1. 1 Collaboration Across Part C and 619 on Child Outcomes Measuring Child and Family Outcomes

2. 2 Session Presenters Florida Sally Golden McCord Cathy Bishop Batya Elbaum Maine Debra Hannigan NECTAC Facilitator Anne Lucas Pennsylvania Mary Anketell Maureen Cronin

3. 3 Purpose and Expected Outcomes  To understand contextual factors that motivated three states in designing a collaborative process for measuring child and family outcomes  To become familiar with the process these states are using for collecting outcomes data

4. 4 Purpose and Expected Outcomes  To understand some strategies used to facilitate collaboration and for building capacity in these state  To understand what’s working and what’s challenging with the collaborative processes in the three states

5. 5 Questions: State Responses

6. 6 What contextual factors motivated you to design a collaborative outcomes measurement system in your state?

7. 7 Florida: Context  DOH lead agency for Part C – Early Steps  16 Early Steps local lead agencies  67 local school districts  Part C GSEG  Phasing in system to measure outcomes across both programs using a single instrument (BDI-2)

8. 8 Maine: Context  Commissioners Steering Committee  GSEG  Regional Input

9. 9 Pennsylvania: Context  Governor’s Early Childhood Initiatives  Joint Office of Child Development and Early Learning  GSEG

10. 10 What process is your state using to collect outcomes data? Who is responsible? When are data collected? What assessment tools are used?

11. 11 Maine: Process  Who: Service Coordinators (Part C) and Case Managers(3-5) at regional sites  When: oThe first IFSP meeting or no later than 30 days from eligibility determination oData need only be collected for children who are entering the program April 1, 2007  Tool: Child Outcomes Summary Form

12. 12 Pennsylvania: Process  Who: 1 IFSP/IEP team member & family  When: Within 60 days of entry and exit oAnnual data starting in July 2009 oPart of ongoing progress monitoring  Tools: Work Sampling System and Ounce Scale by July 2009

13. 13 Florida: Process  Who : oLocal Early Steps obtains entry data for infants and toddlers oIf child will transition to Part B preschool, Local Early Steps and school districts determine who will perform the shared data point oLocations have instituted “single decision rule” that prevails, or “multiple decision rules”  When: Data submitted on quarterly basis

14. 14 What specific strategies did you put in place to facilitate collaboration across Parts C and B?

15. 15 Pennsylvania: Strategies  Same data collection procedures for Part C, Part B preschool and Early Childhood Programs  State leadership planning group Part C, Part B preschool and Early Childhood Programs  Training provided to mixed audiences

16. 16 Florida: Strategies  All aspects of system design done collaboratively  Shared resources (people and money)  Data collection procedures same across both agencies  All meetings and trainings accomplished jointly

17. 17 Maine: Strategies  COSFs need to be completed for children B-5  Provision of training to groups inclusive of Part C/ Section 619  More Training Planned 2007-2008.

18. 18 How are you building capacity in your state to implement child outcome measurement? At the state level? At the local level?

19. 19 Florida: Capacity Building  Provision of materials and scoring software  Training  Train the trainer planned  Phase-in process includes joint planning meeting at start of each phase  Periodic conference call “check-ins”  Evaluation of quality of data

20. 20 Maine: Capacity Building State Level :  Open position for SPP/site outreach  New centralized software for data documentation  Individual who focuses on regional site monitoring part of this monitoring will be to conduct file audits and interviews to determine adherence to standards required to meet the SPP  Initiation of a provider group at the state level to design training inclusive of SPP, Outcomes, and ARP

21. 21 Maine: Capacity Building Cont’d Local Level:  Two day training January 2007  Regional follow-ups March 2007  Regional Pilot Sites assistance to other sites statewide  Site self monitoring for appropriate COSF documentation  Provision of training for boards, providers, parents and site personnel

22. 22 Pennsylvania: Capacity Building State Level:  Statewide database with quality controls  Training of trainers – state TA staff  Since June, over 2,000 providers trained Local Level:  Local training & technical assistance  Training of trainers – local providers  Ongoing TA through email

23. 23 What lessons have you learned? What’s working? What’s challenging? What would you do differently?

24. 24 Maine: Lessons Learned Working:  Uniform statewide process  Pilot sites as models  Uniform state TA

25. 25 Maine: Lessons Learned Cont’d Challenges:  Regional Site resistance to uniform statewide process  MaineCare system compatibility  Level funding for another year  Lack of understanding of the requirements of SPP/APR  Implement the process as part of a systematic change process

26. 26 Maine: Lessons Learned Cont’d Do Differently:  Pilot site selection planned geographically  Communicate pilot activity with sites on a regular basis  Provide more training for boards, parents, and providers  Provide more feedback to teams on plan development/implementation

27. 27 Pennsylvania: Lessons Learned  Working: oCollaboration between Part C, Part B preschool and Early Childhood Initiatives  Challenging: oNumbers of children oNumbers of professionals to be trained oDeveloping the ideal data base  Do differently: oToo soon to tell!

28. 28 Florida: Lessons Learned Working:  State level collaboration  Our support system through specialized projects  Phase-in process to “test” system  Positive collaborative spirit of our “Early Adopters”  Excellent training on instrument

29. 29 Florida: Lessons Learned Cont’d Challenges:  Complexity of the system across two programs – including data sharing  Resources over time to sustain system  Instituting procedures to ensure quality and integrity of data  Keeping all the players informed and “in the loop”

30. 30 What resources have you identified, or developed, to support your collaborative effort?

31. 31 Pennsylvania: Resources  Available at www.pattan.netwww.pattan.net oTraining materials oProcedural materials  Preliminary data base for 7 point scale on line

32. 32 Florida: Resources  Flow Chart of Process  FAQ document  Data collection and reporting document

33. 33 Maine: Resources  State Advisory Board  Provider Collaborative Group  Pilot Group Personnel/Directors  State Level Data Specialists  NECTAC, NECTAC, NECTAC

34. 34 Questions?

35. 35 Contact Information Sally Golden McCord Sally_Golden-McCord@doh.state.fl.us Cathy Bishop Cathy.Bishop@fldoe.org Debra Hannigan Debra.Hannigan@maine.gov Maureen Cronin mcronin@state.pa.us Mary Anketell manketell@pattan.net

36. 36 Other Resources http://www.nectac.org/topics/quality/childfam.asp