Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR Compliance Indicators C-1, C-7, C-8, C-9/B-15, B-11 and B-12: Collecting and Using Valid and Reliable Data to.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Compliance Monitoring Orientation. Monitoring Components Focus Site Review/Fiscal Monitoring SPAM.
Advertisements

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Updates on APR Reporting for Early Childhood Transition (Indicators C-8 and B-12)
Early Childhood Special Education Part B, Section 619* Part C to B Transition by Three Jessica Brady, Noel Cole Michigan Department of Education Office.
Checking & Corrective Action
CONSOLIDATED PROGRAM REVIEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE I, PART C, MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM MEP STATE CONFERENCE AUGUST 2013.
Chapter 7: Key Process Areas for Level 2: Repeatable - Arvind Kabir Yateesh.
More CMM Part Two : Details.
5/2010 Focused Monitoring Stakeholders May /2010 Purpose: Massachusetts Monitoring System  Monitor and evaluate program compliance with federal.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
File Review Activity Lessons learned through monitoring: Service areas must ensure there is documentation supporting the information reported in the self-
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 State Monitoring Under IDEA A Snapshot of Past Practices.
1 Determinations EI/ECSE SPR&I Training ODE Fall 2007.
Correction of Non-Compliance Prior to Notification Monitoring and Supervision March 11, 2013.
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
Kathy T. Whaley, NECT AC Presentation for the Utah Special Education Law Conference August 2011 UPDATED January 2012.
Environmental Management Systems An Overview With Practical Applications.
22000 Food Safety Management Systems
Targets & Improvement Activities State Improvement Planning Carol Massanari, MPRRC Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 November 1-3, 2010.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
Evaluating SPP/APR Improvement Activities Presented by Jeanna Mullins, Mid-South Regional Resource Center, RRCP Document developed by members of the Systems.
Session 6: Data Integrity and Inspection of e-Clinical Computerized Systems May 15, 2011 | Beijing, China Kim Nitahara Principal Consultant and CEO META.
1 Overview of IDEA/SPP Early Childhood Transition Requirements Developed by NECTAC for the Early Childhood Transition Initiative (Updated February 2010)
Pouring a Foundation for Program Improvement with Quality SPP/APR Data OSEP’s message regarding Indicators 1, 2, 13 and 14 - data collection and improvement.
Specific Learning Disability: Accurate, Defensible, & Compliant Identification Mississippi Department of Education.
1 Early Childhood and Accountability OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting August 2006.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
Web Security for Network and System Administrators1 Chapter 2 Security Processes.
STATE MONITORING VISIT Montgomery County Schools Week of April 18, 2016.
Implementing QI Projects Title I HIV Quality Management Program Case Management Providers Meeting May 26, 2005 Presented by Lynda A. O’Hanlon Title I HIV.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center1 Using Data for Program Improvement Christina Kasprzak, NECTAC/ECO Ann Bailey, NCRRC July 2010.
Georgia Institute of Technology CS 4320 Fall 2003.
1 General Supervision. 2 General Supervision (and Continuous Improvement) 1.What are the minimum Components for General Supervision ? 2.How do the Components.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
Educable Mental Retardation as a Disability: Accurate, Defensible, & Compliant Identification Mississippi Department of Education.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
IDEA 2004 Part B Changes to the Indicator Measurement Table.
1 Transition: Part C to Part B Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia Spring/Summer 2007.
Presented by the Early Childhood Transition Program Priority Team August 11, 2010 Updated September 2010.
Early Childhood Transition Part C Indicator C-8 & Part B Indicator B-12 Analysis and Summary Report of All States’ Annual Performance Reports.
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
2010 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career Dan Schreier, Gregg Corr, Jill Harris, Ken Kienas, Kate Moran,
Evaluation IEP Development, Review and Revision Placement
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.
Page 1 Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs 14 July 2009.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
Specific Learning Disability: Accurate, Defensible, & Compliant Identification Mississippi Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
1 Early Childhood Transition: Facts, Figures, Fantasies and the Future Objectives 1. To share selected findings based on the SPP/APR and NECTC study 2.
A LOOK AT AMENDMENTS TO ISO/IEC (1999) Presented at NCSLI Conference Washington DC August 11, 2005 by Roxanne Robinson.
Menlo Park City School District Special Education Self-Review (SESR)
Evaluating SPP/APR Improvement Activities
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
CMMI – Staged Representation
Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
Using Data for Program Improvement
OSEP “Hot Topics in Early Childhood” Meeting
Using Data for Program Improvement
Trends in Child Outcomes (C-3 / B-7) and Family Outcomes (C-4)
Accessibility Supports Training
Evaluating SPP/APR Improvement Activities
2019 Spring & Fall Timeline May 10, 2019
Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008
Using State and Local Data to Improve Results
Presentation transcript:

Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR Compliance Indicators C-1, C-7, C-8, C-9/B-15, B-11 and B-12: Collecting and Using Valid and Reliable Data to Determine Underlying Factors Impacting Local Performance and Develop Meaningful Corrective Action Plans National Early Childhood Conference December 2008

Local Contributing Factor Tool Developed by NECTAC, DAC, and RRC Program Developed by NECTAC, DAC, and RRC Program Provides the types of questions a local program team would consider in investigating contributing factors of noncompliance on SPP/APR Indicators Provides the types of questions a local program team would consider in investigating contributing factors of noncompliance on SPP/APR Indicators Questions organized by Systems/Infrastructure or to Providers/Practice Questions organized by Systems/Infrastructure or to Providers/Practice Summary questions and contributing factor strategy areas included and designed to result in CAP/IP for each indicator Summary questions and contributing factor strategy areas included and designed to result in CAP/IP for each indicator

Contributing Factor Tool: Process Local team uses tool to collect and review valid and reliable data related to those indicators where noncompliance has been identified; tool designed to help local team identify contributing factors or root cause of noncompliance Local team uses tool to collect and review valid and reliable data related to those indicators where noncompliance has been identified; tool designed to help local team identify contributing factors or root cause of noncompliance Data collected/reviewed may include: Data collected/reviewed may include: –local program data –local policies and procedures –child records –interviews with providers

Contributing Factor Tool: Questions Systems/InfrastructureProviders/Practice How do we ensure that services are provided in a timely manner? Do we have clear policies and procedures in place on this requirement? What opportunities do we make available for providers to receive training and TA on this requirement? Is our monitoring and supervision for this requirement adequate? Did we know that this area was a problem for us before the state identified it? Do we have valid and reliable data available on this indicator? Do we have adequate numbers of personnel to provide services? Do our providers understand policies and procedures related to providing timely IFSP services? Based on a review of child records and/or the local data available : What types of services are not timely? All? Or just some types (e.g. OT, PT)? What types of services are not timely? All? Or just some types (e.g. OT, PT)? What percent of delays are related to services included in the initial IFSP? What are the reasons for those delays? What percent of delays are related to services included in the initial IFSP? What are the reasons for those delays? What percent of delays are related to new services added throughout the year? What are the reasons for delays? What percent of delays are related to new services added throughout the year? What are the reasons for delays? What is the range of delays for specific services? How many days? What is the range of delays for specific services? How many days?

Contributing Factor Areas Strategies Who’s Responsible Timeline Procedures Infrastructure Practice T & TA Data Supervision

Contributing Factors: Investigation Data Contributing Factors: Investigation Data Example: 45 Day Timeline (local program performance at 82%) Example: 45 Day Timeline (local program performance at 82%) –All providers interviewed (N=10) reported they were unsure of official procedures that specified a timeframe when initial evaluation/assessments should be completed –80% of service coordinators and providers interviewed (N=8) reported issue with assigning service coordinators in timely manner –Review of program procedures confirms there are no current written timelines related to when service coordinator must be assigned and when evaluation/assessment must be completed

Contributing Factors: Conclusions Conclusion from Contributing Factor Investigation - 45 Day Timeline: Contributing Factor = Lack of Local Program Policies and Procedures with Specificity to Ensure Compliance

Contributing Factor: Investigation Results Local program’s improvement strategies to address contributing factors of performance with 45 Day Timeline: Local program’s improvement strategies to address contributing factors of performance with 45 Day Timeline: –Program policies/procedures –Other contributing factors areas as a result of changes to policies/procedures (e.g., T & TA, supervision, etc.)

Sample Strategies Contributing Factor Area Strategies Program Policies & Procedures Revise program policies/procedures requiring: Evaluations/assessment to be completed within 35 days from referral Evaluations/assessment to be completed within 35 days from referral Service coordinator to be assigned within 5 days of referral Service coordinator to be assigned within 5 days of referral T & TA In-service for providers on new policies/procedures In-service for providers on new policies/procedures Modify orientation training Modify orientation training Supervision Track implementation of evaluation and service coordination timeline for new kids Track implementation of evaluation and service coordination timeline for new kids

Contributing Factor Activity Teams: Teams: –Review answers to the Systems/Infrastructure or to Providers/Practice questions provided in the completed section of the Contributing Factor Tool for C8C and B12 –Respond to the 2 summary questions based on your team’s analysis and understanding of answers –Develop appropriate strategies to address the contributing factor areas your team identifies –Be prepared to report the strategies developed