Local interagency coordinating council (LICC) coordinators from one state were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the implementation of early intervention legislation in their locality. From a larger study addressing many questions, the data reported in this article focus on the impact of early intervention legislation at the local level. Study participants reported positive local impact in the areas of family-centered services and service coordination, improved childfind and referral for services, funding, networking, and developmental outcomes. Negative effects included difficulty in negotiating system bureaucracies, increased paperwork, reduction in “at-risk” services, increased financial responsibility for parents, and budget impacts from nonreimbursable services. Study participants also reported a discrepancy between the vision of the legislation and the reality of local implementation in the areas of comprehensive services, interagency collaboration, and family involvement in system change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldwin, D. S., Jeffries, G. W., Jones, V. H., Thorp, E. K., & Walsh, S. A. (1992). Collaborative systems design for Part H of IDEA. Infants and Young Children, 5(1), 12–20.
2.
Berman, C. (1991). Job satisfaction of Part H coordinators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis.
3.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research.New York: Longman.
4.
Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
5.
Clifford, R. M., Bernier, K. Y., & Harbin, G. L. (1993). Financing Part H services: A state level view.Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Policy Studies Program.
6.
Dokecki, P. R., & Heflinger, C. A. (1989). Strengthening families of young children with handicapping conditions: Mapping backward from the “street-level.” In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation and PL 99–457: Planning for young children with special needs (pp. 59–84). Baltimore: Brookes.
7.
Elmore, R. F. (1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. In W. Williams, R. F. Elmore, J. S. Hall, R. Jung, M. Kirst, S. MacManus, B. J. Narver, R. P. Nathan, & R. K. Yin (Eds.), Studying implementation: Methodological and administrative issues (pp. 18–35). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
8.
Fox, H. B., Freedman, S. A., & Klepper, B. R. (1989). Financing programs for young children with handicaps. In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation and PL 99–457: Planning for young children with special needs (pp. 169–182). Baltimore: Brookes.
9.
Gallagher, J. J. (1989). Implementation of social policy: A policy analysis challenge. In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation and PL 99–457: Planning for young children with special needs (pp. 199–216). Baltimore: Brookes.
10.
Harbin, G. L., Gallagher, J., & Batista, L. (1992). Status of states' progress in implementing Part H of IDEA: Report #4.Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Policy Studies Program.
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, 20 U.S.C. $$ 1400 et seq.
12.
Ingram, H. (1977). Policy implementation through bargaining: The case of federal grants-in-aid. Public Policy, 25(4), 499–526.
13.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy.New York: Russell Sage.
14.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
16.
Mitnick, B. M., & Backoff, R. W. (1984). The incentive relation in implementation. In G. W. Edwards, III (Ed.), Public policy implementation (pp. 59–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schiefflin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.
18.
Odden, A. R. (1991). The evolution of educational policy implementation. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Educational policy implementation (pp. 1–12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
Peterson, N. L. (1991). Interagency collaboration under Part H: The key to comprehensive, multidisciplinary, coordinated infant/toddler intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 89–105.
20.
Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. A. (1981). The implementation of public policy: A framework for analysis. In D. A. Mazmanian & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Effective policy implementation (pp. 3–35). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
21.
Seidel, J. V. (1988). The Ethnograph [Computer software]. Corvallis, OR: Qualis Research Associates.
22.
Swan, W. W., & Morgan, J. L. (1993). Collaborating for comprehensive services for young children and their families: The local interagency coordinating council.Baltimore: Brookes.
23.
Thiele, J. E., & Hamilton, J. L. (1991). Implementing the early childhood formula: Programs under PL 99–457. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 5–12.
24.
Trohanis, P. L. (1989). An introduction to PL 99–457 and national policy agenda for serving young children with special needs and their families. In J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Trohanis, & R. M. Clifford (Eds.), Policy implementation and PL 99–457: Planning for young children with special needs (pp. 1–18). Baltimore: Brookes.
25.
Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Education Review, 47(2), 171–197.
