University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

(USC Thesis Other)

Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS
Perceptions of Accessing Part C Early Intervention Services
Monique S. Rowles
A dissertation submitted to the
faculty of the USC Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2020
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 2

Copyright by Monique S. Rowles 2020
All Rights Reserved

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 3

Abstract
This study applied Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) theoretical framework to
understand perceptions in accessing Part C early intervention services of the Individualized
Disability Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of this study was to highlight the
counternarrative of ethnically marginalized parents’ perceptions to recognize their unique
experience in the Part C early intervention services. The following research question was
investigated to address this purpose: What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and
marginalized families have about accessing Part C early intervention services? The qualitative
method of interviews with three ethnically marginalized parents who have a child with a
developmental delay was used to gain insight on those participants’ perspectives and was
triangulated with the analyses of the child’s Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) to
corroborate and validate access to eligible services. Findings from this study indicate that the
quality of communication was an organizing principle in three participants’ perceptions of
accessing services during the early intervention process. Analyses of the data revealed that when
participants perceived communication as inclusive and supportive, there were perceived benefits
in child development and capacity building to navigate the early intervention system. This study
promoted the counternarratives of ethnically marginalized people who intersect with a dis/ability
to foreground these communities to influence special education systemic change in an effort to
address opportunity gaps and equity.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 4

Acknowledgements
Completing this step in my educational journey was no small feat and took much
guidance and support from many people in my educational, professional, and personal life. First,
thank you to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Artineh Samkian and Dr. Jeanique Wells
for your academic and knowledgeable support in completing this dissertation. Special thanks to
the best dissertation chair, Dr. Paula M. Carbone, for your patience and support all while
challenging me and helping me cultivate and develop my ideas centered around equitable
educational practices. Thank you to my mini cohort within the graduate school cohort, the
“cranberries”, Richard Moore, Danielle Ramirez, Elizabeth Leon, Keely Hafer, and Natalie
Taylor. Natalie big thanks for being my partner in crime in all assignments, nightly text
conversations, and weekend writes that kept me motivated and elevated my engagement in this
process.
Thank you to my professional work family, Cara, Marni, Noemi, Shari, and Rachel to
name a few who encouraged me to start and finish my graduate studies in Educational
Leadership and thank you for your belief in my abilities to impact change in our field.
Thank you to my extensive village of family and friends who continuously give me love
and support. To my friends who took a backseat to socializing with me during this time, but
always checked in on me so I knew I had their support. To my sister and best friend, Dr. JoJo,
who has been there and done that, thank you immensely for coaching me through when my
anxiety took over, offering me respite in a glass when I needed to take a break, and working my
stomach muscles when I needed laughter to push through. Last, but certainly not least, thank you
to my parents who always showed me undying love and encouraged me to always seek out
knowledge, strive for excellence, and live a life of service.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 5

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................. 8
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................ 8
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 14
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 15
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 16
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 17
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 18
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 20
Early Intervention in Special Education ....................................................................... 21
Access to Early Intervention ......................................................................................... 22
Race........................................................................................................................... 23
Parent Perspectives ................................................................................................... 25
Role of Early Intervention Providers ............................................................................ 29
Opportunity Gaps .......................................................................................................... 32
Theoretical Framework: Dis/ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) ............................ 33
Tenet One .................................................................................................................. 35
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 6

Tenet Four ................................................................................................................. 36
Tenet Five ................................................................................................................. 37
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 38
Figure A: Conceptual Model of Access ........................................................................ 39
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................... 42
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 42
Sample and Site Selection ............................................................................................. 43
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 46
Interviews .............................................................................................................. 47
Artifacts................................................................................................................. 49
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 51
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................... 52
Positionality .................................................................................................................. 52
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 53
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................... 55
Context of Setting and Participants............................................................................... 56
Setting ....................................................................................................................... 56
Participants ................................................................................................................ 57
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 7

Findings......................................................................................................................... 60
Theme: Communication............................................................................................ 61
Regional Center Service Coordinators and Service Providers ............................. 61
Provider Strategies ................................................................................................ 69
Indirect Services.................................................................................................... 73
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 81
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................. 82
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................... 85
Recommendations for Research ................................................................................... 87
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 88
References ......................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 104

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 8

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This dissertation discusses the issues of access for early intervention services for
ethnically marginalized families. For this study, access is operationalized as children who have
qualified for early intervention services but are not receiving the same amount of funding for
those services or not receiving the services at all. Historically research has captured statistical
data that informs practice by showing the number of marginalized groups negatively affected by
health care, education, and even, as this study explores, in the area of early intervention services
for birth through toddler age children. These inequities create an imbalance in support and
services for the ethnically marginalized, low-income families, uninsured, and families with
English as a second language (Bailey Jr. et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Harrington &
Kang, 2008; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus, Carle, & Rapport, 2014; Senate Human Services
Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas, Ellis, McLaurin, Daniels,
& Morrissey, 2007). This study explores the perspectives of those who are consistently
marginalized and examines their perceptions of disparities in access. By exploring what
Dis/ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) calls the counternarratives, a perspective that is
historically silenced is examined. The counternarrative offers more insight on solutions to the
problem from the perspective of ethnically marginalized individuals, instead of solely relying on
the view of the master narrative to solve the issues of disparity in Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) early intervention access (Annamma, Conner, & Ferri, 2013).
Background of the Problem
The federal law written on behalf of children with disabilities came about to protect
children with special needs from discriminatory practices within education. However, before the
federal government was involved, states were ruling on court cases brought about by parents of
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 9

children with disabilities who wanted them in regular public schools (Colker, 2013). In 1910,
the White House Conference on Children set a goal to “define and establish remedial programs
for children with disabilities or special needs” (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge Rogers, 1998, p. 221).
Despite this new goal, children with disabilities were still being forced to attend separate
institutions, special segregated classes, being expelled, or encouraged to drop out (Colker, 2013;
Yell et al., 1998). Starting in 1922 and through the 1970s new advocacy groups such as The
National Association for Retarded Citizens, The Council for Exceptional Children, The
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., and
the National Society for Autistic Children, organized to help protect the rights of individuals
with disabilities (Yell et al., 1998). During this time, the issue of racial segregation in schools
was also being challenged in state and federal courts, and the landmark case Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954 banned segregation practices in public schools based on race. This case led to
advocacy groups to use the decision “that if segregation by race was a denial of equal
educational opportunity, then the exclusion of students with disabilities from schools was also a
denial of equal educational opportunity” (Katsiyannis, Yell, & Bradley, 2001, p. 325).
The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 was the first federal law that included
funding for children with specific disabilities to improve education (Colker, 2013; Katsiyannis et
al., 2001; Yell et al., 1998). This Act was later followed by the first federal law to solely address
students with disabilities called the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 (Colker, 2013;
Katsiyannis et al., 2001; Yell et al., 1998). Amendments to this act brought about requirements
to states receiving federal funding to include students with disabilities in all educational
opportunities fully and enacted free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (Katsiyannis et al.,
2001). It was not until 1986 under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 10

of 1975 that P.L. 99-457 the Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Act passed, which created
funding for early intervention programs for children ages birth to 2 years old who had a disability
and also created incentives for states to develop special education preschool programs
(Katsiyannis et al., 2001). This law would continue until EAHCA changed to the IDEA in 1990,
which divided the special education law into four parts, Part A, B, C, and D (Katisyannis et al.,
2001). Part C of this act mandates states provide early intervention services to families who
have children ages birth through two years old who have been diagnosed with a developmental
delay or who are at higher risk of having developmental delays (IDEA, 2004). Birth to three
years old is a critical developmental stage in life that has significant repercussions on a child’s
school readiness skills when entering kindergarten (Maternal Child Health and Education
Research and Data Center, 2003). Developing cognitive, motor, communication, social and
emotional, and adaptive skills early in a child is vital to learning (Jeon et al., 2011). When there
are delays in these areas, a diagnosis of developmental delay is given to a child. IDEA (2004)
was written to help mitigate the long-term risks by providing government support and services to
children and families who are impacted by developmental delays. Under the law, each state is
allowed to determine its eligibility criteria for services (IDEA, 2004).
California defines developmental delay as a diagnosis of intellectual disability, cerebral
palsy, epilepsy, autism, or any other condition that would require a similar treatment or related to
intellectual disability (dds.ca.gov, 2014). To qualify for Part C early intervention services in
California a child would have a developmental delay diagnosis, or show a 33% delay in one or
more of five areas; cognitive, physical, communication, social or emotional, or adaptive
development, or be a child who is “at-risk” due to biomedical factors (dds.ca.gov, 2014).
Biomedical factors include low birth weight, diagnosis at birth of seizures or asphyxia, multiple
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 11

births, or a known condition with recognized harmful developmental consequences (Maternal
Child Health and Education Research and Data Center, 2003). The California Department of
Developmental Services (DDS) contracts with over 21 regional centers across the state to
provide the free early intervention services provided to children who are eligible for Part C. In
2017, the California DDS reported servicing 39,196 children ages birth to two years old (DDS
Technology Service Division, 2018).
Of these children receiving services from California regional centers, there are disparities
in access and funding for children of color. Each regional center is obligated to report data
annually about the children and families they serve (IDEA, 2004). When the Senate Human
Services Committee Oversight Hearing convened in 2017, they found that on average, children
of color received less funding for the purchase of services (POS) than white consumers from
regional centers based in California.
Although the above information cites the issues with the disparity in California,
California is not the only state dealing with access and funding problems in early intervention
services. Studies have cited disparities in access and funding related to race and ethnicity, low-
income, uninsured, military, mother’s educational level, and single-parent homes throughout the
United States (Bailey Jr. et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Jeon
et al., 2011; McManus, Carle, & Rapport, 2014; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight
Hearing, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas, Ellis, McLaurin, Daniels, & Morrissey, 2007)
making this an equity issue that needs to be addressed nationally.
McManus et al. (2012) found in a study using the 2005-2006 National Survey of Children
with Special Health Care Needs that children with developmental delays were more likely to
receive early intervention services if they came from a more affluent family with higher
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 12

education. Thomas et al. (2007) also concluded this finding in a study of North Carolina families
that showed an increase in services for children diagnosed with Autism who came from higher-
income households. Although Rosenberg et al. (2008), in a national longitudinal study did not
conclude a significant difference of access based on income, the study did show that white
children received a higher amount of services at twice the rate of black children.
The disparity associated with race and ethnicity for access is found in several studies
(Bailey et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011;
McManus et al., 2012; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2007). The most impactful studies
about racial disparities in access were completed by Harrington and Kang in 2008 and then
followed up again in 2016. In both studies, Harrington and Kang found that people of color
receive early intervention services less frequently than white populations. Their quantitative
studies that showed these inequities took place in California with data from regional centers and
indicated no change almost ten years later from the first study in 2005 until their second study in
2013.
Despite numerous studies highlighting a need for change in the way early intervention
services should be made accessible to different populations to decrease inequities (Bailey et al.,
2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus et al.,
2012; Perry et al., 2001; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2007; Williams, Perrigo, Banda,
Matic, & Goldfarb, 2013), there continue to be disparities with access and funding. The Senate
Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing (2017) discussed legislative changes that took
place to help decrease the inequities in access and funding based on ethnicity and language.
New bills were introduced in 2013 and 2014 by the California legislature that included giving
copies of paperwork from regional centers to consumers in their native language, having
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 13

linguistically and culturally competent quality assurance tools to assess services, and providing
services that are linguistically and culturally appropriate. Along with the new bills, the Senate
Human Services Committee said that Governor Brown also issued a proclamation in 2015 to
enact permanent and sustainable funding as a focused effort to stabilize state costs (2017).
However, despite the new legislation passed by the governor, disparities persist in California for
Part C early intervention services.
Disparities in access and funding of services based on ethnicity continue to place children
of color at a disadvantage for services and resources that could help close the opportunity gap in
education when they transfer from Part C to Part B preschool services. The Maternal Child
Health and Education Research and Data Center at the University of Florida found that non-
white racial/ethnic background, single marital status, low birth weight, neonatal condition,
congenital anomaly, and less than or equal to high school parent education were all factors
significantly associated with children not being ready to start school (2003). Most of these
factors are considered developmental delays or defined as “at-risk” characteristics that would
qualify a child for Part C early intervention services. Jeon et al. (2011) found that children who
received Part C services were able to close the gap in school readiness skills relative to their
peers who did not have a disability. This finding shows a link between receiving early
intervention services and school readiness preparation. Evidence shows that the children with
the most at-risk characteristics are not receiving the services that could close educational gaps,
but may instead create more inequities by withholding services that may result in a
disproportionately higher rate of ethnically marginalized children in special education services
when they transition to IDEA Part B preschool services.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 14

Statement of the Problem
This study addresses the problem of inequitable access for Part C early intervention
services and the impact that has on children of color. IDEA requires that states offer early
intervention services for developmental delays or “at-risk” children from birth to age three years
old under Part C of the act (2004). Currently, research shows that there is a persistent issue with
overall access to early intervention services for children and families who have developmental
delays (Harrington & Kang, 2016; Perry, Greer, Goldhammer, & Mackey-Andrews, 2001;
Rosenberg, Zhang, & Robinson, 2008). Harrington and Kang (2016) saw a decrease in overall
early intervention in their studies that took place in 2005 and 2013, from 79% of individuals with
a developmental delay receiving paid services from the state regional center to 76%. This
number accounts for children and adults who already have services. However, Rosenberg et al.
(2008) found that only 10% of children birth to 3 years old who qualify for Part C early
intervention services were receiving those services at 24 months old. Moreover, additional
evidence highlights a more significant issue, which is that among those children who do qualify
for early intervention services there is a disparity in access and funding for children of color
(Bailey Jr. et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Jeon et al., 2011;
McManus, Carle, & Rapport, 2014; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing,
2017; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas, Ellis, McLaurin, Daniels, & Morrissey, 2007). The
Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing (2017) found that white consumers
received more purchase of service (POS) funding than non-white consumers from California
regional centers. The average POS for White families receiving service is $18,171, while Black
families received, on average $14,255, and Latino families received the least with an average of
$8,356.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 15

Along with funding issues, access to services is also discussed in several studies
(Harrington & Kang, 2008; Jeon et al., 2011; Rosenberg et al., 2008). The studies that implicate
access to services as a finding concluded that white children, as opposed to other ethnicities, are
more likely to receive Part C early intervention services (Jeon et al., 2011), “black children were
half as likely as were white children to receive services” (Rosneberg et al., 2008, p. e1507), and
geographic areas with Black and Hispanics received services at lower odds (Harrington & Kang,
2008). This problem is critical to address because IDEA (2004) mandates that all children, ages
birth to 3 years old who have and are “at-risk” for a developmental delay, have access to Part C
early intervention services.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to provide information for equitable practice by
highlighting the voices and perceptions of families that suffer from the inequities in special
education, which is supposed to support children who have been identified as having more needs.
The regional center coordinators play a significant role in early intervention decision making. It
is, therefore, necessary to understand their perceptions of these influences and processes, all
while understanding the meaning, for the families in the study, of the situations and experiences
they are involved with or engage in to voice the potential counternarrative. Through the use of
qualitative research methods, this study explores the perceptions of accessing Part C early
intervention services. The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. What are regional center coordinators’ perceptions about families accessing Part C
early intervention services?
2. What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about
accessing Part C early intervention services?
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 16

Due to time constraints and the inability to access a regional center site to conduct research the
first research question was not able to be answered. Further details related to this
methodological change are explained in Chapter 3.
I used Dis/ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) as a theoretical framework, which is the
intersectionality of disability studies and critical race theory. This framework is central to this
study because DisCrit focuses on how practitioners can highlight the inequities in education for
children who are identified as having both a dis/ability and come from a marginalized ethnicity
(Annamma et al., 2013). Furthermore, DisCrit emphasizes the need for marginalized groups to
have a platform to share their voice as a counternarrative to the master narrative that has been
historically represented in education reform and traditional research (Annamma et al., 2013).
This framework is detailed in Chapter 2.
Significance of the Study
The importance of this study was to uncover counternarratives for practitioners and
policymakers to listen to the voices of those being denied access. The quantitative research
shows that there are evident persistent disparities for access based on ethnicity (Bailey Jr. et al.,
2005; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus et al.,
2014; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2008;
Thomas et al., 2007). What the literature most lacks is the qualitative research to gain insight
and perspectives from those who are allowing access and those being denied access. This study
was designed to capture narratives that have the potential to help create dialogue for change in a
system that is failing children who need the most support during the formative years of their
lives.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 17

