Data Integration Webinar


Please check out the attachments pod right to the right of the PowerPoint. You’ll see that the PowerPoint slides from
today can be downloaded. This presentation was made possible by the
preschool development grant birth through five initiative from the Office of Child Care,
Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Education. We’re excited to welcome our expert from AEM and the states today. Without further ado, I’m just going to turn
this over for a couple words of wisdom from Jim Lesko.>>JIM LESKO: Thank you, Evelyn. Well, welcome, everyone that’s on the phone
today. So today we are concluding our four-part series
on integrated data with the Preschool Development Grant birth to five project. We have had three previous communities of
conversation. One on data governance, the second one on
data privacy, and a third conversation around the use of a single ID. So today we’re bringing all that information
together to address the issue of what an integrated data system can and would look like. I’m happy to introduce bill Huennekens and
Tony Ruggiero. They hail from the AEM Corporation and part
of their data team. They were part of an earlier webinar. Tony was part of an earlier webinar process
and Bill is joining the group today. We want to remind everybody that the invited
participants, some of you may have heard earlier, include all of the PDG B- 5 grantees and we
also encourage the grantees to include their partners and consultants that they may have
involved in their project. On the line today as well are all of the PDG
B- 5TA team members. Likely have many of the project officers and
regional office staff also listening in, as well as some of our other PDG B- 5 TA partners,
specifically the State Capacity Building Center and their colleague also part of the Office
of Child Care, communities of conversation are always voluntary. Hopefully the States find it worth while to
participate. We will have select presentations and resources
made available. There’s an open discussion and dialogue. The lines are muted for the time being. If you do have questions that surface during
this conversation today, we do encourage you to put them into the chat. And we’ll make sure that the presenters are
aware of those questions and we’ll do our best to get to those questions during the
conversation today. We will specifically focus on the early childhood
integrated data system ECIDS conversation. That will be an overview. We’ll have participate questions and discussion. We have three states that have — that we
are so fortunate to have volunteered to be a part of the conversation. They will join us later in the presentation. We’ll look at a series of best practices. And then we’ll have some concluding remarks. So I’m going to turn this back over to Bill
and Tony to start the presentation. So take it away.>>Great, thank you very much, Jim. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. To kick us off we have a question for you. What do you think of when you hear the term
early childhood data integration? Please enter one or two words into the chat
box that come to mind when you think of early childhood data integration: We see people
enting in chat, coordinated systems, time, state-wide data, ROI, return on investment. Wow. Complicated, difficult, streamlined, all great
answers. Things we need to keep in mind as we plan,
develop, and implement our integrated data systems. Thank you. What is an ECIDS? It’s an early childhood integrated data system
that collects, integrates, maintains, stores, and reports information from early childhood
programs across multiple agencies within a state that serve children and families from
birth to age eight. The birth to age eight some like to go with
age five, that’s dependent upon the state and their stakeholders. Another key word is report. We’re starting to think about or we are thinking
about data use when we are building these systems. We’ll have a little more on that in a bit. Typically the data included in ECIDS are related
to the individual child, the child’s family, classrooms, programs, and or providers and
other services that provide comprehensive care and education for young children and
for our young students. I do want to mention before we move any further
that integrated efforts take place, not only in an ECIDS but it also integrates early childhood
data into their state longitudinal data systems as well. We’ll also have a little more on that later. And you will hear different perspectives from
our state guests today in terms of the systems that they’re working with. Here we see a graph that shows the different
domains, child, family, classroom, program, and workforce data that can contribute into
an integrated early childhood system. Examples of programs that feed into this data
system are public primary education, K-3, head start, and early head start. State pre-K. Home visiting. For example, a state program for parents and
teaches. Part B Section 619 which is preschool special
education andphile child care. It could be public child care. Contributing to effort, this provides greater
opportunities to ask more complex program and policy questions whereas, a single data
set within a single office may not be able to address, which helps us to ultimately use
the data to make informed program and policy decisions. The broad purpose of an ECIDS is to provide
integrated cross-program data that inform decisions about early childhood policies,
services, and education. The State’s early childhood leadership team
should find and drive the specific purposes. We’ll talk a little bit about that on the
next slide with program and olicy questions. This helps support the State goals and meet
the information needs of the intended users or stakeholders of this integrated effort. Here we see essential questions from the early
childhood data collaborative. And they address the individual child level
