July 14, 2005
COMMENT REGARDING NEW JERSEY’S APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
UNDER PART C OF THE IDEA
The Melody Arons Center for Applied Preschool Research and Education,
Inc. (MAC) is pleased to be able to provide public comment on this
grant application. At the outset, it is to be noted that the
public was and is unaware of this grant and that MAC engaged in
a series of exchanges between the federal and state government in
order to be provided with both notice and the content of this application.
This is emblematic of the secret nature of early intervention
in New Jersey, as well as the complete lack of public awareness
as to how that system is supposed to be implemented through the
State agency. In an effort to better understand the funding
of this system in New Jersey it is also worthy of note that this
information was withheld from MAC by State government officials.
The first codification of the funding allocated for EI in New Jersey
is found in the grant that is the object of this comment.
Background Information:
- The information stated in this portion of the grant is incorrect.
There is no coordinated interagency system of early intervention
in New Jersey. Four non-profit organizations were formed
to address the needs of the counties within their regions.
Funding differences for EI occur depending on the amounts allocated
by the State for those regions. In that no State laws have
ever been written to implement early intervention in New Jersey,
policy directives are disseminated that attempt uniformity in
procedures. Those policies are often misunderstood and frequently
change. Hence, the providers are often left without direction
and parents of 0-3 children left without information or access
to the system. In public hearings 18 months ago on a co-pay
approach to funding, one parent pointed out that New Jersey did
not have access on its State website to early intervention sources
or services.
- In
that the reauthorized IDEA has not yet published its regulations,
what is known is that New Jersey never followed the prior IDEA.
For example, that prior statute said that unless there was a state
law requiring parents to pay for a portion of the services given
to the child, those services were to be given at no cost to the
parent. In spite of the Public Advocate’s formal notice
in the New Jersey Register to create state laws to implement IDEA,
those laws were never written. Therefore, the background
of the submission of this grant must reflect that any subsequent
federal funding to New Jersey must be promulgated on the State’s
compliance with the reauthorized IDEA Regulations for Part C and
the requirement to either use the Part C language of the regulations,
or write State laws for all to follow when providing and receiving
early intervention services. MAC has endeavored to address
this issue with the State since 2001, without success. Our
efforts were met with significant hostility and secretiveness
from every corner of the State’s EI system. This has
been most unfortunate in that MAC merely sought to serve as a
resource for the State and its 0-3 population of disabled infants
and toddlers. Professionals have sought us out, unable to
get answers from county or State government on critical issues
pertaining to individual cases. A transparency must be created
so that New Jersey’s EI system functions openly and more
efficiently, permitting and encouraging dialogue among and between
all providers, professionals, and families.
- The proposed family cost participation revenue is stated to be $3,500,000.
The source for that figure is unknown. However, from the
provider level what is known is that some parents have dropped
out of the EI system because of the co-pay requirement, and caseloads
of providers have, in some cases, been decreased. This occurs
at a time that larger numbers of EI children are being identified,
and is cause for concern from both a policy and prevention perspective.
Complete lack of clarity exists because there are no laws to follow.
Family cost participation must be reflected in understandable
statutory/regulatory language so that when disputes arise they
can be readily resolved. That is not presently the case.
State Policies, Procedures, Methods, and Descriptions:
- The
statement made at Section IV-2 (6)(A) (i) is false. New
Jersey provides no continuum of placement options to its infants
and toddlers once the IFSP is developed. It fails to inform parents
that this continuum includes center-based services as well as
those in a natural environment, these options necessary in order
to address the diverse needs of disabled infants and toddlers,
0-3.
- Current
State policies do impact upon the right of children to receive
Part B services and the intensity of those services in that the
lack of appropriate early intervention services increases the
need for special education under Part B.
- No
description of funds, including an identification of Federal,
State, or local funds, has ever been disclosed outside of State
government, in spite of efforts to obtain that information.
This is a crucial, missing component of the State’s EI system
in that it appears not to count the 4 nonprofit organizations
and their budgets within the early intervention description of
funds. It is unclear how the amount of funds listed at Section
IV- 17 is to be allocated across the four REICs, particularly
given the diversity and unique demographics of New Jersey.
Therefore, a specific statement is required in this Part C application
that specifies how the amount of funds is to be distributed and
how much of the 501 © 3 money is being contributed to the
State system of early intervention by the REICs.
- Use of “appropriate written methods” relative to establishing
financial responsibility for the EI system is disputed.
Based upon input from both parents and professionals in New Jersey’s
EI system, these “written methods” change frequently,
so that often one hand does not know what the other hand is doing.
This is a vitally important area to be addressed by the federal
monitors of Part C implementation.
- There
has been inadequate notice of hearings as a systemic problem with
Part C issues in New Jersey. Hearings on the co-pay policy
confirmed that parents and many professionals only know of the
hearings by word of mouth. Further, no notice has gone out
for genuine public input on this Part C application as confirmed
by the MAC Part C file emails.
- There
has been no public description or dissemination of information
concerning State efforts to collaborate with Early Head Start
or Head Start. If such descriptions exist, it must be examined
as to whether or not the Head Start programs are actually aware
and involved with this collaboration. It is one thing to
have a “description”. It is quite another to achieve
implementation. This is a particularly crucial issue for
those in urban/inner city areas.
Assurances:
- The present EI system must be radically changed in New Jersey if a
legitimate statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary,
interagency system of early intervention services is to be created.
It cannot be done with four nonprofit organizations doing the
job that is the State’s responsibility. Further, the State’s
Interagency Coordinating Council has failed in its mission to
bring together all of the stakeholders and to objectively and
openly analyze critical issues that must be addressed. It
is to be noted that a stakeholder is not one that necessarily
agrees with the status quo, but who has a professional or personal
interest in early intervention in New Jersey. Currently,
those who are identified as “stakeholders” are hand
selected, with meetings held in secret. If the system is
to improve it must be opened to anyone who seeks to become involved.
- There
is no indication that EI services are based on scientifically
based research. This is of particular interest to MAC in
that we are a research-based organization, and have reviewed no
literature that would support the State’s position on this
point.
- There are no policies/procedures to ensure meaningful involvement of
underserved groups. This was verified at the public hearings
18 months ago when representatives from South Jersey indicated
that if they had known about the hearings, they would have been
able to notify and involve their EI parents. There is no
meaningful involvement of underserved groups at any level, New
Jersey continuing to be the fourth most segregated state in the
nation.
MAC submits this public comment in its belief that New Jersey
is capable of developing and implementing an excellent Part C
State program if it changes its current practices and policies.
It has talented and well-trained early childhood educators and
clinicians. The current political system, however, completely
fails in that mission. MAC believes that a more cost efficient
and effective delivery system can be achieved if there is a transparency
and uniformity across all 21 counties, with laws specifically
establishing the duties and responsibilities of both providers
and consumers in early intervention.
Respectfully,
Marilyn Arons, M.S.
President & CEO
Cc: Board of Trustees
Executive Board
Transmitted via email; sent by first class mail
Home
About MAC
What We Do
News & Events
Resources
Melody's Family
Contact Us