Overview of the
State Systemic
Improvement
Plan (SSIP)
Part C/619 State Accountability
Priority Area
March 6, 2014
Disclaimer
This SSIP presentation and supplemental materials
were developed prior to OSEP’s publication of the
final SPP/APR package
Webinar Goals
• Participants will leave the webinar with a basic
understanding of:
– SSIP phases and components
– Considerations for engaging stakeholders in the
SSIP process
– Ideas for using implementation science
throughout development and implementation of
the SSIP
– Several resources that support planning of SSIP
activities and timelines
3
What is the SSIP?
Multi-year, achievable plan
that:
• Increases capacity of EIS
programs/LEAs to
implement, scale up, and
sustain evidence-based
practices
• Improves outcomes for
children with disabilities
(and their families)
4
Why SSIP? Why Now?
5
Why SSIP? Why Now?
• For over 30 years, there has been a strong
focus on regulatory compliance based on the
IDEA and Federal regulations for early
intervention and special education
– OSEP
– States
– Districts/Programs
• As a result, compliance has improved!
6
Why SSIP? Why Now?
*
Not actual data
7
Why SSIP? Why Now?
• Despite this focus on compliance, states are not seeing
improved results for children and youth with disabilities:
– Young children are not coming to Kindergarten prepared to
learn
– In many locations, a significant achievement gap exists
between students with disabilities and their general education
peers
– Students are dropping out of school
– Many students who do graduate with a regular education
diploma are not college and career ready
Michael Yudin,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
8
Getting Started
• Form a State Team to
guide development of
the SSIP
• Involve/engage
stakeholders throughout
SSIP development,
implementation,
evaluation
9
Stakeholder Engagement
• We must leverage the knowledge and skills of
our partners.
The work is too complex and the outcomes are
too important!
10
Stakeholders: Leading By Convening
NASDSE
•
•
•
•
Who cares about this issue?
What work is already underway separately?
What shared work could unite us?
How can we deepen our connections?
Resource:
http://www.ideapartnership.org/documents/NovUploads/Blueprint%2
0USB/NASDSE%20Leading%20by%20Convening%20Book.pdf
When to include a broad stakeholder
group?
• Inform the broad stakeholder group about the
SSIP process (e.g., ICC, all LLAs/EIS providers)
• Keep broad stakeholder group informed about
where you are in the process
• Reviewing the draft SSIP
12
Potential Broad Stakeholder Groups
• Interagency Coordinating Council
• State Advisory Panel for Special Education
• LLAs/EI providers
and LEAs
.
• Other Early Care and Education groups (e.g.,
Head Start, Child Care)
• Others?
13
Other Considerations for Stakeholder
Engagement
• What is the stakeholder
groups decision making
capacity?
.
– Do they inform
the SSIP State Team
who will ultimately make decisions
about the focus area/measurable
result?
– Do they make decisions with the
SSIP State Team?
