Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4) 224–231 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0271121411426488 http://tec.sagepub.com Home- and Community-Based Early Intervention According to the 2007 Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; the latest report avail- able), between 1999 and 2004, the percentage of infants and toddlers served under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Part C, increased from 68.4 to 82.7. What decreased in terms of percentage during that time was infants and toddlers whose primary setting was a program designed for children with developmental delay or disabilities. Over the past 40 years, two parallel but not necessarily similar versions of home visiting have evolved: those for infants and young children with disabilities and those for young children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Ramey et al., 1992; Sparling, n.d.). The most widespread model of home visitation (note the terminological difference from Part C, where “home visiting” is the customary label) is probably the Olds Nurse Home Visitation Model (Olds, 2009; Olds, Henderson, Kitzman, Eckenrode, & Cole, 1999). Other nationally recognized models of home visitation are Hawaii Healthy Start, which serves families with children at risk of abuse and neglect; Healthy Families America, which serves the same target families; and Parents as Teachers, which focuses on parenting and parents’ determining children’s outcomes. The difference between programs aimed at at-risk families and those aimed at children with disabilities and their families is highlighted by the different approaches to a curricu- lum. A well-defined curriculum, which is usually found in programs for at-risk families, suggests that a set series of competencies are taught to all families. In Part C, however, the curriculum is the child’s individualized family service plan (IFSP) outcomes, making it much more individualized than a curricular approach, unless a curriculum-based assess- ment was used to develop the IFSP. In that case, curricular content is likely to end up on the IFSP. Organizationally, home visitation, with its large influx of federal support under the Obama administration, has been managed through Maternal and Child Health Services in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, whereas federal funds for Part C—with no large influx of funds—are managed through the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Part C has largely been excluded from this recent attention on home visitation. A simplification of the evolution of home visiting in Part C could be as follows. In the 1970s, some early intervention- ists made regular home visits to teach parents strategies for ameliorating the effects of the infant’s or young child’s disabilities (Phemister, Richardson, & Thomas, 1978). In the 1980s, the pernicious slide toward overspecialization began, with professionals of different disciplines staking out their scope of practice (and source of revenue), leading to a multidisciplinary approach to home visiting (Woodruff & McGonigel, 1988). In the 1990s, as various professional 426488TEC 31 4 10.1177/0271121411426488McWill iamTopics in Early Childhood Special Education © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav 1 Siskin Children’s Institute, Chattanooga, TN, USA Corresponding Author: R. A. McWilliam, Siskin Children’s Institute, 1101 Carter Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402, USA E-mail: robin.mcwilliam@siskin.org Implementing and Preparing for Home Visits R. A. McWilliam 1 Abstract The most common setting for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families is the home. This article discusses home- and community-based early intervention and how the routines-based interview (RBI) can set the stage for successful home visits. It also addresses what has been learned about home visiting, what important issues face the field with respect to home visiting, and what still needs to be learned. These same issues are discussed for IFSP development. Keywords routines-based interview, home visits, needs assessment, early intervention, IFSP at UNIV OF NEW MEXICO on August 20, 2015 tec.sagepub.com Downloaded from