Leveraging Joint Planning in Early Intervention: Documenting with Intentionality and Specificity

Abstract

A family-capacity building approach to coaching, where providers support caregivers to embed identified strategies into daily routines and activities, is commonly embraced in Part C Early Intervention (EI). EI providers use several coaching strategies within this approach, yet few studies have reported process features, and coaching strategies are not well defined in the literature. We partnered in this Participatory Action Research (PAR) with current EI providers engaged in a year-long self-study process to provide an empirical account of one coaching strategy, joint planning, and related documentation. Our results indicate both providers and caregivers view documentation of joint planning as beneficial, highlight supports and challenges, and suggest that joint planning documentation holds significant promise for improving practice, data-based decision making, and progress monitoring of child and family outcomes including changes in caregiver capacity.

Caregiver-implemented interventions are considered effective in promoting positive child and family outcomes (Akamoglu & Meadan, 2018). Indeed, a relationship focused approach where caregivers, not service providers, are seen as the agents of intervention (Mahoney, 2009) is central to Part C Early Intervention (EI) services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Research suggests that the daily activities of a child hold the potential for multiple learning opportunities if parents and other caregivers are supported in their ability to recognize and respond to those opportunities (Raab & Dunst, 2006). Consequently, a family-capacity building approach to coaching, where providers focus on enhancing a caregiver’s confidence and competence to support their child throughout daily routines and activities (Kemp & Turnbull, 2014; Swanson et al., 2011; Windsor et al., 2019), is commonly embraced.

EI providers use a range of coaching strategies to support families (Friedman et al., 2012); yet, approaches to coaching, and definitions of specific coaching strategies, vary (Kemp & Turnbull, 2014) and are not well defined in the literature (Lorio et al., 2020). Further, few studies have identified which specific strategies are best for building caregiver capacity (Salisbury et al., 2018) and there is a need for empirical descriptions of specific coaching strategies (Lorio et al., 2020). Based on a review of literature from 2005 to 2018, Movahedazarhouligh (2021) reported a continued need for empirical studies of the most efficient and effective components of parent training and coaching. Many of the included studies were investigations of the effectiveness of parent-implemented intervention. However, no evidence was found as to: (a) whether any aspects of service delivery or approach established partnerships with caregivers in support of carryover, implementation of interventions by caregivers in natural settings between sessions, or (b) confirmation that implementation of parent-implemented intervention took place (Movahedazarhouligh, 2021).

Joint Planning: An Important Strategy Within Caregiver-Coaching

Conceptions of coaching in EI embrace collaboration with families (Friedman et al., 2012; Kemp & Turnbull, 2014) and coaching has been defined as:

An adult learning strategy in which the coach promotes the learner’s ability to reflect on his or her actions as a means to determine the effectiveness of an action or practice and develop a plan for refinement and use of the action in immediate and future situations (Rush & Shelden, 2011, p. 8).

As noted above, there is variability in the characteristics and strategies within the literature. For example, Friedman et al. (2012) provided operationalized definitions of several coaching strategies including: (a) conversation and information sharing, (b) guided practice with feedback, and (c) problem solving/reflection. Rush and Shelden (2011) proposed the coaching characteristics of joint planning, observation, action, reflection, and feedback. While the language used differs, many of these strategies or characteristics align with the notion of joint planning.

Referring to the work of Friedman et al. (2012), Kemp and Turnbull (2014), and Lorio et al. (2020, p. 38) defined joint planning as, “a conversation between the EI provider and caregiver to discuss how learned strategies can be embedded into activities or routines during or between intervention sessions.” The reciprocal and reflective nature of joint planning can support collaboration around monitoring progress and measuring the effectiveness of EI overall (Mickelson et al., 2020). To record what transpires in service delivery, many EI providers utilize a written or other form of coaching or joint plan to document the conversations that represent the joint planning process (Meadan et al., 2018). The purpose and scope of such written documentation varies. The resulting documentation can serve as a record of action taken not only during, but between coaching visits, but this is only possible when providers are intentional in their approach to documentation (Mickelson et al., 2020). Self-reflection can support that intentionality.

Self-reflection, both on the part of the caregiver and the provider, is central to effective coaching and a common component across coaching models (Inbar-Furst et al., 2020) as it has been shown to be an important aspect of adult learning (Trivette et al., 2009). During coaching, it is recommended that providers encourage caregivers to reflect on their knowledge and skills while providing supportive and corrective feedback (Dunst et al., 2010). Kucharczyk et al. (2019) indicate self-reflection by providers can promote increased awareness, broaden interpretations of experiences with children and families, and disrupt beliefs thereby helping providers more effectively implement recommended practices. Indeed, self-reflection can enhance a providers’ knowledge, coaching implementation, and relationships as well as increase awareness of what and how practice unfolds (Inbar-Furst et al., 2020). However, self-reflection practices are used only rarely by providers (Tomlin et al., 2016).

Context of Present Study

In the current study, we engaged in a partnership with current, interdisciplinary EI providers to investigate the potential of leveraging documentation of coaching sessions for outcome measurement within interdisciplinary service delivery. Importantly, we contribute an empirical description of a specific coaching strategy, joint planning, through an in-depth analysis of perceptions of joint planning and its related documentation. Our participatory action research was conducted in partnership with a Part C EI program as a component of a year-long self-study of coaching documentation. Prompted by an annual state-required self-assessment of program quality and outcome measures, the program identified performance plan goals for the upcoming year. Specifically, the state required the program to investigate efforts to utilize everyday child learning opportunities and caregiver generalization of strategies in daily routines and activities.

To initiate this work, the program conducted a review of child and family-level records to search for evidence of everyday learning opportunities being utilized in caregiver coaching. Each staff member, including the program coordinator/second author, independently examined the service delivery files of self-selected children from their own caseload for the previous 3 month period. The program used a checklist adapted from materials (Rush & Shelden, 2006) introduced to the program through a state-level training on coaching. The checklist included prompts for: (a) examining evidence of parents’ participation in activities to strengthen existing or new competencies, (b) documentation of ongoing discussion of the joint plan, and (c) examples of parents’ use of strategies across a variety of family contexts. Participants engaged collectively in reflective discussion of observations and review of the completed checklists. Staff noted that the bulk of evidence related to caregiver use of strategies in everyday routines was in the joint planning forms that they completed at the conclusion of coaching sessions.

