SSIP Overview:
State Experiences
with Stakeholder
Engagement
Part C/619 State Accountability
Priority Area
March 6, 2014
1
SICC
Strategic Plan
and State
System
Improvement
Process (SSIP)
State Interagency
Coordinating
Council
Brenda Sharp
2
Stakeholder
involvement
in EarlySteps
l
Louisiana SICC+
Lead Agency +
Stakeholders =
Louisiana Part C
3
Beginning the SSIP discussion
Opportunities for Input:
Where to
Start?
 Review the Proposed SSIP
 Discussions with SERRC
 July 2013 presentation to SICC on
proposed APR/SSIP
 SICC voted to host a retreat to begin
planning for the SSIP
4
Potential
Indicator C11:
Reviewing the
Requirements
 September 2013 Retreat
 The Louisiana ICC Strategic Plan
 Reengage stakeholders in looking for a
focus for system improvement
5
 Assemble
SICC/Lead
Agency
SSIP
Planning
Retreat
 SSIP Planning: SICC Member and
Stakeholders gather to discuss
Indicator 11
 Align State Initiatives
 Look at other state early childhood
initiatives align/overlap
 Review Data
 Review available data: APR, Early
Childhood Redesign, Strategic Plan
and OCDD Transformation Plan
 Create Workgroups
 What do we need to gather that we
don't have? Look for trends and areas
for improvement.
Stakeholder Involvement in
Hawaii Part C SSIP
Stacy Kong
7
Hawaii’s Process for Stakeholder
Involvement
• Worked with a broad stakeholder group
• Identified a small state team
• Next step is to identify a small stakeholder
group
8
Hawaii’s Broad Stakeholder Group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ICC Members
Dept. of Health Admin
Care Coordinators
Direct Service Providers
Quality Assurance Staff
Data staff
Personnel training staff
Contracted Providers
• Dept. of Human
Services
• Dept. of Education
• 619 Coordinators
• Community Members
• Head Start (HS)/Early
HS
• Parent Training
9
Hawaii’s Broad Stakeholder Process
• Discussed with large group:
– Overview of SSIP process
– Data graphs
• Small group discussion around indicators 3 and 4 to:
– Identify potential focus areas
– Identify other data needs
Percent of children
100
80
60
67
72
60
68
73
78
40
20
0
Social relationships
Note: National data based on 33 states with highest-quality data
Knowledge and skills
Actions to meet needs
10
Next Steps around Stakeholder
Involvement
• Identify a small stakeholder group to support
and complete the SSIP work with HI’s State
Team.
• Convene another broad stakeholder meeting
in May to identify a focus area.
11
SSIP Overview:
Phase I Tools
and Resources
Part C/619 State Accountability
Priority Area
March 6, 2014
12
Example: SSIP Phase I Activity and Timeline Chart
13
Example: SSIP Phase I Activity and Timeline Chart
14
15
SSIP Phase I Roadmap: Purpose
• Based on draft SPP/APR package
• Helps states:
– Keep in mind the various SSIP activities that need
completion for submission with the FFY 2013
SPP/APR
– Understand key information about each SSIP
activity
– Plan and implement SSIP activities
16
SSIP Phase I Roadmap
“Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to...”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
17
Roadmap Content
• Each roadmap activity includes a description:
– Brief highlights (purpose and what’s included)
– Things to consider (e.g. potential questions)
– Examples, where applicable
– Potential tools and resources
18
Get Started
What’s included:
• Forming State Team
• Identifying flow of activities and
timelines
• Engaging stakeholders
– Inform broad group of SSIP
– Consider using small small group to assist with
data and infrastructure analysis
19
Get Started
Considerations related to stakeholder engagement
in SSIP activities - Examples:
• When should stakeholders be
included in the process?
• Who will be included as a
stakeholder? Will different
stakeholders be included at
different points in the process?
• How will stakeholders be included
in the process?
20
Conduct Broad Analyses
• Includes broad data and infrastructure
analyses
• Questions to guide analyses - examples:
– How do the percent of children exiting Part C
functioning within age expectation in Positive Social
Emotional skills in the state compare to other states?
