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

SystemsSeptember 2013

Katy McCullough, ECTA/MSRRCAnne Lucas, ECTA/WRRC

Christina Kasprzak, ECTA, ECO, DaSy

What we’ll cover:

• Purpose and Audience• Process and Partners• Assumptions/

Parameters• Content and structure• Input/Discussion

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.

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.

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

Draft

State Examples

Review/Input

Revise

State Testing

Revise

Broader Input

Partner StatesDelawareLisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention SystemVerna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware IdahoChristy Cronheim, Part C CoordinatorShannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) PennsylvaniaJim Coyle, Part C & Section 619 Preschool Coordinator MinnesotaKara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C CoordinatorBarbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West VirginiaPam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West VirginiaGinger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator

Technical Work Group Members

7

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

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

Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families

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?

What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices?

10

Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families

Implementation of effective practices

goal

Part C/619 System Framework

Workforce/ Personnel

Quality standards

Funding/ Finance

Monitoring and Accountability

Data System

Governance

Align/Collaborate Across EC

What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage, support, require local implementation of effective practices?

Governance: Vision, mission, setting policy direction, infrastructure, Leadership, decision-making structures, public engagement and communication, etc.

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

Draft Components Cross cutting themes

Usin

g da

ta fo

r im

prov

emen

t

Com

mun

icati

ng e

ffecti

vely

Prom

oting

col

labo

ratio

n

Enga

ging

stak

ehol

ders

, inc

ludi

ng fa

miie

s

Esta

blish

ing/

revi

sing

polic

ies

Fam

ily L

eade

rshi

p &

Sup

port

Coor

dina

ting/

Inte

grati

ng a

cros

s EC

Considered in all

components

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-assessment for states to self-assess (and plan for improvement)

– with resources related to the components of the system framework

12

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

13

System Framework

14

Example

Component: Governance

Subcomponents (based on literature and consensus to-date):1.Public statements of purpose, mission, and/or

vision2.Legal Foundations3. Infrastructure4.Leadership and Performance Management

15

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

16

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

17

Small Group Discussion1. 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)

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?

Recommendations?

What recommendations do you have for ECTA to make the framework most helpful

for state Part C and 619 leaders?

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

21