data that can be put into an integrated system. It also addresses characteristics associated
with positive outcomes for children. It looks at program data. What is the cost of a high quality program,
for example. And then as you can see a couple workforce
related questions in here as well. This is a great place to start. When I was in Delaware, we used these as our
foundations to look at our state. The nice thing about these questions is they’re
broad enough where when you share them with stakeholders or your counterparts and other
agencies, that everybody can see these questions and identify how they’re able to contribute
through the integrated effort. As you can see in talking about stakeholders,
here’s some examples of stakeholders who are not only intended data users, people who will
use the data once the system is built, but also people who should be involved or engaged
from the beginning, from planning to designing to implementing integrated data systems. As you can see, we have policy makers, state
agency, leadership, early childhood leadership, parents and families are always key in everything
we do in early childhood and in education. Our service providers. Our service providers can help us, for example,
test the systems we’re building. To see if we’re providing the reports correctly
or reports asked to be built. And then researchers, another great way to
broaden the use of our data and to encourage people to use our data. So what we have here — so what is the difference
between an ECIDS and an SLDS? The primary difference between these two systems
are the sectors that are included within each one. So ECIDS bring together data between multiple
programs in agencies. SLDS brings together numerous sectors. In SLDS it typically belongs to a P20W effort. Some refer to it at P20 and some P20W plus. And essentially these systems are being built
to look at data longitudinally from — they’re actually looking at longitudinal data from
birth all the way through early childhood, through educational experiences all the way
through the workforce. And in turn, an ECIDS is designed to answer
questions focused on early childhood as we just saw. And an SLDS is designed to answer questions
that span more than one sector. In many states these systems are being designed
simultaneously. So it is important for states to establish
the distinct purpose of each system and to leverage the commonalities and share best
practices and lessons learned. They may be two different systems, but there’s
an opportunity or opportunities for folks working on ECIDS to learn from those working
on an SLDS and vice versa Is an ECIDS is being planned and being built
when an SLD already exists, it’s important for that communication to exist for the potential
to bring some of that data that’s going into that early childhood integrated system into
that state longitudinal data system. With that, I will turn it over to Bill Huennekens.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you very much. Welcome, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with
you about ECIDS. So before diving into the next slide, I see
we have two questions. First from Cody, how can states move towards
an ECIDS when shared definitions for eligibility, quality, et cetera, are not yet established? Well, moving toward those shared definitions
would be part of doing ECIDS work. It’s part of what — that governance around
definitions for elements, governance around business rules are all part of what you need
to do in this process and in this work. They’re kind of — doing that is one and the
same with doing ECIDS work. I think that’s maybe a good question that
our — some of our state folks may have some experience doing that they can share with
us. We’ll revisit that one. Next, what is a P20 W.
So P20W really just in the vernacular in the SLDS world in the state longitudinal data
really just means early learning to school age to post-secondary, so 20, so like college,
graduate school and so forth and workforce. It’s a data system that is designed, as Tony
said, longitudinally to essentially pull data together and make it available for study analysis
used to improve outcomes across that whole spectrum. So next I see is the info graphic of the ECIDS
something that can be shared? I am sure that we can work with Jim and company
to get that shared out. Okay. So let me go on then to the next — I don’t
want to go past that one too quickly. So data system design. It’s really a four-stage process. ECIDS is a data system that integrates early
childhood education, health, social service information from key participating state agencies. System design can take on many different meanings
and definitions, depending on how it is applied for all ECIDS projects, system design is a
component of a larger system life cycle. It can be very complex, IT process to design
and translate a state’s need into a technical solution. This process often involves four stages that
we’ll talk more in depth. Assessment, design, develop and implementation. In the assessment stage, states review their
mission and vision and make sure that the goal of the ECIDS will be met by the system
design. You don’t want to design a system just to
design it. You want to design it to meet your needs,
your mission, your vision. From there they can have state their business
requirements and identify which requirements to prioritize. Also create data sharing agreements amongst
agencies that will contribute data to the ECIDS. While this is considered one of the most challenging
aspects of system design, it is a critical piece that will help various stakeholders
understand what data is being shared and how that data can be used. What they’re going to get out of it. So next in design, the second stage, the most
important technical stage. During the design phase states determine the
