1. Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites Interim Report September 2011-June 2012

2. Overall Objective of Interim Report Identification of: –Preliminary strengths –Challenges –Key learnings –Effective Practices, and, –Emerging considerations To help improve the delivery of speech and language services

3. Historical Background Speech and Language Services funded by 3 ministries (MCYS, MOHLTC, MOE) with specific mandates (Memorandum 81) Operating in silos 2009-10: School Health Review of CCAC with recommendations to optimize all resources to develop an integrated coordinated system to meet the needs of the children/students requiring them

4. Shared Speech and Language Vision To provide publically funded Speech and Language Services for children/students that are: –Based on the needs of the whole child –Evidence based and provided within the context of key developmental milestones –Seamless for children and families –Supportive of key transitions

5. Background Context To explore 7 different models of delivering integrated speech and language services; from various parts of Ontario including Toronto, Niagara Falls, Kenora, Kingston, Halliburton area and London Tri-ministry funded for implementation and evaluation To inform future re-engineering of speech and language services for children

6. Data Collection Qualitative data through stakeholder consultations Pre and post implementation surveys to parents, providers and educators Monthly data submissions Historical data submission Financial data Data collected from site manager’s meetings and provincial advisory committee

7. Outcomes expected from Demonstration Sites Improve continuity of speech and language services and supports for children/students from birth to minimum grade 3 Reduce waiting lists Reduce wait times Improve speech language and literacy outcomes for children/students Improve transitions for children/students with speech and language disorders and their families Improve the cost-effectiveness of speech and language services and supports

8. Evaluation Attributes Access, Quality & Value # of children/students referred to Demonstration site # referrals by providers to in-school support teams, Tier 1 services and other services Wait times (3); referral to consent, to assessment to intervention Variety and # of interventions provided to students/children Service transitions experiences # of children discharged Caseloads of providers; and Cost of service Also, qualitative data on experiences, lessons learned etc.

11. Preliminary Findings and Insights

13. Access Expanding and standardizing eligibility criteria and use of common screening tools Proactive engagement through planned outreach activities..parents/educators Adjusting the timing and location of screening..JK entry, JK Shortening wait times through streamlined admin processes..ie. consent at screening Reducing wait times through resource management. Fund allocations, support of partners, 1 SLP Service Mandate Flexibility-parent’s preference is to have services provided at school (+/- parent involvement)

14. Quality Integrating both speech and language delivery Standardized Individual Service Plans-templates and protocols-communication Broadening the range of interventions for better service Creating efficiency through leveraging community services-ie Tier 1 programs in ISP, PD training etc. Conducting formal planning for smoother transitions

15. Value Having resource flexibility for effective caseload management. using a variety of s/l interventions..use of CDA’s..streamlined processes and coordination Aligning discharge management with completed service plans

16. Consistent Positive Changes Across Sites Improved perceptions regarding accessibility of speech and language services amongst parents, educators and providers Enhanced integration of speech and language service delivery, and, Increased collaboration amongst parents, educators and providers within speech and language service delivery

17. Collective Findings

22. Summary of Effective Practices for Service Mandate Flexibility Expanding PSL Programs’ mandates increases emphasis on early identification of children/students with speech and/or language needs and increases inter-sectoral collaboration; Having school-based providers extend their mandates to serve JK students expands on providers’ existing relationships within schools and leverages their existing knowledge of the educational system; Continuing the delivery of services (i.e. not having a formal referral) to students in JK and SK that previously received speech and/or language services in through the PSL Program reduces wait times for these age cohorts; Providing services onsite at schools creates more convenience for parents and students to receive services and for educators to connect with providers; and Utilizing engagement practices with parents, regardless of service location, helps to connect them with providers, resulting in a better understanding of services and increased involvement in their child’s service plan.

23. Year 2 Child/Student outcomes (FOCUS, Goals, GAS) Experience transitions Common screening and intake tools Ongoing wait times Discharge planning and protocols Cost of services