Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Interagency Coordination and Agreements in Selected California Special Education Service Regions|
|Author(s):||Kammerlohr, Barbara Jean|
|Department / Program:||Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Abstract:||The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which interagency agreements and coordination as mandated by P. L. 94-142 operate to assure delivery of necessary related services to handicapped children. The study focused on coordination of service delivery and development of interagency agreements between nine California special education service regions (SESRs) and local offices of the seven state agencies mandated to develop interagency agreements at the local level.
Method. Each of the nine SESR directors was interviewed as were local administrators of the previously named agencies. An attempt was made to ascertain: (a) problems SESRs most frequently encounter in coordination of services with other agencies, (b) services provided to handicapped children through coordination with other agencies, (c) elements of service delivery systems being systematically coordinated at the local level, (d) status of interagency agreements at the local level, and (e) obstacles to developing interagency agreements at the local level.
Results. Issues related to who would pay for specific services were cited as the problem most frequently encountered in coordinating services. Coordination activities varied from agency to agency, but referral was the most frequently mentioned activity. Availability of specific related services varied according to geographical area with school districts being the only agency faced with mandates to provide services regardless of budget constraints. Thirteen percent of the 63 possible mandated agreements had been signed. Most frequently cited obstacles to the development of interagency agreements were monetary ones.
Discussion and conclusion. Four points were discussed and three conclusions offered. Discussion covered the following points: (1) Financial issues overshadow all other aspects of service coordination. (2) Gaps exist in availability of services. (3) Different labeling and classification systems hinders communication. (4) Minimal contact exists among agencies studied.
The three conclusions were: (1) The mandate to develop interagency agreements has not resulted in a system which assures a full range of related services. (2) Special education administrators cannot depend on assistance from other agencies in providing related services. (3) Inconcistency in labeling and classification impedes interagency communication and data collection.
Thesis (Educat.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1982.
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2014-12-15|