Screening and Monitoring Programs for Children Who are At Risk

1. Screening and Monitoring Programs for Children Who are At Risk National OSEP Early Childhood Conference February 7, 2005 Connecticut - Linda Goodman, Part C Coordinator Idaho - Mary Jones, Part C Coordinator Nevada - Carla Javier, Psychological Developmental Counselor

2. Part C Eligibility Criteriaand Eligible Children Served • Connecticut- moderate eligibility 12/1/03 3,701 (2.96%) No at-risk • Idaho - moderate eligibility 12/1/03 1,490 (2.44%) No at-risk • Nevada - narrow eligibility 12/1/03 930 (.94%) No at-risk

3. Moderate eligibility chosen in 1990 to work towards implementation. ICC was concerned that children would be lost Minor eligibility changes in FY04 concerned lead agency Agency with mission to serve children at-risk for abuse funded to assist children at-risk for delay birth-5. ConnecticutWhy Monitoring?

4. For children found not eligible or who exit prior to 3: ASQ administered by statewide intake office. Low scores prompt call to recommend re-referral to Birth to Three. For children in categories that were formally eligible: Quarterly face-to-face visits by ei professional to informally monitor development and re-evaluate, if needed. ConnecticutWhat do we do?

5. ConnecticutASQ Data

6. Connecticut% of re-referrals eligible

7. ConnecticutFollow-along Data FY04 104 children qualified 7 families declined 38 (37%) were found eligible in FY04 (17) or in FY05 (21) FY05 34 additional children qualified First 6 1 family declined Months 6 (18%) were found eligible so far

8. Screening and Monitoring Programs for Children Who are At RiskIdaho

9. Moderate eligibility set to work towards implementation in 1991. ICC wanted tiered levels, a safety net, for children at risk: tracking and monitoring contracts with Pub. Health Dist. Minor eligibility changes in FY03 led to some previously at-risk to be eligible Addition of ASQ-SE to be sent at two intervals during enrollment in monitoring. Idaho: History

10. Referrals to monitoring from hospitals, doctors, Early Head Start, CFS, WIC, etc. For children found not eligible or who exit prior to 3 ASQs sent by mail with follow up calls if concerns noted during scoring Average return rate of ASQs: 36% IdahoWhat do we do?

11. Idaho ASQ Data

12. ASQ considerations Data on percent previously monitored who become eligible: decreasing Other referral sources increasing and increase in the total numbers identified Concerns: • Return Rate of ASQ’s • Non-readers

13. ASQs, continued Secondary benefits of questionnaires: • Increases parental knowledge of developmental expectations • Age appropriate activity lists are included in each mailing • Provides contact information for self-referral if concerns arise • Linkage with Early Head Start and Parents as Teachers-face to face administration of ASQs

14. Multifaceted Approach to Child Find • Developmental Monitoring needs to be one component of child identification • Community Screening-diverse models Monthly clinics, multi-agency Multi-county Health Futures days Linked with pre-school screening Outreach, examples: • Changing Booths at County Fairs • Exhibits at Malls, Family Fun Days • Regular Program on Spanish Radio

15. STATE OF NEVADA HEALTH DIVISION

16. 2003-merger of two agencies serving 0-3 population into one • Centralized services under state agency leads to teaming • Merged into Health Division tasked with multiple services including early intervention • Developmental Pediatrics • Nutrition • Audiology • Specialty Clinics (metabolic, FAS, genetics, & craniofacial) for birth to 21 • NICU developmental follow-up • Part C early intervention

19. 2004 SaM DATA