View/Open - Dalhousie University

post-partum home visit or telephone call from a public health nurse; it was up to
parents to seek help from their paediatrician (assuming they could afford to see a
doctor). An added problem was that, since it was up to parents to seek out help and
information, a child who experienced a delay or difficulty may not have been seen by a
specialist until after she or he started school. In the absence of a universal system that
automatically followed all young children as they developed, problems inevitably did
arise for Utah families, and may not have been addressed until much later, as described
by a Welcome Baby staff member:
Those children that are developmentally delayed but not enough to be plunked
into early intervention, and the parents don't have some of the information they
need to support that development ... or they don't know the resources out there
... they just figure, “Oh, everything will be okay.” And then they get to [school],
and you've lost those two years.
Again, due to the nature of early human development, losing “those two years” is
particularly significant at this time of life, when so many aspects of children’s
development are being established.
7.11.2 The Impact of Residual/Targeted Systems – Tasmania
In Australia, the situation was similar, as observed by one study participant: “The
approach by the government is becoming more targeted. So it's trying to pick up those
groups [of people] that are so-called ‘most in need.’”
Tasmanian families who were referred or mandated to state-funded family
service programs were assessed and categorized centrally through a system that
measured risks and vulnerabilities. Following an initial assessment, families deemed to
have elevated risks to child well-being or safety were categorized as a ‘4’ or a ‘3,’ while
those with less significant or minimal risks were categorized as a ‘2’ or a ’1’,
respectively. One participant explained that government was “very interested” in
funding programs for “vulnerable families”; that is, those who either scored a 3 or a 4,
or who were part of a population identified by government as having higher risks, such
172