1. What Did North Carolina Learn From Child Outcomes Pilots ? Sherry Franklin, NC Part C Quality Improvement Unit Manager Steve Snipes, NC Part C Program Evaluation Coordinator

2. NC’s Infant Toddler Program Early Intervention System re-organized in 2004 Division of Public Health lead agency statewide 18 Children’s Developmental Services Agencies CDSAs provide evaluation and service coordination CDSAs developed regional provider networks FY 2006-07 > 17,000 referrals with > 15,000 enrolled

3. CHILD OUTCOME MEASUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS All CDSAs phased-in during 2006-2007 3 Groups of six CDSAs Trailblazers—April 2006 Pavers—November 2006 Cruisers—April 2007

4. Training and Support Oversight by QI Unit Central Office and Regional Staff Training and TA partners—ECO Center, NECTAC, UNC/FPG, and General Supervision Enhancement Grant CDSA leadership teams

5. Approach to Training and Technical Assistance (TA) Conference call discussions for planning On-site “Orientation” for CDSA leadership CDSA leadership trained local staff Regularly scheduled TA conference calls for updates and problem-solving Resource sharing/email listserv

6. Timelines CHILD OUTCOMES DEVELOPMENTAL PILOTS TIMELINE March 24-- Conference Call (10 a.m.) April 13 -- Conference Call (10 a.m.) April 13 -- Greensboro and Mecklenburg reports due April 21 -- Elizabeth City and New Bern reports due April 28 -- Greensboro and Mecklenburg reports due April 28 -- Conference Call (10 a.m.) May 5 -- Sandhills and Smokies reports due May 12 -- Greensboro and Mecklenburg reports due May 16 -- Conference Call (10 a.m.) May 19 -- Elizabeth City and New Bern reports due May 26 -- Greensboro and Mecklenburg reports due June 2 -- Conference Call (10 a.m.) June 2 -- Sandhills and Smokies reports due June 9 -- Greensboro and Mecklenburg reports due June 16 -- Conference Call (10 a.m.) June 16 -- Elizabeth City and New Bern reports due July 7 -- All remaining reports due July ?? -- Focus Group Meeting (time and location to be determined)

7. Child Outcome Summary Forms Use ECO Center ‘COSF’ with minor edits Every child 2 yrs 6 mos and younger at IFSP will receive entry COSF measure Every child with entry COSF and in services six months will receive exit COSF Each CDSA establishes a team approach One person reviews COSF for completion Data-entry by Central office staff

8. COSF Cover CDSA and Date summary completed: CDSA: Date Summary Completed: __/__/__ Assessment (circle): Initial Annual Assessment Exit Child information: Date of Birth: __/__/__ Race/Ethnicity (circle): White African Am. Native Am. Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Child Name: Sex (circle) M F County of Residence: Child Characteristics:  Developmental Delay  Established Condition: (list) List Other Contributing Factors (if applicable): People involved in ratings: Name and Role with Child/Family Information on Child -- Check all that apply:  Received in IFSP team meeting  Collected Separately  Incorporated into assessment(s)  Not Included Comments:

9. TRAILBLAZERS FIRST PILOT ON-SITE ORIENTATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOCUS GROUP

10. Lessons Learned Give the Big Picture “Interactive” Orientation Establishment of Local Procedures Parent Involvement Development of Local Teams

11. Lessons Learned Typically Developing Same Aged Peers Inter-rater Reliability and Consistency Data Collection and Submission Feedback

12. Mid-Year Adjustments Connect to SPP/APR Training adjustment with PPT and teleconference prior to on-site Assist family in discussing skills and behaviors, but not number rating Set ratings following initial IFSP team meeting for maximum information

13. Mid-Year Adjustments Regional consultants worked together on COSFs to assure consistent TA Encouraged Pavers and Cruisers to work with a Trailblazer CDSA ECO partners reviewed and gave feedback on Pavers/Cruisers COSFs Check ECO website for updates

14. Successes and Challenges All 18 CDSAs submitting entry COSFs Some beginning to report exit COSFs CDSAs report more wholistic view of child Also, report more functional IFSPs Evolving expectations at national level Clarifying understanding at state level Acceptance/participation at local level Consistency and reliability of data