A blizzard in New England is not usually an unexpected event. Who would have guessed such an event would turn out to be a disaster for almost 1 million people? The blizzard occurred in October when a late fall resulted on lots of trees still with leaves. The unexpected and unprecedented October blizzard left half the state of Connecticut without power for over a week! And it was cold out. For the first time in history: main roads were closed because of downed power lines; towns had to find and open shelters; cell phone towers lost power, so there was no way to communicate; schools were closed; gas stations could not pump gas; and because many people have well water, there was a shortage of water. It was hard. Even with the country's recent emphasis on disaster preparedness, communities were not prepared.
Persons with disabilities were affected more than most by the power outage. For example, one of our staff members who has a child with a disability is on the power company's list of people with life-sustaining electric medical equipment. She said she received a phone call before the storm saying that their home would be the first to be restored with power. Unfortunately, her street was among the last in the area to get power back. During that time, she and her husband made the decision to leave the state, as her daughter needed power to breathe at night and medicine that needed to be refrigerated. She never learned that her town had a shelter, as the state messages kept referring people to the state website to find shelters (if you could find a place that had power and a computer). And, many of the shelters were unprepared to help people who needed medical equipment to survive. She felt lucky, as they had a car with a full tank of gas and a place to go to ensure her child's safety.
It is easy to dismiss this situation as isolated and rare. However, it gave insight into what happens when there is a lack of infrastructure to depend on. The dictionary defines infrastructure as the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization). Clearly, it was shown that Connecticut did not have a solid infrastructure that could withstand the strong forces of nature.
As we go to press with this issue, 37 states are awaiting word on the status of their Early Learning Challenge Grants. These federal grants will provide unprecedented funding to states to build statewide early childhood education systems. It is hoped that those states that receive these awards will succeed in building a solid foundation of support and services for all young children and families, including those who have disabilities and special needs. As we have learned in our recent natural disaster, a system is only as strong as the foundation on which it is built. Let us hope that the Early Learning Challenge Grants will result in the development of a statewide infrastructure that will withstand whatever challenges the future may bring. Children's lives are too important to not do this right.
CURRENT ISSUE
To begin this issue, Kathleen M. Moxley and colleagues provide an overview of two federal programs: Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act and Part C. Their article presents an overview of the current prevalence of child abuse and neglect, and its impact on child development. They also provide information on early intervention services for children and families involved in the child welfare system and present data that suggest that Part C early intervention services continue to be an underutilized resource for maltreated children. The authors discuss reasons why this may be the case, and they provide recommendations to increase the enrollment of children from child welfare into Part C.
The next article provides an overview of developmental screening measures used to identify young children with developmental delays. Marisa Macy provides a review of the literature on developmental measures, along with in-depth information on 14 different screening tools. These tools were analyzed for evidence on their utility to the field of early childhood intervention, in particular with regard to their quality and effectiveness. She then provides recommendations for the field on the use of screening.
Mollie Friedman and colleagues provide an important contribution to the early childhood intervention literature by operationalizing the constructs of coaching and collaboration when applied to interventions focused on strengthening and supporting caregiver-child interactions. Adult learning is discussed, as is the process that resulted in the development of the definitions of coaching and consultant practices. The article also provides preliminary evidence supporting the use of the coaching and collaborative definitions across three different studies. Implications for professional development are provided and discussed.
Valerie E. Boyer and colleagues provide important information about velocardiofacial syndrome (VCFS), which is the most common microdeletion syndrome in children. A number of young children with VCFS are referred for early intervention services, yet very little is written about these children and the developmental challenges they present to their families and to interventionists. The article provides an overview of the early development of children with VCFS, as well as specific intervention principles and strategies to guide service delivery for these children and their families through their early years.
Our last article provides a very useful illustration of a systems change process as experienced by an early childhood intervention program. Lydia Moore and colleagues describe an early intervention team's transition from a multidisciplinary center-based service delivery model to a transdisciplinary, natural environment service delivery model. The article provides us with six lessons learned by the program staff as they moved from a classroom model with staff having defined disciplinary roles into a home-based model. The article concludes with implications of this evolution for personnel preparation, including both professional development and preservice applications.
I thank the reviewers who assisted the authors in this issue through the editorial process. I would also like to highlight the fact that we do again have contributions from the AUCD network and new authors in this issue. Finally, I thank the authors for choosing to submit their work to Infants & Young Children.
-Mary Beth Bruder, PhD
Editor