#1SD BIRTH TO THREE CONTRIBUTES TO THE SUCCESS OF CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS AND THEIR FAMILIES BY PROVIDING DYNAMIC, INDIVIDUALIZED EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES AND SUPPORTS BY BUILDING ON FAMILY STRENGTHS THROUGH EVERY DAY ROUTINES AND LEARNING EXPERIENCES. South Dakota Birth to Three State Interagency Coordination Council September 11, 2019#2south dakota BIRTH TO THREE STATE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL Wednesday, September 11, 2019 | 9:30 CT Location: Drifters Conference Center Fort Pierre, SD 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve April 2019 Minutes 4. ICC Member Introductions AGENDA OSED 5. Head Start Collaboration Office Updates 6. Public Comment 7. National IDEA/Part C Update - Sharon Walsh, National TA Consultant 8. South Dakota Part C - Birth to Three Year in Review a. Accountability & Quality Improvement b. Finance c. Data System d. Governance e. Personnel / Workforce 9. Adjournment INTRODUCTIONS: ■ Please identify yourself and your representation on the board/SSIP Stakeholder group ■ How many times have you moved since turning 21 or following college. In-state? Out of State?#3South Dakota Early Learning Guidelines Birth through Kindergarten Entry SOUTH DAKOTA EARLY LEARNING Guidelines SDStep Ahead Supporting Early Learners#4Next step: South Dakota Kindergarten Standards Crosswalk Head Start Standards / Early Learning Guidelines Head Start Program Performance Standards 45 CFR Chapter XIII September 2016 US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Fanikes Office of Head Start FI Standard Educational Technology Standards* (2007) Standards for English Language Arts* (2010) Fine Arts Standards * (proposed) Health Education Standards* (2010) Standards for Mathematics* (2010) Physical Education Standards* (2000) Science Standards* (2005) Social Studies Standards* (2006) World Languages Standard (2011) New Standards A May 2015 March 2018 May 2015 March 2018 March 2018 2014 May 2015 August 2015 Proposed 2017 CHEREN&FAMILES#5Public Comment • Share your name and what you want us to know about you and why you are here. Provide your public comment please keeping your remarks to 3-4 minutes. Each speaker should represent new idea / concern / position. ■ Thank you for your participation. The ICC appreciates your comments and we will consider them as we continue our work.#6FEDERAL UPDATE Sharon Walsh, ECTA#7Federal Update RandySantos/destockimages.co South Dakota Part C ICC/Stakeholder Meeting September 11, 2019 Sharon Walsh 7#8The Real World Washington DC#9Agenda Current Congress Funding "New Early Childhood Bill Other Congressional Activity ITCA Tipping Points#1010 116th Congress First Session Convened - January 2019 Returned this week from 6-week recess Second Session - January 2020 Election November 2020 - (President, House and 1/3 Senate) Inauguration and 117th Congress Convenes January 2021#1111 Education - 2% of all Federal Spending 2% W Fiscal Year 2019 Outlays Defense Discretionary Non Defense Discretionary - Excluding education NDD - just education Mandatory Social Security Mandatory Means Tested - Other Mandatory Mandatory Net Interest Source: FY2018 OMB Budget#12AND NOW....... WHAT TO EXPECT FOR 2020 - It could BE..... Budget Cuts OR Just Ahead INCREASES#13Where Are We Now? 13 Final Funding Levels 10 12 CLOCK 9 ZZ Need Agreements TICKING Final Funding for FFY 2020 must be in place. September 30th May end up with a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government in operation Unless smaller minibus bills are agreed to by all *About 10 legislative days left before deadline These funds will be allocated to states under IDEA in July 2020#14FFY 2018 FFY 2019 IDEA Part C $470 million $470 million B to 3 IDEA $381.12 $391.12 Preschool million million 619 ESSA $250 million $250 million Preschool Grants Program 14#15FFY 2018 FFY 2019 