1. Monitoring Child Outcomes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Anne Lucas
Measuring Child and Family Outcomes
August 27 – 28, 2008

2. Public Policy Context Age of accountability – IDEA 2004
Accountability increasingly means looking at results, not just process
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) under pressure to produce outcome data on children participating in early intervention and early childhood special education programs and for holding states accountable to requirements

3. The IDEA Accountability Trail
Compliance, Results, Data-based Decisions and Technical Assistance
SPP/APR & Determinations
Data-based decisions
Compliance and Results
2004
Results
CIFMS
Compliance to Procedural Safeguards
1997
CIMP
Procedural Safeguards
1980’s
Betty: Add collaborating with TA&D network to enhance linkages with scientifically based practices
Note parallels to IDEA evolution
Identification
Compliance Monitoring
ACCESS
1969
IDEA

4. IDEA 2004
Requires that states have a general supervision system that focuses on:
Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities
Ensuring that States meet the program requirements of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving results and outcomes for children with disabilities

5. IDEA 2004
States must have in place a General Supervision System that monitors implementation of IDEA by early intervention programs (whether or not they receive Part C funds), and local education agencies statewide.
[IDEA 2004, Section 616(a)(2)]

6. Components: State General Supervision System
Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation
State Performance Plan
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Data on Processes and Results
Fiscal Management
Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development
Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions
Effective Dispute Resolution 6

7. Interrelationship of Components
Although the components are described separately (puzzle pieces), they connect, interact and articulate to form a comprehensive system
(see Developing and Implementing an Effective System of General Supervision: Part C at
Each component informs and gains information from the others

8. Implementation of Components
States have flexibility regarding how they:
Implement each of these components
Interrelate the components with other initiatives and needs within their state (including their organizational structure and other factors relevant to how they are accountable)
Design their Own Model of General Supervision based on what’s required and desired

9. Interrelationship of Components

10. State General Supervision System
State General Supervision System must include multiple methods to:
Ensure implementation of IDEA 2004
Identify and correct noncompliance (e.g., off site and onsite monitoring, complaints)
Facilitate improvement
Support practices that improve results and functional outcomes for children and families

11. Monitoring
States are responsible for monitoring all Part C requirements using the all components of the General Supervision System (e.g., policies/procedures, IAs, contracts, complaints)
. . . but . . .
this is different from collecting and analyzing “monitoring” data to determine local program performance on an annual basis

12. How are states integrating child and family outcomes into their local monitoring processes?

13. Monitoring Indicators
Some states include child and family outcome compliance and quality indicators in their monitoring of local EI programs or LEAs
Adapting SPP/APR indicators (e.g., COSF completed at entry and exit for each child, family survey provided to families at time of annual IFSP meeting); and/or
Developing other state priority indicators (e.g., COSF ratings match assessment results)

14. Collecting Monitoring Data
States use variety of methods to collect monitoring data on child and family outcomes:
Data system
Self-assessment
On-site monitoring or data verification visits

15. State Presentations
Wyoming and Utah

16. SPP/APR Calendar (C-9 and B-15)
Resources
SPP/APR Calendar (C-9 and B-15)
NECTAC General Supervision Webpage
Anne Lucas