Phase I: Phase I: Infrastructure Infrastructure
AnalysisAnalysis
Part C/619 State Accountability Priority Area
May 1st , 2014
DisclaimerDisclaimer
This SSIP presentation and supplemental materials were developed prior to OSEP’s publication of the
final SPP/APR package
Webinar GoalsWebinar Goals
• Participants will leave the webinar with a basic understanding of: Phase I: Infrastructure Analysis process Resources and strategies that can support states
in the Infrastructure Analysis process How other states are approaching infrastructure
analysis
3
What is the SSIP? What is the SSIP?
Multi-year, achievable plan that:
• Increases capacity of EIS programs/LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices
• Improves outcomes for children with disabilities (and their families)
4
5
Purpose of the Infrastructure Analysis Determine the capacity of the current state
system to support improvement and build capacity in LEA/EIS’s to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for children and youth with disabilities
Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
Address State system components including:
Governance Fiscal Quality standards Professional development Data Technical assistance, and Accountability
6
Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
State Identified Measurable Result
In-depth Data Analysis
In-depthInfrastructure
Analysis
Phase I Components
What is the problem?
Broad Data Analysis
BroadInfrastructure
Analysis
Why is it happening?
Theory of ActionCoherent Improvement
StrategiesWhat will we do about it?
8
The infrastructure analysis is a two step process
Broad analysis of the overall system that identifies strengths and weaknesses of the system
In-depth analysis of each of the components as they relate to the identified measurable result
Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
9
• Determine the strengths and weakness of each of the system components
• Identify system components that appear to be associated with:
High performance of children with disabilities Low performance of children with disabilities
SWOT Analysis – NCRRCSSIP State Infrastructure Analysis Guide – SERRCSystems Framework – ECTA CenterState Infrastructure Analysis Tool Part C - MPRRC
Broad Infrastructure AnalysisBroad Infrastructure Analysis
10
Provides questions to stimulate thinking about various system/ infrastructure components:
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
SWOT Analysis –SWOT Analysis –State Infrastructure (NCRRC)State Infrastructure (NCRRC)
11
• Supports both broad and in-depth infrastructure analysis
• Helps to identify systemic barriers and system components that can be leveraged to improve results
Infrastructure Analysis GuideInfrastructure Analysis Guide(SERRC)(SERRC)
12
• What it means for system to be of high quality
• Guide states in evaluating system, identifying areas for improvement, and developing effective, efficient system to support effective practices
http://www.ectacenter.org/sysframe/
System FrameworkSystem Framework(ECTA)(ECTA)
• Guide states in describing and conducting broad and in-depth infrastructure analysis
• Organized around Implementation Drivers Framework
State Infrastructure Analysis Tool Part CState Infrastructure Analysis Tool Part C(MPRRC)(MPRRC)
14
• As you think about your state’s infrastructure what are some of the strengths that you can leverage to support development and implementation of the SSIP?
• What are some of the weaknesses that you will need to address?
Self ReflectionSelf Reflection
Bureau of Family Health Special Health Services Section
Infant Toddler Services1-800-332-6262 or 785-296-6135
www.ksits.org
Sarah Walters, L.B.S.W, M.S.Ed.Coordinator
Where are we with Infrastructure Where are we with Infrastructure Analysis in Kansas?Analysis in Kansas?
• Strategic Plan Development of Results Driven Accountability
Conceptual Framework • Implementation Science Extravaganza
Looking at Infrastructure analysis through Implementation Science lens
SSIP Infrastructure Analysis Questionnaire
RDA Conceptual FrameworkRDA Conceptual Framework
How do we know where we stand with the How do we know where we stand with the ability to operationalize this framework?ability to operationalize this framework?
The Big Drill Down
Here is a glimpse at the document Here is a glimpse at the document
Next StepsNext Steps
Continue to gather input from various stakeholders including but not limited to…
State ICC State Agency Early Childhood Leadership Team Local tiny-k program coordinators Parents/families tiny-k practitioners
Next StepsNext Steps
Narrow in on our topic and do further drill down to identify our SSIP Target
Next StepsNext Steps
More Tools Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR
Indicator C-3/B-7 (ECTA Center) System Framework – Finance and Governance
(ECTA Center) Gantt Chart (RRCP, ECTA Center, and DaSy Center)
The EndThe End
We try really hard to stay in our Happy Place!
Massachusetts – SSIP Massachusetts – SSIP Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement
• Stakeholder Engagement started early on in the process – October 2013 EI Program Director Session
• ECO Stakeholders – already existing stakeholder group advising state on improving approach to measuring child & family outcomes
• State Leadership Team
• Interagency Coordinating Council
Infrastructure Analysis ToolInfrastructure Analysis Tool
SWOT Analysis – State Infrastructure• MA modified the SWOT tool to increase the focus
on integrating existing initiatives: What aspects of the MA EIP current initiatives
make it unique? How does the MA EIP system leverage its
resources (fiscal, material, personnel, etc.) to build capacity at the local system level?
What are challenges with regard to the MA EIP ability to support local systems in efforts to implement sustainable new initiatives?
Infrastructure Analysis ToolInfrastructure Analysis Tool
• Current Initiatives & Practices
• Facilitated a loosely structured group brain storming session with ECO Stakeholders Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
MA SWOT AnalysisMA SWOT Analysis
S W O T
Universal acceptance f EI Broad eligibility Program Based System – (referral, evaluation, IFPS development,
Service Coordination) each program is doing all components which makes it easier to make a systems change
Blended service model BDI-2 Pilot Process/Ongoing support/Roundtables, etc. Strong Professional Development System through EITC (which is
accessible) Breadth & Scope of disciplines/backgrounds in the field Collaboration/alignment with Higher Education • Strong collaborative relationship with Part B Linkages with referral sources, Hospitals, Pediatricians, etc. (?EHR?) Intersection with multiple Early Childhood services and agencies Active communication across all Stakeholders Rich cohort of Parent Leaders/Parent Engagement Strong ICC/EI Consortium
Multiple payer sources
What top three strengths can support the most important or largest number of weaknesses by making a focused effort?
Challenge of serving broad eligibility (meeting the professional development needs)
Implementing “evidence based” practice to fidelity Inability to measure effectiveness of initiatives – to evaluate and reflect on
initiatives and overall benefit to the system Service model – not having targeted evaluation teams/Service
Coordination Disparities/Equity of services for all children and families Service access – due to poverty & linguistic capacity
Ability to embed training across agencies Separate silos among agencies i.e. childcare/EI New Leadership with changes in Administration Retention/Turnover Aging staff in leadership roles Ability to attract/support/and sustain multicultural staff
(T) Technology is a weakness – local programs ability to access
technology; State’s ability to keep up with technology enhancements Financial limitations – EI rate Financial resources to sustain and implement evidence based practices
Elevate more opportunities within the system To provide more consistency across programs related to practice Grow more leaders within the system Opportunity to chose resources (fiscal/evaluation) Cross Training Models of multiple systems Partner with Higher Ed More control over data when we move to a web based system Return on Investment
Linking concepts to shift threats to opportunities: Cohesive
-Will ASQ-SE, BDI-2… existing efforts be part of the SSIP? If so, that could message continued effort for program buy-in. -manageable to do and get buy-in -build on existing efforts -emphasize quality -marketable/easy to understand/easy to support -Does economy/budget connect to cohesiveness because building a cohesive plan with real, measurable, long-term impact? Does budgeting also speak to the need to connect to existing initiatives?
Change How do we market a cohesive plan – engage the field in the results driven
SSIP # of initiatives; are we involved in too many? Balance quality of service and the number served
Buy-In at local program level “Buy-In” for all changes in the system – (ASQ-SE, BDI-2, etc,) Varying priorities at program/agency level
(EHR) Electronic Health record - impact to the system Omnibus Bill – DCF automatic eligibility/impact to the system/need for
additional professional development Liability Issues – HIPPA;FERPA; Collaboration with other agencies (non-
reimbursable activities)
Economy/Budgeting
Further Define Data Opportunities: What are you planning to do with the information you get from your data? e.g.: inform the field for increased (buy-in), test a hypothesis related to improved outcomes (opportunities to engage & grow leaders), Are there opportunities to support de-identified data use in partnership with Higher Ed (increasing a strength)?
Next StepsNext Steps
• Continue to identify linkages from the SWOT analysis
• Develop a Data Analysis Plan that includes our hypothesis, inferences, etc. prior to viewing additional data which will include the SWOT Analysis as well.
• Need for further drill down/data analysis
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned
• Need for more reflection on the process
• SSIP components are not a linear process
32
As the state identified measurable result is decided, an in-depth analysis of the state infrastructure is conducted to determine:
The functions of each infrastructure component in relationship to the focus area for improvement.
Identify contributing factors to low and high performance within the focus area for improvement.
In-depth Infrastructure AnalysisIn-depth Infrastructure Analysis
33
• The state might also complete an inventory of current initiatives to determine how the initiatives (in total or in part) can be leveraged in the SSIP.
• It will also be helpful to review past initiatives to determine if they will support the SSIP (in total or in part).
(System Framework – ECTA Center)(SSIP State Infrastructure Analysis Guide)Local Contributing Factor Tools – TA ProvidersSISEP State Initiative Inventory - SERRC
In-depth Infrastructure AnalysisIn-depth Infrastructure Analysis
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/eco/ECO-C3-B7-LCFT.docx
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/topics/gensup/14-ContributingFactor-Results_Final_28Mar12.doc
http://therightidea.tadnet.org/searches?commit=Search&search=Investigative+Questions 34
Local Contributing Factors ToolsLocal Contributing Factors Tools
35
• Helps states identify current and previously implemented initiatives that can be leveraged to support the identified measurable result
• Adapted from NIRN and SISEP
Initiative Inventory for SSIPInitiative Inventory for SSIP
Colorado’s StoryColorado’s Story
CDE’s Strategic GoalsCDE’s Strategic Goals
State IdentifiableState IdentifiableMeasrueable ResultsMeasrueable Results
• Literacy & math achievement (with an emphasis on prek-3)
• Graduation
• Post-school outcomes
• Family Involvement
School Age DataSchool Age Data
• Very low proficiency rates in math (20%) and literacy (23%)
• Students with Specific Learning Disabilities have lowest achievement
• High drop-out rate (28%)• Low graduation rate (54%)
Preschool DataPreschool Data
• Child outcomes; Indicator 7 – in the 80%s • LRE; Indicator 6 – 84%
Question: what happens between preschool and 3rd grade?
619’s Involvement in the SSIP619’s Involvement in the SSIP
• Emphasizing the importance of the pre-k to 3rd grade years
• Invited to attend with the “Big B” team to the MPRRC planning/TA meeting last month
• Research on the connection between pre-K vocabulary to 3rd grade reading to graduation
Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
• Our primary concerns are aligned with CDE’s strategic goals
• Data supports our identified primary areas of concern
Infrastructure/CapacityInfrastructure/Capacity
Leadership:•CDE’s strategic goals•Heightened recognition of the importance of early childhood•Preschool special education is an integral part of the larger special education unit•Partnering with CDHS who manages the RTTT-ELC
Infrastructure/CapacityInfrastructure/Capacity
Funding/Resources:•611 budget; higher focus on Results Driven Accountability (RDA), following OSEP’s shift from compliance to student outcomes•RTTT-ELC; partnering with PD team on PD opportunities•Partnering with Higher Education; Early Literacy Summit•DaSy•ECTA Center
Infrastructure/CapacityInfrastructure/Capacity
Other Initiatives:•RTTT-ELC•READ Act (focus on K-3 literacy)•School Readiness•Literacy grants•Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)•Unified Improvement Process (UIP)•New DD eligibility category•Ability to collect more data
If/ThenIf/Then
• If we focus on students starting strong (preK & K), then students will read by third grade.
• If we put a focus on preK & K, then we can prevent future problems in performance by starting strong.
IfIf…
If we can help students:-start strong,-attain proficiency in reading & math by third grade,-meet or exceed core standards of literacy & math,-graduate from high school
Then…Then…
Then students will have the skills, knowledge & disposition needed to contribute to society and successfully participate in postsecondary education and workforce.
Further RefinementFurther Refinement
• Lead to focus on students with SLD• Impacted our budget review process• Further data and infrastructure analysis• Collaboration of stakeholder groups of the
RTT-ELC & those of young children with disabilities needs to improve
• Look for alignment with Part C • Further input from stakeholders
50
Summarize the results of the infrastructure analysis: Describe the coordination of the components of the
system. Identify the strengths of each of the components of
the system and the overall system. Identify the overall improvements that need to be
made to the system. Identify the initiatives that can be leveraged for the
SSIP.
Infrastructure AnalysisInfrastructure Analysis
• Consider the interconnectedness of the in-depth infrastructure analysis with the in-depth data analysis and how information from both help refine the measureable results and identify improvement strategies.
• Consider looking at both the state infrastructure as well as the local infrastructure.
• Consider involving stakeholders, especially those with knowledge about the infrastructure and with expertise in the measurable results area.
ConsiderationsConsiderations
Next StepsNext Steps
Let us know what you need…
Contact InformationContact Information
Arlene Russell, [email protected]
Carolee Eslinger, [email protected]
Grace Kelley, [email protected]
Anne Lucas, WRRC/[email protected]
Megan Vinh, [email protected]
53
Thank you for your attention!This is the third webinar in a series on SSIP for Part C and Section 619 presented in 2014. Resources related to this call and other presentations in the series are available at the following URL:
http://ectacenter.org/~calls/2014/ssip/ssip.asp
Top Related