type of model they would like to implement in the integrated data system, federal or
hybrid approach. We’ll talk about those later. For many the choice of the model depends on
the culture of the agency involved and the degree of comfort the state has with sharing
data. Many times there could be regulation or laws
involved as well. Business rules determine how data are extracted
and to what degree the data will be integrated depending on how the data will be matched
and linked together, these business rules may cover processes for transforming data
as they enter the ECIDS. Many data elements will be unique to their
source system, there may be data elements such as those with similar names code sets
or definitions that will need to be reconciled in data governance. Data governance again is something that is
crucial to this process. During the design phase, states should also
do the following: Perform an inventory of current systems and the data that is available
in these systems. As states are approached with policy questions,
an inventory of current data will help them recognize if the right data are available
to answer the questions or inform research projects. This inventory should also identify any restrictions
on the use of that data. The common education data standards is an
excellent tool to do this work that more technical assistance can be provided on. Heavily documents — documentation will continue
to be an important tool as the system is designed and developed. Next use a unique reliable identifier in data
matching process. The use of the UID or other identifiable matching
data is the backbone of a state’s data system. A resulting analysis would be difficult to
use without it. Finally, describe desired features of the
system because an integrated data system is theoretical. States should create screenshots and handouts
to help stakeholders understand the system. Essential tables of data that you want to
see. Get something concrete for stakeholders to
look at and to use. So next we have development. At the development stage states should adopt
a development life cycle process. Project management is a crucial step in the
development stage and make sure data points are bringing brought in. Engage a vendor, request for proposal and
managing the work of vendors once they’re brought on board with the project. Finally we have implementation. What all the work has led up to and if the
work has been done diligently and has been done with care. This is where you start to see success. In the final stage of implementation, states
should be ready to the end user. The ECIDS should be stable and secure and
all measures need to have been taken to ensure confidentiality and compliance with federal,
state, and local regulation. So an awful lot goes into it. But in terms of designing the system, if you
look at the assessment, design, development, and implement, you will have a good high-level
path. So let’s dive into the model one more time
or a little more deeply and the type of systems that you can design. A centralized system. So once data in a centralized system is integrated
and that has occurred in a centralized system, the data linkages are loaded into a central
database or warehouse where it can be used for multiple purposes such as reports and
extracts. This integration is remaining, it’s stable. It’s something that will be held over time
in a centralized system. In a federated model, data sets are made from
linked data but don’t persist after each use. The linkages are generated after every request. The advantage is that a centralized data warehouse
is not needed. They oftentimes do have repeated ongoing work
to meet specific needs or requests for data. Now as with all things, there’s hybrid or
there are systems in between. A hybrid data model combines aspects of the
federated and centralized data models. A model that uses the records are maintained
but the records themselves are not necessarily linked. That’s a little bit more in depth. But obviously you could go a lot more into
it in collaboration with IT and technical folks in a lot more detail than this. Hopefully that gives you an understanding
of what we reference when we talk about a centralized, federated or hybrid model. With that, I will turn it over to Tony, who
I believe has another poll question.>>TONY RUGGIERO: Thank you, Bill. So as part of your early childhood data integration
effort is your data in an ECIDS or if a P20 + SLDS. Please enter ECIDS, SLDS or if you’re just
starting with your planning or still deciding, let us know, or if you’re absolutely unsure,
you can say you don’t know. (Participants answering poll question).>>TONY RUGGIERO: Wow. Very good mix.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: That’s what I was thinking,
Tony. A good mix.>>TONY RUGGIERO: Yes, absolutely. (Overlapping Speakers).>>BILL HUENNEKENS: A good number of folks
are still in the planning phase. So hopefully the information is of value.>>TONY RUGGIERO: Absolutely along with good
opportunities to learn from each other as well across states. Thank you, everyone, for participating in
our poll. Ill I’m going to turn it back over to Bill. We’re going to have our discussion with our
state guests.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: All right. Thank you, Tony. So I would like to introduce Steven with the
early childhood Utah health — he is the early childhood Utah health program coordinator
with the Utah department of health. Howard is the state-wide coordinator with
the early childhood division at the Texas agency. And Alejandra is the director of early childhood
services at the department of children, youth and families in New Mexico. Folks, thank you very much for joining. And hopefully you’ve thought about that first
question we had from the audience. That’s where I would like to begin since it’s
something they identified as a need. So could one of you or more of you speak to
