Getting Results through Systemic Approaches When the Stars Align Getting Results through Systemic Approaches

Meet our Presenters Rorie Fitzpatrick, Director, National Center for Systemic Improvement at WestEd Jennifer Gonzales, SSIP Coordinator, Arkansas Part B Shannon Pargin, Strategic Planning Coordinator, Tennessee Part C

Spooling Up on Systems Alignment Data Use Communication & Collaboration Knowledge Utilization Systems Change

Data Use Improvement begins with seeing your system Information & Analysis Organization Performance Results “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.” — Sherlock Holmes

Communication & Collaboration Meaningful engagement of partners is essential Stakeholder Focus “No one can whistle a symphony. It takes a whole orchestrate to play it.” — H.E. Luccock

Knowledge Utilization Choose appropriate solutions; ensure implementation capacity Workforce Capacity “Capacity building involves developing the collective ability — dispositions, skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources — to act together to bring about positive change. — Michael Fullan, Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action

Systems Change Policies must enable change, not hamper it Leadership Strategic Planning Operations Management “Are you really sure that a floor can’t also be a ceiling?” — M.C. Escher

Leveraging and Aligning Supports in Arkansas: Supporting Targeted LEA Needs

System Alignment: Systems Analysis Analysis for Coherence Data Collected and analyzed statewide data Infrastructure Analyzed six system domains Completed a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat Analysis Stakeholders Engaged internal and external stakeholders through surveys and meetings

System Alignment: Communication and Collaboration Built bridges between multiple Agency Units Found a common purpose and built relationships Communication Developed a cohesive team (technical and adaptive supports) Utilized organizational tools

System Alignment: Knowledge Utilization Key Endeavors to Improve Coherence Completed initiative analysis and alignment of resources Researched online data collection systems Joined NCSI Systems Alignment Cross-State Learning Collaborative Shared special education and school improvement staff

System Alignment: SEA Impact Celebrations Cohesive, functioning team Shared position Consistent messages to Districts Continuous Improvement Alignment of initiatives Comprehensive needs assessment Leveraged SEA Resources ESSA Accountability: District Support Structure Arkansas Department of Education’s Strategic Plan

Modifying Eligibility Procedures: Tennessee Part C State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Presented by: Shannon Pargin, Tennessee’s Early Intervention System (TEIS)

Indicator 3: Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Summary Statement 1 Trend Data

Indicator 3: Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Summary Statement 2 Trend Data

Ways We Analyzed ECO Data

SSIP Stakeholder Input State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) members and guests Key experts Regional forums District staff TEIS leadership Parents

Root Causes of Low Performance Factors limiting family engagement in early intervention Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) measurement/data Screening/eligibility processes Service coordinator caseloads

Eligibility Procedures Improvement Strategy Modify screening process by implementing procedures to send selected referrals straight through to evaluation without conducting screening (e.g. referrals from the medical community)

Eligibility Procedures Approach Stage 1: Ask TEIS districts to experiment Stage 2: Evaluate successes/challenges and system capacity Stage 3: Develop guidance and implement procedures statewide (includes modifying intake and other processes)

Staffing and Infrastructure Considerations Social counselor II designation of both service coordinators and developmental specialists (eligibility evaluators) allows for flexibility of duties Caseloads and vacancies Streamlining of intake procedures Impact of increased referrals Additional demand for services

Eligibility Procedures Data Analysis Districts grouped into categories of modified procedures based on their level of experimentation: Control: no changes to eligibility procedures (3 of 9 districts) Moderate: selected referrals bypass screening (2 of 9 districts) Evaluation: no screening; all referrals proceed directly to evaluation (4 of 9 districts)

Preliminary Analysis of Modified Eligibility Procedures Increasing evaluations results in: Increased number/percent of children with IFSPs Increased number/percent of ineligible children Increased medical referrals Decreased days between referral and initial IFSP meeting Increased Dec. 1 child count and increased percentage of population served

TEIS Referrals Yearly Comparison

TN Indicator 6 – Children Age 0-3 with IFSPs Compared to General population

Current Status: Building Local Capacity Addressing infrastructure needs and constraints due to: Increased referrals, and increased children with IFSPs Districts in the control group are among the largest in the state Local plans for developed for slower implementation due to system capacity Modified SSIP timeframes for implementation Standardization of local procedures Potential impact on Part B, 619