Child Care $5.25 billion $5.30 billion Block Grant Head Start $9.90 billion $10.10 billion Maternal and $651.7 million $677.7 million Child Health Block Grant (MCH) 15#1616 Proposed House Education Increases • Title I ESSA is increased by $1 billion to $16.9 billion IDEA Part B 611 is increased by $1 billion to $13.4 billion Special Olympics education programs is increased by $3.5 million to $21 million Part C of IDEA is increased by $21 million to $491 million 619 Preschool is increased by $12 million to $403 million Title II of ESSA is increased by $500 million to $2.6 billion ⚫ 21st Century Community Learning Centers would be increased to $1.3 billion.#1717 Proposed Health and Human Services (HHS) Increases $705 million for Title V MCH Block Grant (a $27.3 million increase) $130.5 million for Healthy Start: (a $8 million increase) $7.676 billion for CCDBG (a $2.4 billion increase) $11.563 billion for Head Start (a $1.5 billion increase) $350 million for PDGs (a $100 million increase) $41.6 million for University Centers or Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDs) (a $1 million increase)#18IDEA Full Funding Act Introduced ☐ - Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) – original sponsor introduced the IDEA Full Funding Act, S. 866 – March 3, 2019. (bipartisan, bicameral bill) - Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) original sponsor introduced the IDEA Full Funding Act H.R. 1878 – March 26, 2019. (bipartisan, bicameral bill) ■ Provides mandatory funding that puts federal government on a 10-year glide path to reach the 40% of the additional costs associated with educating students with disabilities. Currently, the federal government funding is at approximately 16% of those additional costs. - Supports Part B 611 increases only – Part B 619 – Preschool, Part C and Part D are not included in the bill. 8#19Exciting News! New Bill! Context and Background Part C and Preschool 619 Programs serve over 1.16 million children, about double the number served in 1991. Part C serves over 720,000 children in full year cumulative count - about double the single day count • Federal funding has not kept pace resulted in continuing decrease in federal per child funding (Part C $650 per child; 619 $506 per child) Resulting in increased fiscal burden on state and local budgets#20HR 4107 "Funding Early Childhood is the Right IDEA Act" Establishes glide path of increasing authorization levels for IDEA Part C and Part B 619 Preschool • Amounts are based on restoring the highest per child funding levels with inflation considered • The bill is parallel to the Part B Full Funding Act efforts • Mark DeSaulnier (CA-D) introduced the House bill • Discussions are occurring to secure co-sponsors in House • Discussions are occurring to secure sponsors in Senate#2121 "Child Care for Working Families Act" Reintroduced in March 2019 • Senator Patty Murray (WA-D) S 568 (34 co-sponsors) • https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/568/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22congressld%3A116+AN D+billStatus%3A%5C%22Introduced %5C%22%22%5D%7D&r=5 • Representative Bobby Scott (VA-D) H.R. 1364 (151 co-sponsors) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- bill/1364/text?r=1&s=4#2222 Outline of the Bill • Title I - Child Care and Development Assistance • Title II – High Quality Preschool • Title III - Head Start Expanded Duration • Title IV - Appropriations for Supports and Services for Inclusive Child Care for Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities – Part C and Preschool 619 - Title V - Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Needs Strong Bipartisan Support#2323 Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) ⚫ Historic increases in funds in FFY 2018 and FFY 2019 Provides funds to states to assist low-income families to afford child care, to help ensure the health and safety of child