Limitations and Delimitations
The following limitations and delimitations were identified before conducting the
research. In Chapter 5, there are further explorations of the limitations that were addressed after
the research was completed. Due to time constraints, the sample size will be small and focused
on one regional center. Since each regional center functions independently, the information from
one regional center may not generalize to another regional center. With a limited amount of
time, only three participants from each group will be interviewed, and this number of participants
may impact adequate engagement in data collection that is needed for credibility. The
participants also play a role in the delimitations of the study since there is a specific targeted
population being studied. The parents that will be identified to participate in the study will be
from an ethnically marginalized group since that is the group research isolates as having
disparities in access (Bailey Jr. et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Harrington & Kang,
2008; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus, Carle, & Rapport, 2014; Senate Human Services Committee
Oversight Hearing, 2017; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Thomas, Ellis, McLaurin, Daniels, &
Morrissey, 2007).
Definition of Terms
● Part C: a section of the IDEA (2004) which mandates early intervention services for
birth to two years old for children who have a developmental delay or are at risk for a
developmental delay.
● Part B: a section of the IDEA (2004) that mandates children ages three to five years old
have the right to access a free and appropriate public preschool education if they are
eligible for special education services.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 18

● IFSP: The Individualized Family Service Plan is a written plan that indicates an infant or
toddler requires early intervention services based on being at risk for or having a
developmental delay.
● Developmental Delay: A 33% delay in one or more of the following areas, cognitive,
physical, communication, social or emotional, or adaptive development, or be a child
who is “at-risk” due to biomedical factors (dds.ca.gov, 2014).
● Dis/Ability: this term is used in DisCrit to “1: counter the emphasis on having a whole
person be represented by what he or she cannot do, rather than what he or she can, and 2.
Disrupt notions of the fixity and permanency of the concept of disability, seeking rather
to analyze the entire context in which a person functions” (Connor, Ferri, & Annamma,
2016, p. 1).
● Regional Center: Regional Centers are nonprofit, private corporations funded by the
State of California, Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to provide diagnosis
and assessment of eligibility and help plan, access, coordinate and monitor the services
and supports that are needed because of a developmental disability
(https://westsiderc.org, 2017). There are 21 regional centers in California.
Organization of the Study
The next chapter in this dissertation, Chapter 2, reviews the historical context of special
education services and early intervention, the current literature on access based on race, the
parents’ perspectives, and regional center providers’ perspectives, and define Dis/Crit theory and
how that theory frames the current study. In Chapter 3, a discussion of the methods, participants,
interview protocol, and data analysis is presented. That leads to Chapter 4, which reviews the
results and findings from the data collection and synthesizes themes that were found in the
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 19

interviews. The last chapter of the dissertation, Chapter 5, discusses how the findings can be
used for current practice within early childhood education and intervention practices and a
discussion of issues that may need further research.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This dissertation focuses on the disparities in access for ethnically marginalized families
who are receiving early intervention through Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, 2004). This problem is significant because, at the time of the study, under
the federal special education law, IDEA (2004), children birth through two years old have a right
to receive early intervention services due to at-risk factors or developmental delays. Receiving
early intervention services has been linked to a decrease in need and severity of special education
services and an increase in school readiness skills, which has implications on opportunity gaps in
K-12 public education (Joen et al., 2013; Mattern, 2015; Roberts, Howard, Spittle, Brown,
Anderson, & Doyle, 2007; Twardzik, MacDonald, & Dixon-Ibarra, 2017; Vail, Lieberman-Betz,
& McCorkle, 2018).
The purpose of this study was to gain more in-depth insight into the perceptions
ethnically marginalized families have about accessing early intervention services in juxtaposition
to the regional center coordinators’ perceptions to increase the knowledge for equitable practices
in Part C early intervention.
Two research questions guide this study:
1. What are regional center coordinators’ perceptions about families accessing Part C
early intervention services?
2. What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about
accessing Part C early intervention services?
This chapter starts with an overview of how and why infants and toddlers were included
into special education law, then reviews the current literature regarding disparities in early
intervention services with an emphasis on race, and the gap in research related to parent
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 21

perspectives on early intervention access with people of color. The inequities in access have a
connection to school readiness skills, which lead to a discussion on opportunity gaps for children
of color with a dis/ability. Then dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit) is discussed to help
positively frame the current literature and study by taking note of the perceptions of ethnically
marginalized families who are receiving services from the Part C early intervention special
education system.
Early Intervention in Special Education
The current special education law Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
(2004) that includes Part C, PL 108-446, is an amendment to the earlier law, Education of the
Handicapped Act of 1986 (EHA). EHA implemented early intervention services aimed at
children birth through age two years old in 1986 with the establishment of Public Law 99-457.
PL 99-457 established that the federal government would offer financial assistance to states that
developed and implemented multidisciplinary interagency early intervention programs for
infants and toddlers (Meisels, 1989). Early intervention has been defined as “any sustained and
systematic effort to assist young, disabled, and developmentally vulnerable children” (p. 451)
and their families through services provided by a multidisciplinary team coordinated by a case
manager through the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) (Meisels, 1989).
The impetus for PL 99-457 was the research that showed children have the capacity to
learn, and it is not fixed at birth due to genetic or environmental factors (Meisels, 1989).
Meaning children born with hearing loss, blindness, down syndrome, cerebral palsy, or other
medical conditions or children who are born into poverty, exposed to lead, in foster care, paternal
mental illness, or other environmental factors have the potential for educational success when
mitigated through early intervention. The law was established to minimize the potential for
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 22

future developmental delays, reduce the cost to schools and society by decreasing the need for
special education services once children reach school age, and increase the capacity of families
and children who are determined to have a developmental delay (Meisels, 1989; Woody, Woody,
& Greenberg, 1991).
The significant difference established with this section of the law was the requirement of
family-centered services. Previously, special education law only pertained to school-age
children, which resulted in a child-focused practice within a school setting. The change to
include birth to three-year-old children now emphasized family participation and training to meet
the developmental needs of the children found eligible for services. Adding the component of
family-centered services in a child’s natural environment has set strict standards for early
intervention service programs to follow. These standards are implicated as some of the reasons
for current disparities in access to Part C early intervention services.
Access to Early Intervention
Early intervention services can be initiated with children in several ways, depending on
the developmental delay. Children diagnosed at birth with a developmental delay are referred
for services to an early intervention provider by the medical professionals working with the
family. If a child is showing delays after birth a pediatrician, a parent, or other professionals can
refer a parent to an early intervention service provider to determine eligibility for services. Once
the child is found eligible to receive the early intervention services, an Individualized Family
Service Plan (IFSP) is developed with the service coordinator, parent, and multidisciplinary
team. The IFSP outlines what services the child is eligible to receive in early intervention and at
what frequency, who is responsible for those services, and how those services are funded.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 23

Barriers to accessing early intervention services have been emphasized in both
quantitative and qualitative research from different angles related to race, and family-centered
practices from the perspective of both parents and early intervention coordinators. Numerous
quantitative studies have linked decreased access to early intervention with race (Bailey et al.,
2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus et al.,
2012; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017;
Thomas et al., 2007). However, there is quantitative and qualitative research that indicates
families are being denied access through a lack of family-centered practices (Dunst, Bruder, &
Espe-Sherwindt, 2014; Marshall, Adelman, Kesten, Natale, & Elbaum, 2017; Lee, 2015;
Shannon, 2004; Summers et al., 2005; Swafford, Wingate, Zagumny, & Richey, 2015; Votava &
Chiasson, 2015). Both quantitative and qualitative studies related to access are critical because
they discuss problems for families and children who are eligible for Part C early intervention
services.
Race
Multiple studies on accessing early intervention services show disparities in equity based
on race (Bailey et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al.,
2011; McManus et al., 2012; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Senate Human Services Committee
Oversight Hearing, 2017; Thomas et al., 2007). The disparities in access can be associated with a
decrease in funding (Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Senate Human
Services Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017) and services for families of color (Bailey et al.,
2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus et al.,
2012; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017;
Thomas et al., 2007). Jeon et al. (2011) found in their quantitative study of secondary Early
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 24

Head Start data with 2,183 participants that children of European descent were found to have an
increase in access to Part C services and less frequently identified as having a developmental
delay. The study found that children who received Part C services were able to catch up to
children who were not identified as having a dis/ability in school readiness skills. All the
families in the study were identified as being from a low-income home. Therefore, socio-
economic factors did not play a role in this study. Rosenberg et al. (2008) also found no
significant difference in access related to income in a quantitative study using a probability
sample representative of all children born in the United States in the year 2001. However, they
did find that white children were receiving early intervention at twice the rate of black children
in Part C services. Although Jeon et al. (2011) and Rosenberg et al. (2008) found no significant
difference in income and access, the quantitative studies of Thomas et al. (2007) and McManus
et al. (2012) did find that parents who had higher salaries and an increase in higher education did
show an increase in service use.
Thomas et al. (2007) studied access for Autism-related services with 383 families who
had children under the age of 11 years old in North Carolina, and there was evidence that
families of color had limited access to services for their children who had an Autism Spectrum
Disorder eligibility. McManus et al. (2012) found a correlation with higher parent education and
children who were found to be eligible with a mild developmental delay. Children with a
developmental delay were more likely to receive early intervention services (McManus et al.,
2012). The other subgroups in the study, identified as developmental disability, socially at risk
with behavior problems, and socially at risk with functional vision difficulties, were significantly
less likely to receive early intervention services and the subgroups including “socially at risk”
were more likely to be given to children of color.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 25

Harrington and Kang (2008; 2016) also found that people of color received early
intervention services less frequently than white populations and that ethnic minoritized groups
had significantly lower expenditures for services in the California regional center system.
Harrington and Kang completed two studies, with the second one being a follow up to the first.
Data were collected in 2005 and then again in 2013, which showed similar results within the
California regional center system that children of color had significantly lower expenditures for
services and lower access to those services than white consumers. In their discussion,
Harrington and Kang (2016) assert that these disparities in access and funding of services may be
due to cultural discrimination and institutional racism. They also construed that families’ lack of
understanding of their rights, the ease with navigating the service system, and knowledge of how
to access services may have been factors impacting access for families of color (Harrington &
Kang, 2016). The factors mentioned by Harrington and Kang (2016) as a potential barrier to
access have been investigated in families accessing Part C services. However, these studies lack
a focus on families most impacted by these barriers: ethnically minoritized families.
Parent Perspectives
Research indicates issues dealing with the broad scope of access related to types of
intervention practices from the perspectives of families in Part C (Dunst, Bruder, & Espe-
Sherwindt, 2014; Marshall et al., 2017; Lee, 2015; Shannon, 2004), but there is a lack of
information about how culturally and linguistically diverse families are specifically impacted.
Current research that gives voice to the parent’s perspectives describes intervention strategies
and practices and whether those strategies and practices deny access by not following a “family-
centered” model which lead to barriers associated with professional preparation (Harry, 2008),
family-professional partnerships (Dunst et al., 2014; Harry, 2008; Marshall et al., 2017;
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 26

Shannon, 2004; Summers et al., 2005), and bureaucratic influences (Lee, 2015, Skrtic, 1991b;
Shannon, 2004).
Harry (2008) reviewed the literature involving families identified as being culturally and
linguistically diverse who had children with dis/abilities and were eligible for special education
services. The literature review deduced that there were multiple barriers in implementing IDEA
(2004) with families identified as being culturally and linguistically diverse. The barriers
included differences in caregiver roles based on cultural values, misunderstanding of the
meanings of disability, deficit views of families who are culturally and linguistically diverse, and
different values in goal setting for their child with a disability. Due to these barriers, Harry’s
review of the literature indicated a need to increase cultural competency education for
professionals working with diverse families “because deeply rooted beliefs influence our
interpretation of all that we encounter, even efforts at ‘human decency’ may be interpreted
differently according to cultural and/or historical lenses” (2008, p. 376). The review mainly
critiqued peer-reviewed articles that focused on school-age children in special education, which
showed a lack of research completed on the perspectives of parents from diverse backgrounds
with children eligible for Part C services.
A study completed by Dunst et al. (2014) evaluated how early childhood practitioners
facilitated parent involvement in their child’s early intervention services as mandated in IDEA
Part C. Their study involved 124 parental caregivers in 22 states, with two-thirds having a
college degree with a median income of approximately $50,000 annually. Each caregiver
completed an investigator-developed measure that asked caregivers to give one of the following
responses to their participation:
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 27

(1) I am not present when my child receives early intervention services; (2) I only observe
the service provider working with my child; (3) the service provider explains what he or she
is doing with my child; (4) the service provider shows me or demonstrates how to do the
interventions with my child; and (5) the service provider involves me in a way where I can
continue to do the interventions without the provider’s ongoing assistance (p. 40).
The families were accessing services in three different early intervention settings, families’
home, center-based location, or both families’ home and center-based location. The study found
that when services were solely outside of the home, parent involvement was significantly lower.
“The more parents are involved in their children’s early intervention in a capacity-building
manner, the more positive are both parent and child outcomes” (Dunst et al., 2014, p. 43). When
parents are not engaged in the early intervention process by the service coordinators, full access
to early intervention is not being upheld to the standard of the law. This study lacked
participants who were of low income and had education below a college degree resulting in a
group that does not represent the majority of families who are at higher risk of ongoing
developmental delays without early intervention access, concluding that more research needs to
be completed on how parent involvement impacts access for families dealing with more social
and environmental factors.
Another study that focuses more on families dealing with access issues in Part C early
intervention services discusses how all of the families in these programs deal with the lack of or
poor-quality family-professional partnerships. Family-centered practice is required in Part C
based on legal mandates, so the lack of family-professional partnerships imposes decreased
access to families by not following the law. Marshall et al. (2017) used qualitative methods to
study the perceptions of 20 parents navigating through an early intervention program after being
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 28

denied from Part C services. Although these families were not in a Part C early intervention
program, they had been through the Part C process of assessment, and then their child was
determined to be eligible for another early intervention program based on mild language needs.
Marshall et al. (2017) identified participants’ demographics using both race and ethnicity. When
parents identified their ethnicity, there were 14 Hispanics, 3 African Americans, 1 Caucasian, 1
Haitian American, and 1 South Asian. However, when identifying with a race, only four
identified as Black and 16 as White. The 20 parents were interviewed at the end of the 16-week
early intervention program on three content areas: the parent’s understanding of feedback related
to their child's assessments and development, their perception of the options they had for
services, and their perspectives on the progress and challenges of their child’s development.
Parents reported issues with multiple referrals, which included increased steps to receive
services, misunderstandings about eligibility, which meant some children did not receive
services, and a lack of clarity about the programs and services available to the parents. Despite
these issues, parents were satisfied with the free and low-cost intervention services they did
receive. A limitation indicated in this study was that all but one of the participants were
receiving the Early Development (ED) Services, which were identified as being free to low-cost
interventions services that could include speech and language therapy, occupational therapy,
behavioral intervention, or developmental therapy at the child’s home, preschool, or clinic site.
The data collected using this sample meant the researchers were unable to ascertain the
perspectives of families who were eligible for the ED services but not able to access them and
how that impacts the satisfaction of navigating the early intervention process.
A qualitative study conducted by Lee (2015) indicated that a possible reason for the
variability in parents’ access to services is correlated with the competency level, availability, and
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 29

approaches of the service providers. Lee’s (2015) study included three families, two who
identified as White, and one who identified as an ethnic minority being from Asian and Central
American descent. The participants were interviewed to gain insight into their perspectives on
how the early intervention process included them in the service planning and delivery of
treatment. Lee (2015) assumed that the bureaucracy and position of power held by providers
would influence the quality of the participation of the families while receiving and accessing
services. Through the lens of Disability Studies (DS), Lee (2015) found that the family-
professional partnership persistently lacked quality engagement, especially in the Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) meeting that by law states an equal partnership between parents and
providers in planning services (IDEA, 2004). This study shows a need to increase the line of
communication with families related to access for Part C services. The other salient point that
the study makes is that the bureaucracy of the law hinders service providers from supporting
parents’ access to services (Lee, 2015).
Role of Early Intervention Providers
Early intervention providers play a significant role in access to services for families, and the
subsequent studies include their perspectives in the process (Shannon, 2004; Votava & Chiasson,
2015). IDEA (2004) has guidelines as to the funding and process to initiate and maintain
services that the providers and local education agencies are mandated to follow (Lee, 2015;
Skrtic, 1991b; Shannon, 2004). These regulations impact service by creating competing forces
for providers who are beholden to the law and who are also trying to create a space for parents to
participate fully (Lee, 2015; Skrtic, 1991b). “[T]he IFSP process that supposedly exemplifies
parent participation procedures and family-centered practices does not necessarily involve
parents but positions them as ‘others’” (Lee, 2015, p. 5).
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 30