– Have there been statewide increases in the percentage
of families reporting that the program has helped them
help their child develop and learn?
– What system components impact on
low performance in the state?
21
Conduct Broad Analyses
• Tools and resources –
Infrastructure examples:
– NCRRC SWOT Analyses:
State Infrastructure
– ECTA Systems Framework
http://www.ectacenter.org/sysframe/
For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
22
Conduct Broad Analyses
• Data Tool - Example
– SSIP Child Outcomes
Broad Data Analyses
Template
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/eco/SSIP_child_outcomes_broad_data_analysis_tem
plate_FINAL.docx
23
Identify Focus/Results
• Primary concern or Potential Focus for
Improvement/Measurable Results
• Considerations - examples:
– Does the broad data and infrastructure
analyses substantiate the potential focus for
improvement?
– Are there initiatives in the state related to this
potential focus for improvement? Is the Part C/619
program connected to them?
– Do you anticipate having leadership support around
this focus area?
24
Identify Focus/Results
• Tool – Example:
– NERRC Review of State
Context: Considerations
in Identifying
Measureable Result for
Students/Children with
Disabilities as Focus for
SSIP
25
Conduct In-depth Analyses
• In-depth data and infrastructure analyses related to
primary concern/potential focus
• Suggested steps for completing in-depth data analyses
• Potential questions for in-depth infrastructure analyses
– Which policies/procedures support practices that will lead
to or impact improved outcomes for young children with
disabilities in our selected focus for improvement?
– Do we have sufficient funds to provide supports in building
capacity of LEA/EIS programs to scale and sustain
implementation of evidence-based practices?
– Are there fiscal resources that could be leveraged to
support the implementation improvement strategies?
26
Conduct In-depth Analyses
• Tools and resources –
examples:
– Initiative Inventory for
SSIP
– Analyzing Child
Outcomes Data for
Program
Improvement: A
Guidance Table
http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/eco/AnalyzingChildOutcomesData-GuidanceTable.pdf
For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
27
Local Contributing Factor Tools
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/eco/ECO-C3-B7-LCFT.docx
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/topics/gensup/14-ContributingFactor-Results_Final_28Mar12.doc
28
Refine Focus/Results
• In-depth analyses leads to refinement
of Focus for Improvement/Measureable
Results
• Examples of Focus/Measureable Results:
– Improving social emotional outcomes for children
with disabilities
– Improving literacy for children living in poverty
– Improving families’ ability to help their child
develop and learn
29
Refine Focus/Results
• Considerations for a “good”
Focus/Results – Examples:
– What resources are already
committed or could be leveraged for
this focus?
– Does the system have adequate
capacity to support improvements in
this focus area?
– Will this focus make a significant
impact on results?
– Will change in practices and
beginning improvement in child and
family outcomes be able to be
achieved in 2-4 years?
• Tool – example:
– SSIP Focus for Improvement
Worksheet
30
Identify Improvement Strategies
• Considerations:
– Does the strategy focus on changing practice
or address barriers such as infrastructure
issues?
– Is the strategy based on evidence-based solutions?
– Will the strategy build local capacity to improve
results?
• Tools and Resources - Example
– NIRN-SISEP Adapted Hexagon Tool
– DEC Recommended Practices
http://www.decrecpractices.org/input.asp
For documents not available on the web, contact your RRC state liaison
31
Develop Theory of Action
• Synthesis of information of
information gathered
• Simple “if-then” statement:
If we conduct data analysis to determine area in which
state will focus for improvement then we identify and
implement strategies to build LEAs/EIS program’s capacity
then we will improve performance in the area needing
improvement and the identified result for children with
disabilities.
• Information on using a graphic or Logic Model
32
Develop/Review APR
• Drafting SSIP in FFY 2013 SPP/APR considerations:
– Determine who is responsible for
drafting
– Identify who needs to review and/or
approve
– Creating a timeline for drafts to be
submitted, reviews to be completed,
and approval obtained
• Review SPP/APR, obtaining
stakeholder input
33
The END!
SPP/APR Submission – February 2015
34
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
35
IDEA DATA
CENTER
Thank you for your attention!
This is the second 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