How Elegibility Determined For Early Intervention Services

Early intervention is the key to setting children with delays and disabilities on a path to long-term success. Yet children of color face barriers to accessing these services.

Early intervention services are funded through a complex alloy of federal, state, and local sources, and are office of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Idea). States have to brand difficult decisions nearly how to fund critical Idea services, including early intervention services, considering Congress vastly underfunds IDEA. This ofttimes results in stricter eligibility requirements and other cost-saving measures that sometimes pb to a decrease in the number of children receiving services.

There are several strategies states tin use to address systemic racial inequities in the wellness and educational activity systems in which early intervention services take place. In this study, we identify the strengths of country approaches and opportunities for increasing equity in providing early on intervention services.

What is early intervention?

Every child from birth to age iii in the U.S. is entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Idea) (IDEA Part C) to support in reaching developmental milestones if they have a developmental delay — that is, if they are meeting milestones more slowly than expected, or if they have a diagnosed status that has a high probability of resulting in a filibuster.

These early intervention (EI) services can have an enormous touch on on a young child's power to acquire and grow by supporting their family in assisting their kid's development and by strengthening concrete, cognitive, communication, adaptive, and social-emotional skills.

These services are provided not only for a child with a developmental delay, but also for the child's family, ensuring that caregivers accept the tools they need to create a salubrious, supportive surround for the whole family.

Funding for IDEA

Federal funding for IDEA is far too low: Congress has ever vastly underfunded these disquisitional services. Early intervention services are function of the Individuals with Disabilities Didactics Human action (IDEA). When it passed Thought, Congress pledged to fund 40% of the actress money needed to provide special teaching services such equally early on intervention services; state and local funding was supposed to cover the rest. However, Congress has yet to fund its promised share of the cost. Even though the number of children receiving services nether IDEA has increased past 25% in the by two decades, federal funding covers only near 15% of this price. ^[one]

What do we know about disinterestedness in early intervention?

Express public data about recipients and potential recipients of early intervention services paints an incomplete picture of the extent of racial and ethnic inequities in access to such services. States are required by the federal authorities to collect, report, and publish some data near children who are found eligible for early intervention services, likewise as recipients of those services, and some of this information is disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender, only is not disaggregated by income level or dual linguistic communication learner condition.^[2]

Children of colour who could benefit from early on intervention evaluation and services oft do not have enough admission to them: Black and Latino children tend to be identified equally eligible for these crucial services later than their White peers, and besides often, neglect to receive the evaluations and services for which they are eligible.

Access to developmental screening is uneven from state to state. A key tool for identifying young children with a developmental filibuster is developmental screening. If a screening tool indicates that a kid may accept a developmental delay, the family is referred for an evaluation to decide whether they are eligible to receive Part C early on intervention services. Zippo TO THREE's Country of Babies Yearbook 2020 found that nationwide, simply 3 out of 10 (31.i%) children ages 9 months through 35 months received a developmental screening during the preceding, pre-pandemic year. ^[iii]

There are disparities in access to developmental screening for families with depression incomes. The 2020 Yearbook plant that babies from not-low-income backgrounds were 26% more probable to take a developmental screening than babies from depression-income backgrounds. These rates varied greatly from state to country.

For families of colour, access is even more than limited. The probability of a child being identified as having a developmental delay and using early intervention services is drastically dissimilar depending on their race and ethnicity. Compared to their White peers with developmental delays,

Blackness and Latino children with developmental delays are 78% less probable to have their need for early intervention services identified;
Blackness children with developmental delays are 78% less likely to receive early intervention services.^[iv]

This racial disparity was particularly pronounced among children qualifying for services based on developmental delays that were more difficult to detect and required observational cess, indicating that in that location are racial inequities in timely admission to screening, attention to potential developmental concerns, and resource within wellness and education systems.

Early on intervention services ready young kids with delays and disabilities and their families on the course for long-term success. Systemic racism in wellness and education systems and insufficient federal funding for IDEA Part C threaten access to these services. Better data can help us measure out equity and ultimately ensure that families of color proceeds access to the high-quality early intervention services they deserve.

▼ SCREENING

What is it?

The first step in assessing developmental delays, typically conducted at regular pediatric visits and sometimes in early on childhood pedagogy settings. Under the Child Find police, states are required to locate and identify any child who may be eligible for early intervention services.

How is it inequitable?