Along with not allowing for full fidelity in family-centered practices, bureaucracy also
impacts how service providers offer services to families (Shannon, 2004). The qualitative study
completed by Shannon (2004) included both parents and service providers and looked at the
barriers to the family-centered practices used in Part C. The study used constructive inquiry,
which created an interactive process between data analysis and collection. Shannon, who
identifies himself as a white non-Hispanic man, interviewed all participants, 14 parents identified
as African-American, and eight were white. Out of the 20 early intervention professionals, who
participated in this study, five were African-American, and 15 were white. The findings exposed
that service providers indicated they did not always offer all of the necessary services or discuss
all of the options with parents due to the inability to fund the services (Shannon, 2004).
The study completed by Votava and Chiasson (2015) uses the ecological model that takes
into consideration the relationship between the service coordinator, parent, and child in the
context of the early intervention policies and infrastructure. The qualitative study used semi-
structured telephone interviews with service coordinators to gain their perspectives on how they
understand the family assessment procedures and policies. The rationale for their study was that
early interventionists are struggling to meet the mandated family assessment process, which
impacts access to services. Votava and Chiasson (2015) interviewed six service coordinators
who had at least two years of experience and worked in states with mainly rural populations on
the following topics:
(a) the role of stakeholders in planning the state family assessment processes, (b) factors
contributing to decisionmaking in the family assessment state processes, (c) strengths and
challenges of the chosen family assessment processes, (d) training of professionals and
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 31

families about the family assessment processes in the state, and (e) the process on the
creation of the IFSP (p. 18).
Many themes were derived from the answers the coordinators gave to the above topics,
which included positive beliefs that the service coordinators were implementing family-centered
practices because that is what their state required, that the family assessments were an essential
part of developing the IFSP, and that family assessments are ongoing. However, other themes
emerged contradicting the use of family-centered practices such as discrepancies within states for
family assessments, that statewide training focuses on the IFSP rather than the family
assessment, and that coordinators were worried about the skills of those completing the family
assessment interviews. The study recommended that early interventionists receive more training
and coaching with regards to the family assessment. With more training, the hope is that the
approach to early intervention does not go back to expertise centered, in which the early
interventionist directs the goals for the child. Instead, that training maintains a family-centered
practice in which the parent is an integral part of the decision-making process in the early
intervention services.
More research needs to be conducted with families of color and their perspectives on
access to early intervention services. Since the service coordinators play a significant role in
writing and implementing the IFSP, gaining both perspectives of families and service
coordinators is critical to use as a comparison. Current research shows that there are issues with
race in access and barriers related to family-centered practices. However, most do not combine
research focused on families of color and how family-centered practices are reinforced to access
Part C early intervention services.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 32

Opportunity Gaps
The issues in access show that specific groups are being denied services that are intended
to help remediate developmental concerns or decrease the potential for increased risks of
developmental issues. The lack of early intervention services to children identified as the most
vulnerable to developmental delays continue to perpetuate opportunity gaps through inequitable
services to children of color. Children who receive Part C services have shown improvements in
developmental areas that align with the needed school readiness skills commensurate with peers
entering preschool programs who were not identified as needing Part C services (Jeon et al.,
2011). Part C of IDEA is based on the ecological model of child development that posits there
can be an increase in developmental skills when increasing parental involvement and taking into
consideration the social institutions, such as work, school, and health factors influencing the
family dynamics (Zigler, Taussig, Black, 1992). Studies have shown that the use of the
ecological model in early childhood intervention programs is associated with better social and
educational outcomes, which include a decrease in the utilization of special education services
(Karoly et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001).
However, the implementation of high-quality early intervention services for children at highest
risk for developmental delays and ongoing need for special education services has not been
routinely used, and these same children show higher rates of placement in segregated special
education services in K-12 (Karoly et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2001).
The lack of access to early intervention services is a precursor to the ongoing
marginalization of children of color through systemic barriers in K-12 educational settings. The
education system has a history of giving the least to those who need the most: children of color
have less access to qualified teachers, less per-pupil spending, higher rates of placement in
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 33

segregated special education classrooms, and as the research mentioned above discussed, even
the youngest children entering the education system recognized as needing support have less
access to early intervention services (Karoly et al., 1998; Marshall et al., 2017; Lee, 2015;
Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2001; Shannon, 2004; Sleeter, 2014; Ushomirsky &
Williams, 2015). Offering inequitable early intervention services to children living in high-
poverty, single-parent households, and low parent education homes continue to further
opportunity gaps, as these children have statistically been shown to have lower school readiness
skills, putting them behind same-age peers when starting Kindergarten (Jeon et al., 2011; Karoly
et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2001). The gap in skill level is often
portrayed in education as an achievement gap, but defining the gap with a deficit frame does not
take into account the opportunities that have been withheld from marginalized groups.
“Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA), may be understood as an attempt to repay
historic debt, yet concerns about access, participation, and outcomes for students with disabilities
remain” (Connor et al., 2016, p. 89). Shonkoff (2010) asserts that there is more information
concluding that children who are impacted by adversity show a lifelong impact on health and
educational achievement due to physiological effects on the immune system, brain development,
and cardiovascular system. Evidence indicates that waiting to intervene in early childhood can
have a lasting impact on child education and health outcomes, which influences later economic
and social returns with a decrease in human capital in the workforce (Shonkoff, 2010).
Theoretical Framework: Dis/ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit)
Dis/ability critical race studies explore the intersectionality between disabilities and race
within education. Annamma, Connor, and Ferri (2013) explain in their touchstone text that
DisCrit formulates that people who are marginalized due to race are particularly more
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 34

susceptible to deficit labels such as disability. “That racism and ableism are normalizing
processes that are interconnected and collusive” (Annamma et al., 2013, p. 6). DisCrit theory
underscores the importance of understanding that differences should not be categorized as
deficits (Annamma et al., 2018). Race and ableism are social constructs that were
institutionalized to create oppressive structures, which DisCrit theory seeks to address by
identifying those power structures built into the education system that endorse inequities
(Annamma et al., 2013). Annamma et al. (2013) operationalize using DisCrit as an approach by
proposing seven tenets:
(1) DisCrit focuses on ways that the forces of racism and ableism circulate
interdependently, often in neutralized and invisible ways, to uphold notions of
normalcy.
(2) DisCrit values multidimensional identities and troubles singular notions of identity
such as race or dis/ability or class or gender or sexuality, and so on.
(3) DisCrit emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability and yet recognizes the
material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or dis/abled, which sets
one outside of the western cultural norms.
(4) DisCrit privileges voices of marginalized populations, traditionally not acknowledged
within research.
(5) DisCrit considers legal and historical aspects of dis/ability and race and how both
have been used separately and together to deny the rights of citizens.
(6) DisCrit recognizes Whiteness and ability as property and that gains for people labeled
with dis/abilities have largely been made as the result of interest convergence of
White, middle-class citizens.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 35

(7) DisCrit requires activism and supports all forms of resistance. (p. 11)

Tenets one, four, and five are explored in more detail as they relate to the current study.
Tenet One
Tenet one of DisCrit posits that racism and ableism working in unison create the
overwhelming disparities for students of color in special education services. White ableism is
normalized as the standard that all citizens are trying to attain, as opposed to embracing
differences, which DisCrit wants to emphasize through intersecting those identified as people of
color and dis/abled (Annamma et al., 2013).
Current deficit thinking for children of color can be seen in the education system through
the emphasis of remediating achievement gaps. Achievement for children of color is compared
to white children, which situates the white children as the standard in which all children must
meet. This achievement gap does not account for opportunity gaps and disparaging educational
practices (Annamma et al., 2018). The current educational trend to decrease the so-called
achievement gap perpetuates the standard of normalcy based on white ableism and creates an
unattainable expectation for children of color and children with a dis/ability by putting the onus
on the children to improve instead of improving the system. “DisCrit acknowledges how these
normalizing processes of racism and ableism position unwanted bodies outside the of the
category of normal in order to justify their exclusion, segregation, and even termination”
(Annamma, Jackson, & Morrison, 2017). The current study engages families who have been
historically excluded from conversations about their experiences because they do not
conveniently align with societal norms by creating space for the “outsider” voice that is
discussed in Tenet Four.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 36

Tenet Four
Research has historically been written by and for the majority leaving out marginalized
groups. DisCrit stresses the use of narratives and stories from historically marginalized groups
to encourage diverse thoughts and ideas to decrease inequities in practice (Annamma et al.,
2018). Highlighting the perspectives of those being marginalized gives privilege to the insider
voice termed in DisCrit as the counternarrative (Annamma et al., 2013). Tenet four is carried
over from Critical Race Theory (CRT), which asserts that stories offer context to the historical
perspectives of marginalized groups (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1998). “CRT
focuses on the role of ‘voice’ in bringing additional power to the legal discourses of racial
justice” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 13). DisCrit, like CRT, affirms that judicial redress can only
come if the stories and experiences of those being oppressed are communicated to give a more
profound understanding to the complexities of racism and oppressive systems (Ladson-Billings,
1998; Annamma et al., 2013). DisCrit believes these stories are needed to express
counternarratives to the master narrative that has been historically portrayed as the only narrative
(Annamma et al., 2013). Delgado and Stefancic (2107) write that race is a social construct that
can be deconstructed with the use of stories by marginalized groups. Hearing these stories helps
the majority by exposing them to alternate realities (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Research using
DisCrit also demonstrates “the importance of attending to direct testimony of the lived realities
of individuals who are multiply oppressed in terms of race and dis/ability” (Annamma et al.,
2018, p. 59). The current research focuses on these voices by interviewing families of color
eligible for Part C services and centering the research around their perspectives to hear their
experiences as a way to understand their realities in accessing services. Their stories are
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 37

positioned as the counternarratives to the regional center coordinators master narrative to expose
indoctrination.
Indoctrination through education fosters complacency toward social and racial inequality
for it views those inequalities as natural occurrences or perhaps due to biological or
cultural deficiencies in oppressed groups, and not as the outcome of particular system
structures and practices. (Zamudio, Russell, & Rios, 2011, p. 124)
The practices of the early intervention systems create barriers to access for marginalized
groups, and it is necessary to hear their voices in contrast to the voices of those situated in power
who may be complicit in furthering inequities in the special education system.
Tenet Five
DisCrit reflects on how race and dis/ability are used to deny the rights of citizens in
historical, legal, and ideological ways (Annamma et al., 2013). People of color and people
identified as being disabled have had reproductive laws imposed upon them to restrict their
choice to procreate (Annamma et al., 2013). “Science” has also been used to disparage different
races and classify them as being less than to reinforce the superiority of whiteness (Annamma et
al., 2013). Using both race and dis/ability together and separately at times has created injustices
for those not associated with the majority. “DisCrit consequently challenges beliefs about the
inferiority of the intelligence and culture of people of color, born within pseudo-sciences and
later upheld by contemporary assessment practices” (Annamma et al., 2013, p. 15). Ladson-
Billings (2006) contends that children of color and those with dis/abilities are owed a debt due to
these inequalities in treatment that imposed restrictions and limitations of access within society
and in the education system. Educational research has been critiqued for its narrow focus on a
subject matter, rather than taking into account the complexities of learning and teaching to
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 38

diverse students (Sleeter, 2014). Although Sleeter (2014) points out issues with the use of silos
in educational research, her research also lacks a discussion about ableism in the review as if
general education and dis/ability are mutually exclusive, while DisCrit creates space for
inclusive practices for all children.
DisCrit theory can be used to show how legal policies have racialized dis/abilities
(Annamma et al., 2013). By using an intersectional approach, the current research analyzes the
“relationships of power and inequality within a social setting and how these shape individual and
group identities” (Tefera, Powers, & Fischman, 2018). Focusing on the intersectionality of race
and dis/ability participants in the current study self-identified as being a person of color with a
child who was eligible for Part C early intervention services. Their voices are juxtaposed against
the voices of those in power to help reveal what changes can be made in practice to align the
voices and decrease inequitable practices.
Conceptual Framework
Using the theoretical framework of Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit), both the
parent and child with the dis/ability in conjunction with the intersectionality of being ethnically
marginalized are reliant on the Part C early intervention system to guide them down the road to
early intervention services. Nevertheless, if these families are not given equitable access to early
intervention services, they can be met with opportunities gaps that inevitably impact school
readiness (Jeon et al., 2011; Karoly et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2001).
The road to early intervention according to research can involve the parent’s knowledge of
policies and procedures, the regional center coordinator’s facilitation of parent participation in
the process, having quality engagement in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
meeting, parent’s perceptions of the offered early intervention services, and the communication
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 39

between the service coordinator and services providers related to access of services (Dunst et al.,
2014; Marshall et al., 2017; Lee, 2015; Shannon, 2004; Summers et al., 2005; Swafford et al.,
2015; Votava & Chiasson, 2015).

