Draught has plagued the eastern seaboard of the country through the winter and into spring. Ponds and reservoirs are at their lowest ebb; year-round streams run at a trickle. Threats of water restrictions are soon to become reality in many localities.

Similarly, with the economy in a downturn, a draught of resources has severely curtailed human services, affecting early intervention as well. A recovery in the nation's economy will be slow at best, forcing states to project budget shortfalls for years to come. Only the most essential (or if I were to be cynical, the most politically expedient) services will survive in the short term. Of course, this writer and presumably most readers of Infants and Young Children consider early intervention to be essential. The question is whether it will be politically expedient to maintain funding.

I have always been a bit skeptical of individual appeals to legislators, in competition to professional lobbyists. During the recent legislative session in Virginia, which ended in early March, funding of local support services to children and family was removed from the state budget proposal. The coordinators of the various service programs, bound together in an organization called "Partnerships for Families," mounted a letter-writing campaign to state representatives and senators. They made it fairly painless by providing sample letters with the appropriate references to the relevant appropriation bills being debated and fax numbers/email addresses of key legislators.

To my surprise the funding was restored in the current versions of the bills and survived the final days of pitched battles in Richmond. No doubt, similar scenarios occurred around the country, provided there were leaders to rally support.

Activist parents of children with disabilities understand the clout constituents can have with their representatives in government, both individually and when they band together with others of similar passion. We in the professional field tend to underestimate the power that our voices can have. In a busy day, contacting a politician, either directly by phone or indirectly through a letter or email, seems daunting and time-consuming. It is both, but not formidably either one. Legislators, both state and federal, typically respond with appreciation and a detailed explanation why they voted the way they did. After all, they do want our votes in the next election.

Both draughts will pass in time. However, in difficult times we must ensure that the priority of support for children at risk and their families be maintained. With persistent and forceful reminders, legislators and government officials are generally sympathetic. A substantial infrastructure for early intervention has been built over the past decade. If this system is disassembled or weakened substantially, it may take many years to rebuild. During the period between active state legislative sessions, it would be wise for us to educate our representatives about the needs of some of their most vulnerable citizens. Ways to do this include a visit to their local offices during a relatively quiet time in the summer or early fall, an invitation to a local interagency coordinating meeting, perhaps even accompanying a service coordinator or therapist on a home visit. Be sure to involve parents in these activities. Their personal stories are always powerful.