Developing a Framework
to Build High Quality
Part C and Section 619
Systems
December 2013
What we’ll cover:
• Purpose and Audience
• Process and Partners
• Assumptions/
Parameters
• Content and structure
• Draft Governance and
Finance Components
• Input/Discussion
System Framework: Purpose and Audience
Purpose: to guide states in evaluating their current Part
C/619 system, identifying areas for improvement, and
providing direction on how to develop a more effective,
efficient Part C and Section 619 system that requires,
supports, and encourages implementation of effective
practices.
Audience: the key audience is state Part C and state
Section 619 coordinators and staff, with
acknowledgement that other key staff and leadership in a
state will need to be involved.
System Framework: Process and Partners
• Iterative validation process: the framework is being developed through
an iterative process among national and state experts in the field.
• Partner states: the framework is being developed iteratively with 6
states (DE, ID, MN, NJ, PA, WV), so that it reflects (and is applicable to)
the diversity of state systems (e.g. Lead Agency, eligibility criteria).
• Technical Work Group (TWG): the Center has a technical work group
(TWG) with experts in the field to advise the Center by providing early
input on the elements, and later review and give input on drafts, as well
as contribute resources available to support states on various elements.
Iterative Validation Process
• Review of the existing literature
• Discussions with partner states about what’s
working or not working in their states (related
to various components); what it means to be
‘quality’
• Draft of components, subcomponents, quality
indicators and elements of quality
• Review of drafts and input from: partner
states, TWG, ECTA staff, others
• Revisions to drafts based on input
• Re-send revised drafts and have partner
states ‘test’ through application
• Revisions to drafts again
• Share more broadly to get input
Literature
State Examples
Draft
Review/Input
Revise
State Testing
Revise
Broader Input
Partner States
Delaware
Lisa Crim, Part C Coordinator, Birth to Three Early Intervention System
Verna Thompson, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator, Delaware
Idaho
Christy Cronheim, Part C Coordinator
Shannon Dunstan, Early Childhood Coordinator (Section 619 Preschool)
Pennsylvania
Jim Coyle, Kim Koteles & Mary Anketell, Office of Child Development and Early Learning.
Bureau of Early Intervention Services
Minnesota
Kara Hall Tempel, Part C Coordinator,
Lisa Backer, Early Childhood Special Education Supervisor (Section 619 Preschool)
New Jersey
Terry Harrison, Part C Coordinator
Barbara Tkach, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator
West Virginia
Pam Roush, Part C Coordinator, West Virginia
Ginger Huffman, Section 619 Preschool Coordinator
7
Technical Work Group Members
Mary Beth Bruder, Director, Early Childhood Personnel Center (ECPC), University of CT
Lori Connors-Tadros, Project Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes,
National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University
Barbara Gebhard, Assistant Director of Public Policy, ZERO TO THREE
Maureen Greer, Executive Director, Infant Toddler Coordinator Association (ITCA)
Vivian James, 619 Preschool Coordinator, Office of Early Learning, NC Department of Public Instruction
Grace Kelley, Program Specialist, South East Regional Resource Center (SERRC)
Jana Martella, Co-Director, Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO),
Education Development Center, Inc.
Robin McWilliam, Director of the Center for Child and Family Research, Siskin Children’s Institute
Cindy Oser, Director of Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health Strategy, ZERO TO THREE
Anne Reale, Principal, ICF International and ELC TA Collaboration Lead, ELC TA Program
Rachel Schumacher, Early Childhood Policy Consultant, R. Schumacher Consulting
System Framework: Assumptions/Parameters
The resulting framework and corresponding self-assessment will be:
• Evidence based
• Useful to Part C and Section 619 programs, including resources and
exemplars
• Responsive to the variation that exists across states; designed in a way
that recognizes that states can reach quality in different ways
• Related to critical areas of Part C and Section 619
• Consistent with IDEA requirements
• Consistent with recommended early childhood practices (e.g. DEC, DAP)
• Consistent with best practices from implementation science
• Inclusive of resources and exemplars to illustrate ways state can meet
quality
Purpose of ECTA System Framework
What does a state need to put into place in order to encourage,
support, require local implementation of effective practices?
Governance
result
Quality
Standards
Funding/ Finance
Implementation
of effective
practices
Monitoring and
Accountability
Personnel/
Workforce
Data System
ECTA System Framework
Good outcomes
for children with
disabilities and
their families
Governance:
Vision, Mission, Purpose
Legal Foundations
Administrative Infrastructures
Leadership and Performance
Management
Funding/ Finance
Fiscal Data
Quality Standards:
Strategic Finance Planning
Process/Forecasting
Program standards that support
effective practices, ELGs, ELSs
Procurement
Resource Allocation, Use of
Funds and Disbursement
Monitoring and Accountability
of Funds and Resources
Monitoring and
Accountability:
Personnel/ Workforce:
professional development,
personnel standards,
competencies, licensure,
credentialing, TA systems
Monitoring plans and processes,
continuous improvement, systems
evaluation
Data System:
System for collecting, analyzing
and using data for decisionmaking, coordinated data for
accountability and decisionmaking, linked data
ECTA System Framework
Governance
Cross cutting themes
Engaging stakeholders, including families
Quality
Standards
Funding/
Finance
Establishing/revising policies
Promoting collaboration
Using data for improvement
Monitoring and
Accountability
Personnel/
Workforce
Communicating effectively
Family Leadership & Support
Data System
Coordinating/Integrating across EC
12
System Framework
• Products:
– components and subcomponents
of an effective service delivery
system (e.g. funding/finance,
personnel and TA, governance
structure)
– quality indicators scaled to
measure the extent to which a
component is in place and of high
quality
– corresponding self-assessment
for states to self-assess (and plan
for improvement)
– with resources related to the
components of the system
framework
13
Structure/Format of Each Component
•
•
Component #1
– Subcomponent #1
• Quality Indicator #1
– Element of Quality #1
– Element of Quality #2
– Etc.
• Quality Indicator #2
– Element of Quality #1
– Element of Quality #2
– Etc.
Component #2
– Subcomponent #1
• Quality Indicator #1
– Element of Quality #1
– Element of Quality #2
– Element of Quality #3
• Etc.
General progression:
In place
Of high quality
Used
Reviewed/Revised
Across EC
Additionally:
•
•
Self-assessment scale
Resources and
examples
14
Benefits of Participating in the Process
e.g. How Delaware has benefitted from being a partner state...
• Provided time to engage in valuable discussions related to
components of quality
• Learned more about what other states are doing to improve
quality and promote systematic programming
• Promoted discussion of quality indicators and alignment with
Delaware’s QRIS quality
• Collected resources from national experts on variety of
topics
• Promoted reflection on Delaware’s strengths and needs for
support
15
Drafts: Governance
and Finance
http://ectacenter.org/sysframe
Discussion
– How might the System Framework be
helpful to states?
– Comments/discussion around key content
included in the framework so far? e.g.
• collaboration across early childhood
• importance of ‘using data’ in all
components
• other?
17
Recap of Work




Review of systems literature to identify overall components
Initial Webinars with TWG & Partner States
Monthly calls and email exchanges with partner states
Individual email exchanges and phone calls with some
individual TWG members (resources, discussions)
 Review of literature drafting of
governance component
 Partner state review, feedback
and ‘testing’ of governance
 TWG review and feedback of
governance
18
Recap of Work
 Incorporated input to revise governance component
 Review of literature and drafting of finance component
 Partner states, TWG, and additional
experts feedback on finance
 Incorporated input to revise finance
component
 Wider sharing of the System
Framework:
– Data/Outcomes Conference
– Web site
– Webinar
Next Steps:
Additional Components:
• Currently working on Personnel/Workforce component
• Starting literature review for Quality Standards and
Monitoring and Accountability components
• Collaborating with DaSy on Data Systems component
All Components:
• Designing a self-assessment
• Identifying resources and examples
• Coordinating with ECSWG
• Considering SSIP
• Developing a glossary of terms
20
Look for updates via the web site:
http://ectacenter.org/sysframe