Figure A: Conceptual Model of Access

Figure A illustrates the conceptual framework for this research study. Starting from left
to right is the story of how ethnically marginalized parents go down the path to accessing early
intervention services for their child, which leads to increased school readiness skills. In between
the two is the regional center service coordinator whose position is designated to guide and is
figuratively the holder of the key to accessing early intervention services. The regional center
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 40

coordinators are the face to the system of access constructed by the federal mandates of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004).
Summary
Special education services were implemented during an era where people were fighting
for civil rights in an effort to obtain equality in society (Ferri & Connor, 2005). Advocacy
groups fought for inclusive practices for children with disabilities. These efforts resulted in laws
protecting the rights of people with disabilities and banning discriminatory practices (IDEA,
2004). Despite the good intentions influencing these laws, discriminatory practices still prevail
in society based on dis/ability and can be compounded by race. The intersectionality of race and
dis/ability negatively impacts access to early intervention services. Quantitative studies have
shown a decrease in funding and access associated with race in early intervention services
(Bailey et al., 2005; Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011;
McManus et al., 2012; Rosenberg et al., 2008; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight
Hearing, 2017; Thomas et al., 2007). The lack of access to early intervention services for
marginalized families with infants and toddlers in Part C is a denial of the legal rights these
families are entitled to receive. Opportunity gaps, like decreased access to special education
services, impact culturally and linguistically diverse families at higher rates and help facilitate a
system of oppression through education (Jeon et al., 2011; Karoly et al., 1998; Ramey & Ramey,
2004; Reynolds et al., 2001). The use of DisCrit in this research study takes into consideration
the complex issues facing marginalized groups based on race and ability that include the denial
of rights and the lack of counternarratives based on their realities in a society dominated by
majority narratives. Using qualitative research to gain perspectives and experiences through the
voices of minoritized and marginalized families participating in Part C early intervention allows
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 41

the expansion of diversity within qualitative research to capture more in-depth issues related to
access tied to race as implicated through the current quantitative research (Bailey et al., 2005;
Harrington & Kang, 2008; Harrington & Kang, 2016; Jeon et al., 2011; McManus et al., 2012;
Rosenberg et al., 2008; Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing, 2017; Thomas et
al., 2007). The methodology of this qualitative research study is explored more in Chapter 3.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 42

Chapter Three: Methods
Access to early intervention services for families of color is disproportionately lower than
it is for white families. Increasing awareness and suggesting tools to remedy this issue through
the use of narratives is the purpose of this study. School readiness skills are associated with
access to early intervention services, therefore the lack of services can be connected to
opportunity gaps for children of color labeled with a dis/ability in their youth. The Dis/ability
Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) framework used in this study asserts that people with intersecting
identities of race and ability are more likely to be marginalized in systems built for and by the
majority. Understanding how access works in Part C early intervention through the voices of
those involved in the system, the regional center service coordinators and the parents of color
who have a child eligible for Part C, allows the use of their narratives as the basis for improving
the quality of special education practices. Two initial research questions were identified to gain
these perspectives:
1) What are regional center service coordinators’ perceptions about families accessing Part C
early intervention services?
2) What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about accessing
Part C early intervention services?
The first research question was not answered due to a lack of entry into the regional center and
not having access to regional center service coordinators as initially expected. The second
question was answered using the methods outlined in the following sections.
Methodology
The research questions were designed to gather the different narratives offered by those
representing power in the early intervention process and those who might be denied access to
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 43

those services. Since the research questions focus on the perspectives of each of the participant
groups, a qualitative research study was utilized. A qualitative approach aligns with the use of
Dis/ability Critical Race Studies framework by creating a space for narratives that help
understand how people with the intersectionality of dis/ability and race interpret their
experiences. Qualitative research attends to the process of lived experiences, meaning, and
understanding of the participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The qualitative research design included interviews with parents of children of color in
Part C early intervention, and analysis of a document related to the Part C process, known as the
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). The interviews allowed me to gain the perspectives
of the participants as it relates to the research question. The interviews enabled me to gather data
in the participant's own words to develop an understanding of how they describe their view of
early intervention access. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicate that interviewing is essential to
support the interpretation of how people view the world around them. The IFSP document
supports the research question by informing the research using objective data that is nonreactive
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The IFSP document informed the research on the demographics of
the family, the child’s eligibility for services, what services the child was eligible to receive, and
the goals and expectations of the regional center for the child. The information on the IFSP,
therefore, was used for context and data, which helped with the interpretation of access when
compared to the information provided by the parents. The following sections detail more about
how and why these methods of research were conducive to this study.
Sample and Site Selection
The criteria used to select participants to answer the research question were parents who
had a child with a dis/ability and identified as a person of color who were at the time of the
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 44

interview receiving Part C early intervention services. The participants had also been receiving
these services for at least a year. Those criteria were used to ensure participants had enough
knowledge of the Part C early intervention services to give an in-depth response to their
perceptions of accessing those services. Initially, a Los Angeles based regional center was
identified as the site to recruit participants, as there would have been access to regional center
service coordinators and parents of color in the Part C early intervention services. Due to time
constraints and a rigorous process to gain access to the regional center, another site was
identified to access the participants who had children in Part C early intervention services. A Los
Angeles area school district was used to collect data and access participants who were
transitioning from Part C services to Part B services. This specific district was chosen because it
is located in a demographic area that services a high percentage of people of color. The district
gave the researcher access to participants who were able to answer the research question because
they fit the criteria of having a child with a dis/ability and identified as a person of color.
The first step of gaining access is to know the hierarchy and rules of the system of the site
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The district was a site that coordinates transition meetings from Part
C early intervention services with corresponding area regional centers to Part B preschool
services with parents who live within their district boundaries. This transition meeting was a part
of Federal law that mandated children exiting Part C early intervention services at age three must
have a meeting before exiting, to discuss the process of continuing services in preschool for
children ages 3-5, known as Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA,
2004). My entry point to access the district staff working with families being assessed for Part B
preschool services in the Preschool Special Education department of the district was through the
district’s review board. I submitted a proposal outlining my intent and proposed research
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 45

methods to the review board online through their web-based application and supporting
documentation regarding approval from the University of Southern California’s (USC)
Institutional Review Board (IRB) to move forward with the research. Some of the pertinent
documents that were created and given to USC and the district’s research review board were a
Recruitment Letter (Appendix B) written in English and Spanish and a Consent for Participation
in Research Interview (Appendix C) written in English and Spanish. Once the district approved
the research, I was allowed to contact a district administrator working in the Preschool Special
Education department. This administrator identified the district personnel who conducted the
transition meetings, and I was able to reach out to this staff. The two documents were given and
explained to staff who were involved in the recruitment process to obtain informed consent from
participants who met the following criteria.
Purposeful sampling was used to select participants. The participants were families of
color who had a child with a developmental delay or was at risk for a developmental delay and
was receiving Part C services for at least a year. This specific group was purposefully sampled to
gain insight on their perspectives of accessing the Part C early intervention process to obtain
their insider's voice. A sample of three participants were identified and interviewed out of seven
participants that gave consent. The final number of participants interviewed was due to attrition.
Four of the participants were scheduled for interviews and did not complete the interviews after
multiple attempts. The three participants who completed the interviews were parents who had a
child eligible for Part C services and completed the interview process. The number of
participants was targeted based on it being a large enough sample to gain different perspectives,
but small enough sample to be feasible to collect during a constrained time frame.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 46

The criteria for the three parents were that they had a child who was eligible and
receiving Part C services and had an IFSP that indicated the need for services for a year or
longer. This criterion ensured that the parent could discuss the issue of access from an informed
perspective, which may lead to unveiling a counternarrative (see Chapter 2) perspective. Parents
who have children who have been in Part C less than a year may not have as much knowledge
about the system and issues with access. In order to get the perspectives of parents who have
been receiving early intervention services longer, I focused on families transitioning from Part C
early intervention to Part B preschool services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA, 2004) mandates that any child enrolled in Part C early intervention services complete a
transition meeting discussing services potentially available to their child after age three based on
eligibility to Part B preschool services taking place in an educational setting. Children
transitioning are older as this is required to take place before the age of three and will, therefore,
have potentially had more time to participate in Part C services, which takes place from the ages
of birth to three years old.
Data Collection
Narrative research was used to expand the quality of practice in the field of early
childhood education. As stated above and in Chapter 2, initially, the research would have used
the master narrative of the regional center service coordinators in comparison to the parents’
perspective to see if they have a counternarrative to accessing Part C early intervention services.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of access to the regional center service coordinators, the only
narratives represented in the findings were the parent’s perspective. Although the data were
absent of the master narrative from the regional center service coordinators, the IFSP document
was used for comparative value and that data, along with the data collected by the parents, did in
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 47

fact highlight elements of a counternarrative based on the power differential connected to the
communication related to accessing services which will be further explained in Chapter 4. The
counternarrative, alone, is the narrative that the framework Disabilities Critical Race Studies
(DisCrit) stresses in research as revealing diverse ideas in order to decrease inequitable practices
(Annamma et al., 2018). The research question was written to elicit the perceptions of parents to
offer a narrative to accessing special education early intervention services. According to
Creswell (2014), the use of narratives in research is a strategy to understand lived experiences.
Data collected through interviews and the use of the IFSP document addressed the experiences
and perceptions about accessing early intervention services from the lens of the parents whose
children were receiving Part C services at the time of the interviews.
Interviews. The purpose of using interviews for this study is the efficiency in
which it allowed me to gain insight into the perspectives of the participants as it relates to early
intervention access. Semi-structured interviews permit flexibility during the process and allow
me “to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new
ideas on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). The use of open-ended questions during a
face-to-face interview provides the opportunity for a focused conversation linked to the research
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each of the three participants was interviewed once for
approximately 45 to 60 minutes using an interview protocol based on a priori and emergent
content (see Appendix A).
The a priori codes used were (a) the parent’s perceptions of the offered early intervention
services; (b) the use of quality engagement in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
meeting; (c) parent’s knowledge of policies and procedures; (d) the regional center service
coordinator’s and provider’s facilitation of parent participation in the process; (e) and the
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 48

communication between the service coordinator and service providers related to access of
services (Dunst et al., 2014; Marshall et al., 2017; Lee, 2015; Shannon, 2004; Summers et al.,
2005; Swafford et al., 2015; Votava & Chiasson, 2015). The participants were given the choice
of meeting face-to-face or interviewing over the phone. The participants elected to be
interviewed over the phone due to scheduling difficulties with jobs and children. The interviews
took place at the participants’ convenience for time and day. The meetings being set up on days
the participants elected increased my chances of participation in the interview process with the
participants. Informed consent was obtained from each participant before the interview. District
personnel obtained consent in person during the Part C to Part B transition meeting by reading a
Recruitment Letter (see Appendix B) and then reading the Consent for Participation in Research
Interview (see Appendix C), which was outlined as the procedure approved by USC and the
District’s IRB. Informed consent was obtained in this manner as to keep the confidentiality of
parents involved in the Part C to Part B transition meeting. The district personnel were not
allowed to divulge parent information to the researcher until the parent gave informed consent.
All seven participants who gave consent were asked to sign the informed consent page
permitting the researcher to call the participant and have access to their child’s IFSP document.
Once I had the participants’ information, I called them and once again reviewed the
purpose of the call and interview. I obtained a copy of the IFSP with the written consent that
participants had given during the transition meeting from the regional center service coordinator.
During the call, the participant was asked their preference to meet in person or to have a phone
interview. All seven participants opted for a phone interview at a time that was convenient for
them. Despite participants choosing their preferred day and time, some participants did not
follow through with completing the interview. To entice participants to complete the interview
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 49

and incentive was later added to the research proposal. An update to IRB was submitted to
include a $25 gift certificate to be given to one participant who completed the interview process
after all participants were interviewed. This one participant would be determined through a
drawing format. Only three participants completed the interview at the designated scheduled
times, and the other four participants were lost due to attrition. The three completed interviews
took place between October 2019 and January 2020.
A recording device was used for the interviews in order to transcribe the information
provided during the interviews. Before each interview began, each participant was reminded that
the phone call would be recorded before the recording began. Once the participant agreed to be
recorded, the recorder was turned on, and the participant was again informed that the interview
would be recorded, and they were recorded saying yes, giving permission to be recorded for the
purposes of the interview. I used a tape recorder, and once the interview was complete, the
recorder connected to a computer using a USB connection. I downloaded the interviews to
Rev.com for transcription. Interviewing was not the only use of data collection for this study; the
analysis of the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) document also helped supplement the
data.
Artifacts. The examination of documents brings value to this study by gaining access to
an authorized perspective and shows ways the organization communicates with families on how
to access early intervention services. Documents found in bureaucratic systems can contain
evidence of the values they promote within their organization, which can be subjective and
biased toward the entity creating the document (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) at the time of the study was a legal document that was completed
through a collaborative process with the regional center service coordinators in conjunction with
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 50

input from service providers who assessed the child and parent input (Center for Parent
Information and Resources, 2019). The IFSP was required by law to include the present levels
of functioning and needs of the child, background information, the expected results and
outcomes, timelines for the outcomes, the early intervention services recommended, when and
where the services take place, the frequency of those services, how they are implemented in the
natural environment, who pays for the services, and steps to transition out of the services when
appropriate (Center for Parent Information and Resources, 2019).
Reading and analyzing the information presented in the IFSP for each participant’s child
before interviewing the parent helped me understand what services the family was being offered
and helped develop specific probing questions individualized to how the family is accessing
those services and their perspectives on how the IFSP was developed. For example, if the child
was only receiving one type of therapy, then questions were focused on that one service provider
as opposed to a child who received multiple services then questions were asked of each provider
to ensure the parent was as specific as possible about all of the early intervention staff who
worked with their child. “Juxtaposing a student record with interviews with… the parents can
prove to be revealing” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 138). The IFSP not only provides
background information that led to probative questions, but it also provided knowledge of the
services the child was eligible to receive. Analyzing the services and goals attached to those
services helped validate and corroborate data obtained during the interviews. This comparative
data was pertinent in determining if children were accessing all of the services outlined in the
document created by the Regional Center. Parent participation is key to the success of Part C
and mandated in IDEA, so having the parent discuss the IFSP and the process in which it was
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 51

developed and implemented was intended to generate potential counternarratives to the official
perspective, or master narrative, the regional center service provider wrote in the document.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data collected is to organize and come up with an understanding and
make sense of the information obtained from the interviews and documents (Corbin & Strauss,
2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After each interview, I used a transcription application,
Rev.com, to transcribe the interviews so that I could begin to analyze the data. I wrote analytic
memos immediately following the interviews to record my reactions to the interviews and to
highlight information that stood out as relevant to the research questions. “These memos can
provide a time to reflect on issues raised in the setting and how they relate to larger theoretical,
methodological, and substantive issues” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 165). I used the transcripts
to identify units of data, which Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define as any meaningful set of data
that responds to the research questions. The units of data were used to code the transcripts and
identify recurring categories and themes. An a priori coding system was utilized to create codes
based on the literature and the themes it identifies as salient to uncover (Harding, 2013). The
codes identified before conducting the interviews were (a) knowledge of procedures and policies;
(b) facilitating parent participation; (c) quality engagement with the IFSP meeting; (d) perception
of offered services, (e) communication related to access (Dunst et al., 2014; Marshall et al.,
2017; Lee, 2015; Shannon, 2004; Summers et al., 2005; Swafford et al., 2015; Votava &
Chiasson, 2015). In addition to coding based on the literature review, emergent coding was
used. Themes were deduced based on a priori and emergent coding that was compared between
the counternarratives of the participants, and then those themes were synthesized to inform the
practice of access for marginalized families in Part C.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 52

Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase credibility or internal validity in the research study, I used triangulation and
reflexivity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The use of both interviews and reviewing documents
allowed me to cross-check data by comparing printed data with the different perspectives from
the participants in the interviews to see if the information aligned or diverged between the
parents and documents. Analyzing multiple sources of data helps confirm emerging deductions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The multiple sources also mitigate issues of researcher bias
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Reflexivity, which is defined as the researcher bias and positionality
as it pertains to the process of the study, was a strategy used to increase credibility in the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the next section, I detail my positionality to facilitate
transparency in the findings that emerge in this study.
Positionality
I am a non-disabled African American woman who works in early childhood special
education. My intentions for this research are to increase quality and equity in the field of early
childhood special education for families of color. As someone who has not been directly
impacted by the inadequacies of special education, I am looking to gain perspectives from
marginalized groups to enhance the education system from an insider’s perspective. As a
professional working in the field of special education, the denial of equitable practices in
communities of color is apparent in the literature, and I have seen it in practice. However, to
begin corrective practices, the views and remedies have to be offered by the families who are
continuously subjected to them daily. My bias is that I see children of color transitioning into
Part B preschool services with a recommendation for more restrictive programs based on the lack
of services they received in early intervention, and I want to understand how this issue may
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 53

influence opportunity gaps. In order to mitigate this bias, I had to make sure my interview
protocol questions did not show my own bias and instead created a space to understand if parents
of color truly do feel they are being denied access to services (Appendix A).
Limitations
As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, a small sample of 4 regional center service
coordinators and 4 parents was originally proposed, due to time constraints. The sample size
became even lower once regional center service coordinators were no longer accessible to
interview. Changing the methods of gaining access to participants from the regional center to the
school district eliminated access to regional center service coordinators. Time constraints
necessitated the change in accessing parents through a different agency. The regional center was
initially the point of entry for both the service coordinators and the parents, but the process to
obtain consent from the regional center that was identified as having a large constituency of
ethnically marginalized families had a lengthy three-tiered process for approval. Without the
resources of the regional center staff to recruit participants, I had to change the recruitment
methods to utilizing the school district staff. In order to mitigate the inaccessability of regional
center staff participating in the study, the number of participants for parents increased to eight, to
obtain richer data to analyze. The district staff who had contact with parents currently in Part C
early intervention services was more limiting and therefore decreased access to a high percentage
of participants who met the study criteria. Seven participants as stated above consented to
interviews, but due to attrition, only three participants completed the interviews. With each
interview lasting approximately 45 to 60 minutes each, there was a lack of robust data. The
analysis of the three interviews did capture the perspectives of the three participants and led to
finding that will be discussed in Chapter 4.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 54

