Implications and considerations

What are the implications of these findings from this review? There are a number worth noting.

Reforming ECIS and the implications for early childhood services. One of the

most significant points to emerge from this review is that the reforms needed do not involve ECIS and allied services only, but have implications for mainstream early childhood and other services. The ECIS system cannot be reformed on its own, but must change in parallel with other services. As it happens, the

necessary changes in mainstream early childhood services (eg. move towards a universal curriculum) and in other services (eg. moves towards integrated early childhood services systems) are already well under way. Just as the general changes proposed will require some role changes and some new skills for ECIS and allied professionals, so too will they require some changes on the part of mainstream early childhood services.

How might this process be supported? ECI and allied services need to be familiar with the new curriculum approaches and be exploring how to use these

frameworks in planning, delivering and reporting on the services they provide. ECI and allied services also need to be working with early childhood programs, particularly those being incorporated into the new integrated child and family

centres, to explore ways of working together that will expand the roles and skills of both groups.

Addressing service fragmentation. Another major point raised by the review

concerns the fragmentation of the current ECI service system. As noted in the introduction, ECIS includes a range of services supporting families and

mainstream early childhood services. These additional services and supports, together with the ECIS teams and agencies, make up the totality of early

childhood intervention provision for young children with disabilities. The findings of the review apply just as much to these additional services as they do to the work of the ECIS teams and agencies. However, the fragmented nature of the system makes it harder to ensure uniformity of practice and quality across the sector, as well as making it harder for families to access.

Some rationalisation of services and service systems seems called for. There are a number of ways in which the fragmentation of services might be addressed. At the systems level, these include looking at the relationship between the

Departmental SCS teams and non-government ECI agencies, and the relationship between ECI agencies and inclusion support services.

A particular issue to be addressed is that of the federal funding for the Helping

Children With Autism package. As noted in this review, although the funding itself

is most welcome, there are a number of problems with the way in which the funds are being distributed and the lack of linkages with the existing service system. During the recent federal election campaign, there was discussion of extending this funding to other forms of disability, which would only compound the problems. It is unclear how this matter can be resolved, although it would obviously be preferable for this funding to be more closely integrated with existing forms of support. If this was a matter of concern to all States and

Territories, perhaps it could be raised with the federal government with a view to finding ways of minimising the fragmentation of services.

Developing an ECI service delivery framework. This review looked at several

comprehensive models of ECI service delivery, and concluded that, individually and collectively, these provide a strong basis for the development of a

comprehensive evidence-based model of service delivery for the ECIS sector. Although ECI service guidelines currently exist, these do not amount to a comprehensive framework encompassing all aspects of service delivery and addressing all aspects of child and family needs. The development of such a service framework could contribute greatly to the promotion of uniformly high- quality ECI service delivery across Victoria.

Adoption of evidence-informed practices. A gap between evidence and practice

is a common feature of all human service sectors, and ECIS is no exception. Although there is no direct evidence of the nature or size of the evidence-practice gap in Victorian ECI services, there is plenty of observational evidence that

practices vary considerably and that not all forms of support being offered are consistent with the evidence summarised in this review. This would suggest that there is a need for clear guidance regarding preferred practices, provision of resources and training to support the adoption of these practices, and

accountability mechanisms to ensure that practices are being implemented.

Adoption of outcomes-based approaches. The review has indicated that an

outcomes-based approach to planning, delivering and evaluating services is an essential feature of best practice. Currently, most ECI services do not use this approach, although some use elements (such as parental evaluations of service received). More services would adopt outcomes-based practices if provided with guidance on how to do so, and resources tailored to ECI services.

Exploring tiered intervention models. One of the strong indications to emerge

from this review concerns the desirability of developing a strong universal service platform backed by a tiered set of secondary and tertiary intervention services. For young children with developmental disabilities, ECIS and allied services would form part of the tiered services, providing support to the universal services and a graded series of services of varying intensity to children with varying degrees of developmental and learning problems. There are many questions to be addressed before such a system could be put in place (such as how would one become eligible for service and how would different levels of service be funded). The research does not provide clear guidance on these questions, although some relevant models have been developed and could be trialed. Consideration could be given to ways in which such models could be developed further, piloted and evaluated.

Strengthening professional competencies. One of the keys to building and

strengthening professional competencies is for the professional involved to be part of a collegiate group that provides a supportive community of practice. Professional isolation can undermine professional competencies over time. If the ECI and allied service system is to be restructured, then it is important that ECIS professionals, whether ECIs or inclusion support or parent support, should be part of an dedicated professional group large enough to provide collegiate support and ongoing professional development .

Another important aspect of strengthening professional competencies concerns preservice and inservice training. It is important that the tertiary institutions that are training practitioners are fully abreast with the latest philosophies and service delivery models as outlined in this review, and are preparing new professionals accordingly. It is also important that practitioners entering the ECI field receive some form of induction course since few of them will have received much specific training in working with young children with disabilities or their families. At

present, only the largest ECIS agencies (eg. Noah’s Ark) are able to provide such courses.