The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems Using Integrated Data to Support the Transitions in Special Education Wednesday, July 13, :00 – 10:00 AM 2016 NCES STATS-DC Data Conference

2 Presenters Meredith Miceli Missy Coffey Sherry Franklin Colleen Murphy Kriste Elia GA ECIDS Donna Johnson GA Part C

3 Presentation Objectives Increased knowledge on the importance of reliable transition data Increased knowledge on how states are utilizing both the ECIDS and SLDS to coordinate the sharing of transition data Increased knowledge on the current efforts of DaSy to help states with the coordination and communication between Part C and Part B 619 Increased knowledge on key considerations when linking C and 619 child outcomes data

4 Why Smooth Transitions Matter

5 Eligibility Children Potentially Eligible: The Lead Agency defines potentially eligible policy In many states, all children receiving Part C services are considered potentially eligible Characteristics of potentially eligible policies include children who: Have IFSPS; Are turning 2 years old; Are not attaining IFSP outcomes; Are served under established condition or developmental delay categories

6 Benefits for Families Maintain timely access to appropriate services Maintain consistent and effective communication Most difficult for families is the change from the family focused services of early intervention (Part C) to the child centered education programs of Part B Builds strong partnerships between families and school

7 Benefits for Programs Maintain timely access to appropriate services Ensure parental values and priorities align with the educational team Establish roles and expectations Transition period requires a 6 month minimum. Coordination of: Evaluations and meetings that are required by law

8 Transition Requirements

Part C Develop IFSP transition steps and services 90 days to 9 months before child turns 3 Notify state and local education agencies Conduct a transition conference 90 days to 9 months before child turns 3 Part B State and local education agencies accept transition notification LEA attends Part C transition conferences Children referred by Part C, found eligible for Part B, have an IEP developed and implemented by 3rd birthday

Transition Requirements PART C AND PART B SPP/APR INDICATORS –Part C Indicator C8 Effective Transition Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday, including: IFSPs with transition steps and services; Notification to SEA and LEA, if child potentially eligible for Part B; and Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B

Transition Requirements PART C AND PART B SPP/APR INDICATORS –Part B Indicator B11 Child Find Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation –Part B Indicator B12 Effective Transition Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday

Transition Requirements PART C AND PART B SPP/APR INDICATORS –Part B Indicator B11 Child Find Includes children transitioning from Part C (a)# of children for whom parent consent to evaluate was received (b)# of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or state-established timeline)

Transition Requirements Part B Indicator B12 Effective Transition Number of Children a. served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination b. referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their 3 rd birthdays c. Found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3 rd birthdays

Transition Requirements Part B Indicator B12 Effective Transition Number of Children d. for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation and initial services e. referred to Part C less than 90 days before their birthday

15 Considerations for Transition C to B THESE TWO DATA POINTS SHOULD BE THE SAME IF STATES ARE REPORTING CENSUS DATA INDICATOR C 8B: the number of potentially eligible toddlers exiting Part C for whom the lead agency has notified the SEA and LEA And INDICATOR B 12, component a: the number of children who are potentially eligible served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination

16 Considerations for Transition C to B Differences in:  state notification timelines,  processes and  definitions of children who are potentially eligible for Part B services May account for variations in state data

17 Linking Part C and Part B Cohort

18 Benefits of Part C and Part B 619 Data

19 Benefits of Linking Continuum of services Program Improvement Identify referral and exiting patterns Higher data quality – less errors Children don’t get “lost” Less duplication of records Data for decision making and monitoring

20 Benefits of Integrating Data for decision making and monitoring Distinct count of children Broader application for the data A complete picture of child/student, workforce, and program Identify influences outside program or agency Recognize program or policy effects over time

21 State Example – Georgia

22 Transitions in Georgia Why is GA looking to have the ECIDS/SLDS support their transition data? What will it look like when it is created? What is the goal of the partnership to support transition data? How have you gone about this work?

23 Current accomplishments in Georgia to Supporting Transitions Buy-In from Leadership –Partnership –Shared vision Meetings –Program Directors –Epidemiologist –Attorneys Memorandum of Understanding Data Vendor

24 How SLDS in Georgia is Supporting Transitions The Georgia ECIDS –Who: Early/Head Start, CAPS, Lottery Funded Pre-K, Vital Records, IDEA C, IDEA B, Home Visiting, GAAWARDS P20W –What: Birth to Workforce integrated data system –Why: Early Learning Challenge Grant, Children with High Needs data system funds –How: Strong Governance Committee with wonderful active members, Data Sharing Agreement and Use Policy –Now: Five years of integrated data from financial needs, pilot year from IDEA B, IDEA C, Vital Records –Next: Five years of integrated data from all and Reporting

25 Georgia’s Challenges and Opportunities Screening Program –First point of entry into Child Health Services –Part of the 45 Day Timeline HIPAA to FERPA / FERPA to HIPAA –All privacy sharing laws are not created equal. FERPA to FERPA –Can make the process a little smoother. Data Usage –Destroying data vs. Returning Data

26 Press Reset? Attorneys meet first –HIPAA to FERPA / FERPA to HIPAA Overview of Available Data –Define what can and cannot be shared –Discuss differences in what is needed vs what is available (i.e., format)

27 Next, Example Reporting Reporting and Research –Shared indicators like Eligibility Type. IDEA C has 5 and IDEA B has 17 –Cross system Unique Child ID from ECIDS to P20W Time –DPH has IFSP driven by DOB, DOE has IEP driven by school year

28 Georgia’s Next Steps No Reset: Moving Forward –First dataset has been sent Educate new staff –Program managers –Epidemiologist Determine how to use data

29 State Lessons Learned – If I were starting over…. 2 full time/time limited data team members from the beginning –Short term to get the data in quickly, sometimes it is the ability to keep momentum that can kill the project Data Dictionary – in parallel to data mapping –Just begun 2 years in and having to revisit decisions to get them documented Include funds for each agency to have data stewards –There was some funds for agency support but not full time/time limited support

30 Discussion What can your data system do to help with the promotion of effective and responsive transition for children with disabilities and their families

31 Questions and Answers

32 DaSy Resources

OSEP Resources

35 The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H373Z However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officers, Meredith Miceli and Richelle Davis.