Presentation on theme: "SSIP Overview: State Experiences with Stakeholder Engagement"— Presentation transcript:
1SSIP Overview: State Experiences with Stakeholder Engagement Part C/619 State Accountability Priority AreaMarch 6, 2014My name is Anne Lucas. I’m with the ECTA Center and WRRC and serve as the co-lead of the Part C/619 State Accountability Priority Area along with Megan Vinh. I will be highlighting several SSIP resources that are being developed and information presented by Louisiana and Hawaii on the national webinar about how they have engaged stakeholders in the SSIP process.
2SICC Strategic Plan and State System Improvement Process (SSIP) State Interagency Coordinating CouncilI’m going to start by talking about Louisiana’s activities as shared by Brenda Sharp, Part C Coordinator.Brenda Sharp
3Stakeholder involvement in EarlySteps Louisiana SICC+Lead Agency +Stakeholders =Louisiana Part CStakeholder involvement in EarlyStepslSince the beginning of the (State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) in Louisiana in the 1980’s, the operations of the ICC have been stakeholder driven with the design and implementation of the SICC activities evolving from working committees. The working committees include SICC members and stakeholders. With the exception of the CSPD committee which has always been a standing committee, there have typically been 3-4 SICC operating committees which have varied over the years. Currently, there are 3 standing committees: CSPD, Program Components, and Public Relations. There is an ad hoc Fiscal Management committee. These committees form the basis for system design and improvement, through stakeholder input in EarlySteps.The Louisiana ICC has always used a Strategic Planning Process to guide its operations. In 2008, the SICC worked with SERRC to develop one Strategic Plan which would operate across the SICC and the Part C Lead Agency. Through this process, both entities are focused on the same priorities. Committees, the lead agency and the SICC executive director report on their activities as they align with the plan. The plan has been revisited every 1-2 years since.Following the announcement for the proposed SSIP, the SICC and lead agency held a meeting in September, 2013 to review the plan in light of the requirements for the proposed Indicator C-11.
4Where to Start? Beginning the SSIP discussion Opportunities for Input: Review the Proposed SSIPDiscussions with SERRCJuly 2013 presentation to SICC on proposed APR/SSIPSICC voted to host a retreat to begin planning for the SSIPWhere to Start?Since the requirements for the APR/SSIP were announced Louisiana has participated in several activities to start the process.Lead Agency staff attended two meetings sponsored by Southeast Regional Resource Center (SERRC) designed to look at program quality including activities related to the proposed SSIP process.Staff and SERRC had several calls to consider a “starting point” and direction.Based on these discussions:Brenda Sharp gave a presentation to the SICC about the proposed SSIP using materials shared by SERRC at their July meeting.The SICC voted to host a planning retreat for SICC members, Stakeholders and EarlySteps staff to begin this work.
5Potential Indicator C11: Reviewing the Requirements September 2013 RetreatThe Louisiana ICC Strategic PlanReengage stakeholders in looking for a focus for system improvementPotential Indicator C11: Reviewing the RequirementsIn addition to Lead Agency staff and the SICC executive director, the following stakeholders participated in the September 2013 Retreat:SICC committee chairs and committee membersStrategic Planning GroupParent LiaisonsPersons on the SICC listserv
6SICC/Lead Agency SSIP Planning Retreat AssembleSSIP Planning: SICC Member and Stakeholders gather to discuss Indicator 11Align State InitiativesLook at other state early childhood initiatives align/overlapReview DataReview available data: APR, Early Childhood Redesign, Strategic Plan and OCDD Transformation PlanCreate WorkgroupsWhat do we need to gather that we don't have? Look for trends and areas for improvement.SICC/Lead Agency SSIP Planning Retreat
7Stakeholder Involvement in Hawaii Part C SSIP Stacy Kong in Hawaii shared how Part C has begun engaging stakeholders in the SSIP process.Stacy Kong
8Hawaii’s Process for Stakeholder Involvement Worked with a broad stakeholder groupIdentified a small state teamNext step is to identify a small stakeholder groupSpecifically, Stacy outlined how Hawaii Part C has worked with a broad stakeholder group and how they plan to engage a small stakeholder group. It should also be noted that Hawaii, Part C has identified a small state team of 6 members to lead the SSIP efforts and help to keep the broad stakeholder group informed, while keeping the small stakeholder group engaged in the process. The state team consists of the administrative team from Part C and staff from the quality assurance and training unit for Part C.
