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

Systems

December 2013

What we’ll cover:

• Purpose and Audience• Process and Partners• Assumptions/

Parameters• Content and structure• Draft Governance and

Finance Components• 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 is being developed through an iterative process among national and state experts in the field.

• Partner states: the framework is being 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 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• Share 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, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning. Bureau of Early Intervention Services 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

Purpose of ECTA System Framework

result

Governance

Funding/ Finance

Personnel/ Workforce

Data System

Monitoring and Accountability

Quality Standards

Implementation of effective practices

Good outcomes for children with disabilities and their families

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

ECTA System Framework

Governance: Vision, Mission, Purpose

Legal FoundationsAdministrative InfrastructuresLeadership and Performance

Management

Funding/ FinanceFiscal Data

Strategic Finance Planning Process/Forecasting

ProcurementResource Allocation, Use of

Funds and DisbursementMonitoring and Accountability

of Funds and Resources

Personnel/ Workforce: professional development,

personnel standards, competencies, licensure, credentialing, TA systems

Data System: System for collecting, analyzing

and using data for decision-making, coordinated data for accountability and decision-

making, linked data

Monitoring and Accountability:

Monitoring plans and processes, continuous improvement, systems

evaluation

Quality Standards:Program standards that support

effective practices, ELGs, ELSs

Governance

Funding/ Finance

Personnel/ Workforce

Data System

Monitoring and Accountability

Quality Standards

Cross cutting themes

Using data for improvement

Communicating effectively

Promoting collaboration

Engaging stakeholders, including families

Establishing/revising policies

Family Leadership & Support

Coordinating/Integrating across EC

ECTA System Framework

To be considered in

every component

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

Structure/Format of Each Component

13

• Component #1– Subcomponent #1

• Quality Indicator #1– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Etc.

• Quality Indicator #2– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Etc.

• Component #2– Subcomponent #1

• Quality Indicator #1– Element of Quality #1– Element of Quality #2– Element of Quality #3

• Etc.

General progression:In placeOf high qualityUsedReviewed/RevisedAcross EC

Additionally:

• Self-assessment scale• Resources and

examples

Benefits of Participating in the Process

e.g. How Delaware has benefitted from being a partner state...

• Provided time to engage in valuable discussions related to components of quality

• Learned more about what other states are doing to improve quality and promote systematic programming

• Promoted discussion of quality indicators and alignment with Delaware’s  QRIS quality

• Collected resources from national experts on variety of topics   

• Promoted reflection on Delaware’s strengths and needs for support

14

Drafts: Governance and Finance

15

http://ectacenter.org/sysframe

Discussion

– How might the System Framework be helpful to states?

– Comments/discussion around key content included in the framework so far? e.g.• collaboration across early childhood• importance of ‘using data’ in all

components• other?

Recap of Work Review of systems literature to identify overall components Initial Webinars with TWG & Partner States Monthly calls and email exchanges with partner states Individual email exchanges and phone calls with some

individual TWG members (resources, discussions) Review of literature drafting of

governance component Partner state review, feedback

and ‘testing’ of governance TWG review and feedback of

governance

17

Recap of Work Incorporated input to revise governance component Review of literature and drafting of finance component Partner states, TWG, and additional

experts feedback on finance Incorporated input to revise finance

component Wider sharing of the System

Framework: – Data/Outcomes Conference– Web site– Webinar

18

Next Steps:Additional Components:• Currently working on Personnel/Workforce component• Starting literature review for Quality Standards and

Monitoring and Accountability components• Collaborating with DaSy on Data Systems component

All Components:• Designing a self-assessment • Identifying resources and examples• Coordinating with ECSWG• Considering SSIP• Developing a glossary of terms

Look for updates via the web site: http://ectacenter.org/sysframe

20