Funding political jobs and mismanagement of Birth to Three

Funding Birth to Three: Savings can be found in a needed program

There are many administrative things that could have been done several years ago that would have averted the current crisis in West Virginia's Birth to Three program.

I am a practitioner in the West Virginia Birth to Three program responding to news of the program's funding crisis.

I agree it is of vital importance to children and families and to all West Virginians. I recognize that state funding is a concern. However, there are many administrative things that could have been done several years ago that would have averted the current crisis.

For three or more years, I have had conversations with and have sent lengthy e-mails, documents and supporting research articles to those in charge of the program, documenting elements that are wasting money. These are practices I see in my region, but I suspect it is statewide. Here is a short list:

Inappropriate assessment tools are used to determine eligibility, resulting in developmental delays being identified when there is really no delay.

No definition from administrators in their eligibility criterion documents or from verbal queries about the meaning of the word "significant" in describing a delay, which opens eligibility to a very broad interpretation. This results in children found eligible with no developmental delay.

Services are currently provided based solely upon the wish of the parents to have as many different practitioners as available, without regard for an actual need for those services. This results in duplication of services that research does not support as any more effective than use of one appropriately trained practitioner.

Most developmental specialists have no training in psycho-educational assessment, and other practitioners are expected to make delay determinations in areas that are out of their field of study, such as an occupational therapist making determinations of a cognitive delay.

If the program ever develops a policy manual and places in that manual specific language about what is a "significant" delay (eligibility criteria stated as such in federal law), uses research-based information to determine when practitioners from specific fields may be effective and limits the use of much higher-paid practitioners when a lower-paid one who possesses the training to accomplish developmental goals is available, the program will go a long way to being solvent with current funding levels and sources.

Of course, this is a short list as stated above; there are more things that can be done to bring down costs and maintain the current admirable and desirable practice of providing all children, regardless of family income, free services to help them and their families overcome the challenges of delayed development.

Gruber lives in Rio.

http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Op-EdCommentaries/200805200709

Is there any wonder why things in State Government are so FUBAR .........or why there has been virtually no positive results or benefits derived from such programs.

The children are all being "left behind".

.