your experience with coming to shared definitions, things around eligibility or quality, those
kinds of things that governance process that needs to be gone through in the early stages
of doing ECIDS work.>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: Good afternoon. This is Alejandra from New Mexico. Of course. Our work started with race to the top. There was a lot of discussion between the
three main agencies that oversee early childhood programs. One of the pieces that we worked together
was to define quality and identify essential elements of quality that can be addressed
across different early childhood sectors and agree upon some of the data elements that
we wanted to collect. From there we then went on to discuss some
of the pieces on how to collect the data at the program level and how to start establishing
some rules that we can all agree on. So that took us a few years. It didn’t happen overnight. This is work we have been doing for the last
five years. We feel that we are a place now that we have
some definitions that have been agreed upon. But it does require a lot of discussion, a
lot of compromising. A lot of things you have to have in place
in how you collect that data. For us the biggest challenge was to identify
those essential qualities of element for an early childhood quality program.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thanks for sharing. I really like that that you talk about that
— that it took some time, that you went about it and established those rules and having
those discussions, you talk about it taking a lot of discussions is definitely my experience
when I was doing this type of work in Washington state. The more of those discussions you have, the
more you spend time getting on the same page documenting those rules and definitions and
so forth, the better it is in the end. And you spend less time actually working with
folks doing the coding and the actual IT work. So Howard, anything else to add to that question?>>HOWARD MORRISON: Yeah. This is Howard speaking. Relating to our state-wide longitudinal system
for our application, so we have Texas education data standards. So this is a collection of data standards
that are based on national (?) which have XML4 floating into our database, in our TSDS,
that’s our Texas data system. That’s aligned with our teams which is our
student level organization and information which would populate any reports. We have our core education data standards
to ensure that we have that common understanding of the terms and terminology. As we build and are moving towards our ECIDS,
we’re looking at aligning those standards with other state agencies.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Sclevenlt thank you very
much. Okay. Let’s go to the next question then. You really did address this some, Howard,
but for the others, what data model did your state use? Is it an ECIDS or an SLDS. Is it centralized, federated, or a hybrid
model? Why did you choose a certain model and what
were some of the benefits of using that particular model?>>STEVE MATHERLY: Hi, this is it Steve Matherly
from the Utah department of health. Let me start off by saying we call our ECIDS. We’re in our seventh year of putting together
our matcher database as well as our ekids some funding from the early childhood comprehensive
systems grant as well as some funding from the child care development block grant from
our colleagues here in Utah. So our model is a centralized — we use a
centralized system. As I mentioned why, back in 2013 we had the
Utah DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH had an opportunity to utilize Medicaid, technology enhancement
grant. We also needed a matcher database that would
benefit our entire department and not just our ekids. So we spent some time exploring perhaps utilizing
existing databases, but those were more operational in nature. And we really couldn’t at the time anyway
reconcile kind of our research needs with the existing databases that were more operational
in nature. Plus, being at the department of health, we
have the vital records department, dirth and death registries. We wanted to be able to utilize that data
for matching purpose as well as denominator as well as using it for denominator data for
population type data. Advantages would be consistent data, being
able to pull — being able to hard code reports and being able to have data, once it’s in
there, to be able to use it in many different ways over a period of time. I’ll turn that over to the other speakers
now.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you very much. Alejandra, would you like to elaborate on
your system, an ECIDS, centralized, federated, hybrid, why one model over the other and what
are the benefits for you in your state for that model?>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: Absolutely. Like Steven said, we were a race to the top
state, but it has taken us that long to come up with the model we have right now. Our ECIDS model is considered — we would
consider it a hybrid. We have some centralized data that is housed
within here, the children youth and family department which houses child care, pre-K
and home visiting data, all the workforce data, and all that information is housed here. However, in the other agencies we have the
part D program and we have the public education pre-K program as well as the 619 information. What we’re doing right now is all that information
is being fed into the centralized warehouse to provide the information and do all the
matching of the data. However, we have external information that
we couldn’t have a centralized process because, of course, we, one, don’t have enough oversight
in those programs and those programs deciding to participate are more in the volunteer type
approach, and that is our head start data. We’re still negotiatingor negotiating some