9Hawaii’s Broad Stakeholder Group ICC MembersDept. of Health AdminCare CoordinatorsDirect Service ProvidersQuality Assurance StaffData staffPersonnel training staffContracted ProvidersDept. of Human ServicesDept. of Education619 CoordinatorsCommunity MembersHead Start (HS)/Early HSParent TrainingHawaii Part C convened a meeting with a broad stakeholder group in December 2013 that consisted of ICC members, department of health administrative staff, care coordinators, direct service providers, quality assurance staff, data staff, personnel training staff, contracted providers, department of health and human services staff, and department of education staff, including the 619 Coordinators, community members, head start and early head start staff, and parent training staff.
10Hawaii’s Broad Stakeholder Process Discussed with large group:Overview of SSIP processData graphsSmall group discussion around indicators 3 and 4 to:Identify potential focus areasIdentify other data needsAt this meeting, Hawaii’s stakeholders were engaged in both large and small group discussions. During the large group discussion, Hawaii Part C provided an overview of the SSIP process, using adapted materials from an RRC meeting. Hawaii Part C also discussed their SSIP Plan and potential next steps.Hawaii Part C also prepared data reports on early childhood and family outcomes data to share with the broad stakeholder group. These data reports included:Hawaii’s overall ECO data as compared to national dataState trend data looking at FFY 2010-FFY 2012Program data for each outcome area and;Child count data.During small group working sessions, Hawaii Part C used facilitated discussion questions to help groups to critically examine the data shared. These questions were used to help Hawaii-C to identify potential focus areas, along with any of data that may be needed to help the group determine the focus/results area.
11Next Steps around Stakeholder Involvement Identify a small stakeholder group to support and complete the SSIP work with HI’s State Team.Convene another broad stakeholder meeting in May to identify a focus area.Hawaii-C ‘s next step is to identify a small stakeholder group to support their state team in completing all the Phase I SSIP work. Hawaii-C has been working closely with TA providers from the WRRC, ECTA Center and DaSy during the SSIP process. There is another broad stakeholder meeting being planned for May 2014 that will help them pinpoint a specific focus area/results area.
12SSIP Overview: Phase I Tools and Resources Part C/619 State Accountability Priority AreaMarch 6, 2014Let’s shift focus and preview several resources that are in the process of being developed. Megan and I want to recognize Cornelia Taylor from DaSy and the ECTA Center, Grace Kelley from SERRC, and Christina Kasprzak from the ECTA Center for their significant contributions in helping us develop these resources. These resources will be posted on the ECTA Center website when they are completed along with the recording of this webinar and the slides.
13Example: SSIP Phase I Activity and Timeline Chart The first resource is a sample Gantt chart of Phase I SSIP activities. This chart is based on one state’s approach to planning completion of these activities so the required elements of the SSIP can be submitted with their FFY 2013 SPP/APR that is due in February It is based on the draft SPP/APR package that OSEP disseminated in Spring 2013 for public comment.The Gantt chart includes a detailed listing of the various SSIP Phase I activities and their timelines. For example, it includes activities such as:Forming a State team to guide development of the SSIPInforming a broad group of stakeholders about the SSIPInitiating broad data and infrastructure analysesDetermining primary concern/potential focus for improvementConducting in-depth data and infrastructure analyses
14Example: SSIP Phase I Activity and Timeline Chart Refining the focus for improvement/measureable resultsSelecting general improvement strategiesDeveloping a Theory of ActionDeveloping a Logic Model to graphically reflect the Theory of ActionDrafting and reviewing the APR including the SSIPIf your state wants to use this Gantt chart to help organize the completion of the Phase I SSIP activities, you should feel free to adapt the activities and timelines to reflect your own processes and needs. It is especially important for you to make sure all activities are completed according to your state’s APR submission process and timelines.Finally, you should also keep in mind that a Gantt chart does not clearly reflect that it is often necessary to loop back to previous activities in the SSIP process.
15SSIP Phase I RoadmapThe second resource, the SSIP Phase I Roadmap, is a document currently being developed. It will be a companion document to the sample Gantt Chart. In the near future, we will make it available in draft form, reflecting Part C and 619 examples, but we will continue to improve the document and work with the Part B State Accountability Priority Area to broaden it to be applicable to Part B.
