Staff Travel Time in Rural- and Urban-Serving Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities (Part C) Programs in Kansas

Staff travel required to provide home visiting services can be a barrier to quality service provision. This may be of particular concern to rural programs, where the demands of staff travel are often thought to be greater than in urban settings. As part of a statewide needs assessment of the Infants...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of early intervention Vol. 47; no. 1; pp. 15 - 24
Main Authors Tilden, Christopher D., Kuhn, Nathan C., Samaddar, Sushmita, McKee, Hilde A., von Esenwein, Silke A., Gillam, Rebecca J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.03.2025
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Child Care Centers
Child Development
Childhood
Classification
County Programs
Data collection
Definitions
Departments
Documentation
Entry Workers
Federal aid to rural areas
Federal funding
Home Visits
Needs analysis
Needs Assessment
Part Time Employment
Primary care
Program Implementation
Resource Allocation
Rural Areas
Rural Urban Differences
State Programs
Student Projects
Technical Assistance
Toddlers
Travel
Urban Programs
Young Children
United States > US
Kansas
toddlers
infants
Part C services
home visiting
early intervention
quantitative methods
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Staff travel required to provide home visiting services can be a barrier to quality service provision. This may be of particular concern to rural programs, where the demands of staff travel are often thought to be greater than in urban settings. As part of a statewide needs assessment of the Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program in Kansas (Kansas Part C), a time study was conducted to examine travel time in rural and urban programs. While in the field, Part C providers spent 29.9% of their time traveling, over half (51.4%) of their time in direct service, 5.5% preparing documentation, and 2.0% communicating with clients and partners. Travel time did not differ significantly between urban and rural programs. This suggests that caution is warranted when adopting policy approaches, such as funding formula differences, designed to account for assumed (but not documented) differences in rural and urban programs, such as staff travel time.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1053-8151
2154-3992
DOI:10.1177/10538151241230842