1 / 26

Measuring Outcomes: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?

Measuring Outcomes: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?. Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008 Jennifer Tschantz, OSEP. Session Objectives. Share highlights from the last several years Celebrate accomplishments Review timeline for the future

Download Presentation

Measuring Outcomes: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Measuring Outcomes: Where Have We Been, Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? Measuring Child and Family Outcomes Conference August 2008 Jennifer Tschantz, OSEP

  2. Session Objectives • Share highlights from the last several years • Celebrate accomplishments • Review timeline for the future • Discuss future issues, challenges, and opportunities

  3. Why the focus on early childhood outcomes? • Improve results for young children with disabilities and their families • Meeting a need in the field • Development of outcomes for general early childhood programs • Address GPRA and PART

  4. Where Have We Been?

  5. Federal Accountability • 1994 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) • 2002 Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) • Both Part C and Part B Preschool categorized as “Results Not Demonstrated” due to lack of outcome data. • OMB recommended OSEP develop a strategy for collecting outcome data

  6. OSEP’s Early Strategy • Key investments: • 2003 OSEP funds the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center • General Supervision Enhancement Grants (GSEGs) (2004 = 18; 2006 = 9) • Short-term/long-term approach • On-going Stakeholder Involvement • State performance plan / annual performance report (SPP/APR)

  7. Early Approach • Short-term: obtain data from the States regarding child and family outcome GPRA indicators used to assess program performance at the Federal Level • Long-term: support the development of State early childhood outcome data collection used for program improvement by States, local programs and service providers

  8. Child and Family Outcomes • 2004-early 2005: ECO generates discussion and gathers input on child and family outcomes • Summer 2005: OSEP announces the child and family outcomes States must report on through their SPP/APRs • December 2005: States submit plans via SPP on how they will collect outcome data

  9. Part C and 619 Child Outcomes Percent of children who demonstrate improved: • Positive social emotional skills (including positive social relationships) • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication [and early literacy]) • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

  10. Part C: Family Outcomes • Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family: • Know their rights • Effectively communicate their children’s needs • Help their children develop and learn

  11. Part B (including preschool): Family Involvement • Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities

  12. Child and Family Outcomes (cont.) • April & Sept. 2006: OSEP revises child outcome reporting categories

  13. Child Outcome ProgressReporting Categories a. % of children who did not improve functioning b. % of children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers c. % of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it d. % of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers e. % of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

  14. Early Outcome Data Submitted • Feb 2007: States submit “status at entry” child outcome data and baseline data for family outcomes • Feb 2008: States submit very early child outcome progress data!!

  15. Where Are We Now?

  16. Where are we now? • All States sent in child outcome data in Feb. 2008, some with very low n • Most States are collecting these data for program improvement purposes as well as for federal reporting • Focus over the next few years is on the quality of the data

  17. Current Approach • Short-term: obtain child and family outcome data from the States used to assess program performance at the Federal Level while also supporting the State outcome data collection used for program improvement • Long-term: Build high quality outcomes systems that yield reliable and valid data that can be used for program improvement and accountability

  18. Proposed Summary Statements • OSEP has proposed summary statements for States to use to set targets. • Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in the Outcome Area, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exit the program. • Summary Statement 2: The percent of children who are functioning within age expectations in the Outcome Area by the time they exit the program. • Bring questions/comments to Plenary Session Thursday morning

  19. Where Are We Going?

  20. Timeline – Child Outcomes • Feb 2009: 2nd time States report progress data • Feb 2010: 3rd time States report progress data. This will be considered Baseline; States set targets using summary statements • Feb 2011: States report progress data, calculate summary statements and compare to target • Feb 2012: States report progress data, calculate summary statements and compare to target

  21. Future Issue – Building High Quality Outcome Systems • Focus next several years needs to be on quality and use of outcome data • Highlights from Early Childhood Outcomes Center Re-compete (to be awarded September 2008) • Work with small number of States to develop, implement and evaluate a high quality outcomes system framework • Work directly with States to increase their capacity to develop and maintain high-quality outcome systems

  22. Future Issue – Improving Outcomes • What happens once we have good data? How do we improve outcomes? • Focus has to be on improving outcomes through a system of resources and improved policies and practices

  23. A System for Producing Good Child and Family Outcomes Adequate Funding Research Improvedoutcomes for children and families High quality services and supports for children 0-5 and their families Good Federalpolicies and programs Good State policies and programs Good Local policies and programs Strong Leadership StrongLeadership Technical Assistance • Prof’l Development • Preservice • Inservice Evidence-based Practice

  24. OSEP Early Childhood Technical Assistance Investments • CELL – Center for Early Literacy Learning • TACSEI – Technical Assistance Center on Social-Emotional Interventions • NPDCI – National Professional Development Center on Inclusion • CONNECT – Center to Mobilize Early Childhood Knowledge • NECTAC - National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

  25. Improving Outcomes –OSEP Activities Funding early childhood “content” TA centers with focus on state capacity and scaling up Emphasis on Evidence-based Practice (EBP) in the curricula of personnel development grants Interagency work / TA coordination State Professional Development Grants (SPDGs)

  26. Thank You!!

More Related