Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends

1
Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and
National Trends

• Kathy T. Whaley, NECTAC,
• Presentation for the
• OSEP Leadership Conference
• August 18, 2009
• Washington, DC

2
Indicator C8 Early Childhood Transition

• Summary of 07-08 APR Analysis

3
Effective General Supervision Part C/Effective
Transition

• Indicator 8 Percent of all children exiting
  Part C who received timely transition planning to
  support the childs transition to preschool and
  other appropriate community services by their
  third birthday including
• A) IFSPs with transition steps and services
• B) Notification to LEA, if child potentially
  eligible for
• Part B
• C) Transition conference, if child potentially
  eligible
• for Part B.

4
IDEA Regulatory Basis for Indicator

• IFSPs with transition steps and services,
  regulations specify that The IFSP must include
  the steps to be taken to support the transition
  of the child, in accordance with 303.148
  303.344(h).
• Notification to LEA, if child potentially
  eligible for Part B, Part C regulations specify
  that the Lead Agency will "Notify the local
  education agency for the area in which the child
  resides that the child will shortly reach the age
  of eligibility for preschool services under Part
  B" 303.148(b)(1).
• Transition conference, if child potentially
  eligible for Part B, Part C regulations specify
  that In the case of child who may be eligible
  for preschool services under Part B of the Act,
  with the approval of the family of the child,
  the lead agency will convene a conference among
  the lead agency, the family, and the local
  educational agency 303.148(b)(2)(i).

5
Overall Trends Across Sub indicators

• More states report higher rates of compliance in
  notifying LEAs of potentially eligible children
  (8B) and documenting transition steps within the
  IFSP (8A) than for holding transition conferences
  (8C)
• More states report full and substantial
  compliance regarding Notification to LEA (8B)
• All states reported data on all sub indicators.

6
Full and Substantial Compliance

• Percentage of states at full or substantial
  compliance
• C8A 70
• 19 states at 100, 20 states at 95-99 (39
  states)
• C8B 80
• 32 states at 100, 13 states at 95-99 (45
  states)
• C8C 55
• 13 states at 100, 18 states at 95-99 (31
  states)

6
7
Progress 07-08

• IFSP Steps (8A) 31 states made progress
• (10 maintained 100)
• Notification (8B) 22 states made progress
• (23 maintained 100)
• Conference (8C) 34 states made progress
• (5 maintained 100)

7
8
(No Transcript)
9
Progress attributed to
9
10
Slippage 07-08

• IFSPs with Transition Steps/Services (N12)
• Notification to LEA (N9)
• Transition Conference (N13)
• Reasons given
• Inaccurate or changing data systems/sources
• Issues of data entry and reporting
• IFSPs needed elements and instructions for
  documenting transition
• Unclear policies
• Staff shortages

10
11
National Issues Part C

• 90 Day Conference
• Difficulty scheduling the meeting with required
  participants
• Late referrals to the system
• Clarifying role and level of participation by LEA
• Clarifying policies for timeline requirements
• Differentiating between referral and LEA
  notification policies

12
National Issues Part C

• Data Capacity
• Inability to report on all sub-indicators
• Missing required data elements such as the
  ability to identify exceptional family
  circumstances causing delays in conference
  timelines
• Accuracy of data entry
• Ability to generate reports to assist with data
  verification as part of monitoring
• Data sharing with Part B and processes for
  notification

13
Part C Improvement Activities

• Efforts to improve systems administration,
  general supervision and monitoring
• Training, TA and professional development
• Improving collaboration and coordination with
  Part B and other community services
• Improving data system capacity
• Examining, developing and clarifying policies and
  procedures

14
Themes

• Improving data collection, record keeping, data
  analysis and data sharing
• Clarifying policies and aligning the consistency
  of policies across C and 619
• Improving communication and collaboration across
  Part C and 619
• Training and TA linked to monitoring and
  correction of non-compliance, often cross-agency.
• Collaborative and joint training efforts with
  Part B, Section 619

14
15
Indicator B12 Early Childhood Transition

• Summary of 07-08 APR Analysis

16
Effective General Supervision Part BEffective
Transition

• INDICATOR 12 Percent of children referred by
  Part C prior to age 3 and who are found eligible
  for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and
  implemented by their third birthday.

17
IDEA Regulatory Basis for Indicator

• IDEA specifies that, in order for a state to be
  eligible for a grant under Part B, it must have
  policies and procedures that ensure that,
  Children participating in early intervention
  programs assisted under Part C, and who will
  participate in preschool programs assisted under
  this part Part B experience a smooth and
  effective transition to those preschool programs
  in a manner consistent with 637(a)(9). By the
  third birthday of such a child an individualized
  education program has been developed and is being
  implemented for the child Section 612 (a)(9).

18
Overall Trends Across Indicator

• States show steady progress by national average
  of reported data
• Baseline 72
• FFY 06-07 84
• FFY 07-08 92)
• Changes to data systems decreased performance for
  some states but considered more accurate

19
(No Transcript)
20
Progress and Slippage

• 34 States reported progress
• 6 States reported slippage
• 4 States unable to calculate
• 9 states reported no change in performance
• (all performing at 95 or higher)

21
Full and Substantial Compliance

• Full Compliance
• 06-07 N 5 States
• 07-08 N10 States
• Substantial Compliance
• 06-07 N 14 States
• 07-08 N 19 States
• 29 States Reporting Substantial Compliance or
  higher as compared to 19 States in prior
  reporting period

21
22
Progress Attributed To

• Improvements of Data Collection and Analysis
  Processes (1)
• Training, TA and Policy Clarification (2)
• Improved Collaboration with Part C and other
  entities (3)
• Improvements to monitoring processes and other
  factors
• (31 out of 34 states provided an explanation for
  progress)

23
Slippage Attributed to

• Most states reporting slippage reported
  performance above 95
• Only 4 out of 6 provided explanation
• Presence of specific LEAs in monitoring cycle,
  moving from a monitoring approach to statewide
  reporting
• Difficulty in conducting timely evaluations
• Staffing capacity
• Late referrals from Part C

24
National Issues Part B

• Data Capacity
• Inability to report on all measurement components
  and requirements (Much Better!)
• Missing required data elements such as the range
  of days beyond the third birthday when
  eligibility was determined and the IEP developed.
  (Much Better!)
• difficulty determining Measurement D which
  describes the number of children for whom parent
  refusal to provide consent caused delays in
  evaluation or initial services. (Still An Issue!)

25
The NA2 States - Progress
26
National Issues Part B

• Data Capacity
• inability to merge and share data systems with
  Part C for verification of 618 exit data
• assignment of student identifiers
• implementing new automated or Web-based systems
• Still An Issue..

27
National Issues Part B

• Coordination/Collaboration
• late referrals from Part C that created delays in
  timelines for determining eligibility
• delays in scheduling meetings and conferences
• delays in conducting evaluations.
• Data sharing

28
National Issues Part B

• Policy and Procedures
• Child find and Part C notification procedures
• Part C referral
• Timelines for initial evaluations, eligibility
  determination, and implementation of IEPs,
• Summer birthdays
• Family and Life Issues

29
Part B Improvement Activities

• Training, TA and Professional Development (1)
• Improve Data Collection and Reporting (2)
• Collaboration and Coordination (3)
• Efforts to improve systems administration,
  general
• supervision and monitoring (4)
• Examining, developing and clarifying policies and
  procedures (5)

30
Themes

• Better data!
• Better monitoring of compliance requirements
• MOUs and improved collaboration with Part C
• Clarified policies and guidance
• Collaborative training and TA
• Inconsistencies across states in policies
  regarding reasons for delay
• Delays in Initial evaluation
• Late referrals

31
Transition TA Resources

• National Early Childhood Transition
  Initiativehttp//www.nectac.org/topics/transition
  /ectransitionta.asp
• National Early Childhood Transition Center
  http//www.hdi.uky.edu/NECTC/Home.aspx
• NECTAC Resource Collection on Transition from
  Part C to Preschoolhttp//www.nectac.org/topics/t
  ransition/transition.aspSPP/APR Calendar
  Technical Assistance Related to SPP Indicators
  and Determinationshttp//spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnet
  work.org/techassistance.html