These joint planning forms had been developed by the program to summarize information from coaching sessions such as broad child and family circumstances, skill-based child progress, and updates pertaining to use of agreed-upon strategies. Providers completed these forms on carbon-copy paper allowing them to leave one copy with caregivers and use the other as a contribution to child/family files. While the providers had not previously considered these written plans beyond these purposes, staff wondered whether the forms could be used to document the capacity of caregivers to implement strategies during and between coaching sessions. Therefore, program staff identified an annual performance goal: joint plans will document parent carryover of agreed upon intervention strategies within natural environments between coaching sessions.

Following the program’s development of this goal, the EI team, led by the Program Coordinator (second author), invited the first author to partner in conducting research to examine and capture provider and caregiver perceptions of joint planning and the resulting documentation as a component of the broader self-study. Therefore, the central purpose of the study reported here was to examine participants’ perceptions of joint planning and joint planning documentation in order to promote understanding and problem-solving in relation to the state-required self-assessment. The following questions were developed collectively to guide the inquiry. In what ways, if any, do providers and families:

• (1) perceive the documentation of joint planning as useful in supporting and recording service delivery in Part C EI?

• (2) see joint planning documentation as useful in assessment practices of child and family outcomes?

• (3) report using joint planning documentation to support and document changes in caregiver-capacity?

Additionally, we were interested in investigating what ways, if any, the self-study process could support changes in provider practice.

Method

We used a Participatory Action Research, or PAR approach (Reason & Bradbury, 2008) as we sought knowledge derived and developed from the experiences and collaboration of the researchers and participants. PAR is defined as research conducted with the participation of stakeholders as they seek practical solutions to concerns and issues through examination of theory and/or practice as well as action and reflection (Jacobs, 2016; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Ultimately, this shared inquiry served to “elucidate and improve the nature of practice” (Patton, 2002, p. 183) in relation to the program’s performance plan goal. Following the PAR approach, all aspects of this study including design, implementation, and dissemination were completed through collaborative efforts and program staff were considered co-investigators with the researchers (Patton, 2002; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). Collaboration and partnership between researcher and participants is encouraged in PAR where the focus is on jointly working to gain understanding of and/or solve organizational issues (Patton, 2002).

Positionality

As co-authors and co-researchers, our positionality provided a foundation from which to embark on this study and ground our work. Importantly, a longstanding relationship between both authors and the program staff, that grew from collaborative support of teacher candidates in practicum and student teaching experiences, promoted a sense of mutual respect and equity. The authors and provider participants share the same gender, primary language, and ethnicity. Additionally, both authors possess personal experience as Part C EI providers which allowed for application of experience to study design and implementation.

The first author is currently engaged in higher education and has a particular interest in the preparation of early childhood professionals for provision of meaningful, inclusive services for all young children and families. As a former Part C provider, she also strives to ensure preparation includes sufficient attention to interdisciplinary, family-centered Part C service delivery. As a practitioner, she worked with diverse children and families as a Part C special instructor and service coordinator across urban and rural settings and as a teacher in inclusive preschool settings. Her experience as a family member of individuals with disabilities drives her passion for family-centered services and authentic partnerships between families and providers.

The second author currently serves as the program’s coordinator giving her first-hand knowledge of procedures and practices of the staff participants. Prior to taking the role of coordinator, she worked with the program as a special instructor and service coordinator in a peer relationship with staff participants. She has maintained a limited direct service caseload of children and families which provides an ongoing connection to the program’s coaching practices as well as unique insight and a close working relationship with staff. As an EI provider for nearly 20 years, she has witnessed an evolution of practice and is committed to building a collaborative EI team that values diverse contributions. Being a parent of a child with disabilities herself, she personally understands the importance of connections between service providers and caregivers in order to elevate the family voice in special education services.

Program and Participants

The EI program at the center of this study is one of more than 70 county-based Part C programs in one Midwestern state. It serves a population of approximately 102,000 with several small towns, rural communities, and one medium sized city of approximately 43,000 people. The median household income is $58,000 and the poverty rate is 8.5%. County residents identify as 90% white, 5% Hispanic/Latino, 1.5% Asian, 0.7% African American, and 2% identify as more than one race. The program averages approximately 175 Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) each year with an average of 90 active IFSPs at any given point in time. At the time of the study, the program had 92 children enrolled with active IFSPs. Of those, 74% were male, 26% were female, and 55% were eligible for Medicaid.

The primary participants in this study included staff of the partnering Part C EI program. Caregivers of enrolled children were recruited as secondary participants. The program’s staff was comprised of: the program coordinator (also second author and direct service provider), two Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs), one Physical Therapist (PT), one Occupational Therapist (OT), and four early childhood special educator/service coordinators. All program staff identify as Caucasian women. Their average age is 35 (range 25–48) and they have worked in the field of EI for an average of 10 years (range 1–25 years). The majority of current staff received state-level training in caregiver coaching and the primary provider model of intervention approximately 10 years prior to this study. Since that time, all staff have engaged in ongoing professional development from state and local training and technical assistance resources. Newer staff have received guidance in coaching strategies through a combination of initial preparation, state level orientation activities, job shadows, and mentoring experiences.

Of the 28 caregiver participants, 68% (n = 19) were caregivers of enrolled children between 24 and 36 months of age. Over half (67.9%; n = 19) had been involved with the EI program for 12 months or less (0–6 months, 39.3%; 6–12 months 28.6%). Most (71.5%; n = 20) were between the ages of 25 and 45 years. Caregivers were not asked to provide their race, ethnicity, or gender.

Data Sources

We used focus group protocols and an electronic survey to capture participant perceptions of both the joint planning process and joint planning documentation. In accordance with the PAR approach, all program staff contributed feedback and insight throughout the development of these measures. We designed the focus group protocols to solicit the perspectives of program staff on joint planning process and documentation in relation to the self-study process. For example, we asked participants to share real-life stories from EI sessions with families related to the joint planning process, discuss changes and elements that were made and sustained, share examples of what was being captured in joint planning documentation, and discuss whether they believed the written records held potential to capture aspects of service delivery and/or changes in caregiver capacity. Finally, we also invited participants to discuss any impacts the self-study process was having on their service delivery, continued challenges, lingering questions or concerns, and their goals and hopes going forward. While our protocols differed slightly as the investigation evolved, all focus groups included the same core questions.

