Phase I:
Infrastructure
Analysis
Part C/619 State Accountability
Priority Area
May 1st , 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:
 Phase I: Infrastructure Analysis process
 Resources and strategies that can support states
in the Infrastructure Analysis process
 How other states are approaching infrastructure
analysis
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
Infrastructure Analysis
Purpose of the Infrastructure Analysis
 Determine the capacity of the current state
system to support improvement and build
capacity in LEA/EIS’s to implement, scale up, and
sustain evidence-based practices to improve
results for children and youth with disabilities
5
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
6
Phase I Components
Theory of Action
Coherent Improvement
Strategies
What will we do about it?
In-depth
Data Analysis
Why is it
happening?
In-depth
Infrastructure
Analysis
State Identified Measurable Result
Broad
Data Analysis
What is the
problem?
Broad
Infrastructure
Analysis
Infrastructure Analysis
The infrastructure analysis is a two step process
 Broad analysis of the overall system
that identifies strengths and weaknesses
of the system
 In-depth analysis of each of the components as
they relate to the identified measurable result
8
Broad Infrastructure Analysis
•
•
Determine the strengths and weakness of each of
the system components
Identify system components that appear to be
associated with:
 High performance of children with disabilities
 Low performance of children with disabilities
SWOT Analysis – NCRRC
SSIP State Infrastructure Analysis Guide – SERRC
Systems Framework – ECTA Center
State Infrastructure Analysis Tool Part C - MPRRC
9
SWOT Analysis –
State Infrastructure (NCRRC)
Provides questions to
stimulate thinking
about various system/
infrastructure
components:




Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
10
Infrastructure Analysis Guide
(SERRC)
• Supports both broad
and in-depth
infrastructure
analysis
• Helps to identify
systemic barriers and
system components
that can be leveraged
to improve results
11
System Framework
(ECTA)
• What it means for
system to be of high
quality
• Guide states in
evaluating system,
identifying areas for
improvement, and
developing effective,
efficient system to
support effective
practices
http://www.ectacenter.org/sysframe/
12
State Infrastructure Analysis Tool Part C
(MPRRC)
• Guide states in
describing and
conducting broad
and in-depth
infrastructure
analysis
• Organized around
Implementation
Drivers Framework
Self Reflection
• As you think about your state’s infrastructure what
are some of the strengths that you can leverage to
support development and implementation of the
SSIP?
• What are some of the weaknesses that you will need
to address?
14
Bureau of Family Health
Special Health Services Section
Infant Toddler Services
1-800-332-6262 or 785-296-6135
www.ksits.org
Sarah Walters, L.B.S.W, M.S.Ed.
Coordinator
Where are we with Infrastructure
Analysis in Kansas?
• Strategic Plan
 Development of Results Driven Accountability
Conceptual Framework
• Implementation Science Extravaganza
 Looking at Infrastructure analysis through
Implementation Science lens
 SSIP Infrastructure Analysis Questionnaire
RDA Conceptual Framework
How do we know where we stand with the
ability to operationalize this framework?
The Big Drill Down
Here is a glimpse at the document
Next Steps
Continue to gather input from various
stakeholders including but not limited to…





State ICC
State Agency Early Childhood Leadership Team
Local tiny-k program coordinators
Parents/families
tiny-k practitioners
Next Steps
Narrow in on our topic and do further drill down
to identify our SSIP Target
Family
Outcomes
Improved
Positive
Social
Emotional
skills
Acquisition of
knowledge
and skills
SSIP Target
Next Steps
More Tools
 Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR
Indicator C-3/B-7 (ECTA Center)
 System Framework – Finance and Governance
(ECTA Center)
 Gantt Chart (RRCP, ECTA Center, and DaSy Center)
The End
We try really hard to stay in our Happy Place!
Massachusetts – SSIP
Infrastructure Analysis
Stakeholder Engagement
• Stakeholder Engagement started early on
in the process – October 2013 EI Program
Director Session
• ECO Stakeholders – already existing
stakeholder group advising state on
improving approach to measuring child &
family outcomes
• State Leadership Team
• Interagency Coordinating Council
Infrastructure Analysis Tool
SWOT Analysis – State Infrastructure
• MA modified the SWOT tool to increase the focus
on integrating existing initiatives:
 What aspects of the MA EIP current initiatives
make it unique?
 How does the MA EIP system leverage its
resources (fiscal, material, personnel, etc.) to
build capacity at the local system level?
 What are challenges with regard to the MA EIP
ability to support local systems in efforts to
implement sustainable new initiatives?
Infrastructure Analysis Tool
• Current Initiatives & Practices
• Facilitated a loosely structured group brain
storming session with ECO Stakeholders
 Strengths
 Weaknesses
 Opportunities
 Threats
MA SWOT Analysis






Universal acceptance f EI
Broad eligibility
Program Based System – (referral, evaluation, IFPS development,
Service Coordination) each program is doing all components which
makes it easier to make a systems change
Blended service model
BDI-2 Pilot Process/Ongoing support/Roundtables, etc.
S
O


•





Strong Professional Development System through EITC (which is
accessible)
Breadth & Scope of disciplines/backgrounds in the field
Collaboration/alignment with Higher Education
Strong collaborative relationship with Part B
Linkages with referral sources, Hospitals, Pediatricians, etc. (?EHR?)
Intersection with multiple Early Childhood services and agencies
Active communication across all Stakeholders
Rich cohort of Parent Leaders/Parent Engagement
Strong ICC/EI Consortium

Multiple payer sources


Elevate more opportunities within the system
To provide more consistency across programs related to practice




Grow more leaders within the system
Opportunity to chose resources (fiscal/evaluation)
Cross Training Models of multiple systems
Partner with Higher Ed

More control over data when we move to a web based system
Further Define Data Opportunities: What are
you planning to do with the information you
get from your data? e.g.: inform the field for
Return on Investment
increased (buy-in), test a hypothesis related
to improved outcomes (opportunities to
engage & grow leaders), Are there
opportunities to support de-identified data
use in partnership with Higher Ed (increasing
a strength)?

What top three strengths can support

the most important or largest number of
weaknesses by making a focused
effort?




Implementing “evidence based” practice to fidelity
Inability to measure effectiveness of initiatives – to evaluate and reflect on
initiatives and overall benefit to the system
Service model – not having targeted evaluation teams/Service
Coordination
Disparities/Equity of services for all children and families
Service access – due to poverty & linguistic capacity






Ability to embed training across agencies
Separate silos among agencies i.e. childcare/EI
New Leadership with changes in Administration
Retention/Turnover
Aging staff in leadership roles
Ability to attract/support/and sustain multicultural staff

(T) Technology is a weakness – local programs ability to access
technology; State’s ability to keep up with technology enhancements
Financial limitations – EI rate
Financial resources to sustain and implement evidence based practices



Linking concepts to shift threats to
opportunities:
Cohesive
-Will ASQ-SE, BDI-2… existing
efforts be part of the SSIP? If so,
that could message continued effort
for program buy-in.
-manageable to do and get buy-in
-build on existing efforts
-emphasize quality
-marketable/easy to
understand/easy to support
-Does economy/budget connect to
cohesiveness because building a
cohesive plan with real,
measurable, long-term impact?
Does budgeting also speak to the
need to connect to existing
initiatives?
Challenge of serving broad eligibility (meeting the professional
development needs)


W
T


Change
How do we market a cohesive plan – engage the field in the results driven
SSIP
# of initiatives; are we involved in too many?
Balance quality of service and the number served



Buy-In at local program level
“Buy-In” for all changes in the system – (ASQ-SE, BDI-2, etc,)
Varying priorities at program/agency level


(EHR) Electronic Health record - impact to the system
Omnibus Bill – DCF automatic eligibility/impact to the system/need for
additional professional development
Liability Issues – HIPPA;FERPA; Collaboration with other agencies (nonreimbursable activities)


Economy/Budgeting
Next Steps
• Continue to identify linkages from the
SWOT analysis
• Develop a Data Analysis Plan that
includes our hypothesis, inferences, etc.
prior to viewing additional data which will
include the SWOT Analysis as well.
• Need for further drill down/data analysis
Lessons Learned
• Need for more reflection on the
process
• SSIP components are not a linear
process
In-depth Infrastructure Analysis
As the state identified measurable result is
decided, an in-depth analysis of the state
infrastructure is conducted to determine:
 The functions of each infrastructure component in
relationship to the focus area for improvement.
 Identify contributing factors to low and high
performance within the focus area for
improvement.
32
In-depth Infrastructure Analysis
• The state might also complete an inventory of
current initiatives to determine how the
initiatives (in total or in part) can be leveraged
in the SSIP.
• It will also be helpful to review past initiatives
to determine if they will support the SSIP (in
total or in part).
(System Framework – ECTA Center)
(SSIP State Infrastructure Analysis Guide)
Local Contributing Factor Tools – TA Providers
SISEP State Initiative Inventory - SERRC
33
Local Contributing Factors Tools
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/eco/ECO-C3-B7-LCFT.docx
http://ectacenter.org/~docs/topics/gensup/14-ContributingFactor-Results_Final_28Mar12.doc
http://therightidea.tadnet.org/searches?commit=Search&search=Investigative+Questions
34
Initiative Inventory for SSIP
• Helps states identify
current and previously
implemented initiatives
that can be leveraged
to support the
identified measurable
result
• Adapted from NIRN
and SISEP
35
Colorado’s Story
CDE’s Strategic Goals
State Identifiable
Measrueable Results
• Literacy & math achievement (with an
emphasis on prek-3)
• Graduation
• Post-school outcomes
• Family Involvement
School Age Data
• Very low proficiency rates in math (20%) and
literacy (23%)
• Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
have lowest achievement
• High drop-out rate (28%)
• Low graduation rate (54%)
Preschool Data
• Child outcomes; Indicator 7 – in the 80%s
• LRE; Indicator 6 – 84%
Question: what happens between preschool and
3rd grade?
619’s Involvement in the SSIP
• Emphasizing the importance of the pre-k to 3rd
grade years
• Invited to attend with the “Big B” team to the
MPRRC planning/TA meeting last month
• Research on the connection between pre-K
vocabulary to 3rd grade reading to graduation
Infrastructure Analysis
• Our primary concerns are aligned with CDE’s
strategic goals
• Data supports our identified primary areas of
concern
Infrastructure/Capacity
Leadership:
• CDE’s strategic goals
• Heightened recognition of the importance of
early childhood
• Preschool special education is an integral part
of the larger special education unit
• Partnering with CDHS who manages the RTTTELC
Infrastructure/Capacity
Funding/Resources:
• 611 budget; higher focus on Results Driven
Accountability (RDA), following OSEP’s shift from
compliance to student outcomes
• RTTT-ELC; partnering with PD team on PD
opportunities
• Partnering with Higher Education; Early Literacy
Summit
• DaSy
• ECTA Center
Infrastructure/Capacity
Other Initiatives:
• RTTT-ELC
• READ Act (focus on K-3 literacy)
• School Readiness
• Literacy grants
• Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)
• Unified Improvement Process (UIP)
• New DD eligibility category
• Ability to collect more data
If/Then
• If we focus on students starting strong (preK &
K), then students will read by third grade.
• If we put a focus on preK & K, then we can
prevent future problems in performance by
starting strong.
If…
If we can help students:
- start strong,
- attain proficiency in reading & math by third
grade,
- meet or exceed core standards of literacy &
math,
- graduate from high school
Then…
Then students will have the skills, knowledge &
disposition needed to contribute to society and
successfully participate in postsecondary
education and workforce.
Further Refinement
•
•
•
•
Lead to focus on students with SLD
Impacted our budget review process
Further data and infrastructure analysis
Collaboration of stakeholder groups of the
RTT-ELC & those of young children with
disabilities needs to improve
• Look for alignment with Part C
• Further input from stakeholders
Infrastructure Analysis
Summarize the results of the infrastructure analysis:
 Describe the coordination of the components of the
system.
 Identify the strengths of each of the components of
the system and the overall system.
 Identify the overall improvements that need to be
made to the system.
 Identify the initiatives that can be leveraged for the
SSIP.
50
Considerations
• Consider the interconnectedness of the in-depth
infrastructure analysis with the in-depth data
analysis and how information from both help
refine the measureable results and identify
improvement strategies.
• Consider looking at both the state infrastructure
as well as the local infrastructure.
• Consider involving stakeholders, especially those
with knowledge about the infrastructure and
with expertise in the measurable results area.
Next Steps
Let us know what you need…
Contact Information
Arlene Russell, NCRRC
russellb@umn.edu
Anne Lucas, WRRC/ECTA
Anne.Lucas@unc.edu
Carolee Eslinger, MPRRC
carolee.eslinger@usu.edu
Megan Vinh, WRRC
Mvinh@uregon.edu
Grace Kelley, SERRC
gkelley3@cox.net
53
Thank you for your attention!
This is the third webinar in a series on SSIP for Part C and Section 619
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