16SSIP Phase I Roadmap: Purpose Based on draft SPP/APR packageHelps states:Keep in mind the various SSIP activities that need completion for submission with the FFY 2013 SPP/APRUnderstand key information about each SSIP activityPlan and implement SSIP activitiesThe Roadmap, like the Gantt chart, is also based on OSEP’s draft SPP/APR package that was disseminated in Spring 2013 for public comment. It will be updated when the final package is released.It is designed to help states keep in mind the various SSIP activities that must be completed this year and understand key information about each activity. It is also designed to help states plan and implement SSIP activities.
17SSIP Phase I RoadmapThe roadmap uses a game board to reflect the various activities. Like the Gantt chart, the roadmap appears to reflect that the SSIP activities are linear rather than iterative in nature. As a result, we included information in the introduction about the non-linear nature of the SSIP process.We used fun graphics such as “mountains of data” and the “cross agency collaboration bridge over the resource desert” to help reflect key concepts. We also incorporated several reminders into the roadmap, including “no implementation science, start over”, and “incorporate existing initiative, move up one”. Some relevant quotes from Alice in Wonderland are included throughout the text of the document such as “Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to…”The content of the document is organized around the following SSIP Roadmap activities, including:Get StartedConduct Broad AnalysesIdentify Focus/ResultsConduct In-depth AnalysesRefine Focus/ResultsIdentify Improvement StrategiesDevelop a Theory of ActionDevelop/Review APR9. End“Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to...”― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
18Roadmap Content Each roadmap activity includes a description: Brief highlights (purpose and what’s included)Things to consider (e.g. potential questions)Examples, where applicablePotential tools and resourcesEach SSIP Roadmap activity includes a brief description reflecting:Highlights of the activity (purpose and what’s included)Things to consider, such as a potential questionsExamples, when applicable, andPotential tools and resources
19Get Started What’s included: Forming State Team Identifying flow of activities and timelinesEngaging stakeholdersInform broad group of SSIPConsider using small small group to assist with data and infrastructure analysisIn the “Get Started” section of the Roadmap, we’ve included information about:forming a state team to guide the development and implementation of the SSIP,developing a flow of activities and timelines for completing the SSIP, and;engaging stakeholders throughout the SSIP process.
20Get StartedConsiderations related to stakeholder engagement in SSIP activities - Examples:When should stakeholders be included in the process?Who will be included as a stakeholder? Will different stakeholders be included at different points in the process?How will stakeholders be included in the process?We’ve also included some questions that states might want to consider related to stakeholder engagement.Several questions are:When should stakeholders be included in the process?Who will be included as a stakeholder? Will different stakeholders be included at different points in the process?How will stakeholders be included in the process?
21Conduct Broad Analyses Includes broad data and infrastructure analysesQuestions to guide analyses - examples:How do the percent of children exiting Part C functioning within age expectation in Positive Social Emotional skills in the state compare to other states?Have there been statewide increases in the percentage of families reporting that the program has helped them help their child develop and learn?What system components impact on low performance in the state?The section on “Conduct broad analyses” focuses both on data and infrastructure analyses. States typically have mountains of quantitative and qualitative data, so its important to determine what questions your state might want to ask and answer as part of this analyses. We’ve included some example questions to guide the broad analyses.Several example questions related to data analyses include:How does the percent of children exiting Part C functioning within age expectation in Positive Social Emotional skills in the state compare to other states?Have there been statewide increases in the percentage of families reporting that the program has helped them help their child develop and learn?An example question related to broad infrastructure analyses is:1. What system components impact on low performance in the state?
22Conduct Broad Analyses Tools and resources – Infrastructure examples:NCRRC SWOT Analyses: State InfrastructureECTA Systems FrameworkWe’ve included a list of tools that may be helpful for broad data analyses and a list for broad infrastructure analyses. Several examples of infrastructure analysis tools include a SWOT Analysis and the ECTA System Framework.The SWOT Analysis, developed by the North Central Regional Resource Center (NERRC), provides questions to stimulate thinking about the various systems or infrastructure components according to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.The ECTA System Framework includes information about what it means for the various system components to be of high quality. The Framework was designed 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 system to support implementation of effective practices. Drafts of the Finance and Governance Components can be found on the ECTA Center’s website ( ).To access the SWOT Analysis and other tools that we’ve referenced in these slides that are not currently posted on the web, we encourage you to contact your state’s RRC Liaison.For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
23Conduct Broad Analyses Data Tool - ExampleSSIP Child Outcomes Broad Data Analyses TemplateAn example of a broad data analyses tool is the SSIP Child Outcomes Broad Data Analyses Template. This resource was designed to assist states in conducting an initial analysis of child outcome data that is reported in the APR. It outlines analysis steps that a state might use, and provides an example of one state’s data to illustrate how the template can be used.See:
24Identify Focus/Results Primary concern or Potential Focus for Improvement/Measurable ResultsConsiderations - examples:Does the broad data and infrastructure analyses substantiate the potential focus for improvement?Are there initiatives in the state related to this potential focus for improvement? Is the Part C/619 program connected to them?Do you anticipate having leadership support around this focus area?Throughout the broad data and infrastructure analyses process, numerous concerns and potential focuses for improvement will most likely emerge. If possible, the state should make efforts to decide which area to focus on before initiating the in-depth data and infrastructure analyses. The focus area must impact on results for children with disabilities and/or their families.We’ve included a number of questions in this section that a state might consider in selecting a primary concern or potential focus for improvement. These include:Does the broad data and infrastructure analyses substantiate the potential focus for improvement?Are there initiatives in the state related to this potential focus for improvement? Is the Part C/619 program connected to them?Do you anticipate having leadership support around this focus area?
