2011 OSEP Leadership Mega ConferenceCollaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0

Until the Smartphone App is Ready…

Use the Indicator Analysis Reports

Lynne Kahn, NECTACSEA Representative (invited), Part B

Wendy Whipple, Nevada, Part CDick Zeller, CADRE

Presentation #: 302 NR-S

What SPP/APR Improvement Is About…

Work done by adults….

… to benefit children & families.

What we’ll cover:

• What’s in the Indicator Analysis Reports?

• How can states use the reports?• What TA resources are available to

you?• You tell us- How can the Indicator

Analysis Reports be even more useful?

Indicator Report Features

• National picture of data on each indicator

• Analyses of patterns in the data related to state characteristics

• National trends over time in indicator data

• Highlights of successful improvement strategies related to each indicator

Examples of Data Analyses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B1

2 P

erce

nt o

f chi

ldre

n w

ho h

ave

an

IEP

by

the

ir t

hird

bir

thd

ays

.

Change from Baseline to Current B12 Indicator Level (Sorted by current indicator level)

Baseline SY 2009-10 SY

STATES/ENTITIES (Each marker or marker and line set represents one state/entity.)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Prog

ress

/Slip

page

(200

9-10

min

us 2

008-

09)

Each column represents one state/jurisdiction (n = 54)

Progress and Slippage, 2008-09 to 2009-10, 8A Indicator Level

9 States Show

Slippage

18 States Show No Change

27 States Show

Progress

Baseline SY SY 2005-06 SY 2006-07 SY 2007-08 SY 2008-09 SY 2009-10

Mean 81.0 82.0 87.3 89.4 92.3 93.8

Highest 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Lowest 19.0 19.0 47.8 51.1 57.0 58.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

C1 P

erce

nt o

f inf

ants

& to

ddle

rs w

ith IF

SPs

who

rec

eive

EI s

ervi

ces

in a

tim

ely

man

ner.

Trends - Six Years of Indicator C1 Data - Percent of infants & toddlers with IFSPs who receive EI services in a timely manner.

No Data 2 1 1

19 States

15 States

10 States

5 States

2 States

2 States

-

-

1 State

-

24 States

11 States

8 States

4 States

4 States

1 State

1 State

-

1 State

-

31 States

14 States

8 States

-

2 States

-

-

-

-

-

31 States

12 States

6 States

4 States

1 State

1 State

-

-

-

-

2

41 States

9 States

5 States

-

1 State

-

-

-

-

-

0

43 States

8 States

2 States

-

1 State

-

-

-

-

-

2

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Chan

ge fr

om B

asel

ine

to C

urre

nt C

5 In

dica

tor L

evel

(S

orte

d by

curr

ent i

ndic

ator

leve

l)Indicator C5: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs (By

RRC/RPTAC Region)

0

1

2

3

4

5

<1,000 1,000 to 2,499 2,500 to 3,999 5,000 to 9,999 4,000 to 4,999 >10,000

Chan

ge fr

om B

asel

ine

to C

urre

nt C

6 In

dica

tor L

evel

(S

orte

d by

curr

ent i

ndic

ator

leve

l)

Indicator C6: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs (By Number Served in EI Programs)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Compliance with 45 Day Timeline by StateShowing Percent of Timely Services and Percent Delayed Due to Family

Circumstances

2009-10 Actual

% Family ReasonsStates (N = 50)

Where to find the Indicator Analysis Reports

• Hard copy distributed here!• Available to download by Indicator on

the NEW & Improved SPP/APR Calendar, now on line at

The Right IDEA

Nevada’s Use of APR Analysis Reports

Nevada’s Interagency Coordinating Council will often ask questions on how Nevada compares with other States.

• What have states used as their definition of “Timely” under Indicator 1?

Nevada and 29 other states are utilizing 30 days per Analysis Report.

Nevada Continued• Are other states struggling with

providing timely delivery of services?32 states are within the 90th percentile.8 states are below the 80th percentile. • Can we compare results from Nevada

with states that are similar to Nevada both geographically and in population size?

Individual queries can be requested on any APR indicator through the TA network.

Nevada Continued

Nevada’s largest provider of early intervention services raised questions related to how Indicators may impact each other, for instance:

• Does performance at a high percentage in natural environments impact Indicator 1, Timely Delivery of Services?

Nevada Continued

• 26 states were providing services within natural environments within the 90th percentile, compared to 32 states providing timely services within the 90th percentile. Natural Environments does not appear to adversely impact a state’s ability to provide timely services.

Nevada Continued

• Does Nevada have a higher percentage of services being provided in natural environments than other states?

Nevada is within the same percentage ranking as 26 other states.

• What is the overall percentage of children being served in natural environments nationwide?

31 states including Nevada are at 95% or above.

Nevada Final

• Without access to the Indicator Analysis Reports, Part C in Nevada would not have had answers to these questions at hand, and would have had to do a lot of researching to try and find the answers.

• The analysis can also be helpful to identify states that are doing well in an indicator for accessing successful strategies.

Where to find TA Resources

• Your friendly OSEP/MSIP state contact• OSEP-funded TA and D Centers• The NEW & Improved SPP/APR

Calendar, now on line at

The Right IDEA

OSEP’s IDEA Technical Assistance and Guidance website

SPP/APR Calendar – Home Page

http://therightidea.tadnet.org/articles

Accessing TA for SPP/APR Efforts

Homepage banner links will help you find:• The latest news (Home)• TA by SPP/APR Indicator• Events• Topics (e.g., Fiscal, Grant Packages, OSEP

Guidance Documents… TA&D Network)

Centers by Part B APR IndicatorIndicators Topic Center

1 Graduation NDPC2 Dropout NDPC3 Assessment NCEO4 Suspension and Expulsion DAC5 LRE NIUSI6 Preschool LRE N/A7 Preschool Outcomes ECO8 Parent Involvement PTACs

9-10 Disproportionality RTI/DAC11 Child Find DAC12 Part C to Part B Transition NECTAC13 Secondary Transition NSTTAC14 Postsecondary Outcomes NPSOC15 General Supervision DAC

16, 17, 18, 19 Dispute Resolution CADRE

20* Accurate & Timely Data DAC

Centers by Part C APR IndicatorIndicators Topic Center

1 EI Services in a Timely Manner NECTAC

2 Settings NECTAC

3 Early Childhood Outcomes ECO

4 Family Capacity ECO

5 Child Find NECTAC

6 Child Find NECTAC

7 45-day Timeline NECTAC

8 Part C to Part B Transition NECTAC

9 General Supervision DAC

10, 11, 12, 13 Dispute Resolution CADRE

14 Accurate & Timely Data DAC

[1] Refer to Part C Indicator Measurement Table

Examples of TA Available from Specialty Centers

• Data analyses:– Comparisons of your state to like states– Trends analyses (where multiyear data are

available)• Improvement strategies:

– APRs provide overviews– TA Center on line resources provide much

more detail• Systemic planning and improvement TA• If you can’t find it, ask the TA Center (contact

information is available on the SPP/APR Calendar.

56%

64%61%

69%

25%

56%

47%44%

9% 11% 12% 12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Percent of Due Process Complaints Filed Which are Resolved Without a Hearing, Result in a Resolution Meeting or a Written Settlement

Agreements ("50 State" Total Activity)

Resolved without a Hearing Resolution Meetings Held Written Settlement Agreement

Example Data Summary

Example Data Summary

0

20

40

60

80

100

B1

8: P

erc

en

t Writ

ten

Se

ttle

me

nt A

gre

em

ent R

ate

Distribution of Indicator B18: Percent of Resolution Meetings Held That Resulted in A Written Settlement Agreement (2009-10)

33 States Held 10 or more Resolution Meetings in 2009-10 (with varied results)

www.direction.service.org/cadre/exemplar

Criteria for States with Quality Data

1. Low percentage of missing data

2. No odd patterns in “a” or “e” categories

3. Did not use questionable data collection methods

28Early Childhood Outcomes Center

Part C: Percent of Exiters Included in Outcomes Data

08-09<10% = 10*10- 20% = 420- 30% = 8

30- 40% = 1140- 50% = 850- 60% = 860- 70% = 470- 80% = 2

>80% = 1

09-10<10% = 5*

10- 20% = 420- 30% = 630- 40% = 840- 50% = 5

50- 60% = 1160- 70% = 970- 80% = 1

>80% = 0

*3 states are sampling for Part C. Cut off was > 28%.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

% in Progress Category "a“ for Outcome A- Social Relationships

Discussion