Children of color often take less access to programs in which specialists are trained to use screening tools, such equally high-quality wellness care and early childhood teaching programs, resulting in fewer screening opportunities.

▼ EVALUATION

What is it?

A process to establish whether a child is eligible for early on intervention services nether the IDEA Part C constabulary.

How is it inequitable?

Children of color living in depression-income neighborhoods are less likely to receive evaluations, due to limited admission to developmental screenings; and when they are screened and referred for evaluation, they are less likely to exist tested. This could be due, in office, to the express supply of evaluators in their areas, though more than inquiry is required to determine all contributing factors.

▼ EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

What are they?

Services for families to support children in developing concrete, cognitive, communication, social/emotional, and daily living skills.

How are they inequitable?

Children of colour who are eligible for services are less likely to receive them and more likely to face up challenges while receiving them. This is due to a diverseness of factors, including insufficient outreach and a lack of culturally competent services.

The Touch of COVID-19: A Survey of States

The COVID-19 crisis has fabricated delivering early on intervention services much more challenging and could potentially exacerbate racial inequities in health and education systems. But we can just fix what nosotros can measure out – so it is vital that states collect and report better information.

Just equally schools are working to appropriately accost K-12 students' unfinished learning caused past the pandemic, early intervention systems are focusing on addressing the missed opportunities the pandemic created for immature children and their families. Young children missing these opportunities for early on intervention services are potentially at greater take chances of pregnant developmental and learning delays. By centering disinterestedness, states can identify ways in which they tin can better serve families of young children of color at present and afterwards the pandemic is over.

To find out how states are responding to the pandemic, we sent a survey to all state coordinators of early intervention services in fall 2020, and 29 responded throughout September and October. ^[five] Our survey focused on Black and Latino families, families with limited English proficiency, and families with low incomes, and asked questions nigh referral rates, wait times from referral to evaluation, service rates, and state guidance since the beginning of the pandemic.

Given that traditionally underserved families have faced particular difficulties during the pandemic, we asked coordinators specifically nearly children from Black and Latino families, children from families with express English language proficiency, and children from families with depression incomes.

Hither's what we plant:

Referral Rates

Since the pandemic began, referral rates accept dropped.^[6] Nosotros wanted to know how referral rates had changed for Black and Latino families, families with limited English proficiency, and families with depression incomes, just there was non enough data to determine that nationally, because many states do not collect disaggregated information. While several coordinators noted that this type of data would exist helpful, many noted that their states have neither the data infrastructure, nor the protocols and training in place to collect and clarify it. The 29 survey respondents also reported the following:

Since the pandemic began, referral rates for Black and Latino families and families with limited English language proficiency accept dropped in v states.
Referral rates for families with depression incomes too dropped in 4 states.
However, there was wide variation in the information, and many states did non have data to report:
- 12 states did not have information to written report regarding Blackness and Latino children,
- xiii states did not have data to report on families with express English language proficiency, and
- 15 states did not have data to report on families with depression incomes.

Look Times From Referral to Evaluation

Since the onset of the pandemic, many children have had to wait longer than usual to receive an evaluation and to establish eligibility for early intervention services. Nosotros wanted to know how wait times have changed for Black and Latino families, families with limited English proficiency, and families with low incomes, but at that place was not enough data to determine that nationally. Over again, several coordinators noted that while this blazon of data would exist helpful, their states take neither the information infrastructure nor the protocols and grooming in identify to collect and analyze it. The 29 land coordinators who responded to our survey reported the following:

Ten states have had an overall increase in await times among the pandemic, four reported no significant change, and 2 reported a decrease. ^[7]
Among the five states that had data disaggregated by demographic group, the average number of days betwixt a kid's referral and evaluation increased for Black and Latino families, families with limited English proficiency, and families with low incomes. However, there was wide variation in the data, and 18 states did not have data to written report.

[i] Four states reported that they did non collect this information; 2 reported that they had collected it but not yet analyzed it; and seven did not reply to this survey question.

Early Intervention Service Rates

Since the start of the pandemic, fewer children have received early intervention services. Nosotros wanted to know how service rates have changed for Black and Latino families, families with limited English proficiency, and families with low incomes, just there was not enough information to decide that nationally. Several coordinators noted that while this type of data would be helpful, their states have neither the information infrastructure nor the protocols and preparation in place to collect and clarify it. The 29 state coordinators who responded to our survey reported the following:

Since the pandemic began, overall early intervention service rates take decreased in fifteen states and were higher in ane country.^[8]
Since the pandemic began, early intervention service rates have dropped for Blackness children and children from families with express English proficiency in v states, Latino children in vii states, and children from families with low incomes in 4 states.
Service rates did not modify for Black children in nine states, Latino children in 7 states, children from families with express English proficiency in five states, and children from families with low incomes in iii states.
However, many states did not accept data to report:
- Seven states did not have data to written report regarding Black and Latino children,
- 11 states did not have data to report regarding children from families with limited English proficiency, and
- fourteen states did not have data to report regarding children from families with low incomes. ^[9]

Recommendations

The federal regime is providing states with unprecedented amounts of funding for immature children and families through the American Rescue Programme, and states can apply portions of this funding toward more equitable early intervention services, including $250 one thousand thousand for Thought Part C, $i billion for Head Start/Early Head Start, and $150 million for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Abode Visiting (MIECHV) plan. States should use these funds, combined with pre-existing funding streams, to increase access to equitable early on intervention services for immature children and families. States can besides act in the following means to capitalize on lessons learned and make services more equitable as they address missed opportunities for early on intervention during the pandemic:

Collect and publicly report meliorate data

States should collect and publicly written report early intervention data that is disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, and dual language learner status, and provide the infrastructure to do so seamlessly.

States should link early on intervention, preschool, Thousand-12, and postsecondary data in order to optimize learning outcomes throughout students' education.
States should besides collect and publicly report more data that's specific to Child Find activities and referral processes; having referral and screening counts, disaggregated by geographical region, type of referral or screening setting (e.yard.,medico's office, early care and education center, family member, etc.), family race/ethnicity, income level, and English proficiency status could assistance amend these activities and processes. The U.Southward. Department of Education and Congress require information collection on activities that accept place once a child is institute eligible for services, but information on Child Observe activities prior to eligibility determination should besides be required and disaggregated past race/ ethnicity and income level.
- States should utilise tools like the Part of Special Didactics Programs' (OSEP's) Child Detect Cocky-Assessment to determine whether they are implementing all-time practices related to Kid Find and referral processes for children of colour, and build means to monitor these practices through data collection.
- The Eye for Thought Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy), which is a federally funded technical assistance middle supporting early childhood special education data, published a helpful list of Role C data considerations during the COVID-nineteen crisis, including considerations for data at the system, family, and child levels, and considerations for information drove, analysis, and reporting. States can employ these ideas to ensure they can identify trends that accept occurred during the pandemic in lodge to codify strategies to target pandemic-related challenges.

Promising practices
- Delaware has consolidated its screening system, and then the state can now mensurate screening rates and trends across districts.
- Nebraska'due south Developmental TIPS plan (Tracking Infant Progress Statewide), may be a specialized data system, but it is a useful model for statewide developmental datacollection and tracking. Created collaboratively past the Nebraska Departments of Instruction and Health and Human Services, the system gathers data on infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICU), and monitors their development from the time of NICU enrollment and screening through referral and follow-upward procedures up until children are 3 years old.
- Massachusetts' Pregnancy to Early on Life Longitudinal (PELL) Data Organisation collects data on all children who are screened, evaluated, and referred for Office C services and links it to nascence certificates, hospital records, and a bevy of other data related to prenatal and postnatal wellness. This organization is a collaboration betwixt the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Boston University School of Public Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Give testify-based guidance

States should give Part C coordinators and related agencies clear guidance on conducting virtual Child Find, evaluation and assessment, and Part C service delivery — specially with regard to families without reliable internet and families with limited English proficiency. Country guidance should build on federal guidance and technical assistance resource. Since our survey was conducted, guidance has substantially increased, assuasive for states to be able to share resource and promising practices with 1 some other and to be prepared for future situations in which remote service commitment will exist necessary. Early Childhood Technical Aid Middle, for instance, provides a multitude of guidance on various aspects of remote service delivery.

Promising practice
- Connecticut'south early on intervention agency, for instance, has a webpage that lists several resources on providing services about, and the webpage was bachelor in fall 2020

Learn from vivid spots

States should incorporate successful practices that others have used and conform them to fit their own needs for regular early intervention work going forward.

Promising practices could be gleaned from conferences, webinars, partnerships with professional organizations and higher-education institutions, and/or other professional person development opportunities in which success stories are shared and discussed. States should examine:
- the early intervention experiences of families of color, families with limited English proficiency, and families from low-income backgrounds amidst the pandemic to help determine which supports might be needed as they emerge from the pandemic and in future crises;
- the efficacy of prove-based models used during the pandemic and applications for future use in virtual settings and hereafter crises;
- the validity and efficacy of evaluation and cess tools in virtual settings to make up one's mind how processes could exist improved for virtual application in futurity crises or in general practise; and
- coaching models used during the pandemic to determine which models, and which aspects of various models, were well-nigh constructive when used virtually.

Promising practice
- Five states were already working toward building their early on intervention service chapters before the pandemic hit: California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and West Virginia.

Some state coordinators reported that virtual service delivery provided improve admission to some families, and/or ameliorate family coaching opportunities. States should, therefore, consider incorporating virtual service commitment into their permanent commitment systems. In doing so, states should make abode broadband access more equitable to address the disparities in technological access that state coordinators reported. Before the pandemic, domicile broadband admission was available to 79% of White families, versus only66% of Black families and 61% of Latino families. States should help providers and eligible families in administering and accessing the Emergency Broadband Benefit and other, similar programs where possible. States should also use funding from pandemic relief legislation to provide technology to families who need it. For instance, the American Relief Program includes money for the MIECHV program to provide technology to families who demand it for virtual home visits. States should offer training to families on how to access the net and how to apply various applications and/or other engineering science for virtual home visits. To make digital equity sustainable, states should partner with net providers to brand habitation broadband more accessible and affordable in the long term.

Strengthen Kid Find

Conducting Child Find activities has become more challenging amid the pandemic — particularly so in its early stages — and then states should increment their investment in Child Observe activities in the coming twelvemonth, equally information technology is likely that many children who are eligible for early intervention services have not been identified. Given prior inquiry showing that Black and Latino children are under-identified even in non-pandemic times, states should target funding and innovate strategies for locating and identifying children of color who are potentially eligible. Universal screening is 1 way in which states could potentially reduce racial disparities in Child Observe access.

Promising practices
- 8 states that have been working toward evidence-based comprehensive screening and referral since before the pandemic, and using the Family Connects and Healthy Steps models, are Illinois, California, Maryland, New York, Due north Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas.
- Delaware has consolidated its screening system, making it easier for families and educators to screen and refer children, and is using data to inform screening and referral practices.
- ZERO TO THREE and the National Institute for Children'south Wellness Quality (NICHQ) accept adult a set of recommendations for strengthening developmental screening practices and policies as function of their work on the Early on Childhood Comprehensive Systems Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (ECCS CoIIN):Recommendations on Developmental Screening Follow- up Practices and Policies for Federal, State, and Community Level Stakeholders.

Make "at-take chances" children eligible for Thought Part C services. (four)

Just six states really do then, meaning that many children who would likely benefit greatly from services are not eligible for them and are missing out on of import interventions that would strengthen their development. Including "at-adventure" children in Part C eligibility and investing early in their growth would not but improve their developmental outcomes and mitigate time to come learning and behavioral challenges, but reduce special education costs as these children enter elementary schoolhouse. More than federal funding for IDEA would probable increase the number of states that would include "at-risk" children in Part C eligibility.

Strengthen guidance and policies for reaching families with home languages other than English language

While some states have issued guidance, provided interpreters, and conducted virtual sessions successfully for families with dwelling house languages other than English, several coordinators indicated that there were bereft supports to assistance locate families who were potentially eligible for services, deliver timely evaluations and assessments, and successfully provide services to them. States should consider the challenges that early intervention professionals face and the promising practices they are using while working with these families among the pandemic, evaluate and take stock of country resource for culturally and linguistically competent early intervention practices, and strengthen guidance and policies. States that have collected useful resource and had success should share promising practices and resources with other states.

Prepare for higher mail service-pandemic referral rates, including in preschool and early uncomplicated schoolhouse

Given that referral rates have dropped amid the pandemic, it is likely that referral rates will rising one time young children return to early on babyhood educational activity settings and visit pediatricians more regularly. Higher referral rates are also likely for children who were preschool historic period during the pandemic and are, or soon volition exist, transitioning to kindergarten. In fact, under-identification amid the pandemic could produce a surge of referrals in unproblematic schools in the coming years. What's more, children who were found eligible for services before the pandemic, simply have been unable to regularly access services amid the outbreak, may require additional services in one case in-person programming resumes. States should invest in more early intervention and early childhood special didactics teachers and specialists. Prior to the pandemic, there was already a steady decline in the supply of special education teachers, resulting in higher student-to-teacher ratios in special didactics. Strengthening the special educator pipeline will exist critical as in-person early intervention and early babyhood special education resumes.

States should increase special teaching funding and provide defended funding for special education in preschool.
States should crave that all state-funded preschools apply inclusion-based models that integrate children with and without disabilities and provide professional development for general didactics preschool teachers in inclusion-based practices.
States should provide financial incentives for districts to recruit and increase compensation for special educators working in early babyhood and elementary schools and provide service scholarships and loan forgiveness programs for special education trainees.
States should immediately support Part C and Part B, Section 619 Coordinators through increased funding for strengthening Comprehensive Systems of Personnel Development and other strategies for recruitment and retention of early childhood intervention and early childhood special education personnel.
States should adopt short-term strategies for handling shortages of special education teachers, such as providing training for paraprofessionals and other skilled professionals through Grow Your Ain programs. The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center at the University of Florida offers brusque-term strategies for handling shortages of special education teachers.
States should encourage higher pedagogy institutions to participate in programs that are aimed at increasing the diversity and recruitment of special educators, such as the American Clan of Colleges for Teacher Education'due south (AACTE) Reducing the Shortage of Special Education Teachers Networked Improvement Customs.
States should provide guidance and funding for districts to offering frequent, ongoing, culturally and linguistically competent professional person development to general education teachers on supporting students with developmental delays and disabilities.

Be the Get-go to Know!

Sign Up for Updates from Ed Trust

How can early intervention programs be improved to advance equity?

Early intervention is the cardinal to setting children with delays and disabilities on a path to long-term success. Nonetheless children of color advertizement children from low-income backgrounds face up barriers to accessing these services.

At that place are several strategies states can use to accost systemic racial inequities in the health and education systems in which early on intervention services take place. In this report, we identify the strengths of state approaches and opportunities for increasing disinterestedness in providing early intervention services.

For more than details on these recommendations, download the full report.

Footnotes:

[1] This does not include short-term pandemic-related federal funding for Idea. National Center for Learning Disabilities, "IDEA Full Funding: Why Should Congress Invest in Special Didactics?" https://ncld.org/news/policy-and-advancement/ideafull-funding-why-should-congress-invest-in-special-educational activity/.

[2] U.S. Section of Education, 2020, "42nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Teaching Human action, 2020," https://sites.ed.gov/thought/files/42nd-arc-for-idea.pdf; IDEA Data Center, Oct 2018, "Thought Department 618 Public Reporting Data Chemical element Checklist – Part C," https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-10/IDC_618_Interactive_Part_C_0.pdf.

[3] Goose egg TO Iii, "State of Babies Yearbook 2020," June 2020, https://stateofbabies.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Stateof-Babies-2020-Full-Yearbook-061820.pdf.

[4] Dawn M. Magnusson, Cynthia Due south. Minkovitz, Karen A. Kuhlthau, Tania M. Caballero, and Kamila B. Mistry, "Beliefs Regarding Development and Early on Intervention Among Depression-Income African American and Hispanic Mothers," Pediatrics 140 (5): e20172059 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2059;

Dawn 1000. Magnusson, Mari Palta, Beth McManus, Ruth Due east. Benedict, and Maureen Due south. Durkin, "Capturing Unmet Therapy Need Among Young Children With Developmental Delay Using National Survey Data," Academy of Pediatrics 16 (2): 145-53 (2015), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26183004/; Emily Feinberg, Michael Silverstein, Sara Donahue, and Robin Bliss, "The Impact of Race on Participation in Part C Early Intervention Services," Periodical of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics : JDBP 32, no. 4 (May 2011): 284–291, https://doi.org/ten.1097/DBP.0b013e3182142fbd.

[five] 62 Office C coordinators representing 58 states, territories, and jurisdictions received the survey. The outlying jurisdictions Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau are not eligible to receive Part C funds and therefore were non sent surveys. Due to the anonymity of the survey, we practice not know which coordinators comprise those who responded.

[6] Since March 13, 2020, which is the day the COVID-19 pandemic was alleged a national emergency.

[7] 4 states reported that they did not collect this data; 2 reported that they had nerveless it but not yet analyzed information technology; and seven did not reply to this survey question.

[8] One state had collected this information but non yet analyzed it, and 12 states did not respond to this survey question.

[9] Ane state had nerveless data for each of these child populations and had not yet analyzed it.