the participation of parents who were not as ‘well-educated’ and have more
difficulty navigating their child’s educational and transition journey and have not connected with
Richland Newhope or other community services.
Sampling Procedure

85
Initially, purposeful sample was used by emailing parents from given lists. The parents
had to live in Richland County and have children of transition age to be eligible. Snowball
sampling was used in an attempt to recruit more participants who fit the eligibility criteria. The
attempt at snowball sampling did not yield more participants.
Despite a small sample size in one area school district as participants, the results were
similar to previous research and synthesized in the literature review. Including parents who have
not been active participants in their child’s educational journey could yield more informative
results that could be used to continue to improve the transition outcomes of individuals in
Richland County.
Possible Solutions to Barriers
This research study was designed to gain an understanding of why parents were not
contacting the County Board of Developmental Disabilities in Richland County, commonly

called “Newhope”. Three perceived barriers were repeated among participants surveyed and
interviewed. Specific concerns from parents included communication, lack of programing, and
general confusion.
Possible Solutions to Communication Barrier
A lack of communication is a repeated concern from parent participants. Parents felt that
they are missing out on opportunities for their child as they do not hear about events or

programming from staff. Often the information comes too late or from other parents. Parents
would like to see improved communication. Knowing about these events sooner would allow for
better participation and less stress for families. Using email or text alerts to get out upcoming
dates and announcements directly to clients and their families could improve the communication.
This could be achieved through social media posts that announce events in a timely manner.

86
There is currently a lack of understanding about what other community agencies (OOD and
BVR) have to offer. When Richland Newhope does have an event, it could be beneficial to
include individuals from OOD and BVR. These employees could have mini-presentations for
parents or clear, concise literature about the services offered. Since Newhope was the agency
most familiar to parents, having basic information about other agencies that are less familiar
(OOD and BVR) on the Newhope website could promote those agencies.
Table 8
Proposed solutions to communication barrier
Problem

Proposed Solutions

Lack of Communication

Email or test alerts
Up to date social media posts
Mini-presentations about agencies
Clear, concise literature

Possible Solutions to General Inconvenience
General inconvenience was a second barrier perceived by parents. During the interview
portion of the research study, parents talked about the inconvenience of working with community
organizations. Parents felt there were “hoops” one needed to jump through and the paperwork /
“red-tape” was both frustrating and time-consuming. In a 2015 article for the National
Association of School Psychologists, authors created a list of ways to improve the special
education documentation to enhance parent understanding. Many of these same ideas could be
utilized to improve the lack of communication, inconvenience, and confusion of working with
community service in Richland County. To improve parent understanding in special education
forms and transition services, organizations should increase the readability of material and the

87
use of plain language. (Kerry-Henkel & Eklaund, 2015). Other professional fields, including
healthcare and law, have already adopted language that is easier to read for their intended
audience. Creating forms that are universally designed and easier to fill out can be beneficial for
both special education forms and community agencies to assist with transition services. Parents
could benefit from having examples of the needed forms provided.
Table 9
Proposed solutions to general inconvenience barrier
Problem

Proposed Solutions

General Inconvenience

Improved readability of material
Use of plain language
Forms that are easier to fill out
Provide examples of filled out forms

Possible Solutions to Overall Confusion
Parents perceived overall confusion as being a third barrier to utilizing the County Board of
Developmental Disabilities. The information given to parents about available services can be

overwhelming and confusing. Writing information in clear language and without the use of
jargon and acronyms should be normalized. To improve parent understanding of transition
services and paperwork, organizations should increase the readability of material and the use of
plain language. Creating forms that are universally designed and easier to fill out can be
beneficial for both special education forms and forms for community agencies to assist with
transition services.

