Results/Outcomes and Indicators | Screening and Assessment Tools and Processes | Intervention Models and Processes | Fiscal Resources | Training and Technical Assistance

A result or outcome is a condition of well-being for children, adults, families or communities. An indicator is a measure which helps quantify the achievement of a result. The Results/Outcomes and Indicators Subcommittee used the definition of result or outcome from Mark Friedman’s work, Results and Performance Accountability, Decision-making and Budgeting: The Fiscal Policy Studies Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico. You can read more about Results and Performance Accountability by accessing the website: www.resultsaccountability.com

The Results/Outcomes and Indicators Subcommittee has aligned itself with the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO Center) and the Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Prekindergarten. If you would like to read more about the ECO Center Outcomes, you may access their website at www.the-eco-center.org and follow the links to get more information.

When reviewing the Proposed Results/Outcomes, please keep the following four questions in mind.

• Specificity - Is what is being proposed clear?
• Values- Is the proposed result/outcome consistent with the stated values of the ASD Planning Workgroup?
• Relevant- Is the proposed result/outcome meaningful and important to the overall goal of the ASD Planning Workgroup?
• Realistic- Is the proposed result/outcome realistic?

Proposed Results / Outcomes (submit input by Nov. 27, 2005)
Results / Outcomes (December 22, 2005)

The measurement of outcomes is for the purpose of determining if our system (ASD Workgroup work) is successful in serving children and families. We are not collecting data for research. The audience that we are writing the indicators and outcomes for is the directors of the Department of Community Health, Department of Education, and the Department of Human Services. The indicators need to be balanced so they are not too soft to be meaningful nor too costly to measure. A question we should ask ourselves is: does the group believe that the set of outcomes/indicators we develop will guide us to the system we want? Also, measurable outcomes need to be used to help us make decisions about indicators.

Indicators for Results/Outcomes (March 06)
Definitions (March 06)

The charge of the subcommittee is to identify, and recommend to the ASD Workgroup, screening and assessment tools and processes that reflect the stated values and assumptions of the Workgroup, along with promoting the goal of the Workgroup.

The subcommittee divided their charge into two distinct components to complete the task. The subcommittee proposed recommendations on screening tools and processes and these recommendations were approved by the ASD Workgroup in March 2006.

Approved Recommendations on Supports and Services Planning - February 2007

Screening Tools and Processes Approved Recommendations - April 2007

Approved Assessment Tools and Processes (including references) - November 2006

The task of the Intervention Models Subcommittee was to identify, and recommend to the ASD Workgroup, intervention models and processes for children ages birth to six, which reflect the stated values and assumptions of the Workgroup, along with promoting the Workgroup's indentified results.

Intervention Models and Processes Subcommittee Response to Public Comment

Approved Intervention Models and Processes. Please read in the oder listed below.

1. Intervention and Processes Subcommittee Background and Recommendations (Attachment A)
2. Information Grid Example (Attachment B)
3. Classification System Criteria (Attachment C)
4. Practice Classification System for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Attachment D)
5. Bibliography (Attachment E)

The charge of this subcommittee is to make recommendations on funding recommended screening, assessment, and intervention models in Michigan.

When reviewing the proposed recommendations, please keep the following four questions in mind:

1. Specificity-Is what is being proposed clear?
2. Values-Are the proposed recommendations consistent with the stated values of the ASD Workgroup?
3. Relevant-Are the proposed recommendations meaningful and important to the overall goal of the ASD Workgroup?
4. Realistic-Are the proposed recommendations realistic?

Approved Recommendations for the Fiscal Resources Subcommittee

Training and TA Approved Recommendations - March 29, 2007

ASD Training and TA Matrix - March 2007