a review of state systemic improvement plans to improve ...€¦ · 3. state-identified measureable...
TRANSCRIPT
A Review of State Systemic Improvement Plans to Improve Outcomes for Children and Families Participating in Early Intervention
Taletha Derrington1, Anne Lucas2, Jessica K. Hardy1, & Grace Kelley1
1SRI International, 2Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel HillConference on Research Innovations in Early Intervention (CRIEI)
San Diego, CA February 2016
Research Issue• The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has shifted from
focusing their monitoring efforts on state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirements to add a focus on child and family outcomes, called Results-Driven Accountability.
• In April 2015 states were required to submitted Phase I of State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP), with five components:
1. Data analysis to identify child/family outcomes needing improvement and root causes behind sub-optimal performance;
2. Infrastructure analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses;3. State-identified measureable result(s) (SIMR) to improve child/family
outcomes;4. Coherent improvement strategies tying root causes and infrastructure
analyses results to the SIMR; and 5. A theory of action that integrates the other four components.
• In April of 2016, states will submit Phase II of the improvement plans containing activities to improve child and family outcomes and plans for evaluating the implementation and impact of the plans. These plans will be implemented and evaluated through February of 2020.
• This poster presents information about the first four components of states’ Phase I SSIP plans.
Study Design• All SSIP Phase I plans submitted by the 56 state and territory Part C Early
Intervention programs (hereafter referred to as state EI programs) were coded by two reviewers.
• Disagreements reconciled by a third reviewer.
Results – State-Identified Measurable Result(s) (SIMR) for Improvement• Almost all states used their state data
systems to examine trends in three child outcomes (Positive Social Skills, Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills, Taking Actions to Meet Needs) and three family outcomes (Know their Rights, Communicate their Child’s Needs, Help their Children Grow and Learn) reported to OSEP.
• States used these trends to select their SIMR (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Most States Chose Children’s Positive Social Skills as their SIMR (N = 56)
Children's SocialRelationships
Children's Knowledge andSkills
Children's Actions to MeetNeeds
Family Outcomes
Multiple Outcomes and/orOther
Figure 2. State SIMRs for Federal Fiscal Year 2013 (N = 56)
HI
GU
AS
MP
VI
LegendChild Outcomes: Positive social skills (C3A) Knowledge and skills (C3B)Meeting own needs (C3C) C3A and C3B C3A, C3B, and C3C Specific skills in C3C
Family Outcomes: Communicate children’s needs (C4B) Help their children develop and learn (C4C) Know their rights (C4A), C4B, and C4C
Results – Root Causes for Sub-Optimal Performance on Child/Family Outcomes
• All but one state performed a root cause analysis using stakeholder discussion, data from state data systems, and/or surveys of local programs or other stakeholders.
• Figure 3 shows the top five areas identified as root causes for low performance. Other identified root causes included inadequate IFSP development (36%), use of natural environments (29%), teaming (22%), referral/child find (22%), eligibility (11%), and transition (5%).
Figure 3. Top Five Root Causes for Low Performance Related to Measuring Children’s Outcomes, Identifying Children’s Needs, and Working with Families (N = 55)
38%
53%
60%
62%
64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Service models
Evaluation and assessment
Intervention strategies
Family-centered practices
Outcome measurement
Results – Infrastructure Analysis & Improvement Activities• States analyzed their infrastructure to identify components that could be improved to affect positive results for children
and families (Figure 4). • Most states’ improvement strategies focused on professional development, technical assistance/training,
accountability, and data systems (Figure 5). • Within the personnel/workforce component, areas needing improvement in addition to professional development and
technical assistance/training were personnel standards (28% of 54 states), staff recruitment and retention (17% of 54), and pre-service professional development (11% of 54).
Figure 4. Framework Components of High-Quality EI and Preschool Special Education Programs
Figure 5. States Identified Improvement Activities Related to Each of the Components of State Infrastructure (N = 56)
96% 95%
80% 77%
55%
38% 34%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ProfessionalDevelopment
TA & Training Accountability Data Systems Governance QualityStandards
Fiscal
Results – Collaborative Improvement Strategies• Many EI programs (N = 42) plan to partner with other early learning initiatives
as improvement strategies. • Figure 6 shows that the four most frequently mentioned were national
initiatives.
Figure 6. State Part C Programs are Seeking to Improve Early Childhood Cross-System Collaboration to Improve Children’s Outcomes (N = 56)
12%
14%
19%
24%
26%
43%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Pre-K/Kindergarten
Early Childhood Advisory Council
Early Learning Standards Initiatives
Early Head Start
Project LAUNCH
Race to the Top
MIECVH
Notes: MIECVH (Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting),Project LAUNCH (Linking Actions for Unmet Needs in Children's Health)
Implications for Research• Early childhood researchers can support states with their
SSIP plans in:– Selection, training, and implementation with fidelity of
evidence-based practices in early childhood;– Evaluating the implementation and outcomes of their plans;
and– Developing/enhancing cross-system collaboration.
Discussion Questions• What is the role of researchers in supporting and evaluating
these systems change efforts?• What evaluation measures would help a state track progress
on their state-identified measureable result (SIMR)?• What evidence-based practices could address different
SIMRs?• What research and/or cross-system partnerships could help
states in evaluating SSIP implementation and outcomes?
Full report on the SSIP Analysis available at: https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/9033
The contents of this document were developed under cooperative agreement numbers #H326R140006 (DaSy), #H326P120002 (ECTA Center), #H373Y130002 (IDC), and #H326R14006 (NCSI) from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officers: Meredith Miceli & Richelle Davis (DaSy), Julia Martin Eile (ECTA Center), Richelle Davis & Meredith Miceli (IDC), and Perry Williams & Shedeh Hajghassemali (NCSI).
For more information, please contact: [email protected]
Stay connected with DaSy: http://dasycenter.org/index.htmlhttps://www.facebook.com/dasycenter
https://twitter.com/DaSyCenter