North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 0 Strategies Statewide State Legislative request for funding (for some areas of State) Revised IFSP Intensive Statewide.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EARLY START Federal and State Requirements. What Is Early Start Frequently asked Questions Frequently asked Questions Which children are served? What.
Advertisements

Provider Onboarding Series 1 By: Brenda Amos-Moss and Donna DeSanto
Module 1 Learning More about the Summary of Functional Performance Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires the world to discover, love and.
Researchers as Partners with State Part C and Preschool Special Education Agencies in Collecting Data on Child Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International.
Indicator 7 Child Outcomes MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA June
Data Analysis for Assuring the Quality of your COSF Data 1.
Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia 1 Virginia’s System for Determination of Child Progress (VSDCP)
July 2013 IFSP and Practice Manual Revisions April 29, 2013 May 3, 2013 Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia Practice Manual Infant & Toddler Connection.
Linking Early Intervention Quality Practices With Child and Family Outcomes Technical Assistance for Local Early Intervention Systems Infant & Toddler.
Primary Care Physician (PCP) is notified ASAP about the evaluation result and service plans in order to have a follow-up with the family. PCP shares results.
Using data for program improvement Early Childhood Outcomes Center1.
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009.
Considerations for Establishing Baseline and Setting Targets for Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, Lynne Kahn, Christina Kasprzak ECO/NECTAC June 16,
Early Childhood Outcomes Center Using the Child Outcomes Summary Form February 2007.
Partnering with Local Programs to Interpret and Use Outcomes Data Delaware’s Part B 619 Program September 20, 2011 Verna Thompson & Tony Ruggiero Delaware.
1 Implementation of the New Part C Eligibility Criteria Effective 7/1/2010.
ENHANCE Update Research Underway on the Validity of the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process ECO Center Advisory Board Meeting March 8, 2012 Arlington,
1 Birth to 3 Child Outcomes Maryland’s Approach to Converting Assessment Data to OSEP Outcome Categories August 28, 2007 Deborah Metzger
The State of New Hampshire’s Family Involvement with the Child Outcomes Process.
Charting the Course- Integrating the IFSP with Early Childhood Outcomes in West Virginia.
Child Outcomes Data Analysis Workshop Abby Winer, ECTA, DaSy Kathy Hebbeler, ECTA, DaSy Kathi Gillaspy, ECTA, DaSy September 8, 2014 Improving Data, Improving.
1 Early Childhood and Accountability OSEP’s Project Director’s Meeting August 2006.
Patterns in Child Outcomes Summary Data: Cornelia Taylor, Lauren Barton, Donna Spiker September 19-21, 2011 Measuring and Improving Child and Family Outcomes.
1 Using a Statewide Evaluation Tool for Child Outcomes & Program Improvement Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator Susan Evans, Autism Project Specialist.
The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems Does Your Data System Answer Your Critical Questions? Abby Winer, DaSy Center at SRI International Grace.
1 Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia Early Intervention System Presentation for Financing Systems Workshop OSEP National Early Childhood Conference.
Child Outcomes: Understanding the Requirements in order to Set Targets Presentation to the Virginia Interagency Coordination Council Infant &
Looking for Patterns in Child Outcome Data – Examples from NYS New York State Department of Health Bureau of Early Intervention.
1 Family Resources and Supports Institute 2012 One Door: Early Start and Prevention Resource and Referral Services (PRRS) Susan Roddy, PRRS Director Sherry.
PREVIEW: STATE CHILD OUTCOMES DATA QUALITY PROFILES National Webinar February 2014.
Bob Algozzine Rob Horner National PBIS Leadership Forum Chicago Hyatt Regency O’Hare October 8, /
1 Statewide Screening Collaborative July 30, 2013 Prevention Resource and Referral Services (PRRS) Susan Roddy, PRRS Project Director.
Babies Can’t Wait. What is Babies Can’t Wait? Babies Can't Wait (BCW) is Georgia's statewide interagency service delivery system for infants and toddlers.
Part C Eligibility (Part H). Eligibility Criteria: Children ages birth through two who are developmentally delayed or are at established risk for developmental.
Joint House and Senate HHS Appropriations Subcommittee.
Using COS Data to Inform Program Improvement at All Levels Every day, we are honored to take action that inspires the world to discover, love and nurture.
Expanding the National Toolbox for Measuring Part C Participation Rates: Feasibility and Utility of Birth Cohort Methodology Donna Noyes, Ph.D., New York.
CT Speech Language Hearing Association March 26, 2010.
What Did North Carolina Learn From Child Outcomes Pilots ? Sherry Franklin, NC Part C Quality Improvement Unit Manager Steve Snipes, NC Part C Program.
Using Data for Program Improvement State and Local Activities in Minnesota Lisa Backer: 619 Coordinator/Part C Data Manager Loraine Jensen: Part C Coordinator.
Infant & Toddler Connection of Virginia 1 Documenting Child Status and Progress Sandi Harrington, MA Program Supervisor/Educator Norfolk Infant Development.
Summary Statements. The problem... Progress data included –5 progress categories –For each of 3 outcomes –Total of 15 numbers reported each year Too many.
Maryland’s Early Childhood Intervention and Special Education System of Services Birth through Five 1 Maryland State Department of Education, Division.
What the data can tell us: Evidence, Inference, Action! 1 Early Childhood Outcomes Center.
Considerations Related to Setting Targets for Child Outcomes.
Early Steps Update PreK Contacts Meeting May 5, 2010.
Developing Strong Transition Protocols Infant Toddler Program, Head Start and Early Childhood Special Education Shannon Dunstan Idaho State Department.
1 Assuring the Quality of Data from the Child Outcomes Summary Form.
Prevention Resource and Referral Services What is happening to the babies?
Early Intervention Colorado TA Call December 5, 2013 Annual Performance Report.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
Measuring EC Outcomes DEC Conference Presentation 2010 Cornelia Taylor, ECO Christina Kasprzak, ECO/NECTAC Lisa Backer, MN DOE 1.
Purpose The purpose of Module 1 is to orient new staff to child outcomes measurement and the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF).
EIA: Using data for program improvement
Provider Onboarding Series 1 By: Brenda Amos-Moss and Donna DeSanto
Child Outcomes Summary Process April 26, 2017
What’s Unique about the Child Outcome Summary Process in Minnesota:
Improving Data, Improving Outcomes Conference Aug , 2016
Home Visiting Collaboration
Regional Meetings for Teachers of the Deaf Spring 2014
Improving Data, Improving Outcomes Conference
Integrating Outcomes Learning Community Call February 8, 2012
Why Collect Outcome Data?
North Carolina Positive Behavior Support Initiative
Building Capacity to Use Child Outcomes Data to Improve Systems and Practices 2018 DEC Conference.
Researchers as Partners with State Part C and Preschool Special Education Agencies in Collecting Data on Child Outcomes Kathy Hebbeler, ECO at SRI International.
ECO Suggestions on Indicators C3 and B7 Kathy Hebbeler, ECO
Child Outcomes Data July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009
Introduction to the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)
Presentation transcript:

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 0 Strategies Statewide State Legislative request for funding (for some areas of State) Revised IFSP Intensive Statewide Technical Assistance Development of Local Improvement Strategies (See handout) Development of Local QA Process QA Coordinator quarterly meetings

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 1 TABs

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 2 CHILD OUTCOMES

% Positive Social-Emotional Skills Data FY 2009 CDSAabcdeTotal “A”2%23%15%28%33%100% “B”2%15% 21%47%100% “C”0%14%18%35%33%100% “D”1%8%14%38%39%100% “E”1%14%30%40%15%100% “F”1%45%11%15%28%100% “G”1%28%55%15%0%100% “H”0%30%11%31%28%100% “I”2%10%25%38%26%100% “J”1%13%16%27%43%100% “K”1%26%18%31%25%100% “L”1%9%36%47%8%100% “M”0%18%26%32%24%100% “N”1%27%15%33%23%100% “O”1%12%10%27%50%100% “P”3%21%30%31%16%100% “Q”0%28%31%15%26%100% “R”2%24%19%31%24%100% NC Totals1%19%21%31%28%100% NC Statewide Data: Review for Outliers *Upon review of all outliers in each outcome area it was noticed that both CDSA “F” and CDSA “G” had consistent outliers in ALL three outcome areas.

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 4 CDSA “F”

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 5 CDSA “F” Comparison to State Development Areaabcde Positive CDSA “F”1%45%11%15%28% NC1%19%21%31%28% Acquiring CDSA “F”0%42%23%30%4% NC1%18%31%41%10% Taking CDSA “F”1%42%11%38%8% NC1%19%23%44%14%

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 6 CDSA “F” comparison to State

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 7 CDSA “F” Drill Down Looked at CDSA “F” county by county Eligibility Categories a-e categories by outcome area Actual entry and exit ratings for children

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 8 CDSA “F” Data Themes Eligibility Category Reviewed children by eligibility category Found low number for established conditions Unable to conclude that high “b” percentages are in fact due to the type of children served

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 9 CDSA “F” Data Themes a-e categories by outcome area Reviewed the 8 counties in this catchment area Found one county that was significantly higher than the catchment area’s average in all three outcome areas. Exclusion of this county from the CDSA’s totals increase both SSI and SSII by 4-5%

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 10 CDSA “F” Data Themes Actual entry and exit ratings At entry more children received ratings of 4 and 5 than all other ratings combined. At exit, although making progress these children received a rating at or below the number received at entry.

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 11 CDSA “F” Next Steps Discussions with management team Look at how CDSA is coding Developmental Delay vs. Established Condition Take a look at actual completed COSFs Drill down further at the county level

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 12 CDSA “G”

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 13 CDSA “G” comparison to State Development Areaabcde Positive CDSA “G”1%28%55%15%0% NC1%19%21%31%28% Acquiring CDSA “G”1%33%62%4%0% NC1%18%31%41%10% Taking CDSA “G”1%29%57%13%0% NC1%19%23%44%14%

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 14 CDSA “G” comparison to State

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 15 CDSA “G” Drill Down Looked at CDSA “G” county by county Eligibility Categories a-e categories by outcome area Actual ratings for children at entry

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 16 CDSA “G” Data Themes Eligibility category Reviewed children by eligibility category and concluded 80.14% of children are served under the DD category and 19.86% served under EC Therefore, one would not expect all children to have a delay in ALL three outcome areas

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 17 CDSA “G” Data Themes a-e categories by outcome areas Ratings and outcome areas looked consistent across the 10 counties.

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 18 CDSA “G” Data Themes Actual ratings at entry At time of entry NO child received a rating of 6 or 7 in ANY of the outcome areas.

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 19 CDSA “G” Next Steps Discussion with management team about usage of COSF Look at some actual completed ratings Analyze further the types of children served and begin to ask more questions such as Higher % of children eligible for Part B when compared to the state? Children made eligible by speech only? Clinical opinion?

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 20 North Carolina

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 21 NC next steps Complete this type of quality check for each of the 18 CDSAs Looking for both high and low outliers Provide TA tailored to identified themes. CDSA specific Regional Statewide

North Carolina Infant Toddler Program 22 Questions??? For additional information, refer to our website