1. Communicating Your Data
April 30, 2019
Fred Edora – IDEA Data Center
Gregg Reed – Utah Department of Health
Gretta Hylton – Kentucky Department of Education
Amy Patterson – Kentucky Department of Education

2. Communicating Your Data
Welcome and thank you for joining us
We are recording this webinar
Slides and recording from this presentation will be available on the IDC website
We will be muting all participants
Please type your questions in the chat box
Please complete the online evaluation after the end of the presentation

3. Where to Find Webinar Slides and Recording
We will be recording today’s webinar. Both the recording and the slides will be available on the IDC website.
To find them, go to the ideadata.org and click on events, navigate to today’s webinar.
The recording of the webinar will be posted on the right side above the presenters names
The slides will be posted below the description

4. Agenda
Thinking about data dissemination and use to connect with stakeholders
IDC resources for data dissemination and use
Utah (Part C) - Addressing compliance with stakeholders through data displays
Kentucky (Part B) - Engaging various stakeholders on the complexities of discipline data
Questions

5. Participant Outcomes
Increased understanding of the elements of purposeful communication with stakeholders
Increased understanding of the benefits of engaging stakeholders in the analysis and use of data
Increased knowledge of available IDC resources to improve data dissemination and use
Increased understanding of how states can use creative data displays to communicate complex data and enable stakeholders to better understand and use data

6. Thinking About Data Dissemination and Use

7. Use of High-Quality Data
Is informed by protocols for ensuring quality data is available for analysis and reporting
Requires development of materials and resources to help facilitate understanding of the data
Addresses strategies and procedures for using data, including
Preparing data for analysis
Screening data for quality
Planning for potential data products to be used from the available data
Source: IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework

8. Four Critical Elements of Communicating Data Effectively
Consider the four critical elements in communicating your data effectively to stakeholders
Audience
Message
Dissemination
Accessibility
We will discuss two of them today: dissemination and accessibility.

9. Data Dissemination The procedures behind the communication of data
Different stakeholders may require the use of different dissemination methods for the same dataset (e.g. dashboards vs. a brief)
Consistency across communication channels is important
Data governance procedures must be considered

10. Data Accessibility
The steps an agency or organization needs to take in order to ensure that stakeholders can use the data
These steps can include
Methods for users to access data
Building capacity for users of the data
Feedback mechanisms to improve access
Helping local agency staff analyze and interpret data

11. Data Dissemination + Accessibility
Factors to Consider
Audiences who access the data
Staff capacity, availability, and responsibility
Priorities (e.g. which data are accessed more often)
Training and data notes
Data governance processes
Technological capabilities
Public reporting requirements
Other state requirements or regulations

12. Benefits of a Thoughtful Process
Data that are available and accessible
Buy-in from stakeholders
Better decisions made from high-quality data
Increased capacity to use the data
Opportunities for stakeholders to ask questions
Increased efficiencies in using the data

13. IDC Resources to Increase Your State’s Capacity for High-Quality Data Use
Part B and Part C IDEA Data Processes Toolkits
IDEA Section 618 Public Reporting Data Element Checklists
IDEA Data Center Part B Data System Framework
IDEA Data Training Modules
Data Meeting Protocol
Part B Indicator Data Display Wizard
Part C Indicator Data Display Wizard

14. Data Communication Stories From the States
Questions to consider
How are the states helping build the capacity of their stakeholders to use, interpret and analyze data?
How are their stories similar or different from procedures or experiences in communicating data within your state?
From what you heard today, what can you apply to your state’s processes?

15. Data Communication Stories From the States (cont.)
Utah (Part C)
Kentucky (Part B)
Using the IDC Data Wizard as a Component in Addressing Compliance With Stakeholders Through Data Displays
Gregg Reed, UT Part C Data Manager, UT Department of Health
Engaging various stakeholders on the complexities of discipline data
Gretta Hylton, KY Associate Commissioner and Special Education Director, KY Department of Education
Amy Patterson, KY Part B Data Manager, KY Department of Education

16. Gregg Reed, Part C Data Manager Utah Department of Health
Using the IDC Data Wizard as a Component in Addressing Compliance With Stakeholders Through Data Displays