25Identify Focus/Results Tool – Example:NERRC Review of State Context: Considerations in Identifying Measureable Result for Students/Children with Disabilities as Focus for SSIPSeveral resources are included that may assist the state in selecting a primary concern or potential focus for improvement. One tool, the Review of State Context: Considerations in Identifying Measureable Results for Students/Children with Disabilities as Focus for SSIP, was developed by the Northeast Regional Resource Center. It includes infrastructure related questions that a state would explore in determining if the state has the capacity to address a specific focus/result more readily than another potential focus area.
26Conduct In-depth Analyses In-depth data and infrastructure analyses related to primary concern/potential focusSuggested steps for completing in-depth data analysesPotential questions for in-depth infrastructure analysesWhich policies/procedures support practices that will lead to or impact improved outcomes for young children with disabilities in our selected focus for improvement?Do we have sufficient funds to provide supports in building capacity of LEA/EIS programs to scale and sustain implementation of evidence-based practices?Are there fiscal resources that could be leveraged to support the implementation improvement strategies?In-depth data and infrastructure analyses typically occur once the primary concern or potential focus for improvement is identified. It involves asking and answering questions about the practices being implemented, the system components that facilitate or inhibit the use of quality practices, and the link to measurable child and/or family results. Contributing factors impacting performance are also identified. This section of the Roadmap includes suggested steps for completing an in-depth data analyses and provides some potential questions a state might use in conducting an in-depth infrastructure analyses.Several example in-depth infrastructure analyses questions are included, such as:Which policies/procedures support practices that will lead to or impact improved outcomes for young children with disabilities in our selected focus for improvement?Do we have sufficient funds to provide supports in building capacity of LEA/EIS programs to scale and sustain implementation of evidence-based practices?Are there fiscal resources that could be leveraged to support the implementation improvement strategies?
27Conduct In-depth Analyses Tools and resources – examples:Initiative Inventory for SSIPAnalyzing Child Outcomes Data for Program Improvement: A Guidance TableA number of resources are provided to assist with the in-depth data analyses as well as the in-depth infrastructure analysis.For example, the Initiative Inventory is a worksheet that was adapted from implementation science to help states’ identify current and previously implemented initiatives that relate to the focus for improvement. This is a helpful tool for conducting the in-depth infrastructure analyses.A second tool, Analyzing Child Outcomes Data for Program Improvement: A Guidance Table, is a tool to help states identify key issues, questions, and approaches for analyzing and interpreting data on outcomes for young children with disabilities. The tool outlines a series of steps related to data analyses and provides questions that a state might want to ask and answer about their child outcome data. ( )For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
28Local Contributing Factor Tools The Local Contributing Factor Tools, including a draft tool for APR Indicators C-3/B-7 (Early Childhood Outcomes) and final tool for Indicators C-2, C-4, C-5, and C-6, provide questions that states might consider when investigating contributing factors at the local level for the SSIP. The questions focus both on local infrastructure and provider/teacher practices.See:
29Refine Focus/ResultsIn-depth analyses leads to refinement of Focus for Improvement/Measureable ResultsExamples of Focus/Measureable Results:Improving social emotional outcomes for children with disabilitiesImproving literacy for children living in povertyImproving families’ ability to help their child develop and learnThroughout the process of in-depth data and infrastructure analyses, the focus for improvement and measureable results will most likely be refined. This is a really good example of how the SSIP process is not linear.We’ve included several examples of a focus for improvement or measurable results in this section including:Improving social emotional outcomes for children with disabilitiesImproving literacy for children living in povertyImproving families’ ability to help their child develop and learn
30Refine Focus/ResultsConsiderations for a “good” Focus/Results – Examples:What resources are already committed or could be leveraged for this focus?Does the system have adequate capacity to support improvements in this focus area?Will this focus make a significant impact on results?Will change in practices and beginning improvement in child and family outcomes be able to be achieved in 2-4 years?Tool – example:SSIP Focus for Improvement WorksheetWhen refining the focus for improvement or measureable results, states might want to evaluate whether they have a “good” focus using a number of questions such as:What resources are already committed or could be leveraged for this focus?Will this focus make a significant impact on results?Will change in practices and beginning improvement in child and family outcomes be able to be achieved in 2-4 years?The SSIP Focus for Improvement Worksheet, which includes a series of questions related to whether data and infrastructure analysis support the focus for improvement and if the focus is feasible for the state, is an example of a tool for evaluating if the state has selected a “good” focus. This worksheet will be made available on the ECTA website when the Roadmap is finalized.
