Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems

1. Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems September 2013 Katy McCullough, ECTA/MSRRC Anne Lucas, ECTA/WRRC Christina Kasprzak, ECTA, ECO, DaSy

2. What we’ll cover: • Purpose and Audience • Process and Partners • Assumptions/ Parameters • Content and structure • Input/Discussion

3. System Framework: Purpose and Audience Purpose: to guide states in evaluating their current Part C/619 system, identifying areas for improvement, and providing direction on how to develop a more effective, efficient Part C and Section 619 system that requires, supports, and encourages implementation of effective practices. Audience: the key audience is state Part C and state Section 619 coordinators and staff, with acknowledgement that other key staff and leadership in a state will need to be involved.

4. System Framework: Process and Partners • Iterative validation process: the framework will be developed through an iterative process where consensus is built across national and state experts in the field. • Partner states: the framework will be developed iteratively with 6 states (DE, ID, MN, NJ, PA, WV), so that it reflects (and is applicable to) the diversity of state systems (e.g. Lead Agency, eligibility criteria). • Technical Work Group (TWG): the Center has formed a technical work group (TWG) with experts in the field to advise the Center by providing early input on the elements, and later review and give input on drafts, as well as contribute resources available to support states on various elements.

5. Iterative Validation Process • Review of the existing literature • Discussions with partner states about what’s working or not working in their states (related to various components); what it means to be ‘quality’ • Draft of components, subcomponents, quality indicators and elements of quality • Review of drafts and input from: partner states, TWG, ECTA staff, others • Revisions to drafts based on input • Re-send revised drafts and have partner states ‘test’ through application • Revisions to drafts again • Send more broadly to get input Literature StateExamples Draft Review/Input Revise State Testing Revise Broader Input

6. Partner States Delaware Lisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention System Verna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware Idaho Christy Cronheim, Part C Coordinator Shannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) Pennsylvania Jim Coyle, Part C & Section 619 Preschool Coordinator Minnesota Kara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator Barbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West Virginia Pam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West Virginia Ginger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator

7. Technical Work Group Members Mary Beth Bruder, Director, Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), University of CT Lori Connors-Tadros, Project Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes, National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University Barbara Gebhard, Assistant Director of Public Policy, ZERO TO THREE Maureen Greer, Executive Director, Infant Toddler Coordinator Association (ITCA) Vivian James, 619 Preschool Coordinator, Office of Early Learning, NC Department of Public Instruction Grace Kelley, Program Specialist, South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC) Jana Martella, Co-Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), Education Development Center, Inc. Robin McWilliam, Director of the Center for Child and Family Research, Siskin Children’s Institute Cindy Oser, Director of Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health Strategy, ZERO TO THREE Anne Reale, Principal, ICF International and ELC TA Collaboration Lead, ELC TA Program Rachel Schumacher, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, R. Schumacher Consulting

8. System Framework: Assumptions/Parameters The resulting framework and corresponding self-assessment will be: • Evidence based • Useful to Part C and Section 619 programs, including resources and exemplars • Responsive to the variation that exists across states; designed in a way that recognizes that states can reach quality in different ways • Related to critical areas of Part C and Section 619 • Consistent with IDEA requirements • Consistent with recommended early childhood practices (e.g. DEC, DAP) • Consistent with best practices from implementation science • Inclusive of resources and exemplars to illustrate ways state can meet quality

9. What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices? goal Part C/619 system that supports implementation of effective practices and results in child and family outcomes. What does a high quality Part C/ Section 619 system look like? Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families Implementation of effective practices

10. What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices? Part C/619 System Framework goal Governance Funding/ Finance Quality standards Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families Implementation of effective practices Workforce/ Personnel Monitoring and Accountability Data System Align/Collaborate Across EC

11. Considered in all components Draft Components Cross cutting themes Governance: Vision, mission, setting policy direction, infrastructure, Leadership, decision-making structures, public engagement and communication, etc. Establishing/revising policies Promoting collaboration Engaging stakeholders, including famiies Communicating effectively Family Leadership & Support Coordinating/Integrating across EC Using data for improvement Finance: Securing adequate funding, allocation of resources, establishing systems of payment, etc. Quality Standards: Program standards that support effective practices, ELGs, ELSs Monitoring and Accountability: Monitoring and accountability for outcomes, quality measurement systems, continuous improvement, systems evaluation Workforce development: professional development, personnel standards, competencies, licensure, credentialing, TA systems, etc. Data System: System for collecting, analyzing and using data for decision-making, coordinated data for accountability and decision-making, linked data

12. System Framework • Products: • components and subcomponents of an effective service delivery system (e.g. funding/finance, personnel and TA, governance structure) • quality indicators scaled to measure the extent to which a component is in place and of high quality • corresponding self-assessmentfor states to self-assess (and plan for improvement) • with resources related to the components of the system framework

13. System Framework • Each Component (e.g. Workforce) will include defined: • Subcomponents (e.g. personnel standards) • Quality indicators (e.g. state has articulated personnel standards...) • Element of quality • Element of quality • Element of quality • (self-assessment rating scale on the extent to which the quality indicator is in place) • National resources and state examples

14. System Framework

15. Example Component: Governance Subcomponents (based on literature and consensus to-date): • Public statements of purpose, mission, and/or vision • Legal Foundations • Infrastructure • Leadership and Performance Management

16. Example Subcomponents: Public statements of purpose, mission, and/or vision • Quality Indicator: Public statements of purpose, mission, and/or vision guide decisions and direction for a quality comprehensive and coordinated of Part C and Section 619 statewide systems. • Elements of quality: • address who the program serves, what the program does and the intended outcomes for children and families • consistent with IDEA • built upon core values, beliefs, guiding principles and evidence base • developed with input from all relevant stakeholders • readily available and effectively communicated to all relevant stakeholders • clear and understood by staff, local program administrators and families • used to make system level and programmatic decisions • reviewed periodically with all relevant stakeholders and revised as needed • recognized as an integral part of the broader early childhood public statements

17. Timelines • Governance component (currently drafted) • Finance component (currently drafted) • Workforce/Personnel component (literature review started) • Monitoring and Accountability component (starting literature review this fall) • Quality Standards component (starting literature review this fall) • Data System component (in conjunction with DaSy) Goal: Draft of all components by next spring

18. Small Group Discussion 1. What does it mean to have high quality Part C and Section 619 systems? • What is working well that makes your system successful/high quality? • What about your (personnel, finance, monitoring, standards, data) system is critical for making your system successful? 2. What linkages between the Part C/619 systems and the broader early childhood are critical for having a quality system? (e.g. braiding funding; personnel standards across EC)

19. Whole Group Debrief Sharing from small group discussions • What does it mean to have a high quality Part C and Section 619 system? • How do you see the link between the Part C and 619 systems with the broader early childhood?

20. Recommendations? What recommendations do you have for ECTA to make the framework most helpful for state Part C and 619 leaders?

21. Sharing progress/ updates/ materials widely via the web site: http://ectacenter.org/topics/sysframe/sysframe.asp