care, and to invest in improving the quality of care. ⚫ States are using the funds to increase payment rates, serve families on the waiting list for assistance, and implement the new requirements of the 2014 CCDBG reauthorization law. • National Women's Law Center released in January 2019 a report on how specific states were using these increases (updated information is being gathered) https://nwlc.org/resources/states-use-new-child-care-development- block-grant-funds-help-children-families/#2424 B-5 Preschool Development Grants Enacted under ESSA. Currently awarded to 46 states/territories with awards range between $538,000 and $10,620,000. • Coordinated by ACF/HHS and Department of Education. Grants fund states to conduct comprehensive statewide needs assessment followed by in-depth strategic planning for enhanced community services. Grant period is through December 30, 2019. Opportunity to apply for renewal grants for next year. FFY 2020 final funding level will impact number of continuations#25In Case You Were Wondering....Will We Reauthorize IDEA Soon? NOPE. NOT TODAY. EHH...NO#26OVERDUE •Head Start Act Education Sciences Reform Act Higher Education Act#2727 What's Else Is Planned? Autism Cares 2019 • CAPTA • Paid Family Leave • Rise from TRAUMA Act Keeping All Students Safe Act • Tax Reform • Health Care and Medicaid • Immigration • Others#2828 State of Babies Annual Yearbook • ZERO TO THREE and Child Trends sponsored State-by-state story of America's babies • Provides policymakers and advocates information to advance national and state policies to improve the lives of infants and toddlers. https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/2647-state-of-babies- yearbook- 2019?utm_term=Sign%20Up&utm_campaign=EOY2018&utm_con tent=email&utm_source=Act-On&utm_medium=Email%20- %20EOY%20E6&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_- Coming%20Soon%3A%20State%20of%20Babies%20Yearbook%3 A%202019--Sign%20Up#29File Edit View History Bookmarks Tools Help State of Babies Yearbook 2019 X State of Babies Yearbook 2019 X State of Babies Yearbook 2019 | Cali X + Search https://stateofbabies.org *Most Visited Getting Started AOL Calendar UNC Office National States STATE OF BABIES YEARBOOK 2019 III Impact Areas Take Action About Us 45% of U.S. babies live in low- income families Families that struggle to make ends meet can't always provide the nurturing experiences babies need to thrive. I B X o ☐ Bright Spots for Babies When it comes to helping our babies grow and thrive some states offer models for others to 51% of babies in the U.S. are children of color Policies to support healthy babies should embrace the changing demographics of our country. חי f 2K in#30U.S. Department of Education Early Learning Skip to main content | About Us | Contact Us | FAQs | Language Assistance▾ Ed U.S. Department of Education Search... a Student Loans Grants Laws Data Dept of Education's Early Learning Web Page. ▪ https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylear ning/index.html ABOUT ED/INITIATIVES Early Learning Monthly email newsletter available - you can subscribe at the bottom of web page Home About Partnerships Initiatives Inclusion Families TA Featured Newsletter Research Welcome to the U.S. Department's Early Learning Web Site Find the latest information about ED's work in supporting our nation's youngest learners. Join our Early Learning Newsletter mailing list to receive regular ED early learning updates and the monthly early learning newsletter. High Quality Early Learning is Essential High Quality Early Learning is Essential How Do I Find... Student loans, forgiveness ⚫ College accreditation Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) FERPA FAFSA Information About... More> Transforming Teaching Family and Community Engagement • Early Learning Related Topics .Mission About Newsletter Connect 30#31BREAKING dreamstime WSBA ING EW&B NGN VSBEO NGN 185M BRE dreamstime VAKIN IGNEX AKIN NEWS eamstime eamstime#32ΠΙΡΡΟΙΝΤ ITCA 2019 Tipping Points Survey#33Good News for Continued Participation (n=45) 3 1 1 38 ■No Discussions ■Serious Discussion ■Some Discussion Preparing Documents#34Status of Eligibility (n=43) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 72 2 32 ■No Change Broadened ■Other#35Planned Service Hours Per Child Per Month (n=21) 8 00 7 60 6.5 LO st MEDIAN HOURS 6 5 5 5 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.5 7.2 6.7 m 1 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Range: 1.5 hours to 18 hours#36Delivered Service Hours Per Child Per Month (n=15) 7 5.8 5.7 6 5 4 MEDIAN HOURS m 2 1 6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.0 4 4 4 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Range: 2 hours to 16 hours#3720 20 18 18 MEDIAN NUMBER OF MONTHS 9 st 00 8 12 16 14 2 Length of Stay in Part C (n=29) 16 15.5 15 14 13.7 14.8 13.2 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Range: 6 months to 19 months#38MEDIAN NUMBER OF MONTHS 18.2 18 17.8 17.6 17.4 17.2 17 Average Age at Referral (n=30) 17.8 17.8 16.8 2016 17.3 18 2017 2018 2019 Range: 2 months to 27 months#39Number of States State Funding Status (n=41) 6 15 0 20 20 ■Increased ■Reduced ■Frozen ■Not Final Yet#40Number of States Provider Reimbursement (n=49) 5 52 80 26 ■No Change Increased Decreased Will increase next year ■Other#41Number of States 3 Addressing Special Populations 9 20 3 8 4 9 24 15 18 5 9 12 15 12 12 8 6 NAS (42) Zika (43) Lead Poisoning (42) FASD (43) Other ACEs (28) Extensive Efforts Some Efforts Beginning to Address Not at This Time#42Percentage of Respondents 90% 83% 2019 Provider Shortages (n=42) Speech-Language... Physical Therapists Occupational Therapists Special Educators Psychologists 68% 41% 37% 32% 29% 29% Orientation and Mobility... Audiologists H Vision Specialists Social Workers Nurses 20% 17% 15% Registered Dieticians Family Therapists 10%#4343 Thank you! enkosi Баярлалаа ngiyabonga danke teşekkür ederim спасибо faafetai lava kiitos dankie dhanyavad dziękuję obrigado- mėsi 單 mersi barka welalin tack dank je misaotra matondo thank yougracias chnorakaloutioun gratias ago gràcies хвала asante manana obrigada djiere dieuf mochchakkeram sukriya kop khun krap go raibh maith agat najis tuke ありがとう tanemit grazie arigato dakujem trugarez terima kasih rahmet kam sah hamnida তোমাকে ধন্যবাদ diolch dhanyavadagalu - shukriya мерси 감사합니다 xiexie merci murakoze#44SOUTH DAKOTA PART C#45It's time to rethink how we're serving students with disabilities and their families HELLO Shahz HELLO 1721 Jesu#46WHAT IS THE SSIP? Multi-year, achievable plan that: *Increases capacity of EIS programs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices *Improves outcomes for children with disabilities (and their families) 46 ECTA#47OSEP DIRECTION TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE STATES IN THEIR SSIP DEVELOPMENT 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. 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. Development: developed collaboratively with the field (state teams, TA partners, and national experts) through a 2-year iterative process.#48What infrastructure must be in place to support implementation of effective evidence-based practices? Quality Standards Accountability & Quality Improvement Governance Building High-Quality State Systems Data Systems Finance Personnel/Workforce Implementation of Evidence-based Practices Result Positive outcomes for children with disabilities and their families#49Phase III SSIP Improvement Plan - Implement activities as planned - Monitor Implementation and make revisions based on data - Document progress and outcomes. Engage stakeholders Evaluation Plan Conduct evaluation activities Track progress toward achievment of the outcomes and the SIMR targets Prepare summaries of evaluation data for planning teams Engage stakeholders Phase II SSIP Improvement Plan Improvement Plan - Implement coherent improvement strategies: Goals, activities, steps with timelines, resources and who's responsible to improve insfrastructure and support locals in implementing evidence-based practices - Align, partner & leverage existing multiple offices, initiatives and other resources Evaluation Plan - Evaluation aligned to TOA - Short- and long-term outcomes aligned to Implementation Plan - Data collection/analysis methods & timelines to measure implementation (process) & outcomes (impact) - Stakeholder engagement and communication Theory of Action How did we get there? State-Indentified Measureable Child and/or Family Result In-Depth Data Analysis In-Depth Infrastructure Assessment Primary Concern(s) / Focus(es) Broad Data Analysis Broad Infrastructure Assessment Getting Started / Preparation#50south dakota BIRTH TO THREE The first three years build a lifetime Strands of Action If the State...... Data Quality Accountability Professional Development Recommended Practices SSIP Theory of Action ....establishes a process to obtain and report exit BDI scores for children exiting the Birth to Three programs regardless of reasons for exit ....Provides BDI-2 training in collaboration with 619 to evaluators ....develops and implements a monitoring protocol to identify appropriate IFSP decisions and the use of appropriate recommended El practices ....provides support and TA to all partners to increase their active participation in the SSIP process ....designs and implements training/TA to increase knowledge and skills and use of appropriate recommended El practices ....presents a consistent statewide message about early intervention service delivery and evidence based practice ....provides training and resources on appropriate use of family assessment and embedded routines Then regionally..... ....service coordinators/districts will increase the number of usable BDI-2 exit evaluations ....evaluators will improve the reliability and validity of BDI-2 administration .....IFSP teams will increase evidence-based service decisions ....Birth to Three partners will increase active involvement in SSIP process including analyzing data and making data informed decisions ......providers will increase use of recommended practices ...service coordinators and providers will implement and cultivate family and caregiver engagement and coaching practices Then Results ....statewide data quality will increase ...children and families will receive appropriate evidence based practice ....parents and caregivers will be engaged in child's routine based intervention ....infants and toddlers exiting early intervention services will demonstrate increased growth in their acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication) South Dakota Stakeholder Theory of Action#5151 RDA RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 2019 OSEP LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE#5252 FOUR CATEGORIES OF DETERMINATION 1. Meets the requirements and Purpose of IDEA (28) 2. Needs Assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA (29) 3. Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA (0) 4. Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA (0) 2019 OSEP LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE#53Jongratulations Way to go. LET'S LOOK AT SD-C DETERMINATION 2019 South Dakota Part C Meets Requirements!!#54South Dakota 2019 Part C Results-Driven Accountability Matrix Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination¹ Percentage (%) 81.25 Determination Meets Requirements Results Compliance Results and Compliance Overall Scoring Total Points Available g 14 Points Earned Score (%) 5 62.5 14 100#55100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Compliance Child Outcomes#562019 Part C Compliance Matrix Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in Performance Part C Compliance Indicator¹ (%) FFY 2016 Score Indicator 1: Timely service provision 100 N/A 2 Indicator 7: 45-day timeline 100 N/A 2 Indicator 8A: Timely transition plan 100 N/A 2 Indicator 8B: Transition notification 100 N/A 2 Indicator 8C: Timely transition conference 100 N/A 2 Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data 100 2 Timely State Complaint Decisions N/A N/A Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions N/A N/A Longstanding Noncompliance 2 Special Conditions None Uncorrected identified None noncompliance#57(a) Data Completeness: The percent of children included in your State's 2017 Outcomes Data (Indicator (3) Number of Children Reported in Indicator C3 (i.e. outcome data) Number of Children Reported Exiting in 618 Data (i.e. 618 exiting data) Percentage of Children Exiting who are Included in Outcome Data (%) Data Completeness Score² 657 1041 63.11 1 Data Completeness Score Percent of Part C Children included in Outcomes Data (C3) and 618 Data 0 Lower than 34% 1 34% through 64% 2 65% and above#58Growth in Outcome 70 0 60 60 50 40 20 10 10 Developmental Trajectories E •Functioning like same aged peers Improved functioning to D that of same aged peers C Moved closer to functioning like same aged peers ―Improved functioning, B A no change in trajectory Did not improve functioning 0 06 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 Age in Months#59Empty#60Data Quality: Anomalies in Your State's FFY 2017 Outcomes Data Number of Infants and Toddlers with IFSP's Assessed in your State 657 Outcome A Relationships State Performance Performance (%) Scores Positive Social Category a Category b Category c Category d Category e 3 119 5 129 401 0.46 18.11 1 1 0.76 1 19.63 61.04 1 Outcome B Knowledge and Skills State Performance Performance (%) Scores Category a Category b Category c Category d 1 113 142 218 Category e 183 0.15 1 17.2 21.61 33.18 1 1 1 27.85 1 Outcome C — Actions to Meet Needs Category a Category b State Performance Performance (%) Scores 20 Category c 89 Category d 185 Category e 363 3.04 13.55 28.16 55.25 1 1 1 Data Anomalies Score 0 1 2 Total Score Outcome A +7 Outcome B 5 Outcome C 3 Outcomes A-C 12 Total Points Received in All Progress Areas 0 through 9 points 10 through 12 points 13 through 15 points Data Anomalies Score 1#61Percentiles 10 90 Scoring Percentages for the 10th and 90th Percentile for Each Outcome and Summary Statement, FFY 2017 Outcome A SS1 Outcome A SS2 Outcome B SS1 Outcome B Outcome C Outcome C SS2 SS1 SS2 46.92% 41.66% 54.45% 33.58% 57.09% 40.71% 84.38% 70.99% 84.75% 60.97% 87.99% 75.62% Summary Statement Your State's Summary Statement Performance FFY 2017 Outcome A: Outcome A: Positive Social Positive Social Outcome C: Outcome C: (SS) Performance Relationships Relationships SS1 SS2 Outcome B: Knowledge and Skills SS1 Outcome B: Knowledge and Skills SS2 Actions to Actions to meet needs meet needs SS1 SS2 52.34 80.67 75.95 61.04 93.2 83.41 (%) Points 1 2 1 2 2 2 Data Comparison Score Total Points Received Across SS1 and SS2 0 0 through 4 points 1 5 through 8 points 2 9 through 12 points Total Points Across SS1 and SS2(*) Your State's Data Comparison Score 10 2#62Comparing your State's FFY 2017 data to your State's FFY 2016 data Summary Statement/ Child Outcome FFY 2016 N FFY 2016 Summary Statement (%) FFY 2017 N FFY 2017 Summary Statement (%) Difference between Percentages (%) Std Error z value p-value p<=.05 Score: 0 = significant decrease 1 = no significant change 2 = significant increase SS1/Outcome A: Positive Social 265 51.32 256 52.34 1.02 0.0438 0.2336 0.8153 No 1 Relationships SS1/Outcome B: Knowledge and 508 73.43 474 75.95 2.52 0.0277 0.91 0.3628 No 1 Skills SS1/Outcome C: Actions to meet 303 88.78 294 93.2 4.42 0.0233 1.8936 0.0583 No 1 needs SS2/Outcome A: Positive Social 692 79.62 657 80.67 1.05 0.0217 0.4813 0.6303 No 1 Relationships SS2/Outcome B: Knowledge and 692 59.54 657 61.04 1.5 0.0266 0.5619 0.5742 No 1 Skills SS2/Outcome C: Actions to meet needs 692 82.95 657 83.41 0.46 0.0204 0.2265 0.8208 No 1 Total Points Across SS1 and SS2 6 Indicator 2 Overall Performance Change Score 0 1 Cut Points for Change Over Time in Summary Statements Total Score Lowest score through 3 2 4 through 7 8 through highest Your State's Performance Change Score 1#63LUNCH BREAK **To honor our guest speaker who will be joining us virtually we will begin right at 12:30. Thank you.#64WELCOME BACK!! south dakota BIRTH TO THREE The first three years build a lifetime#65What infrastructure must be in place to support implementation of effective evidence-based practices? Quality Standards Accountability & Quality Improvement Governance Building High-Quality State Systems Data Systems Finance Personnel/Workforce Implementation of Evidence-based Practices Result Positive outcomes for children with disabilities and their families#66IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE#67Family Engagement is key at each stage of the process Evaluation Routines-Based Interview IFSP Functional Outcomes Service Delivery Routines-Based Home Visiting#68Routines-Based Interview Conducted by Service Coordinators Fall 2018: ܀ 2 Service Coordinators achieved fidelity Summer 2019: * 7 Service Coordinators achieved fidelity 10 did not achieve fidelity 1:1 coaching was provided to identify strengths and improvement strategies Going forward Providing individualized coaching and TA to 10 Service Coordinators to help them achieve fidelity of practice#69Bright Beginnings PD for Providers focuses on the following South Dakota Birth to Three Priorities Enhancing Routines- Promoting Family Based Engagement Home Parents' competence, confidence, Visits and effectiveness#70Enhancing Child Outcomes through Family Engagement! 30 4,200#71JORDAN MOUNGA ICC Member / Parent#72BRIGHT BEGINNINGS PD OVERVIEW Routines- Based Interview Bright Beginnings Training Reliability Fidelity Review Review#73Bright Beginnings Professional Development Implementation to date * Early Adopters (2017) ... 6 recognized Bright Beginnings Providers ✰ Pilot (2017) ... 15 recognized Bright Beginnings Providers * Cohort 2 (2018) ... 20 recognized Bright Beginnings Providers Cohort 3 (2019) ... 22 recognized Bright Beginnings Providers ✰ Cohort 4 (2019) ... 22 school district / coop providers began training August 5th Cohort 5 (2020)...... Open for Private Provider Cohort 6 (2020)....... Open for School District / Coop Providers#74Quality Standards What infrastructure must be in place to support implementation of effective evidence-based practices? Accountability & Quality Improvement Governance Building High-Quality State Systems Data Systems Finance Personnel/Workforce Implementation of Evidence-based Practices Result Positive outcomes for children with disabilities and their families#75Federal Grant FUNDING SOURCES State Maintenance of Effort Medicaid (Federal and State MOE) Private Insurance#7676 C Child Count Trends - US and Outlying Areas Ages Birth Through 2, Total, in thousands 400K 390K 380K 370K 16.5% 360K 350K 389K 340K 373K 330K 358K 351K 320K 339K 334K 310K 300K 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 OSEP LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE#77SD PART C CHILD COUNT 2,500 2,000 1,500 December 1 Count | Cumulative Count Linear (Cumulative Count) 2310 2268 2234 2228 2189 2032 1984 1,255 1,158 1,174 1,200 1,216 1,226 1,071 1,000 500 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 16.4%#7838% 0% 11% 1% 33% 17% ■Assistive Technology ■Family Training / Special Instruction ■Occupational Therapy ■Physical Therapy ■Speech Audiology / Vision SERVICES DATA#79400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 TELE-THERAPY#80SD PART C EXITING#8160% 56% 50% 40% SD DATA OVER TIME, 30% 20% 10% 44% Chart Title 46% 0% FFY2017 FFY2018 54%#82TIERED RECOGNITION OF SD BIRTH TO THREE DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDERS Tier 1: Recognized Bright Beginnings Providers Tier 2: Bright Beginnings Trainees Tier 3: Routines Based Interview Trained Tier 4: All Other Providers#83south dakota BIRTH TO THREE The first three years build a lifetime Harding Corson 1g Campbell McPherson 4b 4ab Marshall 4d la Perkins 1a Walworth 4b Edmunds 4ab Brown 4abd Roberts Ic Day 4d, Dewey 1g Potter Faulk Grant 4c Butte la Ziebach 4b 5a Spink 5a 1g Π Sully 19 Clark 4c Codington 4c Hyde Hand Hamlin 4c Deuel 4c Meade Lawrence la la Haakon 1f Stanley 1g Hughes 1g Sa lg Beadle 5a Kingsbury Brookings 5a бе Pennington 1bch Jones 1f Buffalo 1f Lyman If Jerauld 5a Sanborn Mine Lake Moody 6d 6e бе Custer lc Jackson 1f Brule 1f Aurora McCook 3b Davison Mellette Hanson 6d If Fall River 1c Oglala Lakota le Bennett 1f Todd Tripp 3a ld Gregory 3a 3 6d glas Minnehaha 6abcfg Hutchinson Turner 3b lix Bon Homme Yankton 3b 2b Clayton 2bc 6a Lincolm 2ac Birth to Three Program 1.800.305.3064 www.doe.sd.gov/Birthto3/ 1. Black Hills Birth to Three [email protected] a. Crystal Eaton b. Jordan Graham 605.347.4467 605.721.7440 c&d Jennifer Biggers 605.721.7433 2. Southeast Birth to Three 605.763.5096 a. Missy Wartenbee b. Holly Neth 5. Heartland Hands Birth to Three a. Rich Jankord 605.472.4218 c. Lisa Kolb 605.300.0025 605.310.7451 605.496.2647 6. Center for Disabilities Birth to Three (605) 357-1420 or 1-800-658-3080 e. Jen Nelson f. Tricia Amiotte h. Jen Nelson 605.721.7458 3. CORE Birth to Three 605.381.1117 605.337.3178 a. Bridget Amundson b. Mary Fitzpatrick 605.357.1420 605.357.1420 g. Rebecca Poelstra 605.690.9584 605.721.7458 Referrals Fax 605.337.3178 605.337.3180 c. Nicole Saue 605.357.1420 d. Shannon Nelson 605.202-0100 e. Stephanie Krusemark 605.202.0697 4. Hub Area Birth to Three 888.829.0052 a. Kristi Kumpf-Roberts 605.622.5992 f. Amanda O'Neill g. Jamie Butler 605.357.1420 605.357.1420 b. Kelsey Shoultz 605.622.5750 c. Kelly Bradberry d. Kristi Kumpf-Roberts 605.753.5450 605.622-5992 Rvsd: 08/22/19 Service Coordination#84PARTNERSHIPS · South Dakota Developmental Disabilities Grant Black Hills Special Services • 2 Bright Beginnings Cohorts South Dakota Family Engagement Grant ● Birth to 5 focus • • Early Language and Literacy#85L4 3 672 infe ing from a v Azed. cus; focus. to a sm za'tion n. al length second principal the point where converge. Also fostance Ach), Ferdi D of ng d WHAT WE FOCUS ON IS WHAT IMPROVES. fo-cus (to a The point to wh converges after pa other optical arran b ens or a dis 9. 1-19 yste thr t, c 85#86WE ALWAYS FOCUS ON THE MAIN THING Infants and Toddlers and their Families ECTA#87BREAK TIME#88WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE. OSEP has asked for input on the Family Outcome Indicator (C4) ■ It appears OSEP is considering making changes to this indicator ☐ When was last time we took an in depth look at this?#89State Approaches to Family Outcomes Measurement* Part C Indicator 4: FFY 2016 (2016-2017) AK WA ME MT ND MN OR NH SD NY WY MI 2 IA PA NE NJ CA NV OH 5 IN DE CO MD VA KS DC MO KY NC TH AZ OK NM AR SC AL GA MP TX FL GU HI AS Legend: ECO Family Outcomes Survey- Original ECO Family Outcomes Survey- Revised State-developed survey NCSEAM survey PR "This map shows the approaches used to measure the three familly outcomes for APR reporting on Indicator C4. Some states used additional tools/ approaches to measure other family variables.#90DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Should SD Part C consider changing the survey tool that is used for Indicator C4? ■ If so, what is your initial reaction to the other tools we've shared? ■ Or should we consider revising our own survey? 2. Should SD Part C consider making any changes to how the survey is distributed and responses collected? ☐ i.e. Web based#91TAKE AWAY FROM THE DAY?#92THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING