Table Of Content

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 469 546 EC 309 246 AUTHOR Harbin, Gloria L.; Bruder, M.; Mazzarella, C.; Gabbard, G.; Reynolds, C. Service Coordination Policies and Models: National Status. TITLE INSTITUTION North Carolina Univ., Chapel Hill. Frank Porter Graham Center. 2001-00-D0 PUB DATE NOTE 34p. PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Agency Cooperation; *Delivery Systems; *Disabilities; Early Childhood Education; *Early Intervention; Individualized Family Service Plans; *Integrated Services; Participant Satisfaction; Policy Formation; Staff Role; *State Programs; State Surveys IDENTIFIERS *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part C ABSTRACT This report discusses the findings of a study that investigated state coordination of early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities. State Part C coordinators participated in a survey that sought their perceptions of values under girding service coordination, approach to service coordination, policies, monitoring, evaluation, funding, and broad organization structure and approach to service delivery in which service coordination is embedded. Results indicate: (1) service coordination models are reported to be working "somewhat" to "slightly more than somewhat"; 17 states are considering (2) changing their service coordination models; (3) all key stakeholders possess positive values that would facilitate effective service coordination; a (4) lack of specificity exists in the lead agencies' policies regarding the description of aspects of the service coordination role; (5) interagency agreements also lack specificity and fail to address key issues such as the use of multiple service coordinators; (6) Individualized .Family Service Plans often fail to include supports and services provided by social services agencies; and (7) on a continuum of coordinated service delivery ranging from very little to a highly collaborative systems, 35 states are using one of the 3 models on the lower end of the continuum. (Contains 21 tables and 12 references.) (CR) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Lc-t Service Coordination Policies ! and Models: National Status Gloria L. Harbin, et al. North Carolina University, Chapel Hill Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY L . TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement CA EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION (:) CENTER (ERIC) C) XeThis document has been reproduced as M received from the person or organization () originating it. Minor changes have been made to W-1 improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position cr policy. BEST COPY AVAILABLE SERVICE COORDINATION POLICIES AND MODELS: NATIONAL STATUS Gloria L. Harbin and Colleagues WHY IS THIS STUDY IMPORTANT? Recognizing that many infants and toddlers with delays, disabilities, or risks need services from multiple people and agencies, both public and private, Congress required that services be coordinated at both the direct service and system levels (IDEA, 1987). To facilitate the coordination of services, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included a provision requiring the appointment of a service coordinator for each eligible child and his or her family. This individual is responsible for assisting the family in coordinating services across agencies and people, in assisting families to obtain the services they need, as well as understanding and exercising their rights. Recent studies (Dinnebeil, Hale & Rule, 1996; Harbin, Mc William, & Gallagher, 2000; Mc William et al., 1995; Roberts, Akers, & Behl, 1996; Wesley, Buysse, & Tyndall, 1997) present evidence that both service providers and families are struggling with the effective implementation of service coordination. In addition, other studies have documented the difficulty in implementing exemplary practices related to service coordination, such as the coordinated development of IFSPS (Bruder, Staff, & McMurrer- Kaminer, 1997; Farel, Shakelford, & Hurth, 1997; Harbin et al., 2000; Mc William et al., 1995; Roberts et al., 1996; Wesley et al., 1997). IDEA requires the provision of service coordination, but does not specify how it should be done. Therefore, state policy makers are free to decide which models of service coordination will be used in their state. Five broad models of service coordination have been identified: 1) Independent and dedicated the role of the service coordinator is dedicated to service coordination only and the agency providing service coordination is independent from service provision; 2) Independent but not dedicated- the agency providing service coordination is independent from service provision, but the service coordinator performs other responsibilities (such as system entry tasks) in addition to service coordination; 3) Dedicated but not independent- the service coordinator provides service coordination only in an agency that also provides intervention services; 4) Blended- the service coordinator also provides developmental intervention; 5) Multi- level blended and dedicated children and families with the most complex service coordination needs are assigned a dedicated service coordinator, while intervention 1 3 service providers carry out service coordination tasks in addition to providing intervention for children and families with less complex needs. Each of these approaches to service coordination has its own underlying assumptions. Despite the service coordination model selected, state policies provide the foundation and direction for how service coordination is implemented. Research studies in other professional areas (Bullock, 1980; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1979), as well as policy studies related to early intervention (Dunst, Trivette, Starnes, Hamby, & Gordon, 1991; Harbin et al., 2000) reveal the crucial link between policy specificity and clarity and the success of implementation. Studies also demonstrate the importance of the values of the policy stakeholders, as well as the values inherent in the policies. (Dunst et al., 1991; Harbin et al., 2000; Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1985). WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY? This study seeks to provide a better understanding of: The perceived values of four important stakeholder groups regarding service coordination. The perceived similarities in the values held by these important groups. The models of service coordination in use The role of the parent in service coordination The level of policy specificity undergirding service coordination The approaches to monitoring and evaluating service coordination The funding of service coordination The general approach to service provision in which service coordination is embedded. HOW WAS THE STUDY CONDUCTED? In order to answer this broader question, several smaller questions must be answered. This section contains a description of the participants and their characteristics, recruitment of the participants, the survey instrument used, and data analysis procedures. 2 4 Who participated in the study? The Part C Coordinator in each of the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories was recruited to participate in the study. Since we were seeking the perceptions of a single individual in each state, we determined that the Part C Coordinators were the most knowledgeable individuals concerning the multiple aspects of service coordination policy within their states, because they are the individuals whose responsibility it is to possess the most complete policy picture of Part C. One hundred percent (100%) of the Part C Coordinators completed and returned the questionnaire for this study. Thus, all states agreed to participate in this study, resulting in a 100% return rate. This report addresses only the responses by the Part C Coordinators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The results of the responses from the Part C Coordinators in the United States territories will be contained in a separate report. What are the Professional Characteristics of State Part C Coordinators? The amount of experience as a Part C Coordinator ranged from 0 years to 13 years, with a mean of 4.5 years and a standard deviation of 3.62. Therefore, some of the Part C Coordinators (N= 14) are new to their job, having been a Part C Coordinator for one year or less; while others (N= 12) have 8 to 13 years of experience. All of these Part C Coordinators have worked in Part C in some position (not necessarily as Part C Coordinators) from 2 to 18 years with a mean of 9.27 years (standard deviation of 3.97). In general, this group of state Part C Coordinators is experienced, with an average of a little more than 18 years experience in working with young children. The professional background of many of the Part C Coordinators is special education (30%) and education (16%). The professional disciplines of other state Part C Coordinators is social work (11%); OT, PT, or Speech Therapy (11%); psychology (11%); administration (5%); and public health (5%). Other backgrounds that are reported by only one of the Part C Coordinators are: government, child development, parent/program management and attorney. What Procedures were used to Obtain the Participation of all State Part C Coordinators? The following steps were taken to recruit participants: 1) the Part C Coordinators Association Officers agreed to be partners in planning and conducting this study; 2) project staff attended a national meeting for Part C Coordinators, explained the purpose 3 5 of the study, and asked for input from Part C Coordinators regarding content of the questions to be included in the instrument, as well as suggestions regarding the mode of distribution (mail, e-mail, fax or phone); 3) the announcement of the study appeared in the Part C Coordinators Newsletter; 4) project staff consulted with the officers of the Part C Coordinators national organization in the development of the survey; and 5) the survey was then sent by both regular mail and email, along with a demographic form and an informed consent form to all Part C Coordinators in all states and U.S. territories. Follow up to non-respondents included the following steps: 1) periodic reminders by e-mail and phone calls; 2) sending a copy of the survey upon request; 3) publishing the names of the states that had returned their surveys on the Part C Coordinator Association listserv. The use of phone reminders by project staff and Principal Investigators resulted in a 100% return rate. What is the Content of the Survey and How was it Developed? The survey instrument collects the perceptions of the Part C Coordinators, with regard to multiple aspects of service coordination. The survey contains a combination of 30 multiple choice and 3 Likert-style questions. Some of the multiple choice questions required respondents to select only one response, while other questions allowed respondents to select multiple relevant answers. The survey questions are grouped into 7 sections: values undergirding service coordination; approach to service coordination; policies; monitoring; evaluation; funding; and broad organizational structure and approach to service delivery in which service coordination is embedded. A copy of the survey can be found in the appendix of this report. The survey items were developed to reflect critical variables identified in studies of service coordination, interagency coordination and policy implementation. The following individuals reviewed early drafts of the survey, making suggestions regarding the clarity of items, as well as items to be added: 1) the officers of the Part C Coordinator's Association (Part C Coordinators in Connecticut, Indiana, and North Carolina) plus the Part C Coordinator in Massachusetts; 2) Sue Mackey-Andrews, who constructed a survey for the Part C Coordinator's Organization that addressed a wide range of topics; and 3) staff of the Service Coordination Research and Training Center, particularly Mary Beth Bruder and Glen Gabbard. 4 6 The survey was piloted with four states: Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts and North Carolina. Each of these states has a different approach to service coordination, thus allowing us to ensure the questions were designed to adequately assess the varied service coordination approaches. Based upon the answers to pilot questions, as well as suggestions regarding revisions and additions to questions, we developed the final survey that is included in the appendix. How were the Survey Data Analyzed? We used descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages) to describe the results of the Part C Coordinators from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, we grouped some conceptually similar items in order to better understand and describe broader types of values and service coordination approaches. What are the Limitations of this Study? This study measures the perceptions of the state Part C Coordinator. Therefore, it is not a direct measure of the variables. Despite the fact that the Part C Coordinators are quite knowledgeable about their states' models, the perceptions of others in their state may differ from those of the Part C Coordinator. What are the Strengths of this Study? The study contains responses from all states, providing a complete national picture. It presents information obtained from, arguably, the most knowledgeable informants in the state. It presents information, for which there are currently no direct measures. WHAT DOES THE STUDY TELL US ABOUT OUR NATION'S APPROACH TO SERVICE COORDINATION? This section contains the findings of the responses from all Part C Coordinators in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The findings are grouped into the following topics: 1) Satisfaction with the way the service coordination model is working; 2) values; 3) service coordination model; 4) policies; 5) monitoring; 6) evaluation; 7) funding; and 8) broad approach to service delivery. 5 7 HOW WELL ARE THE SERVICE COORDINATION MODELS WORKING? State Part C Coordinators were asked to rate how well they thought the service coordination model in their state was working, using a scale with "1"- standing for not at standing for working extremely well. Table 1 presents the all working and "7" responses to this question. The mean level of satisfaction with the way that service coordination is working across the nation is 4.84. Table 1: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE COORDINATION MODEL (Frequencies and Percentages of States) Working Not Working Working All Somewhat Extremely Well At 2 3 6 5 7 4 1 16 3 0 17 3 11 1 (22%) (2%) (6%) (0%) (33%) (31%) (6%) It is striking that 67% (33) of the Part C Coordinators perceived that their service coordination model was working in a somewhat average, or slightly more than average, fashion (ratings of 4 or 5). It is interesting to note as well, that only 20% (N= 1 1 ) think their service coordination model is working fairly well (rating of 6), while only 5.5% (N= 3) perceives their model as working extremely well. ARE STATES CONSIDERING CHANGING THEIR SERVICE COORDINATION MODEL? Despite the number of states (nearly 75%) that indicate some dissatisfaction with how well service coordination is working, only 17 states (33%) are considering, or are currently in the process of, changing the service coordination model in their state. WHAT ARE THE VALUES THAT GUIDE SERVICE COORDINATION NATIONALLY? The values and attitudes of policy developers and implementers have been shown to play an influential role in the contents and implementation of public policy 6 8 (Marshall et al.,1985; Dunst et al., 1991; Trivette, Hanby and Deal ; Harbin et al., 2000). Whether these attitudes and values are consistent or conflicting among stakeholders, their impact is felt. Studies concerning early intervention have reported the importance of "shared values" across stakeholders at the state and local levels (Harbin, Eck land, Gallagher, Clifford, & Place, 1991; Harbin et al., 2000). Consequently, knowledge about key stakeholders' views and values concerning the purpose of service coordination, as well as its organizational strengths and weaknesses, helps to understand the context in which service coordination is implemented. We asked Part C Coordinators to rate how strongly each of four stakeholder groups possessed six broad types of values related to service coordination, which were measured by 17 items. Part C Coordinators provided their perceptions of the values held by: 1) the lead agency; 2) the state Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC); 3) other relevant state agencies; and 4) local providers. They used a 4 point scale on the possession of the values with "1" standing for not at all, "2" a little; "3" some, and "4" a lot. The Part C Coordinators also had the option of selecting a "don't know" response, when they were not sure about the possession of a particular value by a particular group. Did Part C Coordinators Know the Values Possessed by all Four Stakeholder Groups? In general, Part C Coordinators reported that they were most knowledgeable about the values held by the Lead Agency and least knowledgeable about the values held by other relevant agencies. The mean number of "Don't Knows" reported by Part C 5.24; other state agencies Coordinators for each group are: lead agency 1.65; ICC 7.94; and local providers 5.12. How Similar Were the Views Across the Groups? Part C Coordinators across the country indicated through their ratings that the Lead Agencies, nationally, possessed fairly similar values regarding service coordination, as indicated by the standard deviations for each of the 17 items in the Values section of the survey (see Table 2). Twelve of the 17 items in the Values section have a standard deviation of less than 1.0, while the number of standard deviations under 1.0 for the ICC, other agencies and local providers are 3, 1, and 2 respectively. None of the items had a standard deviation over 1.89 for any of the stakeholder groups. 7 The means across the four groups differ on each of the individual Values items (See Table 2). There are values for which the Lead Agency and the ICC are more similar in their views, and yet there are values for which the Lead Agency is more similar to other agencies, and in others, more similar to local providers. A mean of the 17 individual Values items indicates that the lead agency and the ICC are the most similar in the values they hold for service coordination. Although the means differ across groups, the pattern with regard to the most strongly held and the least strongly held values is strikingly similar across groups. For example, among the most strongly held values, all groups are rated highly as seeing that service coordination facilitates better outcomes for children and their families and that resources are more efficiently used when they are integrated. On the other hand, there were two of the values that are reportedly held less frequently across all four groups: 1) agencies participate in service coordination because they don't want to be left out; and 2) competition results in better services. Table 2: Cross Group Comparison of Service Coordination Values MEANS VALUES LOCAL LEAD OTHER ICC AGENCY PROVIDERS AGENCY ENHANCES OUTCOMES 3.02 3.30 Reduces frustration and confusion for families 3.78 3.38 2.94 3.44 3.34 Achieves better outcomes for children and families 3.80 3.00 2.70 3.26 Facilitates community integration 3.70 REDUCES GAPS AND OVERLAPS 2.98 3.30 3.66 Reduces gaps and overlaps 2.71 COMPLIANCE 2.44 2.24 2.48 2.76 Compliance with federal legislation is sufficient SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE 2.83 3.02 3.30 Integrates services into coherent whole 3.69 Fragmented system requires families to be 2.24 2.62 2.54 Dependent 3.10 3.00 3.40 2.96 3.84 Resources more efficient if integrated 2.78 3.33 2.63 3.74 Linchpin 3.13 2.66 2.62 3.42 Can get more resources SERVICE COORDINATION IS LOGICAL, BUT DIFFICULT 2.44 2.82 2.79 2.42 Difficult to get people to do their part 1.19 1.02 1.09 Don't want to be left out 1.15 1.68 1.59 1.38 Want to protect scarce resources 1.80 SERVICE COORDINATION NOT ORGANIZATIONALLY EFFICIENT 2.17 1.94 2.02 1.85 Not organizationally efficient 1.39 1.62 Lead Agency needs to be responsible for all 1.48 1.82 Competition results in high quality services 1.36 1.26 1.29 1.51 Service Coordination is at expense of direct 1.55 1.80 1.30 1.28 Service 8 BEST COPY AURA i LE It