Communicating Your Data April 30, 2019 Fred Edora – IDEA Data Center Gregg Reed – Utah Department of Health Gretta Hylton – Kentucky Department of Education Amy Patterson – Kentucky Department of Education

Communicating Your Data Welcome and thank you for joining us We are recording this webinar Slides and recording from this presentation will be available on the IDC website We will be muting all participants Please type your questions in the chat box Please complete the online evaluation after the end of the presentation

Where to Find Webinar Slides and Recording We will be recording today’s webinar. Both the recording and the slides will be available on the IDC website. To find them, go to the ideadata.org and click on events, navigate to today’s webinar. The recording of the webinar will be posted on the right side above the presenters names The slides will be posted below the description

Agenda Thinking about data dissemination and use to connect with stakeholders IDC resources for data dissemination and use Utah (Part C) - Addressing compliance with stakeholders through data displays Kentucky (Part B) - Engaging various stakeholders on the complexities of discipline data Questions

Participant Outcomes Increased understanding of the elements of purposeful communication with stakeholders Increased understanding of the benefits of engaging stakeholders in the analysis and use of data Increased knowledge of available IDC resources to improve data dissemination and use Increased understanding of how states can use creative data displays to communicate complex data and enable stakeholders to better understand and use data

Thinking About Data Dissemination and Use

Use of High-Quality Data Is informed by protocols for ensuring quality data is available for analysis and reporting Requires development of materials and resources to help facilitate understanding of the data Addresses strategies and procedures for using data, including Preparing data for analysis Screening data for quality Planning for potential data products to be used from the available data Source: IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017-09/49903_idc_part-b_framework_508.pdf

Four Critical Elements of Communicating Data Effectively Consider the four critical elements in communicating your data effectively to stakeholders Audience Message Dissemination Accessibility We will discuss two of them today: dissemination and accessibility.

Data Dissemination The procedures behind the communication of data Different stakeholders may require the use of different dissemination methods for the same dataset (e.g. dashboards vs. a brief) Consistency across communication channels is important Data governance procedures must be considered

Data Accessibility The steps an agency or organization needs to take in order to ensure that stakeholders can use the data These steps can include Methods for users to access data Building capacity for users of the data Feedback mechanisms to improve access Helping local agency staff analyze and interpret data

Data Dissemination + Accessibility Factors to Consider Audiences who access the data Staff capacity, availability, and responsibility Priorities (e.g. which data are accessed more often) Training and data notes Data governance processes Technological capabilities Public reporting requirements Other state requirements or regulations

Benefits of a Thoughtful Process Data that are available and accessible Buy-in from stakeholders Better decisions made from high-quality data Increased capacity to use the data Opportunities for stakeholders to ask questions Increased efficiencies in using the data

IDC Resources to Increase Your State’s Capacity for High-Quality Data Use Part B and Part C IDEA Data Processes Toolkits IDEA Section 618 Public Reporting Data Element Checklists IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework IDEA Data Training Modules Data Meeting Protocol Part B Indicator Data Display Wizard Part C Indicator Data Display Wizard

Data Communication Stories From the States Questions to consider How are the states helping build the capacity of their stakeholders to use, interpret and analyze data? How are their stories similar or different from procedures or experiences in communicating data within your state? From what you heard today, what can you apply to your state’s processes?

Data Communication Stories From the States (cont.) Utah (Part C) Kentucky (Part B) Using the IDC Data Wizard as a Component in Addressing Compliance With Stakeholders Through Data Displays Gregg Reed, UT Part C Data Manager, UT Department of Health Engaging various stakeholders on the complexities of discipline data Gretta Hylton, KY Associate Commissioner and Special Education Director, KY Department of Education Amy Patterson, KY Part B Data Manager, KY Department of Education

Gregg Reed, Part C Data Manager Utah Department of Health Using the IDC Data Wizard as a Component in Addressing Compliance With Stakeholders Through Data Displays

Data Wizard Application in Utah Part C Impressions of capabilities and function Use in reporting and showcasing data – Compliance indicators Use as a template – Opportunity to personalize data Next steps

Impressions of Capabilities and Function Data aligned with Grads360° State-level data trends Detailed fields Diverse visualizations – Select and modify graphs

Data Wizard Use in Reporting and Showcasing Data Fulfill OSEP requirements APR compliance indicators Determinations Program profiles Showcase specific indicators Partner meetings Program goals

Indicator 1 FFY: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner: 4,900 4,238 5,126 5,374 5,787 3,939 5,858 Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances:  Null Null 24 296 Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs: 4,926 4,286 5,134 5,793 3,966 6,210 Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner: 99.5% 98.9% 99.8% 100.0% 99.9% 99.1% Target: Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who did not receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner: 26 48 8 6 3 56

Day 45 Indicator 7 In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. 5,235 28 Referral Timeline

Indicator 8A FFY: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days and, at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months prior to their third birthday: 1,518 2,126 2,744 3,191 3,587 3,614 3,786 Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances: 10 4 Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C: 3,624 3,803 Percent of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days and, at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months prior to their third birthday: 100.0% 99.7% Target: Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who do not have an IFSP with transition steps and services: 13

Indicators 8B and 8C Indicator 8B = 100 Percent Trend From 2011-2017 Day 45 Day 45 Indicators 8B and 8C Indicator 8B = 100 Percent Trend From 2011-2017 Indicator 8C = Slightly Diverse Trend In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days. 5,235 5,235 28 28 Referral Timeline Referral Timeline

Data Wizard Use as a Template Expand data indicators Expand focus of tables to program-level data Create “master datasheet” Next steps

Engaging Various Stakeholders on the Complexities of Discipline Data Gretta Hylton, Associate Commissioner / State Special Education Director Amy Patterson, Part B Data Manager Kentucky Department of Education Engaging Various Stakeholders on the Complexities of Discipline Data

Office of Special Education Kentucky Department of Education 2018 Reorganization established the Office of Special Education and Early Learning (OSEEL) Office level Data Finance Policy Three divisions State Schools (KY School for the Blind and KY School for the Deaf) IDEA Implementation and Preschool IDEA Results and Monitoring

Kentucky’s Special Education Cooperative Regions and Local School Districts

New Office, New Challenges New leadership and new priorities Staff turnover, limited experience, limited knowledge Lack of data-focused conversations Lack of data-based decision making

Data Review, Analysis, and Communication Review of the SPP/APR noted slippage in many indicators Observations revealed Focus on task completion Lack of data-informed conversations Lack of understanding for how the SPP/APR informs the work Lack of urgency Lack of “Big Picture” understanding

Bringing People Together Around the Data Raw data vs. visually-friendly data for engaging conversations

Data Manager Perspective Turnover in staff No historical knowledge or understanding Not understanding trajectory No holistic approach Concerned that districts were “under the radar” Changed cell size Looking at more districts

Kentucky Indicator 4 Data

Kentucky: Indicator 4A

Kentucky: Indicator 4B

Identification in a District Having looked at districts that were under the radar, it caused us to look at % of students with IEPs in several districts. This didn’t result in a finding relative to Ind. 4, but it caused us to look at other issues in this district and resulted in onsite monitoring in the district.

Next Steps for OSEEL Data visualization using SPP/APR data Tiered communication Discuss data within OSEEL Set clear expectations for using the data to inform OSEEL’s work Communicate with special education regional cooperatives and advisory groups Communicate with local districts

Questions?

Evaluation The poll questions will appear on the right-hand side.

Contact Us Fred Edora, IDC – fred.edora@aemcorp.com Gregg Reed, UT – greed@utah.gov Amy Patterson, KY – amy.patterson@education.ky.gov Gretta Hylton, KY – gretta.hylton@education.ky.gov

For More Information Visit the IDC website http://ideadata.org/ Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/ideadatacenter Follow us on LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-data-center

The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H373Y130002. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officers: Richelle Davis and Meredith Miceli