88
During a parent interview, the term “one stop shop” was used multiple times. Parents
want to be able to go to one website and be given clear instruction on what services are available
and how to contact those services. Parents do not want to have to navigate multiple resources and
websites. The creation of an updated, valid website that has clear and simple language could help
parents overcome the initial confusion in locating services. Several parents in the survey were
unfamiliar with OOD and BVR, two state agencies that offer services to improve employment
options. Combining these options with the more familiar resource of Richland Newhope could
help parents locate more resources for their child. Parents also struggle with the changing
acronyms and vocabulary. Having an informational sheet that is made available to parents before
their yearly meeting could make these events less stressful. This informational sheet could be
available on the Richland Newhope website to allow for access at any time. Educating staff on
how to create a more inclusive and inviting environment for a meeting with parents could also be

helpful.
Table 10
Possible solutions to overall confusion
Problem

Proposed Solutions

Overall Confusion

Limit the use of acronyms and jargon
Streamline websites from multiple to one
Put basic information about OOD and BVR on Newhope
website
Provide an informational sheet with basic information to help
through meetings
Create a more inclusive and inviting environment for meetings

89
Conclusion
This research study was designed to gain an understanding of why parents were not
contacting the County Board of Developmental Disabilities in Richland County, commonly
called “Newhope”. The results showed that the parents who participated and filled out the
survey had positive experiences with Newhope. Participants recognized Newhope as the best
option for transition services in Richland County. Despite the positive feedback, there were
concerns and areas for improvement voiced by the participants in the study. Specific concerns
from parents included communication, lack of programing, and general confusion
Creating an environment for parents and individuals transitioning to adulthood that is
inviting and easier to navigate could improve the transition outcomes in Richland County.
During the course of this study, parents shared specific improvements they believe would
improve the way the community resources in Richland County are utilized.

Parents would like to see improved communication and additional programming. Parents
also shared a concern for a lack of programing for their child and their specific needs. The
individuals who found programming struggled to find transportation. Improving transportation to
rural areas would come at a monetary cost. Ideally, this cost would be covered by the agency
through tax revenue or state funds. Grants have been utilized in the past, and a grant specific to
improving transportation in rural areas would benefit families planning for their child’s

transition.
Improving the transition and employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities has
been a topic for decades. For improvements to continue, and for the students of transition age to
benefit, multiple organizations will need to work together and take into account the needs of the
families involved.

90
References
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, P.L. 101-336, 42 United States Congress,
§12101 et seq.
Anderson, C. & Butt, C. (2018). Young adults on the Autism spectrum: The struggle for
appropriate services. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 3912–3925.
Awsumb, J. M., Balcazar, F. E., & Alvarado, F. (2016). Vocational rehabilitation transition
outcomes of youth with disabilities from a midwestern state. Rehabilitation Research,
Policy, and Education, 30(1), 48–64. https://doi.org?10.1891/2168-6653.30.1.48
Awsumb, J. M, Balcazar, F. E., & Keel J.M. (2019). Youth with disabilities: Are vocational
rehabilitation services improving employment outcomes? Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation. 52, 61–73.
Bianco, M, Garrison-Wade, D. F., Tobin, R., & Lehmann, J. P. (2009). Parents’ perceptions of

post school years for young adults with developmental disabilities. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities. 47(3), 186–196.
Blank, W. W., & Hartwell, S. (Eds.) (1997). Promising practices for connecting schools with
the real world. University of South Florida, Tamp, FL.
Bluestein, C. L., Carter, E. W., & McMillina E. D. (2016). The voices of parents: post-high
school expectations, priorities, and concerns for children with intellectual and

developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education 50(3), 164–177.
Brown, L., Shiraga, B., & Kessler, K. (2006). The quest for ordinary lives: The integrated postschool vocational functioning of 50 workers with significant disabilities. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 32(2), 93–121.
Buck Institute for Education. (n.d.) What is PBL? https://www.pblworks.org/what-is-pbl

91
Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment
outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
23(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1177.1044207311414680
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2022). Home- and Community-Based Services.
Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/59b5vcxn
Certo, N. J., Luecking, R. G., Murphy, S., Brown, L., Courey, S., & Belander, D. (2008).
Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual
disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 33(3),
85–95.
Chen, J., Cohn, E. S., & Orsmond, G. I. (2019). Parents ’future visions for their autistic
transition-age youth: Hopes and expectations. Autism, 23(6), 1363–1372.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318812141

Cheung, C. S. S. & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s
achievement? The role of parent oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
104(3), 820–832. https:doi.org/10.1037/a0027183.
Cimera, R. E. (2011). Does being in sheltered workshops improve the employment outcomes of
supported employees with intellectual disabilities? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
35, 21–27. https:doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0550

Cimera, R. E. (2012). The economics of supported employment: What new data tell us. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37, 109–117. htpps://doi:10.3233-2012-0604
Conley, R.W., Rusch F.R., McCaughrin W.B., & Tines J. (1989). Benefits and costs of supported
employment: An analysis of the Illinois supported employment project. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 441–447.

92
Creswell, J. C., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design; Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dean, D., Pepper, J., Schmidt, R., & Stern, S. (2013). The effects of vocational rehabilitation for
people with cognitive impairments. International Economic Review, 56(2), 399–427.
Doren, B., Gau, J. M., & Lindstrom, L. E. (2012). The relationship between parent expectations
and postschool outcomes of adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 79, 7–23.
doi:10.1177/001440291207900101
Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parent Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: A MetaAnalysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
Gil, L. A., (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 40(2), 12–15.
Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with

disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 66(4), 4–16.
Hetherington, S. A., Durant-Jones, L., Johnson, K., Nolan, K., Smith, E., Taylor-Brown, S., &
Tuttle, J. (2010). The lived experience of adolescents with disabilities and their parents in
transition planning. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25 (3), 163–
172.

Hirano, K. A., Rowe, D., Lindstrom, L., & Chan, P. (2018). Systemic Barriers to Family
Involvement in Transition Planning for Youth with Disabilities: A Qualitative
Metasynthesis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(11), 3440–3456.
Holmes, L.G., Kirby, A. V., and Strassberg, D. S., & Himle, M. B. (2018). Parent Expectations
and Preparatory Activities as Adolescents with ASD Transition to Adulthood. Journal of

93
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(9), 2925-2937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803018-3545-6
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Ipsen, C., Kurth, N., McCormick, S., Hall, J., & Chambless, C. (2019). Exploring the PROMISE
of transition services for youth with disabilities receiving SSI. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 50, 95–108.
IRIS Center. (2022). Transition Assessments.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/cou2/cresource/q2/p05/#content
Kerry-Henkel, L & Eklaund, K. (2015). Improving Special Education Documentation to
Enhance Parent Understanding. Communique’ , National Association of School
Psychologists, 44, 1.
Kirby, A. V. (2016). Parent Expectations Mediate Outcomes for Young Adults with Autism

Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 1543–1655.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2691-3
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2013). Transition planning requirements of IDEA
2004. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from https://tinyurl.com/5dm3ffns
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D. & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From
Theory to Practice. (2nd ed.) Jossey-Bass.

Luecking, R. G. (2000). Analyzing work outcomes for youth with disabilities participating in a
standardized internship program. (Publication No. 0387287). [Doctoral dissertation, The
George Washington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

94
McKenzie, K., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Blinkhorn, A., & Demore, A. (2017). Out of school and into
distress: Families of young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in
transition. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30, 774–781.
Migliore, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, R. (2008). Why do adults with intellectual
disabilities work in sheltered workshops? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28,
29–40.
National Center on Education Statistics. (2020). Students with disabilities. Retrieved June 26,
2021, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Council on Disability. (1989). The Education of Students with Disabilities: Where Do
We Stand? Washington, DC: https://tinyurl.com/4utmw8fm
National Council on Disability Social Security Administration. (2000). Closing the Gaps to PostSecondary Education and Employment. Washington, DC: https://tinyurl.com/mwsm2ndv

Neece, Cy. L, Kraemer, B. R., & Blancher, J. (2009). Transition satisfaction and family well
being among parents of young adults with severe intellectual disability. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 31–43.
Nord, D. & Hepperlen, R. (2016). More job services - better employment outcomes: increasing
job attainment for people with IDD. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 54(6),
402–411.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS. (2015). OSERS transition data
fact sheet. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/33kr9my7
Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities. (n.d.). Supporting county boards. Retrieved
from https://dodd.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/dodd/county-boards/welcome

95
Ohio Department of Education. (2020). Secondary transition and workforce development for
students with disabilities. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://tinyurl.com/47jrjhwx
Ohio Department of Medicaid. (n.d.). Who qualifies. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/cthnhwmv
Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities. (2020). Vocational rehabilitation. Retrieved on June
26, 2021, from https://tinyurl.com/3m4bb8y7
Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities. (2020). OOD quick stat scorecard statistics.
Retrieved on June 19, 2020 from https://tinyurl.com/4nwfu4zv
PACER Center Inc. (2015). Parent tips for transition planning. Retrieved June 18, 2020 from
https://www.pacer.org/transition/resource-library/publications/NPC-34.pdf
Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2004). Transition services in special education: A practical
approach. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.

Rehm, S., Fisher, L. T., Fuentes-Afflick, F., & Chelsea, C. A. (2013). Parental advocacy styles
for special education students during the transition to adulthood. Qualitative Health
Research 23(10), 1377–1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313505915
Sannicandro, J. D. (2019). The effect of postsecondary education on employment, income, and
SSI for people with disabilities. Think College FAST FACTS, 24.
https://tinyurl.com/tbxef2jk

Special Olympics. (2003, June). Multinational study of attitudes towards individuals with
intellectual disabilities. Washington DC. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from
https://tinyurl.com/2uk4yttj
Tastle, W. J., & Weirman, M. J. (2007). Consensus and dissertation: A measure of ordinal
dispersion. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45, 531–545.

96
Taylor, H. (1998). Americans with disabilities still pervasively disadvantaged on a broad range
of key indicators. National Organization on Disability and Harris Interactive.
Taylor, D.M. (2018). Americans with disabilities: 2014. Household economic studies. Current
population studies. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics
Administration U.S. Census Bureau. https://tinyurl.com/3vbmj35x
Timmons, J. C., Hall, A. C., Bose, J., Wolfe, A., & Winsor, J. (2011). Choosing employment:
Factors that impact employment decisions for individuals with intellectual disability.
Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 49(4), 285–299.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. (2nd ed.). Chichester, United Kingdom : Wiley-Blackwell.
Wang, M. T., & Sheikh-Khalil, S. (2014). Does parental involvement matter for student
achievement and mental health in high school? Child Development, 85(2), 610–625.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12153.
Way, W., & Martin Rossmann, M. (1996). Lessons from life’s first teacher: the role of family in
adolescent and adult readiness for school-to-work transition. National Center for
Research in Vocational Education. University of California, Berkeley.
Wehman, P., Chan, F., Ditchman, N., & Kang, H. J. (2014). Effect of supported employment on
vocational rehabilitation outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and

developmental disabilities: A case control study. Intellectual and Developmental
Disability, 52(4), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.296
Welde, A. M. J, Bernes, K. B., Gunn, T. M., & Ross, S. A. (2016). Career education at the
elementary school level: Student and intern teacher perspectives. Journal of Career
Development, 43(5), 426–446.

97
Yoder, J. R. & Lopez, A. (2013). Parent’s perceptions of involvement in children’s education:
Findings from a qualitative study of public housing residents. Child and Social Work
Journal, 30, 415–433. doi:10.1007/s10560-013-0298-0
Yuan, S. J., Ryan, S. M., & Dague, E. B. (2018). From the parents’ perspective: The think
college experience in rural Vermont. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(2), 113–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870518761878
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Selected economic characteristics for the civilian noninstitutionalized population by disability status, Retrieved on June 24, 2020, from
https://tinyurl.com/4mmf8ekd
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education. A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families.
Washington. DC.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2020).
A Transition Guide to Postsecondary Education and Employment for Students and Youth
with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/tej22hte
U.S. Department of Education. About IDEA. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from
https://tinyurl.com/kxah5v46
U.S. Department of Education. youth.GOV. (n.d.). Employment considerations for youth with

disabilities. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/4by7vcsd
U.S. Department of Education. youth.GOV. (n.d.). Service learning. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/5a2ct6n7
Van Teijlingen, E. R. & Hundely, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research
Update, 35, 1–4.

98
Appendices
Appendix A
Informational Letter to Potential Participants
December 1st, 2024
Dear Families,
I am conducting a research study in conjunction with a program at Slippery Rock University to
better understand the relationship between Richland Newhope and the families in Richland
County. As a teacher in the community I have tried to understand what services are available and
what services you as parents find the most valuable. In order to complete my research, I am
looking for parents who have children with disabilities who are of transition age, (14-24 years
old) and live within Richland County.
If interested in participating please email me at heidiroush@zoominternet.net so a consent form can

be sent. Once your consent form is complete, I will send an email with a link for a short survey
on your experiences working with the services in the community. Also include your thoughts and
feelings about transition services within the survey. Your responses will be anonymous, and
pseudonyms will be used when answers are examined.
If you are willing to participate in a more in-depth interview, please enter your contact
information on the last questions of the survey. Interviews will be held via Zoom at a date and

time that works for the interviewee. Of those who provide their contact information, the first 510 individuals who respond will be contacted for an interview. The interview questions will
examine your perceptions of transition services and the community services that are available in
our area. Even if you have never used a community service, your input is still very valuable.
Thanks,

Heidi Roush

99
Appendix B
Survey Questions
This survey is to help the researcher locate concerns and opinions of local parents on transition
and the services available.
1. I am concerned about my child's transition to adulthood.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
2. I feel independent living skills and employment skills can be handled at home without the help
of a community service.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
3. I feel confident in my abilities to navigate the community services available in Richland
County (Richland NewHope).
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree

4. Any plans made for my child's future and transition were made without the help of community
services. (Such as NewHope)
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly Agree
5. I feel I have had opportunities to make contact with community services of Richland County
(Such as NewHope).
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree

100
6. I am pleased with the post-school transition opportunities for my child. (i.e. NewHope,
DayHab, Progress Industries, Aide at home, etc.)
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
7. I feel that the program "Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities" (OOD) is easy to
understand.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
8. I feel that the program "Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation" (BVR) is easy to understand.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
9. I feel that the program "Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities" (OOD) is a good fit for
my child.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
10. I feel that the program "Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation" (BVR) is a good fit for my
child.
11. I have never felt bullied, dismissed, or marginalized by those trying to plan transition
services for my child.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
12. I have felt included and heard when it comes to planning for my child's future.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree

101

13. I have had no barriers or issues when planning for my child's transition years.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral / No Opinion Somewhat Agree
6
7
Agree Strongly
Agree
14. If you have faced trouble or perceived barriers during transition planning, place them in the
order from most common to least common. If there have been no issues or these do not fit your
experiences, click N/A.
Red-tape / paperwork
Confusion about programs
Feeling dismissed
Lack of options
Programs do not fit the needs of my child
Racism or cultural bias
15. If there is a barrier you have perceived or experienced that was not listed, please enter that
below.
16. Please rate the following in order of importance to you regarding your child's transition to
adulthood.
Safety
Independence
Earning potential
Social interaction
Enjoyment
Feeling of satisfaction
17. Please share a specific example of a barrier or struggle you have faced when planning for
your child's transition to adulthood. How did you remedy this problem?
18. Please share any thoughts or experiences you have when planning for your child's future.
19. What is your child's primary disability?

102
20. If you are willing to participate in a short interview about your experiences working with
community resources, please put your contact information below.
Name, email, phone number

103
Appendix C
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Verbal Confirmation of being recorded
1) How have you used community resources in the past? (Newhope, Opportunities for Ohioans
with Disabilities, etc.)
2) What programs and services offered to you have been satisfactory?
3) What do you think have been the positives of these programs?
4) What drawbacks or negative experiences have you encountered in using the county provided
services?
5) What has motivated you to reach out to a community resource? (i.e. advertising, word of
mouth, etc.)
6) What experiences or obstacles have held you back from reaching out to a community
resource?
7) What do you think is the most important aspect of planning for your child’s transition? (Ex.
Employment? Housing? Transportation? Socialization?)

8) What would you want transition and available county service programs to know about being a
parent trying to plan for their child’s future?

104
Appendix D
Consent to Participate Form

105

106

107

108
Appendix E
Institutional Review Board Approval

109
Appendix F
School District Permission Letter

110
Appendix F
Richland Newhope Permission Letter