1

Collaboration Across Part C and 619 on Child OutcomesMeasuring Child and Family

Outcomes

2

Session PresentersFlorida

Sally Golden McCordCathy BishopBatya Elbaum

MaineDebra Hannigan

NECTAC Facilitator Anne Lucas

PennsylvaniaMary Anketell

Maureen Cronin

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

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

Questions: State Responses

6

What contextual factors motivated you to design a

collaborative outcomes measurement system in your

state?

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

Maine: Context Commissioners Steering Committee GSEG Regional Input

9

Pennsylvania: Context Governor’s Early Childhood Initiatives Joint Office of Child Development and

Early Learning GSEG

10

What process is your state using to collect outcomes

data? Who is responsible?

When are data collected? What assessment tools are

used?

11

Maine: Process Who: Service Coordinators (Part C)

and Case Managers(3-5) at regional sites

When:o The first IFSP meeting or no later than 30

days from eligibility determinationo Data need only be collected for children

who are entering the program April 1, 2007 Tool: Child Outcomes Summary Form

12

Pennsylvania: Process Who: 1 IFSP/IEP team member &

family When: Within 60 days of entry and

exito Annual data starting in July 2009o Part of ongoing progress monitoring

Tools: Work Sampling System and Ounce Scale by July 2009

13

Florida: Process Who:

o Local Early Steps obtains entry data for infants and toddlers

o If child will transition to Part B preschool, Local Early Steps and school districts determine who will perform the shared data point

o Locations have instituted “single decision rule” that prevails, or “multiple decision rules”

When: Data submitted on quarterly basis

14

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

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

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

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

How are you building capacity in your state to implement child outcome

measurement? At the state level? At the local level?

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

Maine: Capacity BuildingState LevelState 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

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

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

What lessons have you learned?

What’s working? What’s challenging? What would you do

differently?

24

Maine: Lessons LearnedWorking: Uniform statewide process Pilot sites as models Uniform state TA

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

Maine: Lessons Learned Cont’dDo 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

Pennsylvania: Lessons Learned Working:

o Collaboration between Part C, Part B preschool and Early Childhood Initiatives

Challenging:o Numbers of childreno Numbers of professionals to be

trainedo Developing the ideal data base

Do differently:o Too soon to tell!

28

Florida: Lessons LearnedWorking: 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

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

What resources have you identified, or developed, to support your collaborative

effort?

31

Pennsylvania: Resources Available at www.pattan.net

oTraining materialsoProcedural materials

Preliminary data base for 7 point scale on line

32

Florida: Resources Flow Chart of Process

FAQ document

Data collection and reporting document

33

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

34

Questions?

35

Contact InformationSally Golden McCord

Sally_Golden-McCord@doh.state.fl.usCathy Bishop

Cathy.Bishop@fldoe.org Debra Hannigan

Debra.Hannigan@maine.govMaureen Cronin

mcronin@state.pa.usMary Anketell

manketell@pattan.net

36

Other Resources

http://www.nectac.org/topics/quality/childfam.asp