Restricting State Part C Eligibility Policy is Associated with Lower Early Intervention Utilization
- 326 Downloads
To examine if state differences in early intervention (EI) utilization can be explained by recent restrictions on EI state eligibility policy. The sample (n = 923), derived from the 2009/10 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, included CSHCN who were ages 0–3 with a developmental delay or disability that affected their function. Multi-level logistic modeling was used to describe state differences in EI utilization and to determine if narrower state eligibility policy explained these differences. EI utilization ranged from 6 to 87 % across states. Having a severe condition (β = 0.99, SE = 0.28) and a usual source of care (β = 0.01, SE = 0.001) was associated with higher odds of utilizing EI. Compared to a diagnosed disability, having a developmental delay (β = −0.61, SE = 0.20) was associated with lower odds of utilizing EI. Living in a state with narrow and narrower state eligibility policy (β = −0.18, SE = 0.06) was significantly associated with lower odds of EI utilization, and this effect was strongest for children with the most severe functional impairments. Significant state variation in EI rates exists that can be explained, in part, by the restrictiveness of state eligibility criteria. Children with the most severe functional impairments appear to be least likely to utilize EI in states with the most restrictive eligibility policies.
KeywordsPart C eligibility policy Early intervention Developmental delay National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs Multilevel modeling
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, to disclose.
- 1.PL 108–446. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Reauthorization 2004. Accessed September 13, 2012 from: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl108-446.pdf.
- 7.Shakelford, J. (2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA. NECTAS Notes, 21, 43–47.Google Scholar
- 8.Infant and Toddlers Association. Part C implementation: State challenges and responses. IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators Association. December, 2009. Accessed September 13, 2012 from: http://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/pdf/09_Annual_Survey_Report-State_Challenges.pdf.
- 9.Percentage of all children (including at risk) under three receiving services (2004). Child count data. IDEA Infant and Toddlers Coordinator’s Association. Accessed September 13, 2012 from: http://www.ideainfanttoddler.org/05_Child_Count_Data_Charts.pdf.
- 10.Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health (2005). 2005–2006 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs.Google Scholar
- 11.Blumberg, S. J., et al. (2008). Design and operation of the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, 2005–2006. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 1, 1–188.Google Scholar
- 12.Subramanian, S. V., Jones K. Multilevel statistical models: Concepts and applications. Boston, MA: Center for Society and Health, Harvard School of Public Health/Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modeling, University of Bristol.Google Scholar