• Logo: DaSy
  • Logo: ECTA Center
  • Logo: IDC
  • Logo: NCSI
 

Communicating Implementation Progress and Outcomes

During Phase II, states developed strategies and processes including feedback loops to support effective communication of SSIP implementation and progress toward achieving desired outcomes. These strategies and processes were designed to support meaningful interaction with stakeholders regarding the plan and provide implementation and planning teams with the communication processes and protocols needed to review implementation barriers, leverage implementation successes, and make adjustments in implementation as needed.

In Phase III, effective and timely communication will be essential to successful implementation and to achieving desired outcomes. Information from implementers will flow to the state implementation and planning teams to convey related barriers, successes, and outcomes. The implementation and planning teams will need to communicate on a regular basis to review data and information provided through feedback loops. This will enable the teams to make adjustments in policy, implementation, and resources as needed and to convey these changes to local programs and practitioners. This feedback loop between the state and local programs and practitioners will support effective and successful communication.

Considerations

  • Review the communication strategies and processes developed in Phase II to determine if adjustments need to be made to support implementation and evaluation activities in Phase III.
  • Ensure that communication protocols and feedback loops are in place and are being effectively utilized to support communication across all levels of the state system.
  • Ensure the messaging regarding the SSIP implementation and outcomes is reflective of the work and is current. Adjustments should be made as needed.
  • Continue to engage existing stakeholders and review their roles and responsibilities. Identify and engage new stakeholders as appropriate.
  • Disseminate information about implementation and evaluation to all stakeholder groups and intentionally utilize feedback to inform adjustments to the plan.

Tools and Resources: Evaluating Process and Outcomes

  • This document provides a list of recommended resources to support evaluation planning for program improvement efforts including the SSIP. Resources relevant to early intervention and preschool special education are included in the list, which will be updated as new and relevant resources become available.

    Source: Winer, A., Nelson, R., Kahn, L., Derrington, T., Davies-Mercier, E., Cochenour, M., and Copa, N. (2015). Recommended resources for planning to evaluate improvement efforts. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/topics/ssip/plan_eval_program_improvement.pdf

  • This guide describes key steps for developing a well thought out plan for evaluating an SSIP. The guide provides considerations for how to incorporate each step into an evaluation plan, as well as a series of worksheets that correspond to each step and can be used to facilitate the planning process. Preferred use of the guide, along with its corresponding worksheets, is by TA providers in partnership with state staff.

    Source: IDEA Data Center. (2015). A guide to SSIP evaluation planning. Retrieved from https://ideadata.org/resource-library/5697cca3140ba0ca5c8b4599/

  • This sample action plan template was designed by DaSy, ECTA, IDC, and NCSI to provide states with a suggested format and examples of potential content for their Phase II SSIP improvement and evaluation plan. States should feel free to adapt the template or use one that best meets their needs and communicates how they will implement and evaluate their SSIP in Phase III. This template is based on a logic model approach. It links activities and steps needed to implement the improvement strategies with intended outcomes and uses the activities and outcomes as the basis for the evaluation plan.

    Source: Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center). (2015). Sample SSIP action plan template. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~docs/topics/ssip/ssip_improvement_plan_template.doc

  • This resource was designed by the National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) to provide states with a sample approach and tool to plan and track measures of State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) implementation. This resource will assist states in addressing the SSIP requirements laid out in the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B and Part C Indicator Measurement Tables and the SSIP Phase II OSEP Guidance and Review Tool, which call for the evaluation of implementation as well as outcomes.

    Source: National Center for Systemic Improvement. (2016). Implementation evaluation matrix. Retrieved from http://ncsi.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Implementation_Evaluation_Matrix-1.docx

  • This national webinar was hosted by NCSI, ECTA, and DaSy for state Part B and Part C staff and focused on strategies for assessing the impact of SSIP infrastructure improvements. Representatives from two state departments of education and two state Part C programs participated in a “virtual state panel” and shared their experiences with implementing infrastructure changes as well as their approaches to assessing the impact of those changes on their SSIP improvement strategies and ultimately, their SIMR.

    Source: National Center for Systemic Improvement. (2016). Assessing impact of infrastructure improvements. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/169687158

  • The presentation focuses on how to use high-quality data to support effective implementation. Information is included on the use of data for decision-making and improvement and the conditions under which high-quality data can make the most difference.

    Source: Blasé, K. (2015). Building implementation capacity: Data to drive change. Retrieved from https://ideadata.org/resource-library/55c8c10b140ba0a8218b4574/

  • This white paper focuses on factors that could lead Part C or Part B state agencies to propose changes in their SIMR baselines or targets. The paper addresses questions that state agency personnel should propose when establishing baselines and targets and considerations that may need to be addressed when revising targets.

    Source: Ruggiero, T. and Kahn, L. (2015). Considerations for Making Changes to SIMR Baseline and Targets. Retrieved from https://ideadata.org/resource-library/5682b8ab140ba0fb0f8b45a7/

  • This research brief, which is available from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, addresses the importance of incorporating quality measures into the implementation evaluation process. Examples are provided on how quality and quantity constructs are assessed and examined in relation to early care and education program outcomes.

    Downer J. and Yazejian, N. (2013). Measuring the quality and quantity of implementation in early childhood interventions. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/measuring-the-quality-and-quantity-of-implementation-in-early-childhood

  • This brief offers examples of how quality and quantity constructs are assessed and examined in relation to early care and education program outcomes.

    Source: Smith, B. J., Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Strain, P., Trivette, C. M., Perez Binder, D., Bovey, T., McCullough, K., & Blase, K. (2015). Planning guide to statewide implementation, scale-up, and sustainability of recommended practices. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/implement_ebp/ECTA_RP_StateGuide_2-2015.pdf

  • This assessment tool is for home visiting program leadership teams to use in assessing their status in the critical elements of program-wide implementation.

    Source: Trivette, C. and Jones, A. (2015). Reaching potential through recommended practices (RP2): Benchmarks of quality for home-visiting programs. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/calls/2015/decrp-2015-02-11/Benchmarks_Home%20Visiting.pdf

  • This assessment tool is for preschool special education programs’ leadership teams to use in assessing their status in the critical elements of program-wide implementation.

    Source: Trivette, C. and Jones, A. (2015). Reaching potential through recommended practices (RP2): Benchmarks of quality for classroom-based programs. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/calls/2015/decrp-2015-02-11/Benchmarks_Home%20Visiting.pdf

  • These activities will support evaluation teams in designing and developing fidelity assessments. The Designing a Fidelity Assessment activity allows teams to identify, categorize, and discuss challenges to implementing a fidelity assessment.

    Source: National Implementation Research Network and State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center. (2016). Designing a fidelity assessment. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resources/activity-7-1-designing-fidelity-assessment

  • These activities will support evaluation teams in designing and developing fidelity assessments. Once the essential components or functions of the EBPs have been identified, the Developing a Fidelity Assessment activity will support teams in brainstorming fidelity assessments.

    Source: National Implementation Research Network and State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center. (2016). Developing a fidelity assessment. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resources/activity-7-2-fidelity-module-7-capstone-developing-fidelity-assessment

  • This website can support teams in evaluating and planning for coaching and training systems and implementing and assessing best practices.

    Source: National Implementation Research Network and State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices Center. (2016). Resource library: Evaluation and planning tools. Drivers. Retrieved from http://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resources/results/taxonomy%3A23%2C40

Links on this site are verified monthly. This page content was last updated on 2016-08-29 AML

Content hosted by The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

  • CB 8040
  • Chapel Hill, NC 27599-8040
  • phone: 919.962.2001
  • fax: 919.966.7463
  • email: ectacenter@unc.edu

The contents of this guide were developed under cooperative agreement numbers #H326R140006 (DaSy), #H326P120002 (ECTA Center), #H373Y130002 (IDC) and #H326R140006 (NCSI) from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Project Officers: Meredith Miceli & Richelle Davis(DaSy), Julia Martin Eile (ECTA Center), Richelle Davis & Meredith Miceli (IDC), and Perry Williams & Shedeh Hajghassemali (NCSI)

  • OSEP's TA&D Network:
  • IDEAs that Work