Perceptions Regarding the IFSP Process in a Statewide Interagency Service Coordination Program

Abstract

Development of an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) for children receiving Part H services is an integral part of North Carolina's interagency Child Service Coordination Program. Perceptions of the IFSP process were assessed in a statewide survey of child service coordinators. Divergent viewpoints about the usefulness and process of devel-oping the IFSP emerged, depending on the program with which the child service coordinator worked. These findings have implications for training professionals about the IFSP process in the context of strengthening the implementation of interagency, comprehensive service coordination programs.

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

“…Filla, Wolery, & Anthony, 1999;Strain, 1999;Warren, 1998). For example, studies have suggested that IFSPs still stress child outcomes to the exclusion of more broad-based family mediated outcomes and support strategies (Boone, McBride, Swann, Moore, & Drew, 1998;Bruder, Staff, & McMurrer-Kaminer, 1997;Farel, Shackelford, & Hurth, 1997;Summers et al, 1990); studies have also shown that service providers struggle with the delivery of services that include families (Filer & Mahoney, 1996;McBride & Peterson, 1997;McWilliam et al, 1995;McWilliam, Tocci, & Harbin, 1998). Additionally, both providers and researchers struggle with whether parent education and intervention on parent-infant interaction is encompassed within a family-centered framework (Mahoney et al, 1999;McCollum, 1999), whether early intervention should be child-centered or family-centered (Able- Boone, 1996, Beckman, Frank, & Newcomb, 1996, and whether the emphasis in early intervention should be relationship focused (Kelly & Barnard, 1999).…”

Collaborative services for infants and toddlers with disabilities: perspectives from professionals in an urban setting

“…Due to the multiple roles EHS staff play and need to assume, they need sufficient training and supervision with the IFSP process. Interdisciplinary and interagency training with EI staff together should be provided to ensure the implementation of Part C services for all young children who are served by multiple programs (Farel et al, 1997). For example, training and support provided to EHS staff working with EI by infant specialists from their regional Disabilities Services Quality Improvement Center helped service providers from EI and EHS to network and to brainstorm solutions to the problems they faced.…”

“…This study also provided evidence that scheduling difficulties, getting everyone 308 C. Zhang et al together and the use of at least two sets of documents for goal-setting across programs were the major challenges in coordinating services for dually enrolled children and families. As a result, lack of communication, inadequate information and confusion in the IFSP process often occur (Farel et al, 1997). Informal and formal structures need to be developed to facilitate staff awareness and understanding of the programs or agencies involved (Summers et al, 2001).…”

“…When EHS and EI serve children and families dually enrolled in the systems, a clear understanding of each other's program eligibility for services, services provided to families, policy guidelines is critical in order to create the compatibility of process and documentation required by the different agencies involved. Simply adding the Part C requirements to other programs will not resolve the conflicts related to interagency coordination (Farel et al, 1997). Measures must be taken to ensure compatibility by integrating other agency procedural policy and documentation requirements.…”

“…Other administrative supports may include staff development in collaboration and team logistics, the size of caseloads, and supports provided by administrators to staff (Dinnebeil et al, 2000). Organizational barriers such as difficulties in scheduling across programs (for example, Farel et al, 1997), staff turnover, competition for resources or 'turfism', unclear definitions of responsibilities and/or goals, confidentiality policies and caseload size can also impede collaboration (Farel et al, 1997).…”