Early Intervention Work Group 

*******************************

Introduction:

I have been the ILOTA representative on the state of Illinois Early Intervention Service Provision work group.  The work group was convened in May 2011 at the request of the Part C Coordinator and the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention.  The purpose of the work group is to:

1. Examine and investigate current approaches to Early Intervention  (EI) service delivery that facilitate teaming and communication
2.  Develop and present recommendations for adopting a model of service provision for Early Intervention in Illinois
3. Develop specific steps to implement the recommended service delivery approach that includes a timeline for a phased in implementation.

For the past 3 ½ years the work group has had monthly meetings either in person or by phone.  During these meetings we have reviewed the entire EI process from intake through transition when the children are no longer in the program.  During this review we have identified strengths and needs of each step.  We are now developing specific recommendations which will be presented to the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention within the next few months. 

For further information please refer to the interview below.

Christy Morrison

[email protected]

The interview below was conducted by representatives from the Illinois Developmental Therapy Association (IDTA) in 2013 and was shared with me (Christy Morrison) so that ILOTA members would have access to the information.  Small changes were made to responses when the work of the work group has advanced beyond what was stated during the 2013 interview. 

INTERVIEW ABOUT THE EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICE DELIVERY WORK GROUP WITH WORK GROUP CO-CHAIRS CHELSEA GUILLEN AND THERESE WEHMAN

Chelsea currently works as the EI Ombudsman which supports the Illinois EI Program's Program Integrity Project to accomplish Statewide program equality in the delivery of EI Services in Illinois; ensure compliance with state and federal laws and Early Intervention principles, including fidelity to the developmental model of service delivery which maintains that the primary goal of early intervention is to support families in promoting their child's optimal development and to facilitate the child's participation in family and community activities; long-term stability for the EI System; the utilization of high quality state and local data systems to collect valid data for use in improving delivery of EI services; and expand the EI System's ability to ensure that eligible children and families receive resources, services and supports that help them in maximizing their child's development, while also respecting the diversity of families and communities . 

Therese is currently the early childhood special education program director at Elmhurst College. She received her Ph.D. in child development from the Erikson Institute of Loyola University Chicago. She also holds advanced degrees, and Illinois teaching certification, in educational administration, elementary education, early childhood education, and special education. Dr. Wehman specializes in young children with disabilities from birth to age six, early childhood program administration, organizational development, and team building. Her research interests include early intervention system change, partnerships between parents and professionals, professional leadership development, and international service learning work in South Africa with young children. She has extensive experience designing and administering intervention programs for young children with special needs and their families, in both the public schools and not-for-profit organizations.

1.  Why was the service delivery workgroup formed and what is the charge you were given?

The service delivery workgroup was formed at the request of the Part C Coordinator and IICEI (Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention) Chairperson. Which had stemmed from a workgroup prior to us that was looking at service delays.  A product of that group had been a paper that described an integrated service approach. Our intent was to continue the work of the service delay workgroup so as to think about how we might integrate services better across the statewide system. In addition, there had been a recommendation from the EI taskforce that requested a comprehensive review of our service delivery system. It was the intent that this workgroup to address both of those recommendations. The lead agency then gave the Service Delivery Approach Workgroup the following charges:

• To examine and investigate current approaches to the Early Intervention service delivery that facilitate teaming and communication,
• To develop and present recommendations for adopting a service delivery approach for early intervention services in Illinois and
• To design specific steps needed to implement the recommended service delivery approach for early intervention services in Illinois that includes a timeline for a phased in implementation. 

 2. Who makes up the service delivery workgroup, what are their backgrounds and how were they chosen?  

The service delivery workgroup is composed of diverse individuals who make up a range of stakeholders in the early intervention system which includes parents, providers, CFC personnel and advocates.  Their backgrounds vary based on the groups they represent. Members of the service delivery workgroup were chosen in a variety of ways.  The lead agency recommended what types of members needed to be on the group. For example, we needed representatives from the 4 associations (IDTA, ILOTA, IPTA and ISHA). Members were then appointed by the group they represent or have been volunteers.  It was also important to have individuals from all regions of Illinois participate.   

