The usefulness and costs of California state/local interagency agreements made to comply with P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, were examined. Ninety-three personal and telephone interviews were conducted in 10 areas: 5 Master Plan Special Education Service Regions (SERS) and 5 "in transition" areas (Departments of Mental Health, Health Services, Developmental Services, and Rehabilitation). Questions asked of staff members touched on such topics as the type of relationship with the other agency, effects on services to students, and needed changes. Despite a lack of summary statistics, major conclusions were drawn from interview responses, including that most respondents reported they had not observed any local impact resulting from the state interagency agreements; most areas had not completed local agreements, which were seen as having limited benefits; most reported that funding levels made more of a difference in services than local agreements did; a major benefit of agreements was the process of its development rather than its content, due to the aid in understanding each agency's capacities and limitations; and agreements were viewed as most useful in joint operation of programs or expansion of services for students previously served by another agency. The desire to change and cooperate were noted as the most important element of agreements. The most frequently suggested change for all of the state agreements was that they be written more specifically and clearly. Rural area respondents cited fewer benefits in developing local agreements than staff from urban or suburban areas. (CL)