14
Implementation Science
Active Implementation Frameworks
WHEN
WHO
WHAT
Teams
Stages
HOW
HOW
Usable
Interventions
Cycles
Drivers
For more information:
http://sisep.fpg.unc.edu/
http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/
Proposed SSIP Activities by Phase
Year 1 - FFY 2013
Delivered by Feb 2015
Year 2 - FFY 2014
Delivered by Feb 2016
Years 3-6
Phase I
Analysis
Phase II
Plan
Phase III
Evaluation
• Data Analysis;
• Identification of the Focus
for Improvement;
• Description of
Infrastructure to Support
Improvement and Build
Capacity;
• Theory of Action
• Multi-year plan
addressing:
• Infrastructure
Development;
• Support EIS
Program/LEA in
Implementing
Evidence-Based
Practices;
• Evaluation Plan
• Reporting on
Progress including:
• Results of
Ongoing
Evaluation
• Extent of
Progress
• Revisions to the
SPP
FFY 2015-18
Feb 2017- Feb 2020
16
Demystifying the SSIP
A way to tell your states’ story
A process that includes:
• Analyzing and Focusing
• Investigating
• Planning and Doing
• Evaluating
17
Evaluation
• Evaluation of progress
annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP Phase III
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
Analyzing and Focusing
•Identify starting point
• Initiate broad Data
Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify primary concern
(potential Focus for
Improvement/Results)
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I and II
Planning and Doing
• Identify evidencebased solutions/strategies
(Exploration Phase)
• Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action and
Logic Model
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
• Investigating
• Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
• For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for
improvement
• Narrow and define the
Focus for Improv./Result(s)
18
Evaluation
• Evaluation of progress
annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP Phase III
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
Analyzing and Focusing
•Identify starting point
• Initiate broad Data
Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify primary concern
(potential Focus for
Improvement/Results)
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I and II
Planning and Doing
• Search/evaluate evidencebased solutions (Exploration
Phase)
• Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action and
Logic Model
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
• Investigating
• Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
• For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for
improvement
19
Phase I - Starting Point
Potentially starting
with:
• An Issue
• An Initiative
• Child or family
outcomes data
20
What is the problem?
Governance
result
Quality
Standards
Funding/ Finance
Implementation
of effective
practices
Personnel/
Workforce
(PD&TA)
Monitoring and
Accountability
Data System
Improved
outcomes for
children and
families
Phase I - Data and Infrastructure
Analysis
• Data and
infrastructure
analyses includes use
of quantitative and
qualitative data :
– Broad data analysis
– In-depth or root
cause analysis
22
Phase I - Data Analysis
• Analyze key data (SPP/APR, 618, other data)
including:
– Review of disaggregated data
– Identification of data quality issues
– Identification of how data quality issues will be
addressed
– Identification of
compliance issues that
are barriers
23
Phase I - Infrastructure Analysis
• Determine current
system capacity to:
– Support improvement
– Build capacity in LEAs/EIS
programs and providers
to implement, scale up,
and sustain evidencebased practices to
improve results
24
Phase I - Infrastructure Analysis
• Address State system
components including:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Governance
Fiscal
Quality standards
Professional development
Data
Technical assistance, and
Accountability
Governance
Monitoring
and
Accountability
Fiscal
Broad
Infrastructure
Analysis
Technical
Assistance
Quality
Standards
Data
Professional
Development
25
Phase I - Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify:
– System strengths
– How components are coordinated
– Areas for improvement within and across
components
– Alignment and impact of current state initiatives
– How decisions are made
– Representatives needed to plan system
improvement
26
Consider Implementation Science:
Implementation Drivers
Performance Assessment
(Fidelity)
Coaching
Systems
Intervention
Training
Facilitative
Administration
Decision Support
Data System
Selection
Leadership
© Fixsen & Blase, 2008
Technical
Adaptive
Stakeholder Involvement
The broad data analysis and infrastructure
analysis is an appropriate time to begin
engaging your small group of selected
stakeholders
28
Phase I - Focus for Improvement/
Measureable Results
• Select focus for improvement
“What identified area, which when implemented
or resolved, has the potential to generate the
highest leverage for improving outcomes/results
for children with disabilities?”
29
Stakeholder Involvement
The small group of selected stakeholders will
also help the SSIP State Team to identify a focus
for improvement/measurable result
30
Evaluation
• Evaluation of progress
annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP Phase III
Analyzing and Focusing
• Initiate Data Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify primary concern
(Focus for Improvement)
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I and II
Planning and Doing
• Search/evaluate evidencebased solutions (Exploration
Phase)
• Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action and
Logic Model
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
• Investigating
• Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
• For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for
improvement
• Narrow and refine the
Focus for Improv./Result(s)
31
Phase I - Root Cause Analysis
• Identify contributing factors in focus area
(including infrastructure)
• Contributing factors:
– Explain why you have
the problem
– Point to how the problem
can be addressed
32
Phase I - Root Cause Analysis
• Identify barriers for each
contributing factor
– What is standing in the
way of addressing this
contributing factor?
