1. Developing a Framework to Build High Quality Part C and Section 619 Systems December 2013

2. What we’ll cover: Purpose and Audience Process and Partners Assumptions/ Parameters Content and structure Draft Governance and Finance Components Input/Discussion

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Partner States Delaware Lisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention System Verna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware Idaho Christy Cronheim, Part C Coordinator Shannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool) Pennsylvania Jim Coyle, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning. Bureau of Early Intervention Services Minnesota Kara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator, Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool) New Jersey Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator Barbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator West Virginia Pam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West Virginia Ginger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator

7. 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

8. 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

9. Purpose of ECTA System Framework Purpose of ECTA System Framework result GovernanceFunding/ 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

10. Governance: Vision, Mission, Purpose Legal Foundations Administrative Infrastructures Leadership and Performance Management Funding/ Finance Fiscal Data Strategic Finance Planning Process/Forecasting Procurement Resource Allocation, Use of Funds and Disbursement Monitoring 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 place Of high quality Used Reviewed/Revised Across EC Additionally: Self-assessment scale Resources and examples

14. 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

15. Drafts: Governance and Finance 15 http://ectacenter.org/sysframe

16. 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?

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Look for updates via the web site: http://ectacenter.org/sysframe http://ectacenter.org/sysframe 20