ABCD Activities

Research demonstrates that children’s healthy development is essential to school readiness, academic success, and overall well-being. Services that support young children’s healthy development can reduce the prevalence of developmental and behavioral disorders that have high costs and long-term consequences for health, education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Additionally, a growing body of evidence suggests that prevention and early intervention are substantially less costly than life-long special education and treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy statement, Identifying Infants and Young Children with Developmental Disorders in the Medical Home: An Algorithm for Developmental Surveillance and Screening, (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/405) recommends that developmental surveillance be performed at every preventive visit and that a screening tool should be administered at 9-, 18-, and 24- or 30-month visits and for those children whose surveillance yields concerns about delayed or disordered development. These developments have encouraged the spread of primary care screening tools and increased identification of children in the pediatric primary care settings who are in need of further assessment and services to address developmental delays. As a result, forging linkages between primary health and care providers and other child and family service providers is critical to assuring that young children and their families receive needed services.

This section provides an overview of relevant findings from the science of early childhood development. It includes links to a comprehensive on-line bibliography as well as to a number of reports that draw on current research to develop strategies for state and local programs and policies. It makes the case for involvement of providers, policymakers and families.
 
Sources include: 
 
Johnson K and Rosenthal J, Improving Care Coordination, Case Management, and Linkages to Service for Young Children: Opportunities for States. (Portland, ME: The National Academy for State Health Policy, April 2009).
Institute of Medicine, Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1994); Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of our Youngest Children” (New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994).
 

Title Description Date publishedsort icon Resource State
Early Intervention for Infants & Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families: Participants, Services, and Outcomes Kathleen Hebbeler et al. (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs and SRI International, January 2007). Final Report of the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). This report from the 10-year NEILS summarizes key findings from the study and notes their implications for policy, practice, and additional research. This report finds that children with developmental problems are in poorer health. (From website)   Available online at: http://www.sri.com/neils/pdfs/NEILS_Report_02_07_Final2.pdf   January 2009 Other
All County Letter (ACL) regarding availability of early intervention services The California Department of Social Services (2008). This transmittal letter, while initially focused on referring children who have experienced child abuse to the Early Start Program, also expresses California's conclusion that a local coordinated process should identify multiple pathways to provide early intervention services and not be solely dependent on Early Start services, and lists several recommended strategies taken from resources with existing programs and/or experiences with the implementation of the CAPTA amendment. December 2008 State-specific California
ABCD Screening Academy Progress Report: Improving the Identification of Young Children At-Risk for Developmental Delay Jennifer May, NASHP (2008). Since 2000, the Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) Initiative has shown that states can take action to facilitate pediatric provider use of a developmental screening tool and that doing so is an important first step in improving the delivery of child development services. The Initiative's partners - NASHP and The Commonwealth Fund - have for the past 18 months conducted the ABCD Screening Academy. September 2008 NASHP-Commonwealth
Center for Disabilities and Development website University of Iowa HealthCare (2007) The website of Iowa's University Center for Disabilities and Development, an ABCD project partner.   http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/cdd/index.asp December 2007 State-specific Iowa
Role of the Medical Home in Family-Centered Early Intervention Services Council on Children with Disabilities, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2007. Link to AAP policy statement on evidence that early intervention services have a positive influence on the developmental outcome of children with established disabilities.    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;120/5/1153 December 2007 Peer-reviewed
An Introduction to Developmental Services for Colorado Health Care Providers Colorado ABCD Project (2007) 3-fold color pamphlet for physicians that promotes developmental screening. December 2007 State-specific Colorado
EPSDT Resources Kay Johnson. (2007). PowerPoint presentation for ABCD Screening Academy Learning Session, July 2007. This presentation provides an overview and background information about EPSDT, as well as pediatric issues in managed care. December 2007 NASHP-Commonwealth
Rationale for using tools other than the Denver II (DDST-II) for screening children Minnesota Department of Health (2007) Minnesota does not require any particular instrument in their EPSDT program. However, they have made it clear in policy that in order to bill a 96110 code they expect that a standardized, validated tool is used. Minnesota posted on their Developmental Screening Task Force web site a summary describing for readers why the Denver does not make the list of recommended tools. It is a useful explanation which has helped a lot of providers in Minnesota to understand why they should move on to better instruments.   December 2007 State-specific Minnesota
EPSDT, Well Child Care and Children's Development Edward L. Schor. (2007). PowerPoint presentation for ABCD Screening Academy Learning Session, July 2007. This presentation focuses on the role of EPSDT and well child care in children's development. July 2007 NASHP-Commonwealth
Why Standardize Screening? Laura Sices, Paul Lipkin, and Marian Earls. (2007). Powerpoint presentation for ABCD Screening Academy Learning Session, July 2007. This presentation provides evidence from the North Carolina ABCD experience to establish policies and practices that support standardized screening and provides the tools to convince stakeholders that standardized developmental screening should be adopted. July 2007 NASHP-Commonwealth