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 of the survey was: What are the linkages and relationships among SWTCIE Illinois Partners?
The results below provide baseline data about how Illinois disability service providers collaborate across the State, including SWTCIE Illinois Partners. The first collaboration map details the interactions (linkages) between Illinois disability service providers. The second collaboration map assesses the relationship (trust) between Illinois disability service providers. Please understand that when interpreting Collaboration Map 1, no specific level of collaboration is prescribed. For example, the goal may not be to reach collaboration level five (5) with all SWTCIE Illinois Partners (Frey et al., 2006). In assessing the relationship (trust) among SWTCIE Illinois partners, the goal may be to reach level four (4 excellent relationships).
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% |
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%).
Collaboration Map 1: Interaction (Linkages) between SWTCIE Illinois Partners (n= 406)
Collaboration Map 1 provides information about the interactions between disability service providers in Illinois. The interaction is measured by a six-point Likert scale from no interaction at all (0) to Collaboration-members belong to one system (5). Each disability provider is visible on the map. The circle around the name of the disability service provider corresponds to the links from one disability service provider to another (for example, DDD to DRS). Solid circles represent disability service providers that have three or more links to other disability service providers. Dotted circles represent disability service providers that have zero to two links to other disability service providers. Links are only included in the conceptual map 1 if there is an average score of 2 or greater (Cooperation-provide information to each other) from one disability service provider to another.
Collaboration Map 2: Relationship (Trust) between SWTCIE Illinois Partners (n= 375)
Collaboration Map 2 provides information about the relationships between disability service providers in Illinois. The relationship is measured by a five-point Likert scale from no relationship at all-no interaction at all (0) to excellent relationship-high trust (4). Each disability service provider is visible on the map. The circle around the name of the disability service provider corresponds to the links from one disability service provider to another (for example, DRS to CRP). Solid circles represent disability service providers that have three or more links to other disability service providers. Dotted circles represent disability service providers that have zero to two links to other disability service providers. Links are only included in conceptual map 2 if there is an average score of 2 or greater (Fair Relationship-some trust) from one disability service provider to another.
Key Takeaways
- We encourage all SWTCIE Illinois partners to review both Collaboration Map 1 (interaction) and Collaboration Map 2 (relationship) and review direction and number of linkages between disability service providers.
- The data reflects a positive correlation between collaboration and relationship (r=0.72), however, the collaboration and relationship levels between Illinois disability service providers are sometimes not reciprocal.
- Reflect on your own experiences collaborating with SWTCIE Illinois Partners and determine the desired level of collaboration (interaction) and relationship (trust) that you intend to establish with other SWTCIE Illinois Partners.
- We want to note that collaboration research often highlights the difficulties that exist when collaborating, and it is often not a skill that is explicitly taught to disability service providers. Investing in training staff on how to better collaborate and investing time and resources into collaboration may improve both the level of collaboration (interaction) and relationship (trust) among SWTCIE Illinois Partners.
- The Collaboration Map results should engender thoughtful and honest discussions about how effectively partner organizations collaborate. We are optimistic that interventions implemented in concurrence with the SWTCIE Illinois project should improve the linkages and relationships among SWTCIE Illinois Partners. The data presented serves as baseline data and will be used, in part, to measure the effectiveness of SWTCIE Project interventions.
References
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
Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American journal of evaluation, 27(3), 383-392.
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.