of those partnerships to bring that data into the warehouse. So for us bringing the information from different
databases and agencies was critical. Do we have the ability to do both, have automatic
fed into the warehouse but also on request data set that would allow us to have a more
complete picture of our state information. And at the same time ensuring that there is
not duplication of data that is being collect the. The other part is that each one of the databases
that are currently working within each one of those agencies is — has a different purpose. Some of them are used for billing, some are
used for accountability, and some of them are used for assessment. Because each one had a different function
and had a different setup, it was important for us to continue allowing those data systems
to exist. Making mechanisms to make sure that that communication
is taking place within the warehouse.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: All right. Thank you. That’s interesting and helpful. So we’ve got two new questions from the chat
from Brittany in New Hampshire. So the first is asking about your experience
with state legislation on privacy where it may be more restrictive than the federal legislation. If oh so, what steps did you take in order
to move forward with data integration? Each of you can share what the status is with
state legislation or rules around privacy and what you did as a result of it.>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: This is Alejandra. I can share a little bit about how we are
protecting the identity of our families. We do have some state regulation, props not
as strict as the ones you have, but we actually send to the warehouse our information using
the unique ID. I think you mentioned the unique ID being
the critical point because that is actually how we deidentify data. We have memorandums of understanding within
each agency that is sending the data sets ensuring that we do comply with our HIPAA
and FERPA, depending on the program. We are actually bound by both. And we rely on those that were used to ensure
that our information is safeguarded and the privacy of our families is actually protected.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Great. So a linking ID or a research ID. That’s helpful.>>HOWARD MORRISON: This is Howard here in
Texas. Oh.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Go ahead, Howard.>>HOWARD MORRISON: I was just going to say
that we implement a similar unique ID process as well. In every other state agency or other government
agency we have a memorandum of understanding data sharing agreement that would be reviewed
by our security officers to make sure we’re aligned with HIPAA and privacy issues and
make sure that we have data governance to kind of review the collection on data being
collected and how it’s being used to ensure that there is that additional discussion that
happens around the data collection and the data use of the data.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you, Howard. Do you — go ahead, please.>>STEVE MATHERLY: Go ahead, Bill. It sounds like you have a follow-up question
for Howard. Go ahead.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: I was going to say. Howard, in Texas, do you have anything beyond
FERPA, HIPAA, any specific state legislation around privacy that you have to address?>>HOWARD MORRISON: Not explicitly that I’m
aware of. There are some local issues, but I think we’re
just mostly liking at those FERPA and HIPAA guidelines and then ensuring that we do our
due diligence with our state agencies to ensure we mitigate any concerns. I think over time I think there’s less concern
than maybe we had at our state agency more than five or ten years ago.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Okay. Good. Thank you.>>STEVE MATHERLY: In Utah we indeed do have
privacy laws specific to our state, but they have not impeded our progress. They speak to the State Education Agency or
SEA being transparent so parents have an opportunity to know how data is being shared along with
national federal laws, we also have state laws that protect — they are really mainly
focused on vendor products that end up in the classrooms in making sure that software
products and hardware products, your tablets and various learning softwares are not capturing
PII from students and using that data inappropriately. Mainly what our state laws speak to, if anything,
we have had state laws over the last few years that have done a tremendous effort to facilitate
the development of our SLDS as well as our ECIDS. I also see a question about the initial steps
where states started. It’s very much what was described earlier
in bringing together the stakeholders, developing questions mutual questions everyone wants
answers to and then doing a data inventory to the very — we started with some very basic
data elements here in Utah, just enough to be able to match identities amongst the various
service providers, as well as some enrollment and exit dates. Now we’re building toward additional data
such as attendance, encounter data, things of that nature. But our first phase was just enough to be
able to match and be able to show distinct count of children and which programs they
were enrolled in and in what order or sequence. Yeah, the steps — as well as taking that
data inventory, unfortunately pry predecessor clay Murphy was very familiar with CEDS and
was spoken about earlier, we have a data dictionary. We’ve done alignment with their tools.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you. Colleen is greatly. We’ve done a lot of work with her, EDS things. It is a good valuable tool for doing that
particular work. With that — that’s really looking to address
Brittany’s second question, talking about steps you can take at the beginning stage
of data integration. So, Howard, Alejandra, any further advice
