State Experiences with the SPP Part C Programs Respond
The SPP required for Part C Lead Agencies (LAs) includes different indicators than those outlined in Part B programs and relates to the service delivery systems that are unique in service provision for infants and toddlers. Part C Lead Agencies in this region vary from Departments of Education, Health, Human Services, Developmental Disabilities, and Work Force Services. While all Lead Agencies are working toward the same indicators and outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, the local structure is very different in each State, and the methods for gathering consistent and reliable data for State improvement is often different. In the Mountain Plains region, two States have provided examples of how they have embraced the SPP in planning and improving services: Andy Gomm, Part C Coordinator in New Mexico, and Susan Ord in Utah. Many of their responses will be reflective of other issues identified across the Mountain Plains States.
How has the SPP changed daily Lead Agency operations? Andy: The New Mexico Family Infant Toddler (FIT) Program has to spend a significant amount of time each week in working on data collection methodology and issues related to the SPP. Specific issues that we are working on include the Early Childhood and Family Outcomes, transition data, timely data collection.
Susan: The Indicators drive our data system. We have had to add some data elements and create new reports. We are also making some changes to our monitoring system to align with the Indicators. The staff person who is in charge of monitoring frequently consults the SPP to see if she is on track with the proposed activities. We have also become more aware of our need for a statistician to work with our data.
What is the greatest opportunity offered by the SPP?
Andy: The FIT Program has instituted and Annual Performance Report for our local provider agencies that mirrors many of the SPP indicators. This report acts like a self-assessment at the local level and includes baseline data analysis, one year annual targets, and improvement strategies to meet targets.
Susan: The indicators provide a structure and direction. We like the long-range planning nature and the commitment of being able to provide ongoing data in the SPP/APR cycles. I also like the accountability and the requirement to report to the public at the program level. This will enhance compliance. Local programs are motivated to take the data seriously and be sure that noncompliance is resolved in a timely manner.
What has been the greatest challenge of the SPP? Andy: Developing methodology to collect data that is not in our current data base. We are also waiting for more information about how OSEP will require us to measure timely delivery of IFSP services.
Susan: We’ve struggled with the Child Find Indicators 5 and 6. Because Utah has such a high birth rate, our population of infants and toddlers increases significantly each year. Concurrently, we had to set targets to serve an increasing percentage of the population each year. Without additional money and staff, our programs are struggling to serve all the children they find. We are concerned that with the most effective Child Find system, the percentage will max out in time. We are concerned, also, about the comparison with other States because of the uniqueness of the population across different locations.
Another challenge has been in reporting to the public. With the rural nature of the State, there are many very small programs, so the data won’t be very meaningful on a local level. We will have to find a way to deal with that.
Has anything unique happened in your State around the development of the SPP? Andy: Working on the Early Childhood Outcomes has provided opportunities for collaboration and increased understanding and communication across Part C and Part B-619 at the local level. Preschool staff and administrators with local FIT providers have found a real sense of commitment to move forward together and promote alignment— even though the details of the two systems may look a little different.
Susan: We had great involvement from our early intervention providers in development of the SPP. We took the opportunity to involve a provider early in the process. This individual, who is also a member of our ICC, attended the Summer Institute with us. She was instrumental in developing our plan for measuring child outcomes. Also, all EI providers served on committees to develop different sections of the SPP. Knowing this was the direction that we are to follow and be accountable for the next five years provided the impetus for everyone to have some ownership of it.
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 September 2006 )
|
