Parent-child dyad drives

services

State Agency

[Part C Coordinator]

Family Support

Specialist

IDEA Federal

Laws

Early Intervention

Agency

Community Partners

Informal Supports

Description of Project Drawing on her brief work as an early intervention home visitor, the author scrutinizes the field from an ‘insider’ perspective.

1

Working past conflict & adversity to resilience:

Agency-level case study of early intervention in a rapidly changing world

Robin Lynn Treptow*

Participant-observer data of

direct service work in a North

American Part C early intervention

service (EIS) agency informs best-practice.

Introduction

rtreptow@email.fielding.edu

Family|Parents|Child Conclusions

As a post hoc reflection upon in vivo struggles in today’s early intervention milieu, this study lays groundwork for systemic change.

The purpose of this work is to illustrate how chaos in an early intervention environ damages staff morale—

What does it look like to work from the ground up in early intervention today?

Federal IDEA [Part C]

State Agency [Part C Coordinator]

Early Intervention Agency Board of Directors

Family-Based Services Director

Supervisors—including local Part C Coordinator

Objectives & Goals

Family Support Specialists

This reflective look at the direct service world hints at need to examine the assumptions driving the field.

This reflective work was supported by the author’s concurrent studies in infant & early childhood development. As a post hoc reflection upon struggles in today’s early intervention milieu, the study lays groundwork for systemic change. The author’s hands-on experiences are supplemented by co-workers’ recollections & training protocols.

Study Background

as well as ability to foster optimal child outcomes.

Proposed solution: Parent-child led teams to shape

apt plans, stir up joint effort at every level, & promote neurologically-

rooted reflective practice.

Dynamics: • Poor training, uneven

policy execution, & inequitable

relationship dynamics.

Agencies can reduce worker rigidity —& still meet Federal mandates or state

procedures. Particular attention is given to the remediation effects of reflective practice.

(Heffron & Murch, 2010; Heller & Gilkerson, 2010) •  (Disrupted) “parallel process”

References Heffron, M. C., & Murch, T. (2010). The Reflective Supervisor's as Team Leader and

Group Supervisor. Zero to Three (J), 31(2), 51-58. Gilkerson, L., & Heller, S. S. (Eds.). (2009). A practical guide to reflective supervision.

Zero to Three.

*Acknowledgement to Professor Ira Glovinsky for reflective

support on this proejct

www.fielding.edu/