– Why hasn’t it been
addressed to date?
33
Phase I - Root Cause Analysis
• Identify leverage points
for each contributing
factor
– What are the assets or
strengths that can be
tapped to address the
contributing factors?
34
Phase I - Narrow the Focus
• Narrow and refine the
Focus for Improvement/
measureable results
• Determine if it is feasible
35
Stakeholder Involvement
After the root cause analysis, the SSIP State
Team may need to refine the small group of
selected stakeholders to include stakeholders
with expertise in the focus area/measurable
result
36
Evaluation
• Evaluation of progress
annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP Phase III
Analyzing and Focusing
• Initiate Data Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify primary concern
(Focus for Improvement)
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I and II
Planning and Doing
• Search/evaluate evidencebased solutions (Exploration
Phase)
• Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action and
Logic Model
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
• Investigating
• Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
• For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for
improvement
37
Phase I - Evidence-base Strategies
• Search for solutions that are evidence-based
to address contributing factors
• Identify general action steps that address
contributing factors:
– Remove barriers
– Use leverage points
– Incorporate evidence-based resources
38
Consider Implementation Science
Implementation science can help to successfully implement and sustain
evidence-based and evidence-informed interventions:
• WHAT to do:
– What is the intervention (e.g. effective instruction, effective assessment)?
• HOW to do it
– Active and effective implementation and sustainability frameworks (e.g.
strategies to change and maintain behavior of adults)
• WHO will do it
– Organized, purposeful, & active implementation support from linked
implementation teams
From Building Implementation Capacity. A presentation of The State
Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center. Chapel Hill
North Carolina, October 2012.
The Hexagon
An EBP Exploration Tool
The “Hexagon” can be used as a
planning tool to evaluate evidencebased programs and practices during
the Exploration Stage of
Implementation.
Download available at:
www.scalingup.org/tools-and-resources
Need in local programs, state
• Academic & socially significant Issues
• Parent & community perceptions of need
• Data indicating need
Capacity to Implement
•
•
Staff meet minimum qualifications
Able to sustain Imp Drivers
• Financially
• Structurally
Buy-in process operationalized
• Practitioners
• Families
•
NEED
Fit with current Initiatives
• Local program, state priorities
• Organizational structures
Community values
CAPACITY
FIT
EBP:
5 Point Rating Scale:
High = 5; Medium = 3; Low = 1.
Midpoints can be used and scored as a 2 or 4.
High
Med
READINESS
Low
Fit
Resources and supports for:
Readiness for Replication
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need
RESOURCES
Qualified purveyor
Expert or TA available
Mature sites to observe
Several replications
How well is it operationalized?
Are Imp Drivers operationalized?
EVIDENCE
Resource Availability
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Curricula & Classroom
Technology supports (IT dept.)
Staffing
Training
Data Systems
Coaching & Supervision
Administration & system
Evidence
Evidence
Readiness for
Replication
Capacity to Implement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outcomes – Is it worth it?
Fidelity data
Cost – effectiveness data
Number of studies
Population similarities
Diverse cultural groups
Efficacy or Effectiveness
Total Score
© National Implementation Research Network 2009-2012
Adapted from work by Laurel J. Kiser, Michelle Zabel, Albert A. Zachik, and Joan Smith at the University of Maryland
Phase I - Theory of Action
• Identify results/outcomes to be accomplished
including changes in:
– System
– Practices
• Identify general improvement strategies
• Consider developing graphic reflecting
relationship between activities and outcomes
41
Theory of Action
What are the issues:
What are our activities:
What are our desired
outcomes:
• State System Level
• State System Level
• Local System Level
• Direct Supports
• Practices/Services
• Children and
Families
• Local System Level
• Direct Supports
• Practices/Services
• Children and
Families
if
• State System Level
• Local System Level
• Direct Supports
• Practices/Services
• Children and
Families
then
Theory of Action
42
Back
Phase I Components
Theory of Action
What will we do about it?