17. Data Wizard Application in Utah Part C
Impressions of capabilities and function
Use in reporting and showcasing data – Compliance indicators
Use as a template – Opportunity to personalize data
Next steps

18. Impressions of Capabilities and Function
Data aligned with Grads360°
State-level data trends
Detailed fields
Diverse visualizations – Select and modify graphs

19. Data Wizard Use in Reporting and Showcasing Data
Fulfill OSEP requirements
APR compliance indicators
Determinations
Program profiles
Showcase specific indicators
Partner meetings
Program goals

20. Indicator 1
FFY:
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner:
4,900
4,238
5,126
5,374
5,787
3,939
5,858
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances:
 Null
Null 24
296
Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs:
4,926
4,286
5,134
5,793
3,966
6,210
Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner:
99.5%
98.9%
99.8%
100.0%
99.9%
99.1%
Target:
Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who did not receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner: 26 48 8 6 3 56

21. Day 45
Indicator 7
In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
5,235 28
Referral Timeline

22. Indicator 8A
FFY:
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days and, at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months prior to their third birthday:
1,518
2,126
2,744
3,191
3,587
3,614
3,786
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances: 10 4
Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C:
3,624
3,803
Percent of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days and, at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months prior to their third birthday:
100.0%
99.7%
Target:
Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who do not have an IFSP with transition steps and services: 13

23. Indicators 8B and 8C Indicator 8B = 100 Percent Trend From 2011-2017
Day 45
Day 45
Indicators 8B and 8C
Indicator 8B = 100 Percent Trend From
Indicator 8C = Slightly Diverse Trend
In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 99%* of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required received an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.In 2017, 1% of infants and toddlers for whom an initial IFSP was required did not receive an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days.
5,235
5,235 28 28
Referral Timeline
Referral Timeline

24. Data Wizard Use as a Template
Expand data indicators
Expand focus of tables to program-level data
Create “master datasheet”
Next steps

25. Engaging Various Stakeholders on the Complexities of Discipline Data
Gretta Hylton, Associate Commissioner / State Special Education Director Amy Patterson, Part B Data Manager Kentucky Department of Education
Engaging Various Stakeholders on the Complexities of Discipline Data

26. Office of Special Education Kentucky Department of Education
2018 Reorganization established the Office of Special Education and Early Learning (OSEEL)
Office level
Data
Finance
Policy
Three divisions
State Schools (KY School for the Blind and KY School for the Deaf)
IDEA Implementation and Preschool
IDEA Results and Monitoring

27. Kentucky’s Special Education Cooperative Regions and Local School Districts

28. New Office, New Challenges
New leadership and new priorities
Staff turnover, limited experience, limited knowledge
Lack of data-focused conversations
Lack of data-based decision making

29. Data Review, Analysis, and Communication
Review of the SPP/APR noted slippage in many indicators
Observations revealed
Focus on task completion
Lack of data-informed conversations
Lack of understanding for how the SPP/APR informs the work
Lack of urgency
Lack of “Big Picture” understanding

30. Bringing People Together Around the Data
Raw data vs. visually-friendly data for engaging conversations

31. Data Manager Perspective
Turnover in staff
No historical knowledge or understanding
Not understanding trajectory
No holistic approach
Concerned that districts were “under the radar”
Changed cell size
Looking at more districts

32. Kentucky Indicator 4 Data

33. Kentucky: Indicator 4A

34. Kentucky: Indicator 4B

35. Identification in a District
Having looked at districts that were under the radar, it caused us to look at % of students with IEPs in several districts. This didn’t result in a finding relative to Ind. 4, but it caused us to look at other issues in this district and resulted in onsite monitoring in the district.

36. Next Steps for OSEEL Data visualization using SPP/APR data
Tiered communication
Discuss data within OSEEL
Set clear expectations for using the data to inform OSEEL’s work
Communicate with special education regional cooperatives and advisory groups
Communicate with local districts

37. Questions?

38. Evaluation
The poll questions will appear on the right-hand side.

39. Contact Us Fred Edora, IDC – fred.edora@aemcorp.com
Gregg Reed, UT –
Amy Patterson, KY –
Gretta Hylton, KY –

40. For More Information Visit the IDC website http://ideadata.org/
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on LinkedIn

41. The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H373Y However, the 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: Richelle Davis and Meredith Miceli