31Identify Improvement Strategies Considerations:Does the strategy focus on changing practice or address barriers such as infrastructure issues?Is the strategy based on evidence-based solutions?Will the strategy build local capacity to improve results?Tools and Resources - ExampleNIRN-SISEP Adapted Hexagon ToolDEC Recommended PracticesThe “Identify Improvement Strategies” section of the Roadmap, emphasizes the importance of states selecting general improvement strategies that build the capacity of LEAs/EIS programs in order to improve results for children and/or families. We’ve included some considerations related to identifying improvement strategies such as: Does the strategy focus on changing practice or address barriers such as infrastructure issues? Is the strategy based on evidence-based solutions? Will the strategy build local capacity to improve results? The DEC Recommended Practices are a resource that might assist states in identifying essential practices that should be implemented to improve results in the state’s selected focus area. The NIRN-SISEP Adapted Hexagon Tool can assist in assessing if practices and strategies are appropriate based upon need, fit, resources, evidence, readiness and capacity.For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
32Develop Theory of Action Synthesis of information of information gatheredSimple “if-then” statement:If we conduct data analysis to determine area in which state will focus for improvement then we identify and implement strategies to build LEAs/EIS program’s capacity then we will improve performance in the area needing improvement and the identified result for children with disabilities.Information on using a graphic or Logic ModelStates are also required to develop a theory of action that synthesizes information gathered throughout all of the previous activities. It is a simple if-then statement that shows the rationale of how implementing a coherent set of improvement strategies will increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in LEAs/EIS programs and achieve improved result(s) for children with disabilities. This section also includes information on using a logic model or an outcome map to graphically depict intentions for implementing the theory of action. Links to a number of resources related to theory of action and logic models are provided.
33Develop/Review APR Drafting SSIP in FFY 2013 SPP/APR - considerations: Determine who is responsible for draftingIdentify who needs to review and/or approveCreating a timeline for drafts to be submitted, reviews to be completed, and approval obtainedReview SPP/APR, obtaining stakeholder inputDrafting the SSIP as part of the FFY 2013 SPP/APR is a critical step.A number of considerations are included in this section including:Determining who is responsible for drafting the SSIPIdentifying who needs to review it and/or approve it, and;Creating a timeline for drafts to be submitted, reviews to be completed, and approval obtained.Also, conducting a review of the entire SPP/APR is important including obtaining stakeholder input.
34The END! SPP/APR Submission – February 2015 The end point on the SSIP Phase I Roadmap is actually submitting the FFY 2013 SPP/APR in February 2015! Although Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, “Begin at the beginning… and go on till you come to the end: then stop,” we all know there is no stopping. We need to keep on the SSIP road, moving on to Phase II and eventually Phase III of the SSIP for improved results to be realized for young children and their families.
35Contact InformationAnne Lucas, WRRC/ECTAMegan Vinh, WRRCStacy Kong, Hawaii Part CBrenda Sharp, Louisiana Part CCornelia Taylor, ECTA/DaSy Christina Kasprzak, ECTA Grace Kelley, SERRCOn behalf of the RRCP the ECTA Center and the DaSy Center, we greatly appreciate your participation in this webinar and look forward to working with you in the future.
36Thank you for your attention! IDEA DATACENTERThank you for your attention!This is the first of four webinars in a series presented on Part C Finance in Resources related to this call and other calls in the series are available at the following URL:This is the second half of the first webinar in a series on SSIP presented in Resources related to this call and other presentations in the series are available at the following URL: