Intervention with children and their families is today more widespread than ever. Special programs are being conducted in homes, in community centers, in schools, and in hospitals-by social workers, psychologists, doctors, and nurses. The primary goals of these programs are to remediate problems and to optimize functioning; various strategies of intervention have been adopted in the service of these ends.
Early intervention is a big business. But as inflation spirals, and budgets are reduced, cutbacks in programs can be expected. It is likely that the interventions that survive these hard times will be those that are both efficient and effective. As a consequence of these contemporary conditions, those of us concerned with effecting positive change-be it at the level of the individual, the family, or the community-are confronted with a challenge: how to develop cost-effective programs that promote growth and development. In my mind, the likelihood of meeting this challenge successfully, especially on a large-scale basis, will be greatly enhanced when a set of rules or principles is promulgated that can serve to guide planners desirous of developing cost-effective intervention efforts. In an effort to move toward this goal I will in this paper (a) outline three principles of intervention that can serve to guide the development of effective and inexpensive enhancement programs; (b) describe a project of intervention in the newborn period founded upon these principles; (c) and, in so doing, illustrate how one moves from theory to practice in the field of early intervention.
Three Principles of Intervention
The harmony belween basic and applied science. By definition, interventions involve efforts to influence a system (e.g., an individual, a relationship, a family, a classroom, a community) in ways that will remediate some problem and/or enhance system functioning. If such efforts are to achieve their goals, it would seem that a prerequisite for success is a basic understanding of how the system functions. As interventions become more popular in the social sciences, there seems to be some tendency to lose sight of this point. Professionals are being trained to influence others but, apparently, without a necessary appreciation fo'r the importance of developing an understanding of that which is to be changed before endeavoring to exert an impact upon it. While Bronfenbrenner's (1977) statement, "if you want to understand something, try to change it," might be of use to the research scientists whose primary goal is to accurately describe the system under study, it would seem to be a risky guide to professionals whose primary purpose is to provide assistance. And it is imperative to recognize here that it is the clientele, not the change agent, who will incur the consequences of this risk, especially if it goes awry.
The basic point is that if interventions are to stand some chance of success, and if the rights of those to be changed are to be respected, basic and applied science must be in harmony with each other. The risks incurred whenever efforts are made to influence