Summary
Conducting interviews and reviewing prefabricated documents generated data that led to
themes that increased knowledge about accessing early intervention services. The themes were
based on information provided by families of color participating in Part C services. Analyzing
information from the participants that were interviewed helped identify issues with access that
specifically affect marginalized families of color who have a child identified as at-risk or having
a developmental delay with the purpose of improving the quality of early intervention services
for these families. In Chapter 4, the perspectives of the participants are discussed, emphasizing
the recurring themes that developed regarding the research question.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 55

Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this study was to highlight the counternarratives of ethnically
marginalized parents who have a child with a developmental delay to understand their
perspectives of access to early intervention services. Ethnically marginalized families are
disproportionately offered less access to early intervention services. The decrease in early
intervention services to children of color create education opportunity gaps as access to early
intervention services is associated with an increase in school readiness skills for children
entering kindergarten (Jeon et al., 2011). This study uses Dis/ability Critical Race Studies
(DisCrit) to frame the perceptions of the parents as the counternarrative, as DisCrit asserts that
ethnically marginalized children who have the intersectionality of a dis/ability are excluded from
the master narrative that built these more extensive systems of special education. Creating space
for the counternarrative of families participating in Part C early intervention allows professionals
involved in the early intervention system to hear and understand these perspectives to diversify
the ideas around improving the quality of early intervention practices. Two research questions
were developed to gain insights into the master narrative and counternarrative. Since the
regional center staff were not interviewed due to a lack of entry into their site, only one research
question was used to gain more in-depth insight into the counternarrative. The research question
the data were able to answer for this study to obtain the counternarrative perspective was:
1. What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about
accessing Part C early intervention services?
This research question led to uncovering the major theme among the three participants that
perceptions related to the access of services were based on the perceived quality of
communication throughout the early intervention process. The interview protocol, constructed
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 56

with a priori coding, was used to capture the perspectives of the participants to answer this
research question. The conceptual framework noted five a priori codes related to access to Part C
early intervention: having knowledge of early intervention policies and procedures, the quality of
the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) meeting, perceptions of offered services,
communication related to access, and facilitating parent participation. These five codes were
common themes in all of the current research, shared in the literature review, and were integrated
in the current research findings. However, the current data found that the three participants’
perspectives centered on communication related to access. The context of the early intervention
setting and demographics of the participants are reviewed before discussing the findings to give
context to the data.
Context of Setting and Participants
Setting
The three families interviewed for this study were all receiving Part C early intervention
(EI) services from a Regional Center based in Los Angeles County. The services took place in
four types of environments: the regional center, in-home, center-based, or at a daycare. The
appointments at the regional center consisted of meetings with the regional center service
coordinator to review assessment reports, the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
meeting, to complete the transition meeting from Part C early intervention services to Part B
preschool services with the Local Education Agency (LEA), and the offered informational and
support groups. The informational and support groups that are offered by regional centers
include new parent orientations to the Part C early intervention process, toilet training, positive
parenting strategies, diagnosis-specific educational groups, dental screenings, advocacy groups,
and demographic-specific parent support groups. The in-home services consisted of an infant
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 57

stimulation teacher or a speech and language pathologist coming to the home to work directly
with the child and family. Center-based services, are services offered at a specific location that
cater to therapeutic interventions by service providers. The daycare site was funded by regional
center for a child to gain social emotional skills, and a service provider visited this site to provide
treatment to one of the participant’s children.
The regional center staff working with the participants and their children vary in how
they address the needs of the family during the early intervention process. The regional center
service coordinator facilitates case management services for families during the early
intervention process. The infant stimulation teacher focuses on a therapeutic intervention that
uses different sensory modalities, such as tactile, visual, auditory, and vestibular (Almli, 2018).
The physical therapist focuses interventions on gross motor skills. The speech therapist
concentrates on expressive and receptive language, and articulation development. The
occupational therapist interventions may include a focus on motor development, sensory
modulation, feeding, and behavioral issues.
Participants
A total of three participants who met the criteria were interviewed for the study, two of
the participants identified as Hispanic, and one participant identified as African American. The
three participants were the mothers of the children receiving services, and all spoke English
fluently as their heritage or second language. Although the mothers were interviewed, each
described support from the child’s father and extended family support with the early intervention
services. One participant was employed as a medical assistant, and the other two were employed
as instructional aides. Each participant had different levels of education, starting with some
college credits up to receiving a master’s degree.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 58

The three participants reported that they had never participated in early intervention
services before accessing services for the child they were discussing for the interview. The
amount of time receiving services for their child varied from a little over one year to receiving
services for over two years. Two of the participants received occupational therapy (OT) in a
center-based program. The participants described taking their child to a location in which
multiple children were receiving one-on-one occupational therapy, and parents watched while
this took place. One participant who enrolled her child in daycare was able to get the daycare
partially funded and the speech therapy services that the child was receiving in-home transferred
to the daycare. Each of the three participants received in-home infant stimulation at one point
during the early intervention process, although not necessarily at the time of the study.
The three participants were informed of their right to confidentiality and that pseudonyms
would be used. The following pseudonyms are used to correspond with each participant;
interview one participant is identified as Mary, and her son is Noah, the second interview
participant is identified as Patricia, and her daughter is Karen. The third and last interview
participant is Linda, and her son is James. The following table, Table 1, describes the
demographics of each participant and the services listed on the IFSP and parent-reported services
if different from IFSP.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 59

Table 1
Demographics and Services
Demographics and
Services
Mary/Noah Patricia/Karen Linda/James
Ethnicity Hispanic Hispanic African American
Education Some college credits College Master’s degree
Employment Medical Asst Classroom Aide Classroom Aide
Home Language English/Spanish English/Spanish English
Years of EI Services 1 year 1.4 years 2.11 years
Eligibility Developmental Delay:
Adaptive/Self-Help,
Communication,
Physical, Social
Emotional
High Risk
Developmental Delay
Developmental Delay:
Communication
Speech Therapy 1hour/week (in-
home)
Assessment (on IFSP)
1hour/week
(reported by
participant)
1 hour/week (in-
home)
Per participant moved
to daycare
Infant Stimulation Declined (on IFSP)
Per participant
requested at IFSP
1 hour/week (in-
home)
1 hour/week (in-
home on IFSP)
Per participant
changed to funding
daycare
Occupational
Therapy
1 hour/week (in-
home)
1 hour/week (center-
based)
Requested (not on
IFSP)
Per participant
received: 2
hours/week (center-
based)
Physical Therapy Not offered Not offered 1 hour/month
Per participant never
received.
Day Program Not offered on IFSP.
Per IFSP participant
was looking into their
own “Early Childhood
Educational Center”
Not offered on IFSP.
Per participant
declined day program.
Not offered on IFSP.
Per participant
funded 4 hours/day
for 5 days/week.

Table 1, Demographics and Services, details each participants’ ethnicity, education,
employment, and home language to align the demographic information with each participant.
The table also details the amount of time each family was receiving early intervention services at
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 60

the time of the interviews. Finally, the table specifies the service information found on the IFSP
document the researcher had available at the time of the interview in comparison to what the
participants reported at the time of the interview. The final information regarding services
clearly outlines the differences in services between the IFSP document and the participants’ that
are reported in the findings.
Findings
The conceptual framework, detailed in Chapter 2, explained how the literature reviewed
for this study had five integrated themes related to accessing Part C early intervention services:
knowledge of policies and procedures, facilitating parent participation, quality engagement with
the IFSP meeting, perception of offered services, and communication related to access. These
themes, identified in the methods as a priori coding, were used to inform the interview protocol
to look for commonalities during data analysis in the participants’ perceptions in the current
research study, which centers the DisCrit theoretical framework. Although, all of the themes do
not emerge as equally important to the participants in the current findings, all of the themes
traverse the central theme of communication which the three participants perceived was foremost
related to accessing services.
The theme of communication related to access is delineated into three sub-themes
identified through the data as communication through early intervention staff, communication
through provider strategies, and communication of indirect services. The remaining four a priori
codes are incorporated in the communication sub-themes. Perception of offered services and
facilitating parent participation are in all three sub-themes. However, the codes, knowledge of
policies and procedures and the quality of the IFSP meeting, are only discussed in the sub-theme
identified as indirect services. The following information details the overall theme of
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 61

communication that emerged from the data collected from the interviews with the three
participants and the information in the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). This data is
used to answer the research question focused on ethnically minoritized and marginalized parents’
perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services.
Theme: Communication
The overall theme that permeated all three interviews was communication, meaning that
the three participants’ perceptions of access to early intervention services were based on the
perceived quality of communication with early intervention staff and IFSP document and
meetings throughout the process. The three different sub-themes of communication included
communication between the participants and the regional center coordinators and service
providers, strategies communicated to them to support their child, and the communication
through indirect services such as access to support and informational groups and through the
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) document. These sub-themes were explained using
the data from the participants' interviews and each child’s IFSP. The data were linked to
answering the research question and how the data relates to the current literature and the
theoretical framework of DisCrit.
Regional Center Service Coordinators and Service Providers. Each participant
expressed a positive experience when one of the early intervention staff engaged in a reciprocal
mode of communication, which included texting, calls, or face-to-face interactions to support the
early intervention process. While participants expressed experiences with positive
communication that enabled access, two participants shared examples of what happened when a
lack of communication impacted access to early intervention services. The following paragraphs
highlight how the perceived quality of communication between the regional center service
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 62

coordinators and service providers with the participants can influence the perceptions of access
to services.
Mary perceived the early intervention process as positive when she was engaged with her
son, Noah’s, early interventions through ongoing communication with the service provider.
Mary’s positive communication experience began with her provider facilitating parent
participation during sessions. Once Mary was unable to attend the sessions due to her work
schedule, the service provider continued communication via texting.
So it's just texting to see how he's doing. But before when I was with them, the therapist,
me and Noah, she would let me play with them and we would all play together. So, kind
of like support for me.
In Mary’s case, her service provider used multiple forms of communication to facilitate parent
participation. The service provider included her in interactive sessions with her son when the
service provider came to the house. And once Mary’s work scheduled changed, and she was no
longer there in person for the sessions, the provider incorporated Mary by texting her updates on
her son’s progress.
In contrast, when Mary had poor communication with a service provider and did
not understand the reason for the service, she reported calling her service coordinator, and she
stopped the service as she no longer saw a benefit. She later requested the service start again with
a different provider believing her son Noah could still benefit from the early intervention
support.
The therapist that was seeing Noah, she kind of like... I mean she would go in there and
she would ask him the same thing over and over and I always felt like Noah was getting
irritated with that same question… So I felt like it wasn't really helping a lot. That's what
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 63

I thought for him then. And I say, ‘You know what? I'm just going to stop that service
because I don't feel like it's helping him a lot.’ And she'll give me another... What is it
called? Another place that will come and see him from a different agency, not the one
that was coming from but a different ones to give it a try. So that's how I went back to it.
Mary’s negative experience with the service and service provider impacted access to services by
creating a lapse in her child’s services. Mary’s perception that the services were not useful for
her son led her to cancel the service with her regional center service coordinator. She said, “It
was the one that I thought it wasn’t really help with him.” The service provider’s lack of
communication of the benefits, repetition, and reasons behind the treatment led to Mary’s
perceived belief that the services were not helping and, subsequently, to her child receiving
fewer services.
Mary indicated the reason the service began again was that she asked for it at her son’s
last Part C early intervention six-month IFSP review meeting. She said, “You know how they
do, like at the beginning and then at six months they do another evaluation? That’s when I talked
to her (regional center service provider) about it.” Mary initiated communication related to her
child’s access to services with her regional center service coordinator to request the infant
stimulation service start again with a different agency. Mary had previous positive
communication with her regional center service coordinator. Mary said during the initial IFSP
meeting that, “She (regional center service coordinator) was really good. She tried to explain to
me everything and kind of like give me the support.” Mary’s positive communication with her
regional center service coordinator that began when her son first qualified for services enabled
Mary to request that her son have access to services he needed again. The negative perception
and lack of communication related to the infant stimulation service from one specific provider
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 64

showed that in Mary’s case, communication could cause an interruption in accessing early
intervention services. However, having positive communication with the regional center service
coordinator allowed Mary to continue services, despite the service provider's lack of
communication. Mary was not the only participant that expressed a positive example of
communication with her regional center service provider that led to continuation or an addition
of needed services.
Patricia also indicated having positive communication with her regional center service
coordinator, which resulted in her ability to request additional services for her daughter. Patricia
was concerned with her daughter’s expressive language, and she told her service coordinator,
“Oh she (Patricia’s daughter) doesn’t talk. She needs speech therapy.” Patricia’s ability to
communicate with her regional center service coordinator led to Patricia’s daughter receiving
additional services. Patricia said, “she will tell me, ‘Okay, let me set up someone to help you
with the speech therapy.” The positive perception of communication between the regional center
service coordinator and Patricia increased access to services for Patricia’s daughter.
Patricia’s communication with her regional center service coordinator was not the only
positive form of communication she experienced. Although Patricia did not participate in the
sessions at home with her daughter, due to her work schedule, her mother would help and
provide feedback such as,
We always talk, talk to, I'm at work so they tell my mom like, ‘Oh, they they have to do
this to the child. You have to teach her how to put on the clothes. How to take off her
shoes.’ And we always practice so she will be able to do it on her own. But they always
tell my, well, obviously my mama, so she's the one that was telling me, ‘Oh, yeah, the
teacher said to do this to her and she'll be able to do it.’
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 65

Patricia indicated that her mom spoke Spanish, and when asked about how they communicated
with her, she said the service provider also spoke Spanish or “only one teacher was only English.
But she will put my brother or my cousin to translate for her and it was good.” She also said that
they would call her to, “just to let me know.” She said she perceived the services to be “pretty
good,” because in addition to hearing through her mother what took place, they would also call
her to tell her to practice with her child. And if she had questions, she indicated she was able to
text with the providers, “Yes I would just text them sometimes.”
The communication between Patricia and her child’s regional center service coordinator
and the service providers resulted in Patricia perceiving access to early intervention services as a
positive experience. The last interview with Linda also sheds light on examples of
communication leading to a positive perception and a negative perception of accessing early
intervention services.
Linda’s experiences with early intervention services were more aligned to Mary’s
experience because she describes communication took place that was perceived as being positive
due to the facilitation of parent participation, and that a lack of communication excluded her
from participating in her child’s services and ultimately led to her requesting a change in the
service. Linda explained that her child’s speech therapist was always communicating with her
about her son’s therapy sessions and progress.
But what she would do is she would text me. She would record their sessions and ask me
did I have any questions and send me photos. And if he was off, if his personality seemed
off, she'd tell me she was worried. Or if he had a scratch, she would send it to me and be
like, ‘Did they tell you about this?’ She was very attentive.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 66

Linda labeled this service provider as “awesome,” indicating “she went above and beyond.”
Linda indicated before the speech therapist went to the daycare for services and communicated
through text messages, she was in the home providing services.
She had an in-home model, like a family model, where she didn’t just work with the
baby. She also incorporated us, the parents… It felt intimate, because she helped us with
things that I feel like maybe she didn’t really have to do.
The speech therapist communicated in multiple forms, through in-person and texting, to facilitate
parent participation, and this type of communication made Linda perceive these services as
positive and inclusive.
While Linda’s experience with the infant stimulation teacher, who came to her home to
facilitate development through sensory learning, was less inclusive.
The infant stim person didn't really include me at all. She was nice, but she didn't really
include me in like, ‘Oh, today we're working on this, this and this.’ She didn't do that.
She just talked to the baby the entire time. And then she would make small talk with me
while she was doing her notes, and then she would just leave.
The infant stimulation teacher’s poor communication isolated services to focus just on Linda’s
son and did not facilitate parent participation. Linda said, “The least inclusive person was the
infant stim.” Linda eventually stopped the infant stimulation service, and instead of that service
opted for the regional center to supplement paying for her son’s daycare. Although Linda states
that the infant stimulation teacher was the least inclusive, she also experienced communication
issues with her regional center service coordinator, which delayed her son’s access to
occupational therapy services.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 67

Linda stated that at one point during her son’s early intervention service, she was
“fighting for the OT (occupational therapy)” and that “it took a while for her to get the new
assessment in place.” She said that requesting a change or addition to services from her regional
center service coordinator was a legnthy process.
If I needed to make a change, I would call and typically she would not be available, so I
would leave a voicemail. And then she would email me back or she would call me back.
And then she'd say, according to my request, she'd say I'll have to call or request a certain
person.
During the request for occupational therapy, Linda alludes to the communication being so poor
that she “actually had to call and speak with someone else before she (regional center service
coordinator) called me back.” Linda’s son eventually did qualify for occupational therapy, but
the issues with communication between Linda and the regional center service coordinator caused
a delay in her son accessing this specific service. Linda’s due diligence in following up multiple
times and reaching out to other staff to ensure her son was assessed by the occupational therapist
meant that he was only delayed in accessing services for around a month. These services will
later in this chapter show to be beneficial in supporting Linda’s son’s sensory development.
Delaying any necessary services at such a critical stage in a child’s life may potentially impact
future development, which is the purpose of early intervention services.
The three participants reported positive experiences when communication with providers
or service coordinators was more frequent or inclusive, and two of the three participants had
examples of how decreased communication can cause a delay or lapse in service access.
Communication is an example of how the master narrative, held by the providers and regional
center service coordinator, can impact services if not inclusive of the counternarrative, held by
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 68

the parent. Historically the system which offers educational services holds power creating an
imbalance in access to services by privileging the master narrative over the counternarrative
(Annamma et al., 2013). Increased parent and child engagement in the early intervention process
is linked to an increase in perceived satisfaction with services (Dunst et al., 2014; Lee, 2015). A
power differential held by the providers can create a lack of quality engagement in the family
professional partnership and influence how families receive and access services (Lee, 2015).
This influence was seen in both the case of Mary and Linda when they decreased or discontinued
services based on a lack of communication by the service provider. Positive outcomes for both
the parent and child in early intervention services were associated with increased parent
involvement and capacity building (Dunst et al., 2014). When service providers took time to
explain why and how services were being offered, the participants expressed a positive
experience with early intervention services. When the opposite took place, the parent inevitably
discontinued the services before their child was no longer eligible for that service, interrupting
service.
The service providers that privileged what DisCrit calls the “insider voice” as an
important component in the early intervention services not only followed the federal mandate of
IDEA (2004) by facilitating family-centered practices, but also broke down barriers of the power
dynamic of only the service providers as the expert. For example, when Linda received text
messages and recordings of her son during sessions she was unable to attend, she stated the
perception of inclusion in the early intervention process. The three participants perceived the
services to be supportive when dialogue about said services was ongoing and facilitated parent
participation. In addition to communication between the participants and the early intervention
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 69

staff about services, the communication of targeted strategies by providers was perceived
positively by the participants in accessing Part C early intervention.
Provider Strategies. The three participants noted improvements in their child’s
development. The three participants conveyed a positive perception of services when providers
offered strategies for working with their child that increased adaptive and self-help skills or
decreased maladaptive behaviors. Patricia was the only participant who did not work directly
with her child’s providers, but she did say that she would text or talk to them on the phone.
However, primarily her mother, who did work with the provider’s, would provide feedback
about what the providers wanted her to work on with Karen at home. The other two participants,
Mary and Linda, indicated that strategies given directly to them by the service providers that
targeted specific behaviors such as tantrums were helpful for them. The strategies allowed them
to handle the behaviors more appropriately without the providers' help. These strategies were
perceived by the participants to benefit their children’s development.
Mary indicated she was having trouble going out into public situations with her son due
to what she termed his “meltdowns.” With the support of the early intervention provider, she was
able to learn strategies to help him.
…she kind of gives me more ideas for his meltdown. Maybe like two weeks ago I
reached out to her because the meltdowns were really bad, sometimes it's too much. So
we kind of went through it and she told me. She kind of gave me an idea to carry like an
emergency kit. And in there I just put like toys, cereal, water and offer it to him when he's
having that meltdown so he could stop. Because it could be very hard. I don't know. She's
always giving me ideas to how to cope with his meltdowns and not to be mad or not to
lose patience and things like that.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 70

The provider communicated specific strategies that helped Mary “cope.” The three participants
expressed that they had not had a child with developmental delays, and for two of them, this was
their first child. The strategies offered by the providers increased the parents’ knowledge of how
to interact and increase age-appropriate behaviors. Mary not only received support for herself to
cope but also could see the benefits of the services to her child. Mary stated,
Because I noticed the changes too. So whatever they're telling me that he's getting better
at, I see it at home too. It's not like they're just saying he learns, to get rid of the service
and it's something like that. No, I felt like it's true what they're telling me. So, it's a big
help.
When the parents saw essential changes in their child’s behavior, it impacted their overall
feeling about the services being provided. Communication about strategies in connection with
the perceived benefits in child development was associated with Mary’s positive perception of
access to services. Mary said, “The changes that he was having, because of all the therapies, they
tend of work with me too. I mean they help him. They kind of give me that extra support too.”
Mary also indicated that once she saw the changes, she wished she would have started the
services sooner, speaking to her perceived satisfaction.
Patricia also stated that the providers offered her strategies to work on in the home.
Patricia said the provider would tell her to “practice with her child, this and that.” The provider
gave her specific adaptive and self-help strategies, such as teaching her to “put on the clothes”
and “how to take off her shoes.” Patricia indicated they would practice these strategies at home
with her daughter and that she saw improvement. Patricia stated, “Well, the most helpful was be
able to provide my daughter for all this therapies and speech therapy also. It was really helpful
for me. Well, for her, too, but it was really, it was helpful for her.” The support of the providers
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 71

through strategies furnished led to Patricia’s positive perception of accessing early intervention
services. She said,
It was the best experience, to be honest. It was the first time where I get involved therapy,
especially because it was my first child. And it did help me a lot, and I really thankful for
all the therapies that she, they come and help her. So that was really, really, really great
experience, especially because she needed the help and they did help her a lot and I'm
really, really grateful because they did that for my daughter.
Patricia was grateful for the improvements she saw in her daughter’s development. The three
participants indicated that the support through communication they specifically received from
the providers was helpful in conjunction with the perceived increase in developmental skills.
Linda also spoke of received support to help her manage her own “frustrations” with her
son’s behavior. Linda stated,
They (occupational therapists) were able to show me different strategies because they
said that his sensory system needs proprioceptive input. So now that I know that, if I see
him getting upset, I can give him a deep hug or find something he can crash into, just so
he can calm down, instead of just me getting frustrated and yelling and he's yelling and
everybody's upset. We have strategies now, that we can use when we don't have them
around.
The strategies offered by the occupational therapist increased the parents' knowledge of child
development and how to respond to certain maladaptive behaviors. Linda’s occupational
therapists not only showed her techniques they taught her terminology. Linda used the phrase
“proprioceptive input” which is specific jargon used to explain helping a child through tactile or
movement strategies so they can become aware of their body in space. The communication of
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 72

targeted strategies not only improved Linda’s son’s sensory issues, but speech strategies also
increased his expressive language skills. Linda indicated that her son “didn’t initiate play with
other kids because it’s not easy for him to communicate with them.” But more recently, with the
support and strategies, she said, “They are improving. Like just today, we were at the store and
he made a friend and he was waving at her.” Linda reported her speech therapist would “come
out with handouts of different strategies” and she would ask her, “Do you want to go over any of
the strategies? Of if I wanted to practice, she’d be open to practice with me.” Communication of
targeted strategies by service providers in combination with the positive gains Linda noticed in
her child’s overall development led Linda to perceive her access to early intervention services
positively.
Providing suggestions to enhance development led to participants’ perceptions of positive
interactions with the service providers, which gives agency to the parent with their child’s
services and perceived benefits in development (Marshall et al., 2017). As parents gain
knowledge and familiarity with the system, they feel empowered to use their agency to
participate in informed decision-making (Marshall et al., 2017). The parents become equal
partners in the early intervention process, which decreases the system's hierarchy that creates the
dichotomy in narratives.
The knowledge of child development that the providers have and share with parents can
increase developmental skills and opportunities for growth in future educational settings in
children accessing early intervention services (Zigler et al., 1992). The increase of provider
strategies associated with parent-child assistance elicited more positive responses to services.
Parents are beholden to providers and coordinators to encourage high expectations for the
professional family partnerships in accessing services, which historically has not been done for
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 73

ethnically marginalized families in the education system (Conner et al., 2016). The early
intervention system can be complicated to navigate, and parents who have never dealt with all
the components may lack an understanding of their rights or knowledge of how to access
services, especially for families of color (Harrington & Kang, 2016). The three participants
indicated they were not sure what to expect from the early intervention services since this was
their first time accessing these types of services for a child. The participants expressed positive
affirmations when they were given tools to help support their child in their child’s development
through early intervention services. The provider tools were not the only resource participants
had access to that supported their child’s development in the early intervention process. The next
area discusses the indirect services that offered information that would have been beneficial in
increasing their capacity in their child’s early intervention services.
Indirect Services. The three participants were indirectly involved in accessing early
intervention services through notifications of informational and support groups and the IFSP
meeting and written document. The three participants indicated that their regional center service
coordinator informed them that different informational and support groups were available
through the family resource center, and the three participants perceived the offered services to be
at inconvenient times, creating a barrier to access. The three participants also indicated receipt
of the IFSP document, but all three expressed minimal participation in creating and during the
IFSP meeting.
The three participants were working moms who expressed issues with work schedules
related to attending parent groups centered around information about the early intervention
process and connecting parents with other parents accessing services for support. All the groups
that were offered to the parents were during typical work hours at the regional center sites.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 74

Mary indicated that she was having trouble accepting her child’s need for early
intervention services, and because of that, she reached out to her regional center service
coordinator to inquire about a support group. “Two weeks ago when I seen (RC Coordinator), I
asked her. Like it was kind of like hard for me to accept the, I asked, ‘Do you guys have any
support groups?’ And she said they do have it.” After Mary reached out, her regional center
service coordinator offered her the next available group meeting, which Mary indicated was
about the Individualized Education Program (IEP) that is completed for school-age children. “I
went in there and they had a meeting of all the IEPs and then they went over it.” Mary was one
of the few parents able to attend but had to leave the meeting early because she had to get to
work. She reported, “I couldn't stay. I know it was from 9:30 to like 11:30 or 12:30. But I
couldn't stay because I had to go to work. But I was there maybe for like an hour.” Mary had to
reach out to her regional center service coordinator to obtain information about a group and was
not given one of the many support groups that the regional center offers but an informational
group on the IEP process. Mary eventually said that the group was not as beneficial because
“their kids were a little older, it’s a little bit different from what I’m going through… They’re
accepting things.” The regional center service coordinator providing a group that was not
targeted towards Mary’s needs and was not during a convenient time created a barrier in her
accessing the indirect services that she could have utilized to support herself and her child.
The other two parents were unable to attend the groups due to their work schedules.
Patricia said her regional center service coordinator would, “Sometimes she will offer me to go
to Regional Center for this, I think it was events, but I thought it was tough. It was just bad time
for me because I have work.” Linda had a similar experience as Patricia regarding being offered
a group by her regional center coordinator,
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 75

…she did encourage me to sign up for groups while we were down at the office. They
have this huge calendar of different groups and she said, ‘Well, you could check this out.
You can sign up for these things.’ And I was like, ‘They're all offered during the day.’
And she's like, ‘Yes.’ And I go, ‘I've got to work.’
The three participants expressed difficulty attending parent groups due to their work
schedule, and although the groups were not a direct service for the child receiving services, it
was a part of the early intervention services that all parents can access to improve their
understanding of the early intervention process. A requirement of IDEA for Part C early
intervention services is family-centered practices. Increasing the capacity of caregivers to
support their children, who were eligible for early intervention services, was a fundamental
component in family-centered practices. Another component that was an indirect service to the
child, but tied into the family-centered practice, is creating the Individualized Family Service
Plan (IFSP) and meeting to review the document.
The three participants indicated some knowledge about having an IFSP developed, but all
three indicated minimal participation in the development of or during the IFSP meeting.
Moreover, one parent recognized later that one service was offered on the IFSP and then was
never actually given. The development of the IFSP document and subsequent meeting is
mandated by IDEA to be inclusive of the parent, as the parent and family are an integral part of
the child’s development at this stage in life (2004).
One of the interview questions for each of the participants was how the IFSP was
developed. Mary initially said, “I don’t think we have that” and followed it up by saying,
“because they gave me a bunch of papers, I was just finding the papers.” Mary could not
remember the IFSP document, and she remembers initially feeling “overwhelmed” by the
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 76

process. She indicated the eligibility and need for services were explained to her in a phone call
instead of an in-person meeting to review the IFSP.
When she called me, she told tell me that they really thought that he needed all three of
those therapists and their attitude was too much to me. Because it could be really
overwhelming. That I could maybe see just two or one or... She tried to explain to me
everything and kind of like give me that support because it was kind of, she said "It is a
little bit too much, but it's up to you if you want to take them." And I said, "Well,
definitely. If it's going to help my son then yes."
Mary indicates the IFSP details were communicated to her through a phone call from her
regional center service coordinator and that her regional center service coordinator also offered
to decrease services to “support” Mary’s perceived emotional and mental stress in dealing with
all of the needed early intervention services for her child. Mary’s perception of the IFSP
development and meeting was neither negative or positive. However, her details of the
experience and communication involving the IFSP document and meeting indicate that her
involvement was minimal and relied solely on the regional center service coordinator’s guidance.
Patricia’s experience with developing the IFSP and having meetings was slightly
different, but her experience also postulates minimal communication of details about the
document that specifies her child’s early intervention services. Upon the first mention of the
IFSP, Patricia did not remember receiving the document. However, after the interviewer
explained the content of the document, she recalled the process of developing the initial IFSP.
Patricia said, “Well, first they (regional center service coordinator) told me they’re going to call
me for the review.” Patricia then indicated that the regional center service coordinator came to
her house because she could not go to the regional center location due to time constraints.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 77

Patricia’s initial IFSP meeting took place in her home, but she reports that her following six-
month IFSP meeting reviews were sent to her via mail. “She always send me the reports after
the six months. At the six month, she will just send me the reports by mail and I will just read
them through. Well, most of the time.” Patricia reports minimal communication between her
regional center service coordinator when reviewing the required Periodic Review of the IFSP
every six months. The early intervention service coordinator is mandated to review the IFSP
every six months to examine the treatment plan with parents to determine if new outcomes are
needed (IDEA, 2004). Supporting the participant in this process and communicating changes
and updates lends itself to supporting their child accessing early intervention services. Not
carefully reviewing the plan or a parent not being a part of the development team for the IFSP is
not only an abdication of the law, but it can also result in overlooking services the child could
have accessed, which is what Linda experienced.
Linda started early intervention services in another state and gave more detail and
reported more collaboration for the initial IFSP in that state. However, when Linda spoke about
her initial IFSP with her local Los Angeles county regional center, she states, “I think they
developed it.” Linda used the word “they” to describe how it was developed in Los Angeles
county as opposed to the word “we” that she used when describing the initial in the other state.
I think Joanna (regional center service coordinator’s name) developed it in the office and
then based on what each therapist said and, they sent the report to Joanna and then Joanna
came to our (Linda’s) home and reviewed the IFSP for me to sign.
Linda did not assign blame but perceived that this situation could have been changed due to poor
communication.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 78

I feel like in some situation, like the initial intake, how I was I guess not aggressive with
making sure he (Linda’s son) got started right away, I would say that parents can
definitely use their voice and ask to speak to someone else. That could have been better
and that’s one of the things that I regret.
Linda further goes on to say that the physical therapist (PT) who worked with her son, said he
was eligible for PT services. These services were written on the initial IFSP that the interviewer
had to corroborate data, but Linda indicated that he never received that service. “See, that was
kind of confusing because they said he was eligible. That's why, that's what I'm saying. The one
physical therapist said he was eligible, but then the regional center said he wasn't.” Linda goes
on to say that the communication was unclear because she spoke directly to the physical therapist
and she said,
She (physical therapist) was like, ‘Well yeah, I approved him for the thing.’ And she
(physical therapist) was saying, ‘The regional center never got back with me.’ And then
when I (Linda) reached out to…, the service coordinator, she just said, 'Oh, he's not
eligible based on their requirements.’
Linda perceived the situation with physical therapy being offered on the IFSP and then the
regional center service coordinator contradicting the eligibility to be a negative communication
experience that resulted in her child not being able to access services he was eligible to receive.
She concludes talking about this situation by saying, “So yeah, that could have been explained to
me before I had to reach out.” Linda’s experience is an example of how the parent needs to be
included in the development of the IFSP and not a recipient of the document after it has been
created by the regional center staff. The IFSP document is, as it’s title states, a plan for the
family; therefore, it needs to be inclusive of the voice of the family.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 79

