Year 1 Evaluation of Speech Language Demonstration Sites

Interim ReportSeptember 2011-June 2012

Overall Objective of Interim Report

• Identification of:– Preliminary strengths– Challenges– Key learnings– Effective Practices, and,– Emerging considerations

To help improve the delivery of speech and language services

Historical Background

• Speech and Language Services funded by 3 ministries (MCYS, MOHLTC, MOE) with specific mandates (Memorandum 81)

• Operating in silos• 2009-10: School Health Review of CCAC

with recommendations to optimize all resources to develop an integrated coordinated system to meet the needs of the children/students requiring them

Shared Speech and Language Vision

• To provide publically funded Speech and Language Services for children/students that are:– Based on the needs of the whole child– Evidence based and provided within the

context of key developmental milestones– Seamless for children and families– Supportive of key transitions

Background Context

• To explore 7 different models of delivering integrated speech and language services; from various parts of Ontario including Toronto, Niagara Falls, Kenora, Kingston, Halliburton area and London

• Tri-ministry funded for implementation and evaluation

• To inform future re-engineering of speech and language services for children

Data Collection

• Qualitative data through stakeholder consultations

• Pre and post implementation surveys to parents, providers and educators

• Monthly data submissions• Historical data submission• Financial data• Data collected from site manager’s meetings

and provincial advisory committee

Outcomes expected from Demonstration Sites

• Improve continuity of speech and language services and supports for children/students from birth to minimum grade 3

• Reduce waiting lists• Reduce wait times• Improve speech language and literacy outcomes for

children/students• Improve transitions for children/students with speech and

language disorders and their families• Improve the cost-effectiveness of speech and language

services and supports

Evaluation AttributesAccess, Quality & Value

• # of children/students referred to Demonstration site• # referrals by providers to in-school support teams, Tier

1 services and other services• Wait times (3); referral to consent, to assessment to

intervention• Variety and # of interventions provided to

students/children• Service transitions experiences• # of children discharged• Caseloads of providers; and• Cost of serviceAlso, qualitative data on experiences, lessons learned etc.

Preliminary Findings and Insights

Access

• Expanding and standardizing eligibility criteria and use of common screening tools

• Proactive engagement through planned outreach activities..parents/educators

• Adjusting the timing and location of screening..JK entry, JK

• Shortening wait times through streamlined admin processes..ie. consent at screening

• Reducing wait times through resource management. Fund allocations, support of partners, 1 SLP

• Service Mandate Flexibility-parent’s preference is to have services provided at school (+/- parent involvement)

Quality

• Integrating both speech and language delivery• Standardized Individual Service Plans-templates

and protocols-communication• Broadening the range of interventions for better

service• Creating efficiency through leveraging

community services-ie Tier 1 programs in ISP, PD training etc.

• Conducting formal planning for smoother transitions

Value

• Having resource flexibility for effective caseload management. using a variety of s/l interventions..use of CDA’s..streamlined processes and coordination

• Aligning discharge management with completed service plans

Consistent Positive Changes Across Sites

• Improved perceptions regarding accessibility of speech and language services amongst parents, educators and providers

• Enhanced integration of speech and language service delivery, and,

• Increased collaboration amongst parents, educators and providers within speech and language service delivery

Collective Findings

Summary of Effective Practices for Service Mandate Flexibility

• Expanding PSL Programs’ mandates increases emphasis on early identification of children/students with speech and/or language needs and increases inter-sectoral collaboration;

• Having school-based providers extend their mandates to serve JK students expands on providers’ existing relationships within schools and leverages their existing knowledge of the educational system;

• Continuing the delivery of services (i.e. not having a formal referral) to students in JK and SK that previously received speech and/or language services in through the PSL Program reduces wait times for these age cohorts;

• Providing services onsite at schools creates more convenience for parents and students to receive services and for educators to connect with providers; and

• Utilizing engagement practices with parents, regardless of service location, helps to connect them with providers, resulting in a better understanding of services and increased involvement in their child’s service plan.

Year 2

• Child/Student outcomes (FOCUS, Goals, GAS)

• Experience transitions

• Common screening and intake tools

• Ongoing wait times

• Discharge planning and protocols

• Cost of services