Data Analysis
•
In-depth Analysis of Quantitative
and Qualitative Data Related to
Primary Concern Area to Confirm
Focus Area for Improvement
Infrastructure Analysis
Why is it
happening?
•
In-depth Analysis of Quantitative
and Qualitative Data Related to
Primary Concern Area to Confirm
Focus Area for Improvement
Focus for Improvement/Measurable Results
Infrastructure Analysis
Data Analysis
•
Broad Analysis of Quantitative
and Qualitative Data to Identify
Areas of Low and High
Performance
What is the
problem?
•
Broad Analysis of Quantitative
and Qualitative Data to Identify
Systemic Issues Impacting
Performance
43
SSIP Components
• The SSIP components are not linear
• Information from one component feeds other
components and it is often necessary to “loop
back” to a previous component
44
Phase II - Improvement Plan
• Develop plan focusing on:
– Infrastructure development
– Support for implementing
evidence-based practices
– Evaluation of
implementation
45
Evaluation
• Evaluation of progress
annually
• Adjust plan as needed
SSIP Phase III
Analyzing and Focusing
• Initiate Data Analysis
• Conduct broad
Infrastructure Analysis
• Identify primary concern
(Focus for Improvement)
How well is
the solution
working?
What is the
problem?
SSIP Phase I
SSIP
SSIP Phase I and II
Planning and Doing
• Search/evaluate evidencebased solutions (Exploration
Phase)
• Develop action steps (address
barriers/use leverage points)
• Develop Theory of Action and
Logic Model
• Develop Plan for Improvement
(Implementation Framework)
What shall
we do
about it?
Why is it
happening?
SSIP Phase I
• Investigating
• Conduct root cause analysis
(including infrastructure) to
identify contributing factors
• For each contributing factor,
identify both barriers and
leverage points for
improvement
46
Phase III - Evaluation
• Evaluate implementation strategies including:
– Extent of implementation
– Extent of progress toward goals
• Use evaluation results to revise plan
47
Phase III - Evaluation
• Did the activity occur? Did the activity
accomplish its intended outcome(s)? If not,
why not?
• Do practitioners implement the practices with
fidelity (i.e. as intended)?
• Did outcomes/results improve?
48
Some Ideas to Consider
• To achieve the desired outcomes, the SSIP must
be aligned with your agency’s strategic plan
including vision, mission, and goals.
Mission
Vision
Goals
Informs
SSIP
Strategic
Plan
49
Some Ideas to Consider
• The SSIP cannot thrive in a vacuum! EIS/special
education state agencies will not be successful if
the SSIP is disconnected from the agency’s focus
and work
50
Some Ideas to Consider
• The SSIP should be aligned to and integrated with
other initiatives in the state
– Supports leveraging of resources - Greater influence
– Prevents duplication of efforts
– Builds momentum and capacity
– Improves results
51
Some Ideas to Consider
• Data-based decision making drives the SSIP
throughout each of the proposed Phases - from
development through implementation and
evaluation
52
Contact Information
Anne Lucas, WRRC/ECTA
Anne.Lucas@unc.edu
Cornelia Taylor, ECTA/DaSy
cornelia.taylor@sri.com
Megan Vinh, WRRC
Mvinh@uregon.edu
Christina Kasprzak, ECTA
Christina.Kasprzak@unc.edu
Stacy Kong, Hawaii Part C
Stacy.Kong@doh.hawaii.gov
Grace Kelley, SERRC
Gkelley3@cox.net
Brenda Sharp, Louisiana Part C
brenda.sharp@la.gov
53
IDEA DATA
CENTER
Thank you for your attention!
This is the first half of the first webinar in a series on SSIP presented in
2014. Resources related to this call and other presentations in the
series are available at the following URL:
http://ectacenter.org/~calls/2014/ssip/ssip.asp