3. How often does the workgroup meet? The workgroup is scheduled to meet on a monthly basis. 

Our initial meeting was a face to face meeting. At that meeting the group decided that we would alternate between a face to face meeting followed by two conference calls and then another face to face meeting.   The face to face meetings themselves alternated in location between a northern site and a southern site.  The group later decided that the face to face meetings were so much more beneficial allowing us to move through the content more effectively that the group decided to move to a format of alternating between one face to face meeting and one conference call. The group has only missed two months since May of 2011.  During 2014 the group began to have only face to face meetings.  Meetings are scheduled monthly.  

4. What is the workgroup’s current process for achieving the charge it was given and where are they in that process? 

The workgroup began by reviewing systems change in other states and reviewing literature about recommended practices.   However, no state matched our exact needs.   Next, they shifted to reviewing the various parts of EI process (i.e. intake, evaluation/assessment, IFSP development, IFSP implementation, transition) and identifying potential challenges within our current process.  The group also used the EI procedure manual and parent handbook as guidelines as well as used DEC recommended practices to form vision items for addressing the identified challenges.  The workgroup has finished reviewing each part of the EI process.  They are currently in the process of developing specific recommendations and identifying implementation steps for each part of the process. 

5. How long do you envision this process to take? 

We are unsure how long this process will take.  The workgroup began in May of 2011.  Part of the difficulty in looking at how long it will take for this work to be completed is because as we have begun to look at how services are delivered it has to be predicated on things that precede that, such as how children come into the system. As we look at these individual pieces of the system we realize how integrated everything truly is and how each part of the process impacts everything else. So the group is trying to do a real comprehensive review of the various parts of the system and sometimes moving through that work takes some time. The group feels it is important to have a variety of perspectives, opinions and geographical representation in those perspectives when looking at a statewide implementation plan. We have recently switched to only  face-to-face meetings to advance the process more steadily.   

6. What have you found most challenging with respect to the charge the service delivery workgroup was given? 

We have found that the broadness of the charge is the most challenging. Taking into account how all these various pieces of the system really need to work together and considering how to plan for implementation in such a large system. Also, it is important to consider as we are thinking about change that we are talking about imbedding a philosophy of care that is consistent across disciplines, practices and our early intervention community and we must then consider how we bridge the gap between philosophy and practice. 

 7. What have you found most beneficial in the work that the workgroup has begun?

 The work we have done so far has uncovered many longstanding issues and concerns that have been brought to the lead agency’s attention. By uncovering these issues and concerns, we are now able to have many varying perspectives on how to improve on these challenges and have developed an improved understanding of why they exist and/or persist. 

• 8. Are there any things that the workgroup has currently identified as immediate areas of need in our current service delivery model and if so have any suggestions been made in which action can be taken immediately? 

There are parts that have been identified that were implemented in response to changes in the Part C regulations.   The other areas we have identified will need to go through the entire workgroup process before any changes can occur. This process includes the workgroup presenting the pieces that we were charged with to the Council.  The Council will then recommend things to the Bureau of Early Intervention. The Bureau then decides which recommendations to implement and the timeline for their implementation.

9. How would the general provider within early intervention make a comment and/or suggestion about our current service delivery model? 

In terms of the general public learning about what the group is currently doing, Therese and Chelsea provide updates at every Council meeting and this is a great way for them to become informed on a regular basis. In terms of the general providers providing input, there are a couple ways for them to do this.  They are free to contact us directly via email with any comments or suggestions they would like for us to take back to the workgroup. Also every stakeholder has a representative on the workgroup who represents their interests and they could contact them. So for the ILOTA, as an example if OTs have issues, questions or concerns, they should contact Christy Morrison through the ILOTA website and she could bring those to the table.

10. What do you envision the final result/outcome of the efforts put forth by the workgroup to be?

The ultimate goal of this workgroup is to implement an early intervention system in Illinois that is family-centered and integrated in its service delivery approach.  We hope that our well researched recommendations to the Illinois Interagency Council will be considered and approved by the Bureau.  

 *For further questions or comments, you can contact Chelsea Guillen at [email protected] Therese Wehman at [email protected] or Christy Morrison at [email protected]