Indirect services that promote family participation and engagement are a significant
component in the Part C early intervention services. A decrease in engagement and parent
capacity building can lead to a more negative perception of outcomes (Dunst et al., 2014). The
parent should be an integral part of their child’s early intervention services by participating in
decision making (Marshall et al., 2017; Votava & Chiasson, 2015), but when they are unable to
attend parent information groups or participate fully in the development of the IFSP due to the
systems ineffective communication, the bureaucracy is setting the parents up for failure. More of
an effort is needed in ensuring that ethnically marginalized families are accessing equitable and
effective early intervention (Bailey et al., 2005). The imposed time restrictions limits access to
participate in the early intervention services in its entirety, and this inequity of access to services
is how tenet five of DisCrit explains the rights of citizens with the intersectionality of race and
dis/ability are denied (Annamma et al., 2013). DisCrit recognizes that on both macro and micro
levels, social, historical, economic, and political interests restrict access to educational equity and
seeks to address the power structure of racism and ableism faced by children of color with a
dis/ability (Annamma et al., 2013). The current early intervention system is inadequately
communicating access to family-centered practices. By only offering indirect services at times
when parents are working or developing the IFSP document without their involvement, the
system is communicating to parents that their voice is not essential in the early intervention
process. As Linda stated, parents' voices need to be heard, and in order to be heard,
communication has to be inclusive and reciprocal.
Summary
This chapter reported findings from a qualitative study that utilized interviews to obtain
the perceptions of three parents accessing Part C early intervention services. The insider's voice
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 80

is privileged in this study to bring forward the counternarrative of ethnically marginalized
families who have a child with a dis/ability. The perceptions of ethnically marginalized
individuals who intersect with a dis/ability are lacking in research that promotes ideas that are
employed to construct early intervention policies. Interviewing ethnically marginalized parents
who have a child with a dis/ability created space for their perceptions of access in the early
intervention system. These three participants perceived communication and the quality of that
communication to determine their negative or positive experience in accessing services. The
communication centered around three sub-themes: communication between the participant and
the service provider and coordinator, the strategies that were found useful to them in improving
their child’s development, and the communication of indirect services. The three participants
had issues navigating the complex early intervention system, but positively perceived services
when they were able to mobilize parent agency and build capital with the support of the
providers and coordinators to determine the best ways to access early intervention services for
the benefit of their child. The authors of DisCrit explain it as being the “theory that will be of
service in understanding the lived realities of people (Annamma et al., 2013, p. 6). The findings,
which can be interpreted as the reality that the three participants perceived as the best outcomes
for accessing services centered around engaging them in the process to improve their child’s
well-being, which included participation in direct and indirect services to increase their child’s
development and their own capital with navigating the system.
The last chapter, Chapter 5, will discuss the findings and their connections to the current
research, the implications these findings have for practice and recommendations for further
research on the topic of access for Part C early intervention services for families of color.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 81

Chapter 5: Discussion
Children ages zero to five years old who have been diagnosed with a developmental
delay or who are at-risk for a developmental delay can access free early intervention and
preschool special education services as mandated by the federal law Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, 2004). These services are offered to children to increase development and
school readiness skills in preparation for Kindergarten and decrease the utilization of more
restrictive special education services in grade school. The purpose of this study was to focus on
ethnically marginalized families with children who were transitioning from the early intervention
Part C services in IDEA to Part B preschool services to gain insight on the parents’ perceptions
about their access to Part C early intervention services. In order to achieve their perspectives, the
following research question was posed:
1. What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about
accessing Part C early intervention services?
Interviews with three participants were used for this qualitative study to capture their
perceptions of access. Their narrative was vital to this study because it represented the
counternarrative of ethnically marginalized families who are navigating the special education
system. Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) postulates that research neglects to include
the counternarrative of ethnically marginalized people who intersect with a dis/ability.
Highlighting the counternarrative in this study augmented the current research encompassing
minoritized communities intersecting with a dis/ability.
The next section of this chapter discusses the central findings from this study in relation
to the current literature. After this discussion, limitations of the study are identified. Following
limitations, the relevant findings from this study are connected to implications for practice and
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 82

how specific audiences can benefit from these recommendations. Next, recommendations for
further research are explained to enhance the current study and to identify continued
improvements in research that focus on ethnically marginalized families accessing services in the
special education system.
Discussion of Findings
This study answered my research question with an overall theme that parents’ perceptions
of access were based on the quality of communication they experienced during the early
intervention process. This finding is essential to the study because when parents perceived
services to have communication that was inclusive and afforded family-centered practices, there
was a positive impact on accessing the early intervention services. The theme of communication
had three sub-themes to explain different ways communication is utilized in the early
intervention process: through early intervention staff, direct provider strategies, and indirect
service communication. The perceived quality of these three types of communication tied into
accessing services.
The three participants that were interviewed did not have many expectations for their
child’s services and were initially unaware of how early intervention services would be
implemented to support their child. Their lack of knowledge of policies and procedures
pertaining to the system and services potentially made meeting their expectations easier for the
early intervention staff working with the families. Marshall et al. (2017) found in their study that
parents lacked an understanding of the early intervention process and services but that parents
were satisfied with the services that they did obtain from their early intervention process. The
current study found that communication even more so played a vital role in the participant’s
positive or negative perceptions. The perceived quality of direct communication from regional
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 83

center service coordinators and service providers, providing specific strategies for the
participants to increase parent knowledge and support their child’s development, and indirect
services to support family-centered practices were the main factors underlying communication in
the current study. These factors align with Marshall et al. (2017), with their conclusion that
parents participating in early intervention services professed satisfaction based on the perceived
benefits in their child’s development and the early intervention services. The current study
concluded the three participants perceived positive experiences with the early intervention
services when quality communication led to the perceived improvement in their child’s
development, and they were offered strategies to address behaviors that were impacting their
family dynamics.
Increased dialogue that engages the parents in their children’s services connects to quality
family professional partnerships. In studies completed by Dunst et al. (2014) and Lee (2015),
found that engaging parents and building capacity can increase positive outcomes in early
intervention services. Not only does research conclude that quality engagement improves
satisfaction, but the federal law incorporates a statement that emphasizes parent involvement to
grow their capacity so they can meet their child’s special needs (IDEA, 2004).
While two of the participants had more positive perceptions about the early intervention
services based on the above perceived benefits, there were a couple of situations that elicited
perceived negative experiences about the services offered and impacted access to those services
and the early intervention process. Building capacity in parents and empowering them with the
knowledge to help support their child is a common theme throughout current research (Dunst et
al., 2017; Marshall et al., 2017; Votava & Chiasson, 2015). One way in which the early
intervention services can help parents build this capacity is through their offered parent support
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 84

groups and informational meetings to increase knowledge of the policies and procedures of the
early intervention process. These groups indirectly support the child by increasing parent
capacity to reinforce what the service providers are offering directly. The three parents in the
interviews indicated that they were unable to attend these groups due to prior work obligations
and that all of the groups were held during typical Monday through Friday work hours. Parent
engagement and capacity building is a central theme, but the literature reviewed for this study
did not mention how support and informational groups can impact the increase of parent
knowledge or how adverse outcomes may be associated with a lack of access to these groups. If
early intervention is mandated to use family-centered practices, only offering informational and
support groups to parents during potential working hours is not conducive to this practice.
Minimal participation in the development and implementation of the IFSP document and
meeting was also another example of communicating an indirect service to parents about why
and how their child can access early intervention services. If parents are not involved and
unaware of what the IFSP document says their child can access for early intervention services,
then they can be potentially missing out on accessing specific services. Linda was an example of
this when her IFSP indicated her son was eligible for physical therapy, but she never received the
service. This document is a form of communication from the regional center and is provided so
parents are aware of their child’s expected trajectory to increase development through the early
intervention services. When a parent is not engaged with this document, it is a failure on the part
of the early intervention system in creating family-professional partnerships and building parent
capacity.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 85

Implications for Practice
This study was framed by DisCrit, which encourages researchers to focus on the
counternarrative of ethnically marginalized people who have a dis/ability. Interviewing
ethnically marginalized parents about their children who had a developmental delay highlighted
the insider voices’ perceptions about accessing early intervention services. The implications for
practice, based on these perceptions, is that there is a need to increase parent involvement
through communication of child-directed services and indirect services that focus on capacity
building. Education, in general, is child-focused, but the early intervention services offered
through IDEA (2004) are family-centered and, as such, necessitate parent involvement. For
parents to properly engage in the early intervention process, communication from coordinators
and service providers should be ongoing and initiated by them to include and promote parent
participation. Communication that is inclusive of the parents by professionals can lead to
positive early intervention experiences, as reported by the three participants involved in this
study. Including the parent in the child-directed services endorses family-centered practices, and
as shown by this study, satisfaction related to services and continuity in accessing services. Even
though the literature supports the use of family-centered practices, ongoing support of these
practices, especially with ethnically marginalized families, needs to be implemented because
barriers to access can be associated with a lack of family professional partnerships (Dunst et al.,
2014; Marshall et al., 2017; Lee, 2015; Shannon, 2004; Summers et al., 2005; Swafford et al.,
2015; Votava & Chiasson, 2015).
Lee (2015) found that parents who were educated, middle class, and predominately white
understood the bureaucratic system of Part C early intervention services and were better able to
navigate the system to advocate for services. The one participant, Linda, who had the most
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 86

education in the current study, was able to advocate for the most services for her son. When
parents lack knowledge about the policies and procedures in the system, it can impact their
expectations of services and play a role in their interactions with the services. When asked about
changes that could improve the early intervention system, Linda said she believed parents might
understand more of the process if they received a timeline based on services through a brochure
or visual aid to help process all of the information. Linda, along with the other two participants,
often expressed being overwhelmed with the process. Linda’s suggestion of having small bites
of information to refer back to after finding out her child was eligible for early intervention
services was another idea the early intervention system could use to communicate with parents to
help build capacity. The implementation of support groups and informational sessions during
hours that working parents can attend would also offer parents more access to build capacity and
empower them with the knowledge to navigate the early intervention system.
Communication can come in different forms. Based on the perceptions of the
participants in this study, effective communication in which information is received and
understood increases positive experiences in early intervention services. Early intervention
services may need to begin using more multimodal forms of communication to increase parent
engagement. The types of communication could include: written communication through the
IFSP, parent handouts, and other visual aids, face-to-face communication through meetings with
regional center service coordinators and service providers, informational and support groups, and
community events, and lastly through technology to accommodate parents who are unable to
meet face-to-face by creating webinars for the informational groups, support blogs, emails, and
updating website information to make it more user-friendly.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 87

Recommendations for Research
Parents are the key stakeholders in early childhood special education, and as such, their
perceptions about access to early intervention services are crucial in determining best practices.
The voices of ethnically marginalized parents are often left out or make up a small percentage
included in the qualitative studies focused on Part C early intervention services. Based on the
limitations of the current study, increasing the participation of ethnically marginalized parents in
future research furthers the field of early intervention services in an effort to understand
discrepancies in access. Future research conducted at a regional center may be beneficial
because there is more access to participants within this demographic. In addition to gaining
access to more parental participants through the regional center, studies could also include
regional center service coordinators and service providers to juxtapose the narratives and
determine how they perceive access to ethnically marginalized families. The current study is
only the beginning in examining the unique experiences of ethnically marginalized families
participating in Part C early intervention services through the lens of DisCrit and how those
experiences impact accessing services.
This study found that the participants’ perceived quality of communication impacted
participants' access to early intervention services. The more inclusive and understandable the
communication experience was led to positive experiences due to perceived benefits in their
children’s development. Another recommendation would be to study both parents who have seen
developmental gains in their children, and parents who have not seen an improvement to
determine if perceived positive experiences are contingent on the children’s development solely.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 88

Conclusion
The purpose of this research study was to understand the perceptions of ethnically
marginalized parents who have a child in Part C early intervention services. Access to early
intervention services is critical in decreasing the potential for future developmental delays and
increasing school readiness skills (IDEA, 2004; Joen et al., 2011; Karoly et al., 1998; Ramey &
Ramey, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2001). Depriving ethnically marginalized families access to early
intervention services furthers opportunity gaps that perpetuate educational debts (Ladson-
Billings, 2006). Early intervention services that increase ethnically marginalized parent
participation and increase knowledge of policies and procedures in the early intervention process
can improve equitable access to services. Knowledge truly is power, and if parents are unaware
of what services they can access or what services their child may need based on understanding
child development, then they may become passive participants in the early intervention process.
Ethnically marginalized families need to have ownership of their education destiny and are
entitled to the same rights as those in power creating the master narrative that dictates special
education services. This study showed that when parents were given the tools to facilitate
growth and change through the early intervention services, there were positive outcomes for their
child and themselves. Grounding future research in DisCrit not only centers research around
ethnically marginalized persons intersected with a dis/ability but also positively frames the
research from their perspective. A deficit lens has often been used to portray the stories of
people of color, and this study used the framework of DisCrit to intentionally break the cycle of
deficit thinking in special education research including families of color.
As I finalize this current study in the month of March 2020, we as a society are being
faced with fighting a worldwide pandemic, the coronavirus, Covid-19. The spread of the disease
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 89

has caused mass closures of schools and the use of online learning platforms to support children
with their educational needs. As updates are disseminated, what I notice most is the lack of
information and current protocols to support our most vulnerable student populations: students
with special education services and English learners. This current global crisis again highlights
that the master narrative of the “majority” is prioritized over people who are ethnically
marginalized, people with a dis/ability, and families who are financially disenfranchised. The
school closures will inevitably only further opportunity gaps while those student populations
wait for access to equitable educational services.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 90

References
Almli, C. R. (2018). Infant stimulation program. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved from:
https://www.britannica.com/science/infant-stimulation-program
Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B., & Connor, D. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit):
Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. United Kingdom: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring
the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in
education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 46-71.
doi:10.3102/0091732X18759041
Bailey Jr., D. B., Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., Scarborough, A., Mallik, S., & Nelson, L. (2005).
Thirty-six-month outcomes for families of children who have disabilities and participated
in early intervention. Pediatrics, 116(6), 1346-1352. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1239
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Center for Parent Information and Resources (2019). Writing the IFSP for your child. Newark,
NJ, Author.
Colker, R. (2013). Disabled Education : A Critical Analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. New York: NYU Press. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=562432&authtype=s
so&custid=s8983984
Connor, D. J., Ferri, B. A., & Annamma, S. A. (Ed.). (2016). DisCrit: Disability studies and
critical race theory in education. New York: Teachers College Press
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 91

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DDS.ca.gov. (2014). California early intervention act: California government code division 14.
California early intervention services act chapter 4. Eligibility. Retrieved from
https://dds.ca.gov/statutes/GOVSectionView.cfm?Section=95014.htm
DDS Information Technology Service Division. (2018). Department of developmental services:
Fact book. Retrieved
from https://www.emis.com/php/search/doc?pc=US&dcid=634507726&primo=1
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory: An introduction. (3
rd
ed.). New York:
New York University Press.
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Espe-Sherwindt, M. (2014). Family capacity-building in early
childhood intervention: Do context and setting matter? School Community Journal, 24(1),
37-48. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1537950570?accountid=617
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). In the shadow of brown. Remedial and Special
Education, 26(2), 93-100. doi:10.1177/07419325050260020401
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. London: Sage.
Harrington, C., & Kang, T. (2008). Disparities in service utilization and expenditures for
individuals with developmental disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 1(4), 184-195.
doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2008.05.004
Harrington, C., & Kang, T. (2016). Disparities in service use and expenditures for people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities in California in 2005 and 2013. United States:
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 92

American Association of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities. doi:10.1352/1934-
9556-54.1.1.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus
reality. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 372-388. doi:10.1177/001440290807400306
https://westsiderc.org. (2017). Retrieved from https://westsiderc.org/who-we-are/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 USC 1400, Public Law
108-446. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html
Jeon, H., Peterson, C. A., Wall, S., Carta, J. J., Luze, G., Eshbaugh, E. M., & Swanson, M.
(2011). Predicting school readiness for low-income children with disability risks
identified early. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 435-452.
doi:10.1177/001440291107700404
Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., . .
. Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the
cost and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, California: The RAND
Corp.
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the
individuals with disabilities education act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324-
334.
Lee, Y. (2015). The paradox of early intervention: Families’ participation driven by
professionals throughout service process. International Journal of Child Care and
Education Policy, 9(1), 1-19. doi:10.1186/s40723-015-0007-x
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 93

Marshall, J., Adelman, A., Kesten, S. M., Natale, R. A., & Elbaum, B. (2017). Parents’
experiences navigating intervention systems for young children with mild language
delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(3), 180-198. doi:10.1177/1053815117704958
Maternal Child Health and Education Research and Data Center. (2013). School readiness: An
analysis of biomedical and sociodemographic risk factors. University of Florida.
Mattern, J. (2015). A mixed-methods study of early intervention implementation in the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Supports, services, and policies for young children with
developmental delays and disabilities.Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(1), 57-67.
doi:10.1007/s10643-014-0633-x
McManus, B. M., Carle, A. C., & Rapport, M. J. (2014). Classifying infants and toddlers with
developmental vulnerability: Who is most likely to receive early intervention? Child:
Care, Health and Development, 40(2), 205-214. doi:10.1111/cch.12013
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, D. F., Greer, M., Goldhammer, K., & Mackey-Andrews, S. D. (2001). Fulfilling the
promise of early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(2), 90-102.
doi:10.1177/105381510102400202
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early
intervention make a difference?Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(4), 471-491.
doi:10.1353/mpq.2004.0034
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an
early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 94

follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Jama, 285(18), 2339-2346.
doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2339
Roberts, G., Howard, K., Spittle, A. J., Brown, N. C., Anderson, P. J., & Doyle, L. W. (2007).
Rates of early intervention services in very preterm children with developmental
disabilities at age 2 years. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 44(2008), 276-280.
Rosenberg, S. A., Zhang, D., & Robinson, C. C. (2008). Prevalence of developmental delays and
participation in early intervention services for young
children. Pediatrics, 121 doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1680
Senate Human Services Committee Oversight Hearing. (2017). Moving toward equity:
Addressing disparities in services provided by the regional center system. California:
Senate.
Shannon, P. (2004). Barriers to family-centered services for infants and toddlers with
developmental delays. Social Work, 49(2), 301-308. doi:10.1093/sw/49.2.301
Shonkoff, J. P. (2010). Building a new biodevelopmental framework to guide the future of early
childhood policy. Child Development, 81(1), 357-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2009.01399.x
Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005).
Measuring the quality of Family—Professional partnerships in special education
services. Exceptional Children, 72(1), 65-81. doi:10.1177/001440290507200104
Swafford, M. D., Wingate, K. O., Zagumny, L., & Richey, D. (2015). Families living in
poverty. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(2), 138-154. doi:10.1177/1053815115602880
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 95

Thomas, K., Ellis, A., McLaurin, C., Daniels, J., & Morrissey, J. (2007). Access to care for
autism-related services. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1902-
1912. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0323-7.
Twardzik, E., MacDonald, M., & Dixon-Ibarra, A. (2017). The relationship between state lead
agency and enrollment into early intervention services. Journal of Early
Intervention, 39(3), 253-263. doi:10.1177/1053815117708999
Ushomirsky, N., & Williams, D. (2015). Funding gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on
educating students who need the most. Education Trust. doi:10.1086/667913 Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667913
Vail, C. O., Lieberman-Betz, R. G., & McCorkle, L. S. (2018). The impact of funding on part C
systems: Is the tail wagging the dog? Journal of Early Intervention, 40(3), 229-245.
doi:10.1177/1053815118771388
Voulgarides, C. K., & Tefera, A. (2017). Reframing the racialization of disabilities in
policy. Theory into Practice, 56(3), 161-168. doi:10.1080/00405841.2017.1336037
Williams, M. E., Perrigo, J. L., Banda, T. Y., Matic, T., & Goldfarb, F. D. (2013). Barriers to
accessing services for young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(1), 61-74.
doi:10.1177/1053815113507111
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education. Remedial
and Special Education, 19(4), 219-228. doi:10.1177/074193259801900405
Zamudio, M., Russell, C. & Rios, F. (2011). Critical race theory matters: Education and
ideology. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention. American
Psychologist, 47(8), 997-1006. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.997
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 96

Appendix A
Interview Protocol: Parents
Introduction:
Hi, I’m Monique Rowles, and I’m a student at USC Rossier School of Education. Thank
you for meeting with me today. I have asked you here for this interview because I am interested
in getting your opinion and experiences related to the Part C early intervention process. The
following questions will ask you to think about your experiences working with early intervention
staff and receiving early intervention services. The conversation we have will be confidential
and the use of pseudonyms will be used when writing results. If there is any question that you do
not feel comfortable answering please feel free to simply say “pass” and I will move on. With
your permission I would like to record the interview.
I would like to start the interview with some basic background information first.
1. How long have you been receiving early intervention services with SCLARC?
2. Do you have other children?

3. Have they ever received early intervention services?

4. What is your ethnic identity?

5. What is your highest level of education?

6. Are you currently employed? If yes what is your current occupation?

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 97

7. Who is the primary caretaker of (child’s name)?

- Are there other adults in the house who help support (child’s name)?

RESEARCH
Question
Literature – use
APA citation
Interview Question
What perceptions do
ethnically minoritized
and marginalized
families have about
accessing Part C
early intervention
services?
Background
knowledge
How did you learn about regional center’s
early intervention services?
Marshall et al. (2017)
(issues with multiple
referrals)
Once you found out about regional center
what was your first experience like, in as
much detail as you can remember such as
finding the office, front office staff greeting,
etc?
- Did you call in? How was that
phone call?
- Did you come into the office? How
was the first office visit?

Harry (2008) (values
for goal setting)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
What were you expecting out of regional
center services?
Why did you think the services would be
helpful?
Harry (2008) (values
for goal setting)
How have the current services met those
expectations?
Harry (2008) (values
for goal setting)
How have the current services not met your
expectations?
Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with
IFSP meeting)
Can you tell me about how your child’s IFSP
was developed?
How were you involved in the meeting?
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 98

Were you able to ask questions if you had
them?
How did you feel about the process of the
meeting?
Did you understand the IFSP document after
the meeting was complete?
Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with
IFSP meeting) Dunst
et al. (2014) (family
centered practice)
How did your regional center coordinator
involve you in that process?
If you could make changes to how parents or
others are involved in the early intervention
process what would you suggest?
Background
information
If you can recall what eligibility was given to
your child on the IFSP?
Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with
IFSP meeting)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
How did your service coordinator help you
understand developmental delays or your
child’s specific eligibility?

Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with
IFSP meeting)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(feedback on child’s
assessments and
development and
perceptions of child’s
development)
Did you remember agreeing or disagreeing
with this eligibility and why?
Have you changed your mind about this since
being involved in early intervention services?
Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with IFSP
meeting) Marshall et
al. (2017) (perception
of offered services)
Now looking back would you want to change
anything about the IFSP meetings?
Lee (2015) (quality
engagement with
IFSP meeting)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(feedback on child’s
What services is your child currently eligible
for?
- Where these services what you expected
when you first reached out for support?
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 99

assessments and
development)
- Where any added since you first began
with regional center?
Where any not given that you were expecting?
Lee (2015)
(communication
related to access)
What services do you access?
- Where do you access these services?
- When do you access these services?
Are they convenient for you?
What services, if any, do you access outside
of regional center services?
Harrington & Kang
(2016) (knowledge of
how to access
services)
If there are services you are not accessing,
what barriers have kept you from accessing
those services?
- How are you involved in your child’s
early intervention services?
- Can you share an example?
- How are other family members or
supportive people in your child’s life
involved in the early intervention
services?
- Can you share an example?
- If there is another language spoken in the
home how does your SC or providers
communicate in that language?
- How have you seen a difference in your
child?
- How does s/he interact with you and
your family now compared to before EI?
How does s/he interact with other children
now?
Lee (2015)
(communication
related to access)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(feedback on child’s
assessments and
development)
What services if any, do you feel your child
needs that are not being offered to you at this
time?
Why do you think these services would be
helpful?
Harrington & Kang
(2016) (knowledge of
how to access
services) Dunst et al.
What is your experience with asking for
specific services from your regional center
coordinator if you felt changes needed to be
made?
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 100

(2014) (family
centered practices)
Lee (2015)
(communication
related to access)
Dunst et al. (2014)
(family centered
practices)
How often do you meet with your regional
center service coordinator?
- What typically happens during those
meetings?
Are these meetings useful? If yes how so? If
no, why not?
Lee (2015)
(communication
related to access)
Dunst et al. (2014)
(family centered
practice) Marshall et
al. (2017) (perception
of offered services)
How has the regional center coordinator
helped you access services?
- Does your coordinator encourage you to
participate in your child’s services? If so
how?
How would you describe your relationship
with the Service Coordinator?
Lee (2015)
(communication
related to access)
Dunst et al. (2014)
(family-centered
practices)
- How have the service providers (ask for
each provider) included you in your
child’s current services?
- How do you communicate with the
(specify) provider?
- How would you describe your
relationship with (specify) provider?
Can you remember a time when they were
responsive or a time when they were
unresponsive to your needs?
Lee (2015) (parent
participation in
service planning)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
What suggestions would you give your
service coordinator to make the process
easier?
- Have you shared this with your SC?
- If yes how did that go?
Lee (2015) (parent
participation in
service planning)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
What has been the most helpful in this
process?
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 101

Lee (2015) (parent
participation in
service planning)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
- What has been the most challenging part
of this process?
Lee (2015) (parent
participation in
service planning)
Marshall et al. (2017)
(perception of offered
services)
Do you interact with other parents in this
process?
- What is usually discussed during these
interactions?
- Does everyone seem to have the same
overall experience?
- Is there anything you would do
differently?
If you would do it again how would you go
through the process differently?
-

-
Conclusion:
8. To wrap up the interview is there anything you want to add based on your experiences
with early intervention services?
Thank you for answering all my questions. I appreciate you taking time to help me in my
research and sharing your experiences with me. If there are any follow up questions that I may
have would I be able to contact you at a later date? Thank you again for your time, your help is
appreciated.

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 102

Appendix B
Recruitment Letter
Dear Parents,
Hi, my name is Monique Rowles, and I am a doctoral student at the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I am inviting you to participate in my
research study about families’ experiences with early intervention services. You are eligible to be
in this study because you have a child at the age of 2 who is currently receiving early
intervention services and has received those services for at least a year.
The purpose of having you participate in this study is to highlight your voice and
perception as a family of color who is involved with early intervention services to help improve
and understand what is and can be the best services for all families.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will participate in a 45-minute interview to
express your experience with early intervention services. I would also like to review your child’s
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) before the interview to obtain information about the
services your child is currently receiving. I would like to audio record the interview, and I will
use the information from the interview and IFSP to increase the knowledge of early intervention
practices.
Specific identifying information obtained from the interview and information obtained
from the IFSP will be kept confidential.
Remember, this is completely voluntary. You can choose to be in the study or not. If you
choose to participate and complete the survey you will be entered into a drawing for a $25 gift
certificate to target upon completion of the study. If you'd like to participate, please complete the
consent form allowing me to contact you to set up the interview. All participants who complete
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 103

the interview will be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a $25 gift card. If you have any
questions about the study, please email or contact me at rowles@usc.edu or 213-293-5664.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Monique Rowles

PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 104

Appendix C
Consent for Participation in Research Interview
I agree to participate in a research project conducted by Monique Rowles from the University of
Southern California in Los Angeles, CA. Please initial in each box after it has been reviewed.

1. I have received sufficient information about this research project and understand
my role in it. The purpose of my participation as an interviewee in this project and
the future processing of my personal data has been explained to me and is clear.

2. My participation as an interviewee in this project is completely voluntary. There is
no explicit or implicit coercion whatsoever to participate.

3. Participation involves being interviewed by a researcher from the University of Southern
California, Rossier School of Education. The interview will last approximately 45 minutes. I allow
the researcher to take notes during the interview. I also allow the recording of the interview
through a recording device. It is clear to me that in case I do not want the interview and
dialogue to be recorded I am fully entitled to withdraw from participation.

4. I give consent to share my child’s Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) to Monique Rowles as
a part of the research study and understand that the IFSP will be kept confidential and only used
for the study.

5. I have the right not to answer questions. If I feel uncomfortable in any way during
the interview session, I have the right to withdraw from the interview and ask that the
data collected before the withdrawal will be deleted.

6. I have been given the explicit guarantee that the researcher will not identify me by
name in any reports using information obtained from this interview, that
my confidentiality as a participant in this study remains secure. Personal data will
be processed in full compliance with the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB).

7. I was assured that this research project has been reviewed and approved by the USC IRB. I may
contact Monique Rowles at rowles@usc.edu or 213-293-5664 any time I have questions about
the research or about what to do if I am injured. If I have any questions about my rights as a
research subject, I may contact the Institutional Review Board, at (323) 442-0114, by email at
irb@usc.edu, or by mail at the following address:
USC Institutional Review Board (IRB)
1640 Marengo St., Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA, 90033.
PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS 105

8. I have carefully read and fully understood the points and statements of this form. All
my questions were answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate
in this study and will not be penalized or lose benefits if I refuse to participate or decide to stop.

9. I obtained a copy of this consent form co-signed by the reviewer.

Signing this document means that the research study, including the above information, has been
described to me orally, and that I voluntarily agree to participate.

Participant’s Signature: Date:

Telephone number:

Consent Reviewer’s Signature: Date:

For further information, please contact:
Monique Rowles at rowles@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) theoretical framework to understand perceptions in accessing Part C early intervention services of the Individualized Disability Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of this study was to highlight the counternarrative of ethnically marginalized parents’ perceptions to recognize their unique experience in the Part C early intervention services. The following research question was investigated to address this purpose: What perceptions do ethnically minoritized and marginalized families have about accessing Part C early intervention services? The qualitative method of interviews with three ethnically marginalized parents who have a child with a developmental delay was used to gain insight on those participants’ perspectives and was triangulated with the analyses of the child’s Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) to corroborate and validate access to eligible services. Findings from this study indicate that the quality of communication was an organizing principle in three participants’ perceptions of accessing services during the early intervention process. Analyses of the data revealed that when participants perceived communication as inclusive and supportive, there were perceived benefits in child development and capacity building to navigate the early intervention system. This study promoted the counternarratives of ethnically marginalized people who intersect with a dis/ability to foreground these communities to influence special education systemic change in an effort to address opportunity gaps and equity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Students' perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

The effects of being a voluntarily childless female educator

PDF

Unapologetically me: a narrative analysis on Black queer students’ authenticity and well-being at predominantly White institutions

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Understanding the high school parent involvement gap in the era of local control and accountability

PDF

A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority

PDF

Enabling dis/abled females

PDF

Attendance interventions to address chronic absenteeism

PDF

An evaluation study of the training, orientation, and implementation of a community college new student counseling intervention program: a gap analysis

PDF

The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Multimodal composing and teacher preparation

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

Asset Metadata

Creator Rowles, Monique S. (author)

Core Title Perceptions of accessing Part C early intervention services

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/14/2020

Defense Date 04/13/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag counternarratives,Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies,DisCrit,early intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity gap,Part C,Special Education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Wells, Jeanique (committee member)

Creator Email mrowles04.mr@gmail.com,rowles@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-306537

Unique identifier UC11665980

Identifier etd-RowlesMoni-8509.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-306537 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RowlesMoni-8509.pdf

Dmrecord 306537

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rowles, Monique S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA