Example of Possible Early Learning System Design Jim Adams, Chair Jackson County Commission on Children & Families

Goals: Early Learning System Design To increase the percentage of Oregon’s children who are ready for kindergarten by:  creating a more integrated and effective service system for young children and their families  Aligning state and local programs with targeted, shared, and improved outcomes  Increasing program accountability

Design Approach: Early Learning System  Honor the Early Learning and Family Investment and Early Childhood and Family Investment Transition Reports  Family focused  Potential integration of Early Learning and K-12 governance  Employ a performance management framework for the delivery of services  Revenue neutral: Use discretionary Commission on Children & Family funds as financial foundation  Phasal approach

Organization Structure Key Assumptions  Early Learning Council determines “what”  Communities determine “how”

Organizational Structure Key Features  State administration in partnership with local communities  Scalability and flexibility  Early Learning Council governance of strategic planning for 0-5 year programs  Administrative Hubs charged with Early Learning program and service continuous improvement and accountability  Regional or county-level Early Childhood Teams shared accountability for achieving shared performance outcomes to improve kindergarten readiness  Establish universal screening and assessment system

Early Learning Council (staffed by Early Learning Office) Regional or County Administrative Hubs Must have appropriate level of authority to drive local improvements toward outcomes and be highly accountable to the Early Learning Council for identified outcomes County-level Advisory and Oversight Education Investment Board $ $ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ outcomes Universal Screening and Assessment System (Single Point of Entry and No Wrong Door Approach) Enroll children and families outcomes Department of Education and/or Youth Success Council outcomes Local Public and Non-profit Service Providers in Each County Early Childhood Team Shared accountability for county-level outcomes Youth Success Council Shared accountability for county-level outcomes OutcomesOutcomes OutcomesOutcomes

Administrative Hubs  May be Regional or County, depending on needs identified by the area served  Distribute outcome-based contracts to local providers  Coordination of local Early Childhood Teams and Youth Success Councils to achieve shared performance outcomes  County Level Oversight and Advisory Bodies, including Regional Hub areas

Increasing Kindergarten Preparedness: Phased Approach Phase 1 Align services, programs, and budgets Design universal assessment Phase 2 Implement screening / assessment system Begin statewide data collection Phase 3 Align funding with performance Phase 4 Align Educational Investment Board with Early Learning Council and Department of Education or Youth Services Council

Early Learning Screening and Assessment  Universal screening / assessment: Align resources with targeted needs Measure performance Provide for continuous improvement  Assessment system allows for “no wrong door” access to services and promotes single point of entry  Promotes efficiency, ease of access for families, and prevents duplication  Supports ability to gather unduplicated data

Early Learning Organizational Design Strengths  State Administration  Strong State / community partnership  Scalable: Education Investment Board, Early Learning, and Dept of Education / Youth Success Council  Family focused  Highly sensitive to community strengths and needs  Performance management based Shared, clear goals Increased accountability  Strengthens program capacity to leverage resources

Early Learning Proposal Concerns Substantive change from existing service delivery systems Creates additional layer of administration for some programs: – Need to avoid unnecessary layers of administrative costs and redundancy Must account for needs and fewer resources in rural communities Limited discretionary funds available to target underserved populations at risk of not being prepared for kindergarten Need to avoid creating “different” silos

Remaining Questions Which programs most appropriately belong under the administration of the Early Learning Council? How will it accommodate programs that already have extensive accountability standards in place? How does universal assessment fit with programs that already have comprehensive assessments in place?

Questions & Answers