Relationships between Types of Service Coordination

Models and Part C Family Outcomes in Kansas

Vera Lynne Stroup-Rentier& Sarah Walters

Conceptual Framework for Service Coordination Study in Part C

Programs

Kansas: Two Types Of Service Coordination Models

Both models are situated within existing EI programs. This study defined the models as follows: dedicated models included designated large total number of families in Kansas that received services through a dedicated model. By contrast, the blended service coordination model combined roles of service coordinators and primary service providers

Purpose of ResearchThis purpose of this research study was to investigate differences in family outcomes between two types of service coordination models. Our study examined results of parent surveys designed to address Indicator 4: Family Outcomes in the Kansas Part C of IDEA’s Annual Performance Report (APR) for the federal government’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

Research Questions Are there differences between blended and dedicated service

coordination models in helping families meet their children’s needs?

Are there differences between blended and dedicated service coordination models in helping parents find resources and speak out for needs of their children and families?

Are there differences between blended and dedicated service coordination models in giving parents their rights?

Are there differences between blended and dedicated service coordination models helping parents understand their parental rights?

Are there differences between blended and dedicated service coordination models in helping families access their parent rights?

MethodDescription of Participants

The data provided by families of infants and toddlers receiving Part C/EI services between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011 (N =1010) were analyzed in this study. Kansas Infant Toddler Services (KSITS) distributed surveys to 4141 families of children enrolled in EI. Distribution occurred at the time these families were exiting from the program. The return rate for the surveys was approximately 25%.

InstrumentationParent surveys. This research study used parent surveys designed to address Indicator 4, Family Outcomes, in the Kansas Part C of IDEA’s Annual Performance Report (APR) to the federal government’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The Kansas parent survey had eight questions (if the child is exiting Part C services, the survey has nine questions). Five of those eight questions directly corresponded to the five research questions for this study. The survey instructions asked respondents to rate the degree to which the program had helped the family to achieve that outcome, on a scale of 1 to 5. For example, one item on the survey was, in learning to meet my child’s needs, EI services have been (a) very helpful, b) somewhat helpful, (c) neutral, (d) not helpful, and (e) not sure.

Data AnalysisThe five analyses compared the program means of parent surveys based on two types of service coordination. A series of Mann-Whitney Independent Sample U tests determined whether or not there were differences in each of the following research questions

‘

‘

Results

Research Questions Model Mean

Std. Deviati

on

Std. Error Mean

 

U

 

P value

RQ 1: Helping families meet their children’s needs

1 4.5949 .29795 .06352  

132.5

 

.035*2 4.8105 .21073 .07450

RQ 2: Helping parents find resources and speak out for needs of their children and families

1 4.2092 .71314 .15204  

115.0

 

.2192 4.4075 .63109 .22313

RQ 3: Giving parents their rights 1 .9900 .03185 .00679  

87.5

 

.6002 1.0000 0.00000 0.00000

RQ 4: Helping parents understand their parental rights

1 .9900 .03185 .00679  

87.5

 

.6002 1.0000 0.00000 0.00000

RQ 5: Helping families access their parent rights

1 .9660 .06846 .01460  

97.0

 

.6962 .9038 .23446 .082892 .3363 .23305 .08240

Group statistics and

DiscussionResults showed few differences between dedicated and blended service coordination models. This finding is consistent with previous research (Bailey et al., 2005; Hebbeler, Spiker et al., 2007; Summers et al., 2007; Epley, Summers, & Turnbull, 2011), which shows generally high levels of family satisfaction with EI services and family outcomes, regardless of service coordination models.

The only significant differences between dedicated and blended service coordination models were found in families’ ratings of the degree to which they believed the program helped them meet their child’s needs. This finding suggests that families rate a dedicated model (Model 2) as better at ensuring children get needed supports.

Limitations Reliability of the parent survey measure

Respondents may have differed from those who did not respond (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009).

Response rates were lower for families from Latino and African American backgrounds.

The researcher could not engage with families through follow-up questions or carry out observations based on existing data.

Implications for Further Research and Practice

The development of plans in state Part C programs to measure intermediate outcomes (e.g. individual child and family indicators) and long-term measures (e.g. quality of life) will increase the overall quality of Part C programs and ultimately the enhancement of services for children and families in these programs.

With so many programs in Kansas relying on Medicaid for a portion of their Part C funding, there is a need for more research to clarify differences in service coordination models specific to Medicaid eligible families.

A cost/benefit analysis to examine costs of different service coordination models across agencies would be useful in Kansas, so long as these agencies provide service coordination and intervention activities.

Focused Conversation Did anything about the

results surprise you? Why? Why not?

Will you use this data to make future programming decisions? Why? Why not?

What would you like to see as potential next steps?

Additional Discussion and Questions