for Brittany on that?>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: Yes. I think what I would add one thing that we
did early on and I think somebody spoke about that is during the inventory of the data systems
you want to integrate in the capacity of those data systems to integrate what kind of data
elements have been collected and why. And then a lot of discussion then to start
agreeing upon which data elements you want to integrate, because not everything, as I
spoke before, not everything can be integrated because it serves different purposes but agreeing
on certain data elements that you want to collect what comes very closely with that
are the kind of questions you want to answer and what the purpose of your ECIDS is going
to be. Is it going to be for policy decision making,
prioritizing funding, is it for gap analysis? Is it going to be for moving your system forward,
tracking children’s progress, making program modifications? There is some definite ideas that came about
on what we wanted to respond based on our stakeholders and our community needs. And fra there we had to review a few questions. We’re going to be very ambitious. Just know that you have to take one bite at
a time and be very patient and very cordial and very understanding that what purpose this
ECIDS is going to serve because you’re working with the cross-agency, cross-system. In early childhood we say we’re very territorial. When it comes to our data we’re even more
territorial because we’re very protective of our data and rightly so. Again, I guess the first — if you want to
do a step by step. Or, the first step is do an inventory so you
know who’s collecting what and what data systems are existing in your state.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Great. Thank you. So with that, let’s turn — we’ve talked a
lot about the beginning, how we take care of privacy security type chings things. Let’s turn to output of the system, so a question
for the panelists, does your system have reporting mechanism or interface to allow stakeholders
in the public to access data to create their own reports? Do they have reports for the stakeholderers
and public to use?>>STEVE MATHERLY: This is Steve from Utah. I can answer that question. I wanted to add to Brittany and what Alejandra
said, when you’re doing that inventory, you also have to discover how that data is regulated. We often speak of FERPA or HIPAA. Actually it’s nice when your data is covered
by FERPA or HIPAA, because then you have a road map. You have a template, and you have some of
the tangibles that you can go to to learn about the exceptions and how to handle that
data. Actually what’s a bit more challenging is
when the data is not clearly regulated by a specific body, then you really do have to
do your research. You have to work with the funders as in the
case with the department of health, we have WIC and home visiting and ages and stages
questionnaire, developmental health program. We also work with help me grow. All those are wonderful sources of data but
they don’t fit squarely under FERPA or HIPAA. In those instances you have to do your research
and work with your federal funders and your state legal team and probably even make sure
that you get parental consent during the enrollment process. With regards to reports and such, our ECIDS,
as I mentioned is housed at the Utah department of health, we have a data governance body. We have four hard coded I won’t call them
canned because they’re very dynamic reports. You can adjust time frames. You can get these reports down to a zip code,
granular level. They’re dynamic in that sense. They produce a zirchgs count of children served
by early care programs that are participating in our ECIDS. Who’s serving them? A distinct count or which program and cross-over
data. Since our ECIDS are new right now, those reports
are protect the. Our data policy committee comprised of the
data sources can approve stakeholders to view those reports. By joining our ECIDS as part of our dpat governance,
the ECIDS data sources, they all have access to those reports. In a parallel fashion we’re also building
another data product or tool. That will be public-facing. That has population data, poverty data, risk
factors, at birth data, as well as some of our ECIDS data that’s been aggregated at a
county or state-wide level. Our data sources are more comfortable with
presenting that data at that level to the public. At some point when all of our data is loaded
and validated and our data sources feel confident with what we have, then we may make our standard
reports also available to the public, but we’re going at the pace that our data source
is most comfortable with.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Great. Thank you. Others on availability of data?>>HOWARD MORRISON: Yeah. This is Howard — Howard here from Texas. So we have kind of two sets. We have some reports that are available to
the internal users that are submitting the data. Most of those are along the lines of data
quality check, but we also allow them to look at some of their prekindergarten progress
monitoring scores and benchmarks and seeing their growth from beginning of year to end
of year. Then we also have external reports that are
available to the public. Those are Moroccaned, crystal PDF downloadable
reports that are available at the state, district, and campus level. Those are looking at prekindergarten assessment
information, prekindergarten enrollment, race, ethnicity, student population information. Then we have additional kindergarten program
and readiness report. We have a little bit of both. Some that are internal to the users and then
those that are canned, external reports that are downloadable for each school district
and in the state of Texas. Also there’s data downloads that are also
available and are aggregated at the regional level as well for our regional education service
