The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics of Part C programs and how funding has impacted the quality of services for children and families given ongoing budgetary concerns. Perceptions of State Early Intervention Coordinators (EICs) regarding their state Part C systems were obtained through an online survey. Using survey research methods to collect and analyze data, two primary questions were addressed in the current study: (a) What are the general characteristics of Part C programs that may be related to fiscal issues? and (b) What is the perceived impact of funding on the quality of services for children and families? A majority of respondents indicated their state program implements a primary service provider model, relies heavily on medical funding streams such as Medicaid, and is experiencing provider shortages. In addition, respondents commented on quality, trends, and funding of their state Part C programs. The findings of this study provide insight about the general characteristics of Part C programs, along with the perceived impact of funding on Part C services at the national level for policy makers, administrators, professionals, and families.
BlockS. R.RosenbergS. A.Kellar-GuentherY.RobinsonC. C.GoetzeL. (2015). Child and parent characteristics affecting the authorization and expenditure of funds for early intervention services. Journal of Disability Studies, 26, 3-11.
2.
BoyerV. E.ThompsonS. D. (2014). Transdisciplinary model and early intervention: Building collaborative relationships. Young Exceptional Children, 17, 19-32.
3.
BruderM. B. (2005). Service coordination and integration in a developmental systems approach to early intervention. In GuralnickM. (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 29-58). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
4.
Butler-KisberL. (2010). Qualitative inquiry: Thematic, narrative, and arts-informed performed perspectives. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
5.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ColeP.OserC.WalshS. (2011). Building on the foundations of Part C legislation: Beginning the conversation for reauthorization. Zero to Three, 31, 52-59.
7.
DanaherJ. (2011). Part C lead agencies (NECTAC Notes No. 26). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
8.
DerringtonT.SpikerD.HebbelerK.DiefendorfM. (2013). IDEA Part C and Part B 619 state data systems: Current status and future priorities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
9.
Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2016). Part C infant and toddler program federal appropriations and national child count 1987-2015. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/growthcompPartC.pdf
10.
FlorianL. (1995). Part H early intervention program: Legislative history and intent of the law. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 247-262.
HallamR. A.RousB.GroveJ.LoBiancoT. (2009). Level and intensity of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities: The impact of child, family, system, and community-level factors on service provision. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 179-196.
13.
HebbelerK.GreerM.HuttonB. (2011). From then to now: The evolution of Part C. Zero to Three, 31, 4-10.
14.
HebbelerK.SpikerD.KahnL. (2012). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act’s early childhood programs: Powerful vision and pesky details. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 199-207.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
17.
IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. (2008). IDEA Part C early intervention: Over twenty years of making a difference for young children and their families. Retrieved from http://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/2008_Good_News.pdf
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Available from http://idea.ed.gov/
22.
JohnsonL. J.LaMontagneM. J. (1993). Research methods: Using content analysis to examine the verbal or written communication of stakeholders within early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 73-79.
23.
KasprzakC.HurthJ.RooneyR.GoodeS. E.DanaherJ. C.WhaleyK. T.. . . CateD. (2012). States’ accountability and progress in serving young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32, 151-163.
24.
KingG.StrachanD.TuckerM.DuwynB.DesserudS.ShillingtonM. (2009). The application of a transdisciplinary model for early intervention services. Infants & Young Children, 22, 211-223.
25.
RushD. D.SheldenM. L. (2012). Joint visit planning tool when using a primary service provider approach to teaming. CASEtools, 6(2), 1-6.