We developed the electronic survey using Qualtrics^®, a secure online software platform. The survey consisted of five short answer or multiple-choice questions for all participants and two subsurveys; one with 13 additional questions for caregivers, and one with 14 additional questions for providers. Our questions focused on participants’ experiences with joint planning and care was taken to ask about process and documentation separately. We asked all participants about their comfort level with the process and documentation as well as whether they believed the joint planning documentation provided useful information on child progress and use of intervention strategies. We asked provider participants whether the process and documentation influenced their service delivery and relationships with families as well as their perspectives on how useful the documentation was in capturing changes in both child skills and caregiver capacity. We asked caregiver participants whether the joint planning process and documentation helped them see changes in their child’s development as well as to use agreed upon strategies between visits. We also used the survey to gather demographic information about participants including how long they had been involved with the EI program, level of training in parent coaching for staff, and age of child enrolled in EI for caregivers. Data was collected anonymously to protect participant confidentiality and encourage the sharing of authentic perceptions.

Procedures

Prior to initiating the study, we engaged in planning sessions to reach consensus on the focus and procedures for the study. Subsequently, the first author obtained Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval through her institution. Data was collected across a 15-month timeframe that began with the program’s initiation of the self-study process described above.

Recruitment

We solicited the perspectives of interdisciplinary staff as well as a diverse group of caregivers in an effort to ensure various perspectives were included in the investigation. The lead author invited program staff (n = 8) to participate in person and all agreed to participate in the focus groups. The lead author also invited staff to participate in the online survey via an email with 7 (88%) agreeing to participate and 6 (75%) completing the survey. It is unclear as to why some providers chose not to complete the survey, however, it should be noted that it was not required and was disseminated outside of their day to day practice while other research activities were embedded into routines such as staff meetings. The lead author also sent an email survey invitation to all currently enrolled families who had provided an email address to the program (n = 58). A total of 31 caregivers (53%) agreed to participate and 28 (48%) completed the survey. Therefore, the survey was completed by a total of 34 participants (52%).

Focus groups

We embedded focus groups, our primary data source, into existing staff meetings throughout the study. The first staff meeting pertaining to the study took place at the onset of the program’s self-study process (described above) and was facilitated by the second author in her role as program coordinator. This meeting served as an opportunity for staff to discuss observations and reflections on their own documentation as well as that of their colleagues in light of the self-study purpose. Staff met monthly thereafter to discuss observations, reflections, the ongoing data collection and analysis processes, and other program business. The second author was present at all such meetings as a participant and facilitator. As a direct service provider herself, she was an equal participant in these reflective discussions.

We intentionally embedded ongoing reflective collaborative discussions specifically centered on the self-study work into all meetings. Providers described this as supportive as it provided ongoing opportunities to engage in the self-study and research processes. In preparation for and during each meeting, providers examined the content of joint planning documentation produced in the context of recent caregiver coaching sessions. Therefore, the content of discussion reflected participant reflections and perceptions on evolving practice. Since the first author was not present at all meetings, the second author provided frequent updates which included personal and formal notes and reflections to ensure shared knowledge and support the collaborative data collection and analysis processes.

We facilitated four additional, targeted focus groups into these meetings at critical junctures of the self-study process to formally capture the reflections of provider participants over time as the self-study progressed. We conducted the first focus group approximately 1 month after the self-study was initiated, the second approximately 3 months later, and the third approximately 4 months later. We completed a final focus group approximately 15 months after the onset of the self-study. The program staff continued the self-study process throughout this time period. The first author facilitated the first and second focus groups and the second author facilitated the third and final focus group. We kept focus group questions relatively stable in targeted content, but also remained responsive to ongoing reflection and data analysis. For the final focus group, we added an additional question asking staff what, if any, change had been sustained to gather broader perspectives on the self-study. All focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by an external transcription service.

Throughout the iterative data analysis process, we provided updates as to ongoing coding and theme development during discussions with participants. This provided participants with opportunities to directly contribute valuable input and feedback to the analysis process as they confirmed and clarified our interpretations. For example, early analysis included a focus on the impact of joint planning documentation on relationships between providers and caregivers. While certainly an important component of coaching, further collaborative analysis illuminated other elements were more central to this particular self-study and research endeavor. We also provided transcripts to participants after each focus group as first level member checking (Brantlinger et al., 2005). This presented another opportunity for participants to confirm accuracy as well as clarify and add information as needed. Minor changes were requested and made. Once preliminary analysis was compiled into themes, we conducted a second-level member check (Brantlinger et al., 2005) by sharing these results with participants and again inviting them to formally contribute additional insights. Participants suggested minimal changes and confirmed that final results reflected their perceptions and experiences.

Survey

The survey was distributed via email at approximately the midpoint of the program’s self-study process. The intent was to illuminate perspectives after allowing participants to reflect on joint planning and related documentation for a period of time, but not to represent summative information. The survey also provided staff participants a more anonymous means to contribute perspectives. The timing was chosen by the program staff and results were used to inform the self-study. Importantly, it also served to collect caregiver perceptions as staff engaged in transparent discussions with families about the self-study during coaching sessions. Survey responses were compiled within Qualtrics^®.

Data Analysis

Our qualitative data analysis of the focus group transcripts followed the constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) in search of patterns in the data. We first utilized open and descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016) to independently review the first transcript in order to generate a preliminary set of codes. Second, we collaboratively discussed initial thoughts in light of the self-study purpose and a review of relevant literature resulting in six initial codes: (a) relationship between provider and caregiver, (b) strengths and supports to joint planning documentation, (c) barriers and constraints to documentation, (d) parent or provider use of documentation, (e) purpose or value of documentation, and (f) measuring outcomes. We also initiated a code book including code definitions and coding decision guidance which was jointly maintained throughout the coding process.

We met on a regular basis after independently coding each transcript to discuss the code application, initial interpretations, and code definitions. These intensive discussions served as a shared space for deep analysis of data and were used to examine consensus across all code applications (Saldaña, 2016). Further, these discussions supported active and continuous researcher reflexivity (Patton, 2002) and afforded us opportunities to address positionality. In support of this process, we both engaged in analytic memoing throughout our independent coding (Saldaña, 2016). We also referred to personal notes and formal meeting notes taken by the second author during meetings with participants during coding meetings to help participant voice inform researcher interpretation. As an additional element to ensure credibility, we determined initial intercoder reliability for the first round of coding by calculating percentage of agreement through discussion of each coded excerpt. Initial percentage of agreement across all transcripts averaged 77% (209/272 coded segments) with a range of 67% to 89%. Final percentage of agreement after consensus discussions was 96% (260/272) with a range of 80% to 100%.

Throughout the coding process, we remained open to inductive codes emerging as well as data saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Saldaña, 2016). In this way, we continually refined the codes with two instances of formal revision of the code book coupled with re-coding of transcripts when necessary. The final code book contained seven codes: (a) intentionality: mindset, awareness, and reflective practice, (b) roles, responsibilities, teaming, and accountability: how documentation supports process, (c) measuring outcomes: how documentation supports progress monitoring, (d) procedural aspects: written documentation within EI sessions, (e) caregiver use of the documentation, (f) continued challenges, and (g) specificity of documentation.

Once the coding process was complete, the coded excerpts were organized by code and further analyzed using axial coding (Saldaña, 2016) to investigate patterns within and across codes. This iterative process continued until we agreed that “all concepts are well defined and explained” indicating saturation had been reached (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 145). Through this process we collapsed the final seven codes into three overarching themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008): (a) intentionality; (b) specificity enhances documentation and practice; and (c) continuing challenges: struggling to find balance.

We utilized Qualtrics^® to analyze the multiple choice survey responses by producing descriptive statistics. We also compared the narrative responses to open ended survey items to the final themes from the focus group analysis. This allowed us to examine any alignment, or lack thereof, between the survey responses and final themes from the focus groups. When such alignment was observed, the comments were included as additional support for the associated theme. No disconfirming evidence was observed. Due to the minimal amount of data obtained through the survey, a more in-depth combination of data, such as through a mixed-methods approach, was not substantiated.

Credibility and Trustworthiness

We employed several elements to ensure credibility and trustworthiness throughout data collection and analysis. As described above, we engaged in continual researcher reflexivity (Patton, 2002) supported through individual memoing and intentionally addressed during frequent and in-depth discussions. Throughout the analysis, this reflexivity supported examination for confirming and disconfirming evidence across all data, confirmation of saturation, and triangulation (Brantlinger et al., 2005). Further, as noted above, the PAR approach included provider participants in all aspects of the study which allowed us to co-construct findings (Patton, 2002; Reason & Bradbury, 2008) as well as conduct first and second level member checks (Brantlinger et al., 2005). This enhanced the collaborative nature of the research which also included calculating interrater reliability checks on the initial coding of the data (Brantlinger et al., 2005).

Results

Our qualitative analysis of the focus groups illustrated provider perceptions of joint planning and joint planning documentation across the 15-month self-study process. We identified three overarching themes: (a) intentionality, (b) specificity enhances documentation and practice, and (c) continuing challenges: struggling to find balance.

Intentionality

Our analysis of participant conversations regarding the ability to document detailed information about child and family outcomes revealed a strong focus on the impact of intentionality, or the mindset, awareness, and reflective approach to documentation. Providers indicated they perceived increased intentionality related to documentation led to more targeted conversations with families. Specifically, providers shared that when they were more conscious of the fact that what was being written down could be utilized for tracking child and family “successes” they became more intentional about the questions asked and the resulting documentation. One provider stated, “I think just in our daily work, it’s obviously changed things. . .I think we’re all being more intentional about what we’re writing on there and not just even that but what we’re also doing with families.”

As a result of examining their own practices, providers indicated they were intentionally capturing more information about strategies and outcomes than they had previously. This, in turn, helped them develop joint plan documentation that was more detailed and useful for progress monitoring. One provider described their efforts by saying, “I feel like. . .that I’m documenting those things they’re saying. . .when they like give us a strategy that they’ve been using, or something that did or didn’t work. I’m trying to document that more. . .” Another provider shared, “I think I document more specifically what the family tried last time and what the result of that was. Where in the past, I was just writing the result.”

Further, providers reflected that while they perceived that their practice had always been focused on the family, their documentation had not necessarily reflected the actions of caregivers. One provider stated that, “Obviously our sessions were always very family-centered. Parents are always involved. Everything was directed around what the family was doing. But in documentation it wasn’t, because when we write goals, especially as therapists, we are tracking information specific to child development.” Provider feedback indicated that the self-study process helped them to reflect on their practice of documenting coaching sessions with more attention to caregiver capacity and family outcomes.

Specificity Enhances Documentation and Practice

Overall, providers expressed that the self-study helped illuminate more and better ways for providers, families, and the program to use written documentation of joint planning and, even more importantly, that their intentional approach as described in theme one, seemed to lead to an increase in specificity in the documentation. Further, as providers examined their joint planning process and documentation, discussions often reflected logistical and practical ways in which written documentation could be improved to capture specific details related to service delivery as well as child and caregiver outcomes over time. This increased specificity of documentation was perceived to support the quality and efficacy of general practice. The next sections describe findings related to providers’ revelations regarding: (a) logistical aspects, (b) how specificity enhanced accountability and teaming practices, and (c) how specificity supported coaching practice, family engagement, and progress monitoring.

Logistical aspects

Providers identified a number of logistical aspects as supports to improving the written documentation of joint planning. For example, providers often discussed the format of the form used to record joint planning and comments early in the self-study indicated staff held an expectation that the form might need to be revised. At times participants grappled with the idea of standardizing the joint plan form through the use of specific prompts and a fill-in-the blank style of documentation. However, providers continued to agree that flexibility and individualization needed to remain central and expressed that what was most important was accurate documentation of conversations during coaching sessions, “Because it’s not just fill in the blank. It’s supposed to just be a way to document your conversation.” Some providers conveyed concern that having prompts or sections in the form would potentially reduce their ability to individualize the process and product or lead to a feeling on behalf of providers or families that forms were incomplete if sections were not addressed. One provider commented, “I don’t see a need for a new form. . . Sometimes when there’s more prompts, I feel like there are times when I don’t have anything for that section which doesn’t feel good.”

Overall, our analysis of staff discussions revealed that the design of the form itself was increasingly not seen as a barrier, “it’s fine, it’s what I’m writing that needs adjustment to better capture what is really happening.” Although changes to the form were ultimately not considered important, staff did identify some minor changes as potential supports including the addition of prompts or sections on the form to organize documentation and guide conversations in order to better promote intentionality and specificity in relation to service delivery and outcomes. Some staff felt there was a need to add direct connections to IFSP goals and objectives as illustrated by one who said, “If IFSP outcomes were already listed for each child it would help parents and providers relate back to them more easily.” Regarding documenting details pertaining to caregiver capacity to implement agreed upon strategies, discussions included a desire for written prompts that had language and reference directly relating to caregiver use of strategies between EI visits. For example, one provider shared, “I think it would help to have a section dedicated to parent trial. . .parent reflection. Currently we have questions asking how did it work for the child, but little about how did it work for implementation for the parent.”

Specificity enhanced accountability and teaming practices

Our analysis also illuminated insights as to how documentation was being used by providers and families for accountability and in support of teaming and partnering around documenting practice and progress. A variety of ways in which families and providers came to use documentation in support of practice were described. In one example, a provider shared,

Some of my families will get like this long running list of ‘Well now they’re saying this word and they’re eating this and they’re doing this’ because they know it goes on the form. They get more specific because they know that you’re writing it down and then these are the things that are shared.

Another provider expressed how recording specific details seemed to help parents with accountability,

It kind of leaves parents with like, ‘I said I was going to do this. So now I kind of have to.’ And I think if they see that later and feel, ‘Hey. I accomplished this!’ Then it gives them that like, what is the word. . . Their confidence can be boosted.

Providers also indicated that specificity in documentation appeared to enhance interdisciplinary teaming across professionals. One shared how it helped her more fully engage in joint visits and interdisciplinary practice in general,

I also try to make an effort to read the joint plans before I go on a joint visit with [other providers] so that I can know a little bit of what’s going on. And that’s kind of the expectation of the parents, that we’re sharing through the joint plans. The purpose of the joint plan is to let the rest of the team members know what’s going on.

Another provider discussed how it supported her work as a contributing team member, “It helps you as a team member to be able to look back on those if you’re not the primary provider. So it’s also aiding teaming and the ability to team.”

Additionally, regular team check-ins were perceived to provide accountability among providers and were seen as crucial to continued improvement. Several providers commented that intentionally dedicating meeting times to examination of joint plan documentation maintained their focus on thorough completion of joint plan forms with families. One described,

I do think checking in and holding ourselves accountable is probably what makes you bring it to the forefront again. For a couple of weeks you’ll work on it and then forget again, and then you’re like, ‘that’s right, I’m supposed to be doing that.’

Specificity supports coaching practice, family engagement, and progress monitoring

Providers also found that their focus on specificity in the documentation seemed to support more meaningful coaching conversations with families. For example, one indicated, “. . .it’s the way that you word the questions to the parents. So instead of just having a basic, ‘So how’s this going?’. . .being very specific in what you’re asking exactly.” Another provider added,

I think it can kind of lead to more specific questions and specific strategies coming out. . .that sometimes didn’t come out before. They just would be like, ‘We went to the park and it went really well.’ Great. But what did you do beforehand? Or what did you do during that time that seemed to work?

Several providers mentioned discovering that families were using the joint planning documentation between visits more than they thought previously. This helped providers see how much families valued the documentation. For example, when talking about the written joint plans, one provider shared,

They’ve been saving them. I wouldn’t have thought that they were saving them. . .I never would have thought they were ever looking at them again. But they are looking at them and have referenced them. So I was kind of shocked.

Another provider indicated, “They’d saved all of them and have been able to go back and kind of remind themselves, how much progress they made.” Providers reported that the joint planning documentation was also supportive of family engagement and participation as equal members of the IFSP team.

Further, providers shared that increased specificity in joint planning documentation led to feeling better equipped to document effectiveness of practice and progress over time. During one discussion, a provider shared, “Yeah, we always talked about it with them but then actually writing it, physically writing it on the sheet. . .we just weren’t writing it down.” Another added, “Before I was very vague, and I’m trying to be more concrete and specific about it.” Importantly, providers indicated that they had become more aware of ways in which documentation could be used to track child and family outcomes over time. This was described by one provider as,

I think it’s just my awareness that it’s something important to document. If someone was looking back on these and wanted to know where and how this child had gotten to where they were, that they’d be able to look at who they had the success with and who was helping them facilitate these different things.

When reviewing subsequent joint plan forms, providers also shared that they had more data to track progress. In thinking about how detailed plans can help families reflect on their own progress over time, one provider gave voice to the parent, “Hey. I started here. And now look where I’ve come. And it might not have been fun to do. But hey, I tried it.” The provider went on to say, “So I think that a lot of my parents have looked at that and they’re like, ‘Oh my gosh! Where did I start? Versus now where am I?”

Continuing Challenges: Struggling to Find Balance

Our final theme captured providers’ views of the continuing challenges they faced as they continued their self-study. While staff reported that both increased intentionality and specificity resulted in several positive outcomes related to their practice, documentation, and interactions, they also shared a number of issues that related to finding balance between competing demands. Providers reported that it remained difficult to fully capture all elements of an interactive session in writing, particularly in the context of a busy home or community setting. These persisting challenges included the sentiment that EI sessions did not present sufficient time to document thoroughly. Relatedly, providers also continually expressed concern over deducting time from the session in order to write things down. Finally, providers also said that the focus on documenting caregiver capacity, rather than only child-focused data, presented a philosophical challenge.

Adequately and meaningfully capturing the full experience of a session (e.g., conversations, interactions) without distracting or interrupting the natural pace and flow of interaction within sessions remained a concern. Providers’ indicated they struggled with balance of documenting and interacting within sessions, “So you’re trying recap with them, but it’s hard to capture all that sometimes. And then you still have to get into the actual session. So I feel it’s always a balance.” Another shared, “its difficult balancing getting everything down on paper and taking time with the family.”

Providers also frequently discussed the innate challenges of home visiting (e.g., siblings, family distraction) as barriers. One shared how the structure and realities of a session made it a challenge to capture everything on the form,

I’ve got five minutes, and I’ve got to write two things down and get out the door. You just run out of time. I feel that is difficult too because sometimes it’s very limited, how much you can put on there.

Another added, “I feel like you’re always in such a rush to get it filled out . . . trying to fill out and remember details . . . I feel like some of that stuff is easy to just miss or pass over.” Other providers discussed how even the form itself created distraction, “If I bring out this magical paper and pen they’re all over me . . . the kids are on top of you and grabbing the paper and wanting to color. It’s the reality of what we do.”

Additionally, providers noted that adequately recording both child level skills and caregiver carryover of strategies presented yet another issue of balance. While recording child skills and progress seemed to come naturally, providers expressed that they felt innately conflicted about their ability to discuss and record caregiver capacity without being perceived as judgmental of parental effort and ability. One provider shared,

Because this has kind of really changed the whole, ‘How are we empowering the parent?’ Which we all felt like we have been doing for a very long time. But it’s about putting it on paper, which is not always the easiest thing. At first, I was a little concerned about - is this going to be really awkward, writing down, Mom did whatever?

Providers also discussed the need to change the language they used to record information from sessions in relation to recording caregiver capacity. One indicated,

I feel like the biggest thing for me is verbiage of parents’ participation. I never really wrote that before. And so now that’s the hugest thing and after I would talk about a strategy and even if the parent would have participated, I never would have wrote that. I would always just write the child’s response or whatever. Versus now, it’s like, Mom tried this and then this was his response. Mom said this worked. So I think it was like telling more of the story.

After addressing this aspect of documentation during the self-study, however, later discussions reflected that providers’ comfort increased. In the final focus group, one provider shared that once they began documenting parent actions they found, “It’s not that bad. It’s not that awkward. But at first you’re kind of feeling like, is that a weird thing to write down on the sheet?” While concerns related to how this could potentially affect family-provider relationships were ongoing, providers felt that as this topic became a more commonly discussed aspect of sessions, concerns decreased.

The worry relating to having enough time during sessions for adequate documentation was paramount and was also evident in the survey data from both providers and caregivers. As providers focused on documenting with greater detail and specificity, time became an increasingly discussed challenge. One provider described the impact of being more detailed, “. . .rather than writing some scratch notes. . .now fully documenting is taking more time out of the session. We’re really writing more word for word what parents are saying in real time. That’s my biggest struggle.” In the final focus group, providers were asked what the biggest challenge has been and several replied in chorus, “There’s never enough time,” “The time,” “Time.”

Survey results

The anonymous survey gathered descriptive information about the participants as well as their perceptions of the joint planning process and documentation. As noted, it had a section of five questions that all participants completed as well as 13 and 14 additional questions for caregivers and staff participants respectively.

Results from the five questions that were answered by all participants indicated that both caregivers and staff expressed overall satisfaction with the joint planning process and documentation. When asked whether they considered themselves full and equal participants in the joint planning process the majority of participants responded positively (Combined [84.2%, n = 34]; Caregivers [83.9%; n = 28]; Providers [85.7%; n = 7]). Participants were also asked whether they felt they were full and equal participants in the documentation of joint planning with most answering “strongly agree” or “agree”([Combined [81.6%, n = 34]; Caregivers [81%; n = 28]; Providers [85.7%; n = 7]). Notably, one provider and five caregivers (17.7%; n = 34) indicated they “strongly disagreed” with the statement that they were full or equal participants in the documentation of joint planning. Additionally, one provider and six caregivers responded “strongly disagree” (14.7%, n = 34) or “disagree” (2.9%, n = 34) when asked whether they were a full or equal participant in the joint planning process itself.

Caregiver Sub-Survey Results

The majority of participating caregivers (89.3%) reported that the joint planning process, the conversations within EI sessions, supports them to help their child most of the time (35.7%; n = 10) or always (53.6%; n = 15). Most (82.2%; n = 23) also reported that the joint planning process helped them see changes or progress in their child’s development (Most of the time [42.86%; n = 12]; Always [39.3%; n = 11]). Further, parents indicated the conversations helped them see changes in their own skills related to helping their child (Most of the time [50%; n = 14]; Always [32.1%, n = 9]). Overall, most (62.6%, n = 26) felt the joint planning process strengthened their relationship with EI providers (Strongly agree 42.9% [n = 12]; Agree 50% [n = 14]). Two individuals indicated that it did not.

Caregivers reported using the documentation between visits to a high extent (Most of the time [39.3%; n = 11]; Always [35.7%; n = 10]). The documentation was also seen as helpful in seeing changes in their child’s development (Most of the time [53.6%; n = 15]; Always [25%; n = 7]) and all caregivers said it helped them see changes in their own skills related to helping their children (Never [0%]; Sometimes 21.4% [n = 6]; Most of the time 46.4% [n = 13]; Always 32.1% [n = 9]).

Examination of the narrative responses embedded in the survey supported provider perceptions that caregivers valued having the joint planning conversation documented. Several caregivers reported using the written record between EI sessions to reflect on specific strategies and overall progress or to share information from the visit with others. For example, one indicated, “It’s nice to look back at the paperwork for certain days and know what was going on and what we were trying to work on at that time. . .to see where we started and where we ended.” Another reported that they used the forms for sharing information with others in the child’s life, “I have a good memory so everything they tell me sinks in. But, my family members like to read them!”

Provider Sub-Survey Results

Six (86%; n = 7) of the providers completed the survey. Three providers reported they had worked in EI for 0 to 3 years, two reported an EI career of 8 to 15 years, and one had worked in EI for over 15 years. Two individuals were SLPs, three were early childhood special educators/service coordinators, and one was a PT. While one provider reported having no training pertaining to coaching and the joint planning process prior to the self-study process, the other providers reported a variety of training including independent reading (n = 1), conference sessions (n = 2), and college coursework (n = 2). Most (40%; n = 4) reported participating in multiple trainings specific to coaching.

When asked the extent to which agreed upon strategies from joint planning with parents are captured in joint planning forms, 40% (n = 4) replied “most of the time.” No respondents chose “always.” The choices of “never” and “sometimes” were each selected by one participant. When asked to what extent the joint planning paperwork documents developmental changes in children, 83.33% (n = 5) chose “sometimes” or “most of the time.” One individual indicated “always.” All (100%; n = 6) participants indicated that the joint planning paperwork “sometimes” helped them see changes in caregiver application and use of agreed upon strategies between sessions. The providers felt that the joint planning process strengthened their relationships with families and other caregivers with all indicating they “agreed” (n = 5) or “strongly agreed” (n = 1) with that statement.

The providers shared an overall positive view of the program’s self-study process in open-ended questions. For example, one provider stated they were, “Glad that our program values reflection and continual improvement.” Another highlighted the value that joint planning documentation holds for all participants in the EI process by saying, “I feel that it’s been very useful in documentation of what is happening during and between visits. It helps to keep all team members informed and families have provided ongoing positive feedback regarding the joint planning process.” Relatedly, one provider wrote that she had started to document from the parent perspective to give parents more ownership and to improve carryover and confidence. This illustrates how providers continued to explore ways to engage parents as partners in the documentation of practice.

Discussion

While the caregiver coaching literature includes evidence of provider use of family-centered coaching practices such as joint interaction, information sharing, and conversations with caregivers; there is less evidence of providers using strategies to specifically encourage caregiver reflection and guided practice (Inbar-Furst et al., 2020). This is particularly problematic as the development of effective coaching and embedded intervention practices, seen as critical to quality service delivery (Dunst et al., 2010), depends on increasing our understanding of the experiences of providers and caregivers (Salisbury et al., 2018). In this article, we address the need for descriptive studies focused on specific coaching strategies by shedding light on how one program examined their own practice regarding documentation of one such strategy: joint planning.

Our findings indicate that intentionality and specificity of documentation show potential to help stakeholders fully leverage the power of joint planning to provide meaningful feedback to both caregivers and interventionists. In relation to the research questions, our results detail several ways participants value documentation of joint planning for recording aspects of service delivery including for assessment of child and caregiver outcomes. We also illustrate how providers can enact strategies through self-study to enhance provider and caregiver reflection.

The Power of Self-Study

An important finding is that providers valued the ongoing reflective practice in terms of its potential to improve both their documentation and practice with caregivers. Friedman et al. (2012) indicate that uncertainty about what coaching looks like in practice can make it difficult for providers to identify how to become more effective. Our results show that a reflective self-study process supported providers to reflect on their coaching practice and that they perceived improvement. As the providers engaged in ongoing reflection of the process, logistics, and resulting records, they came to realize the importance of intentionality and specificity in ensuring resulting documentation was valuable and meaningful for all stakeholders. Additionally, providers reported that they believed the quality and efficacy of their practice also improved as the intentionality and specificity in documentation increased. For example, providers reported having more meaningful conversations with caregivers and asking more intentional and specific questions as well as capturing more specificity. Asking general and specific questions as well as modeling reflection, as was supported by these deeper conversations, are recommended strategies for enhancing caregiver reflection in coaching (Inbar-Furst et al., 2020).

Co-Construction of Documentation Can Have Bidirectional Positive Impacts

A reciprocal relationship may exist between enacting best practice and documentation of joint planning with bidirectional positive impacts. Findings indicate that the collaborative creation of the joint planning record and the record itself both became additional levels or aspects of intervention by supporting ongoing partnership with families, interdisciplinary teaming across professionals, and assessment. According to Meadan et al. (2018), EI providers reported using joint planning around IFSP goals, caregiver priorities, and short and long term goals at the beginning of and at the end of sessions to determine strategies for caregivers to implement. Yet, it is unclear whether providers linked these discussions to each other over time, to the documentation for sessions, or directly to caregiver capacity to implement agreed upon strategies.

Our findings suggest that increased intentionality and specificity in documentation and practice could enhance the impact of joint planning as an ongoing tool to document progress regarding both child and caregiver skills and support data-based decision making. As providers and caregivers engage in joint planning and co-construct documentation, caregiver and provider learning and skill development can be supported through the resulting reflective process. Interestingly, our results revealed that providers were surprised to learn how much caregivers used and valued the documentation. Historically, notes from EI sessions were used for record keeping and billing purposes. Prior to shifting to a coaching model of service delivery, providers of the partnering Part C program had not shared their actual personal notes from sessions with caregivers. Their surprise at caregiver use of the forms might suggest that while they had begun to share written records from sessions with families in support of a coaching approach to service delivery, provider mindset regarding the purpose and scope of the documentation had not evolved. Attention to how documentation is perceived and used is warranted.

Indeed, potential exists to utilize joint planning documentation to record a wide range of service delivery elements including skill-based child progress, caregiver capacity, and provider implementation of family-centered coaching strategies. Our results suggest that providers viewed longitudinal use of joint planning documentation by EI teams as a significant support to teaming practice as well as progress monitoring of child and family outcomes. Intentional, strategic documentation of joint planning holds power and value to help EI teams achieve a central purpose of EI: building caregiver capacity to promote positive child and family outcomes.

Challenges in Shifting from Documentation of Child to Caregiver Behavior

Our findings also illuminated challenges related to documenting caregiver capacity. Providers found it uncomfortable to record caregiver carryover of intervention strategies between sessions without implying judgment. Yet, caregiver capacity building is central to positive outcomes for children and essential to Part C service delivery goals. Given that parent-implemented interventions are considered effective (Akamoglu & Meadan, 2018) and coaching parents to use them is recommended as an evidence-based practice (Division for Early Childhood, 2014; Lorio et al., 2020), attending to parent or family level outcomes can increase effective implementation of evidence-based interventions (Wainer et al., 2017).

Although providers initially perceived this discomfort as a barrier to capturing an ongoing record of caregiver capacity, participants expressed that this became more natural over time. This suggests that other providers may have a similar experience when documenting elements of caregiver learning, and that continued focus on the change in caregiver capacity is meaningful. An et al. (2019) attest caregiver behaviors are shaped by the environment created from the coaching process. Documenting descriptions of caregiver implementation of agreed upon strategies could provide both caregivers and providers with valuable progress monitoring information and support partnering around assessment practices (Mickelson et al., 2020). Further, ongoing documentation of caregiver practices provided not only a critical means of assessing the efficacy of services but also as a self-reflection tool for the caregivers themselves.

Intentionality Is Central

The format used to record joint planning was seen as less important than the intention behind the documentation. Our results suggest that programs should work together with families to design the format of records to guide and support intentionality while remaining flexible and responsive to the joint planning process. Importantly, participant perceptions indicate that a one-size-fits-all answer should not be the goal. Further, team participation in the process was seen as central to continued best practice and meaningful use of the information gathered during intervention visits. Regular review of joint planning documentation among EI providers was also viewed as supportive to accountability, ensuring sustained intentionality and specificity of documentation, and the production of documentation that is valued and useful to all members of the EI team, including the family.

Participants also consistently discussed challenges related to the allotment of time within the EI session for the written record. However, participants reflected that an intentional focus during joint planning can assist in balancing time by focusing documentation on the most salient and important aspects of joint planning conversations.

Implications for Pre-Service Preparation and Professional Development

EI providers are in need of professional development to effectively coach caregivers to use interventions (Meadan et al., 2020). Importantly, our results indicate that providers were initially uncomfortable recording details as to caregiver behavior, but that over time, comfort increased. This suggests that preparation and professional development should also attend to this aspect of caregiver coaching. Caregivers have been reported to perceive collaborative decision making, feeling supported, and working together within natural environments as key to building their own knowledge and skills (Salisbury et al., 2018). Our findings suggest that providers of professional development and pre-service preparation for the EI workforce should consider ways in which to foster a mindset of intentionality and specificity around documentation of practice in partnership with families. Such a mindset, if cultivated, could enhance not only documentation but the practice of both seasoned and novice providers. Parent educators and family advocates can also consider how to translate these findings in ways that strengthen family self-advocacy and participation in EI services.

Limitations

This study centered on one particular Part C EI program. Therefore, our findings illuminate only a partial picture of joint planning and documentation within EI and may not represent the experiences of providers and families engaged in other programs. Future studies are needed to address a wider array of perspectives from other programs, regions, and populations. However, others may extrapolate transferability of findings to their specific context.

Importantly, the use of PAR methodology allowed for the program and its self-study process to steer the investigation as opposed to being driven by an outside researcher. Generalizability was not the goal. Rather, the purpose of PAR is to enable action on the part of participants in order to improve their unique circumstance (Baum et al., 2006). PAR methodology required careful attention to researcher reflexivity and power relationships and we made continual efforts to deliberately share power between the researchers and the researched. Examples of our efforts included: (a) embedding frequent discussions related to the study to ongoing program meetings, (b) continual lines of communication between all providers and both authors, (c) equal participation in study activities for the second author and providers as the second author reviewed her own direct service documentation and practice alongside the other providers, and (d) attending to and nurturing the preexisting relationships between both authors and the providers. Throughout the study, we gave program staff voice and power to guide the work to ensure reciprocal benefit.

However, the relation between researcher and participants is not fully resolved simply by adopting a participatory action orientation. While the PAR approach allowed for full and equal engagement throughout the research endeavor for the lead author, the program coordinator, and staff, researcher bias still must be addressed. The second author fills a supervisory role in the program which may have led to bias in her interpretation and/or influence as to what staff did or did not divulge throughout the study. The first author, as a former early interventionist herself, also brought personal perspectives to the work. Careful attention to researcher reflexivity was a constant throughout data collection and most poignantly, data analysis. In particular, issues of personal perspective and reflexivity were a major part of the consensus coding conversations between the authors. For example, the researchers engaged in collaborative reflection on interpretations in light of reviews of data, meeting notes, and analytic memos (Saldaña, 2016). Discussions included analysis of our own experiences as providers and assumptions about joint planning and documentation. For example, our attention to reflexivity supported our ability look beyond the second author’s initial administrative perception of a need to revise the form itself as it allowed for the realization that providers became aware that the physical form was not of consequence. We also engaged in formal and informal member checking with the other program staff. The second author continually revisited this in day to day interactions with program participants including through semi-formal check-ins during program-wide meetings. The first author conducted formal first and second level member checks (Brantlinger et al., 2005) with program participants by sharing transcripts and initial findings and inviting participants to share additional or clarifying information.

Still, not all voices had equal power. While we included survey data reflective of parents’ and caregivers’ perceptions of joint planning, the voice of parents is significantly limited in this study. Further, we focused on home visiting with parents and caregivers limiting results to that context. The voice of child care professionals as important stakeholders in EI service delivery is missing. The small number of provider participants also might limit the anonymity of the survey. To mitigate this, the responses to each question were analyzed in isolation from other questions.

Further, due to the focus on participant perceptions, limitations also exist related to data sources. While the written records used to document joint planning were reviewed by staff participants and the second author throughout the self-study, they were not used as a formal data source. As reported by Salisbury et al. (2012), agreement between observed provider use of coaching strategies and what they report using varies. Therefore, results pertain to participant perceptions, not direct observations of practice.

Implications for Research

As indicated previously, we sought to contribute to the currently limited literature on descriptions of coaching strategies and processes (Lorio et al., 2020; Movahedazarhouligh, 2021). Romano and Schnurr (2020) describe a persistent research-to-practice gap regarding capacity-building coaching approaches and propose several recommendations for research. While we enact several of those recommendations by: (a) partnering with current EI providers in the research process, (b) centering of our study in a real-life EI program, (c) focusing on interdisciplinary services, (d) inclusion of families, and (e) gathering information as to the social validity of joint planning documentation, more implementation of these recommendations, and others, is needed.

Our findings also illuminate the need to further investigate logistical, practical, and philosophical aspects of joint planning and related documentation to identify strategies and guidance for programs. While the participants in this study focused less on the particular format of the documentation produced during joint planning, inquiry into various formats for documentation (e.g., hard copy, audio, video, virtual, electronic applications caregiver-produced documentation) would also be of interest. To fully investigate the potential for joint planning documentation to capture data that can be used for various purposes, research should build upon this study by including observational data such as observations of EI joint planning sessions coupled with content analysis of actual joint planning documentation. Such research could also potentially help investigate how joint planning documentation could support fidelity of evidence-based practices by providers as well as caregivers.

While we provide a rich description of how one program approaches one coaching strategy, joint planning, the literature continues to be deficient of studies examining the perspectives or experiences of both caregivers and providers involved in the same EI sessions, that focus on a specific set of practices, or those that focus on parent perceptions of effectiveness of strategies or what they need to increase their capacity to implement strategies (Akamoglu & Meadan, 2018; Salisbury et al., 2018). The lack of description of coaching characteristics and processes may contribute to confusion as to what constitutes coaching, how coaching practices should be implemented, and the educational experiences needed to coach caregivers with fidelity (Salisbury et al., 2018). Importantly, the lack of explicit descriptions of intentional coaching strategies and processes complicates the creation of an evidence base (Lorio et al., 2020). The field would benefit from additional descriptions of the process and documentation of joint planning, as well as other coaching strategies, across contexts and from a wide array of perspectives, programs, providers, families, and other stakeholders.

In sum, joint planning documentation has the potential to make meaningful contributions to EI service delivery when providers are intentional and strategic about recording their joint planning process with families. Relatedly, joint planning documentation holds promise as a rich source of data that could be used to continually improve practice as well as to inform data-based decision making and progress monitoring around child and caregiver outcomes. Specifically, providers can strategically leverage joint planning documentation to collect and analyze data in pursuit of promoting caregiver capacity, a central goal of Part C early intervention.