Respite services are notoriously hard to come by, for
families of children with disabilities. Respite means having a break and tends
to be used instead of the more normalized babysitting. Indeed, some children
require babysitters with special training and who probably prefer the fancier
name of respite providers. Some families might feel more comfortable having specialized
people, given society’s proclivity for specialization.
Some respite opportunities involve families’ dropping their
children off somewhere like a church, where volunteers watch the children for a
few hours. For some families, these are no doubt a great resource. They do,
however, involve having to transport the child to the babysitting place and
leaving the child with people the family might not know. Furthermore, there
might be a number of children being looked after. As beneficial as drop-off respite
can be, for some families in-home respite is preferred. The advantages are (a) that
the child doesn’t move, the babysitter does, which can be especially helpful if
the child comes with much equipment, as in the case of some medically fragile
children; (b) the child has only one caregiver; and (c) unless the child has
siblings also being babysat, the caregiver has only one child to care for. Even
harder to find is in-home, overnight babysitting, which might be especially
valuable for some parents.
In my Routines-Based Model, we ask parents if they have
enough time for themselves as individuals or, if relevant, a couple. Many intervention
plans therefore include this goal. I heard about one state that suffered
through a monitoring review where the monitor questioned the “date night” goal—and
this was for an individualized family service plan. A cursory understanding of
family systems theory and of social-support theory should make it obvious that
a date night goal can have an impact on the child.
 |
| Karen's Ecomap |
If a plan does have a goal for adults to have time for
themselves, the ecomap should be the first tool the early interventionist
should use when using family consultation to help the family meet the goal.
Here you see an ecomap for Karen’s family and her intervention goals, as
written at the end of the RBI. Later, they were written to be measurable.
Karen’s Goals
3. Potty trained
9. No pacifier (nap, bedtime, car)
2. E cooperate and not be so confrontational (dressing, tooth
brushing, home from school, dinner prep, evening time)
6. G dressing
5. K behavior management strategies (dinner)
4. G speak clearly (breakfast, car rides, play time)
8. Independently use whole sentences (outings, meals, play times)
1. E and G play independently (not breaking down; dinner
prep)
7. Info about G being patient
8. Time for Karen
As is common, time for Karen was one of her lowest priority goals
but it’s on the plan. Therefore, when Karen is ready to tackle this goal, the
early interventionist might say, “Are you able to do this? Is there anything
getting in the way?”
Karen would presumably say, “Giada,” the babysitter.
“You said you like her OK when we drew this ecomap. Is that
still true?”
“Yes, but she’s in school, so she’s not always available.”
“Is there anyone else who might be available?” the early
interventionist might ask.
“I’ll have to think about that.”
“Let’s have a look at the ecomap.”
“I suppose we could ask the couple who live next door,” says
Karen. “They have no children and get on really well with all three of ours.”
“Is that what you’d like to do then? Ask them to babysit one
evening so you can have time for yourself?”
“Yes, I can ask them.”
“OK,” says the early interventionist. “Next week, I’ll ask
you how it went. Asking them, I mean.”
One of the main purposes of the ecomap is to be able to whip
it out when looking for resources to find
a solution, which means address a goal.
