High-quality interagency collaboration is supported by research as a mechanism to improve post-secondary outcomes, including employment, for people with disabilities (Flowers et al., 2017; Kohler et al., 2016; Luecking & Luecking, 2015; Mazzotti et al., 2021; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015; Trach, 2012). The need to collaborate is important for effective, comprehensive service provision for both adults and youth with disabilities, but much of the collaboration research has been focused on young adults with disabilities transitioning out of high schools and into adult services (Carter et al., 2020; Mazzotti et al. 2021; & Saleh et al., 2019). To better understand the interaction and relationships among Illinois disability service partners and their current level of collaboration with each other, the SWTCIE Illinois evaluation team developed and administered an online survey to Illinois disability service providers. The guiding evaluation question for the survey was: What are the linkages and relationships among SWTCIE Illinois Partners?
The findings below provide additional details to the October SIEDUB about linkages and relationships between Illinois disability service providers in Illinois. These findings are based on the three open-ended questions that were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006; 2022). The three open-ended questions were: (1) Why is interagency collaboration important to your organization effectively serving people with disabilities? (2) How does your organization build trust with other organizations that serve people with disabilities? and (3) What are the challenges that your organization experiences when collaborating as a partner in serving people with disabilities? Participant demographic information and key takeaways are also presented.
Participant Demographics
Illinois Disability Service Provider | Frequency | Percent |
Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) | 211 | 46% |
Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) | 27 | 6% |
Community Rehabilitation Providers (e.g., Employment Supports, Day Services) | 73 | 16% |
Center for Independent Living | 17 | 4% |
Mental Health Service Provider (including Division of Mental Health) | 23 | 5% |
Public or Private School (e.g., Special Education, Transition Services) | 71 | 15% |
College or University (including community colleges, occupational and vocational schools) | 7 | 2% |
Other Service Provider | 29 | 6% |
Total (excluding cases with missing data) | 458 | 100% |
Note: number of participants who responded to open-ended questions varies due to missing data.
As illustrated, the largest proportion of survey respondents were individuals working for Illinois DRS (n=211; 46%), followed by Community Rehabilitation Providers (n=73; 16%) and Public or Private Schools (n=71; 15%).
Findings
Thematic analysis was utilized to analyze the three open-ended questions (Braun &Clarke, 2006;2022). The number of responses to each question warrants thematic analysis for each question. The theme, definition of the theme, and examples of the theme are shared below. The themes were developed using the 6 stages outlined by Braun & Clarke (2006; 2022).
Open Ended Question 1: Why is interagency collaboration important to your organization for effectively serving people with disabilities? (n=235)
Theme 1: Collaboration improves service
- Definition: Disability Service Providers shared that collaborating improves the overall services available to People with Disabilities (PWD). Collaboration between disability service providers leverages strengths among collaborators.
- Example:
- “Each organization comes with varying levels of expertise in different aspects of the lives of people with disabilities. In addition, these organizations bring different perspectives and ideas on how to respond to problems or concerns that arise, what supports to put in place, and what ways to be proactive in supporting people with disabilities. This is why collaborating between agencies is very important.”
- “To provide holistic wrap around service ensuring people with disabilities have access to services that support their goal of achieving education, employment and independent living.”
Theme 2: Population is complex and requires multiple coordinated approaches
- Definition: The complexity and span of support needs for some clients require multiple disability providers to deliver services to PWDs.
- Example:
- “It takes a team of knowledge and resources to support people with ID”
- “Many of the individuals that we serve have a variety of different needs that cannot be met by one single agency. It usually requires collaboration and shared resources”
Theme 3: Challenges
- Definition: Some participants noted challenges collaborating even when the questions did not prompt them to discuss challenges. It is noteworthy that some participants went out of their way to share these challenges, especially since the third open ended question relates to challenges with collaboration.
- Example:
- “The lack of collaboration between everyone hurts all parties involved, especially the consumer. It is horrible that the state agencies are punitive and retaliative when you have a disagreement. There are many providers that are either going under due to lack of funding and referrals or stopping doing business…”.
- “There is a huge need for many services, but [some] do not seem interested in helping people with disabilities.”
- “Collaboration among everyone helps to provide all of the services that an individual needs in order to be successful in the quickest and most supportive way.”
- “We work with many clients who are served by [a state agency] and we cannot find any useful information on their website; 2) figure out appropriate contact people; or 3) get consistent answers if we query more than one employee. With regard to other agencies, collaboration is important so that we know about the program, can share information to improve programming, and can troubleshoot issues for our clients.”
Open Ended Question 2: How does your organization build trust with other organizations that serve people with disabilities? (n=241)
Theme 1: Effective Communication
- Definition: Participants share that effective communication enhances trust among collaborators. Effective communicators were described as responsive, consistent, personable, and strong listeners.
- Example:
- “By offering and requesting opportunities to visit/tour one another's organization in order to build understanding of exactly what each organization does. By encouraging and engaging in ongoing communication and collaboration around services, groups, or individuals.”
- “Provide clear and concise information regarding the services they can offer and what has or has not been done to assist the individual. Replying in a timely manner.”
- “Through face-to-face communication and collaborative meetings.”
Theme 2: Reputation
- Definition: Participants noted that following up on action steps, competence, and common goals enhanced trust among collaborators. They also explained that having common goals, contracts that were honored, and honesty enhanced the reputation of collaborators.
- Example:
- “Schedule appointments and show up on time, follow through on what you said you would, maintain good paperwork and sometimes go the extra mile for them.”
- “Open communication, maintain the reputation of providing quality, safe programming and services, as well as establishing the reputation and trust that others can depend on our organization to do what we say we are going to do, do what is asked by other organizations or individuals of our organization. Our organization builds trust with the individuals we serve by asking them what they want and then work at providing services to assist the individuals in achieving their goals, dreams and desires.”
Theme 3: Networking
- Definition: Participants expressed that team meetings, Transitional Planning Committees, and IEP meetings all provide strong networking opportunities that enhanced the trust among partners.
- Examples:
- “We build trust with other organizations by establishing good working relationships with other organizations and make a point to attend networking events. We also try to be helpful and engage in problem solving when contacted by other organizations.”
- “Building relationships through networking-engaging in shared interests-establishing collaborative opportunities. Providing programming and services.”
- “I would think through communication and networking. This could also be by visiting and or inviting to different functions.”
Open-Ended Question 3: What are the challenges that your organization experiences when collaborating as a partner in serving people with disabilities? (n=242)
Theme 1: Structural Challenges
- Definition: The structural challenges theme is defined as systematic factors that negatively impact collaboration. Examples include limited time to collaborate, staff shortages, and service delivery systems. Participants may not have significant influence over such systemic factors.
- Examples:
- “Limited resources in the area”
- “Not having enough manpower to do our job. In my position, we are usually shorthanded with a long list of possible clients but not enough time to serve them all. We need more workers.”
- “its hard to get in contact with the right people and or knowledge of what they have to offer is not shared”
- “Most agencies are struggling with referrals, funding and recruitment. This does make it challenging to continue full collaboration with other agencies as there is still a level of competition to secure.”
- “[we are}not reimburse[d] at a level that fully funds the needs of an individual participating in CIE.”
Theme 2: Personal Challenges
- Definition: Personal challenges theme is defined as interpersonal features that negatively impact collaboration. Examples include conflict among collaborators, communication gaps, lack of respect among collaborators and poor reputation. Participants have influence over these interpersonal features.
- Examples:
- “lack of follow through on the part of our collaborators poses a challenge”
- “the initial struggle is building trust”
- “Poor communication, unrealistic expectations, not following thru.”
Key Takeaways
- Most participants shared that collaboration was important when providing services to people with disabilities, especially those with more complex support needs.
- Many participants had specific examples of increasing trust among disability service providers, including following through on action steps and effective communication.
- Challenges exist when collaborating. In some cases, participants reported strong negative collaboration experiences.
- We want you to reflect on the findings and see if any themes stand out. Do you relate to any of the examples shared?
- We want the findings to promote thoughtful and honest discussions about how effectively partner organizations collaborate. We are optimistic that interventions implemented as part of the SWTCIE Illinois project will improve the linkages and relationships among SWTCIE Illinois partners. The findings presented serve as baseline interagency collaboration data and will be used, in part, to measure the effectiveness of SWTCIE project interventions.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage Publication.
Carter, E., Awsumb, J., Schutz, M., & McMillan, E. (2020). Preparing youth for the world of work: Educator perspectives on Pre-Employment Transition Services. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420938663
Flowers, C., Test, D., & Povenmire-Kirk, T. (2017). A demonstration model of interagency collaboration for students with disabilities: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Special Education, 51(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917720764
Luecking, D. M., & Luecking, R. G. (2015). Translating Research Into a Seamless Transition Model. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143413508978
Mazzotti, V. L., Rowe, D. A., Kwiatek, S., Voggt, A., Chang, W.-H., Fowler, C. H., Poppen, M., Sinclair, J., & Test, D. W. (2021). Secondary Transition Predictors of Postschool Success: An Update to the Research Base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793
Povenmire-Kirk, T., Diegelmann, K., Crump, K., Schnorr, C., Test, D., Flowers, C., & Aspel, N. (2015). Implementing CIRCLES: A new model for interagency collaboration in transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(1), 51-65. https://www.doi.org/10.3233/JVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION-140723
Saleh, M. C., Shaw, L., Malzer, V., & Podolec, M. (2019). Interagency collaboration in transition to adulthood: A mixed methods approach to identifying promising practices and processess in the NYS PROMISE project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 51(2), 183-198. https://www.doi.org/10.3233/JVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION-191037
Trach, J. S. (2012). Degree of collaboration for successful transition outcomes. Journal of Rehabilitation, 78(2), 39.