The Federal Role in Early Intervention

Abstract

Since 1968, the federal government has played an essential role in establishing and implementing early intervention and preschool services for young children with disabilities and their families. This has been accomplished through a series of laws, regulations, supports, and incentives that collectively have shaped the nature and extent of current practice. I predict that as we enter the new millennium, we will not see new major legislation comparable in impact to IDEA and ADA. There will be a continued shift from federal to state control over decision making about practice. However, pressing national issues will require ongoing federal leadership. This leadership will continue in the form of increased levels of directed research and cooperative agreements based on federal perceptions of national need. Large-scale studies using nationally representative samples of children will provide important information about services and outcomes but will limit field-initiated efforts. A successful federal role will require a continued balance of federal leadership and grass roots initiatives. Hopefully we will see increased collaboration across federal agencies to address issues of mutual national importance. Few would argue that without a strong and persistent federal presence, we would not have a national commitment today concerning early intervention for infants and preschoolers with disabilities and their families. The establishment of Head Start in 1965, marked the first public commitment to the well-being of young children at risk for school failure and set a precedent for federal influence that continues today. Important federal roles have included (a) establishing model demonstration programs (such as the Handicapped Children's Early Education Program, begun in 1968) to show that early intervention programs could work and develop exemplary models and procedures; (b) requiring the enrollment of children with disabilities in Head Start (10% mandate established in 1972; currently about 15 % of all Head Start children have some type of disability); (c) mandating services for preschoolers and providing standards and incentives for services for infants and toddlers (through the passage of P.L. 99-457 in 1986); (d) providing technical assistance to states (through organizations such as the current National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System) to encourage and support state compliance with federal standards and participation in early intervention and preschool services; (e) funding research relevant to early intervention practice; and (f) funding preservice and inservice efforts designed to enhance the qualifications and competence of personnel working in early intervention.During the past 30 years, we have witnessed the virtual birth and coming of age of an entire field of endeavor-the practice of early intervention. Through a combination of mandates, regulations, incentives, and funding initiatives, the federal government has exerted a tremendous influence in making this happen, establishing a system of services a...

Giving Voice to Parents of Young Children with Challenging Behavior

“…Though the findings of this project provided strong theoretical and anecdotal empirical support for the support the provision of comprehensive services and supports at an early age in order to prevent more serious, long-term outcomes, rigorous empirical replications of meaningful outcomes remain in need (Bailey, 2000(Bailey, , 2001Bailey, McWilliam, Darkes, Hebbeler, Simeonsson, Spiker, & Wagner, 1998;Carta, 2002;Guralnick, 2000;Turnbull & Turnbull, 2000). Given the fact that over 200,000 children and families receive Part C early intervention services and supports in the United States (Hebbeler, Spiker, Mallik, Scarborough, & Simeonsson, 2003;U.S.…”

“…Given the fact that children are eligible for the early intervention program until 36 months of age, the duration of enrollment and access to available services is drastically reduced. Though services are available for children between three to five years of age, the model of service delivery and the frequency, intensity, and duration of its services are different and often less individualized (Bailey, 2000;Bredekamp, 1991;Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, & McConnell, 1991;Florida Department of Education, 1998;Guralnick, 2000).…”

U.S. Air Force Families with Young Children Who Have Special Needs

“…As predicted by Bailey (2000), ongoing research focuses less on th e child's IQ or developmental quotient as desirable child-based outcomes, bu t rather on which services provide the needed support to families raising thes e children (e .g., Guralnick, 1997a;Malone et al ., 2000;Wolery & Bailey, 2002) .…”

“…No published research was found that was conducted on the earl y intervention or early childhood special education needs or experiences of mobil e move from one state to another and realize the differences, there is very little time before their child (sic) moves into the Part B service system, and thus th e considerable variation in infant services is not so evident" (Bailey, 2000) . This certainly is not the experience of military families, who move throughout the lif e spans of their children and are acutely aware of service differences in their ne w locations .…”

A Statewide Profile of Early Intervention Services Using the Part C Data System

“…Not surprising, these inherent differences in how states organize and deliver early intervention services are reflected in their Part C data systems. The inconsistencies in states' Part C data systems represent a tremendous obstacle in the creation of a national Part C data base, even though a number of researchers have acknowledged the value of such populationbased data for informing decisions related to improving the quality, intensity, and outcomes of early intervention services (Bailey, 2000;Spiker et al, 2000).…”