centers. The data tends to be helpful for either research
institution, early childhood organizations that are supporting programs within their
community without having to do maybe a specific data request or public information request
as that data is readily available to them. This, of course, is masked so they wouldn’t
have any student level information but they do have this canned report. Then we’re also working toward more dynamic
reports with the new project that we have where we’re lending the public prekindergarten,
kindergarten data with our child care quality rating system with the Texas Workforce Comings. That will be more of a select report and data
elements that they want to see for their specific community. But that’s where we’re at with our public
reports for Texas.>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: Hi —
>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you, Howard.>>ALEJANDRO REBOLLEDO: If I can add for New
Mexico just really quick. We don’t have it for the public yet. However, we are required to provide reports
as part of our accountability statute that we have. So like Texas, we do PDF reports that have
some of this information. We’re moving right now towards having our
data facilitatation to be with our (?) that’s interactive. We’re doing geo coding so we can use those
interactive maps to provide information about where our programs are and what type of services
they provide in different types of the community. We’re using actually — we’re going to be
using that information as part of our needs assessment to do the gap analysis. And we want to have a more dynamic process
a little bit in the long term in using the Tableau so they can do canned reporting of
aggregated data. We’re not quite there. We’re in the data collection process. We have the IBIS process set up already for
doing this data utilization. Our next step is going to be the Tableau.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Thank you. At various stages of this work. It is good to hear that. Well, Brittany, I’m glad that you found that
information to be helpful, Nikki as well. Thank you for asking the questions. That certainly makes an experience like this
more valuable when we can get your direct question answered by those doing the similar
work that you were planning or are engaged in right now. With that, Steve, Howard, Alejandra, thank
you very much. I appreciate you taking the time to address
the assembled group and talk about your efforts with your colleagues. Your time is valuable. And we appreciate you taking the time to spend
sharing the information with us today. With that on this slide you’ll see that there
are a number of ECIDS resources that are available practice a number of dirchb types of organizations. I would like to highlight one of them 1 the
DaSy consist of questions more likely answered with an integrated data system. These questions are geared to early interskrention
and preschool education to be tweaked in any program. The data collaborative has essential questions
has fundamental coordinated state data systems. The state and early childhood data systems
and other useful information. A number of sources that can be linked to
information. So with that, I again thank you for the time. I will turn it back over to Jim to wrap things
up for us.>>JIM LESKO: Thanks Bill, and thanks Tony
for putting together the presentation and thank you extra special appreciation to Steven
and Howard and Alejandra for being willing to come on and answer the questions. I know the information you shared was much
appreciated by the states that were on the call and their partners and a valuable addition
to the conversation. If you do have further questions concerning
integrated data systems, we encourage you to either contact your PDG B- 5TA specialist
or feel free to send us an email at the email address you see listed there. [email protected] We would love to hear your feedback and suggestions
in the four-part series that we completed today. You can link directly to the web address that
you see on this slide. It will take you straight to the Survey Monkey. We do take your feedback seriously. We made some adjustments as we’ve gone on
since we started these conversations. You’ll also — everyone that has registered
for the conversation today will receive the link through the recording of this conversation,
and there will also be a Survey Monkey link attached to that. So if you don’t get to it today, you can always
link to it when you receive the recording of the we’re very much appreciative of that
feedback. I do see a question that came in. We do have a minute or two. I’m not sure whether Bill or Tony want to
address this. If you don’t, we can get to it. The question is the QRIS and ECIDS webinar,
is it common for ECIDS to be hosted as a portal on a consumer education website?>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Boy, Tony, I don’t necessarily
know. I would think not, but I —
>>TONY RUGGIERO: I’ll check into that. I don’t think so either, but I can look into
that and get an answer.>>BILL HUENNEKENS: Sure, Rachel. Thank you for the question and we’ll get back
to you directly with an answer to that.>>Not seeing anything else in the chat box
in terms of questions. Thank you all for joining the conversation
today. We hope you found it to be a valuable experience. All of the recordings from the four-part series
will be posted on to our website. So you’ll have access to this on an archival
basis. And the PowerPoints are always available. If you do have further questions, contact
your PDG B- 5 specialist. And thank you very much. — oh. Also much thanks I must mention to my Atlas
team that have been working behind the scenes to make sure this all flows very smoothly
and a special shoutout to Evelyn and Sami for managing the Adobe room today. Thanks so much, everybody. Bye




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *