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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Leveraging and Aligning Supports in Arkansas:
Supporting Targeted LEA Needs

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

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

16. Ways We Analyzed ECO Data

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

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

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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

24. TEIS Referrals Yearly Comparison

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

26. 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