Illi Pe · meetings. Reports are also provided to IICEI Workgroups. Illinois utilizes a central...

IllinoisDivisioBurea

Ju

IlliAnPePla

Ju

s Departmon of Comu of Early

uly 1,

noisnnuaerforan

uly 1,

Illinois DDivisionBureau

ment of Hmmunity y Interven

Repo2009

s al rma

Repo

2009

Departmen of Commof Early I

Human SeHealth &ntion

ort Pe9– Jun

nce

ort Pe

9– Ju

ent of Humunity HIntervent

ervices & Prevent

eriod:ne 30

eriod

ne 30

uman Serealth & Ption

tion

: 0, 201

:

0, 201

rvices Preventio

10

10

on

ILLINOIS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Indicator 1 - Early Intervention Services - Received in A Timely Manner ..................................................1

Indicator 2 - Early Intervention Services - Provided Predominately in Home or in Community Settings .11

Indicator 3 - Child Outcomes ...................................................................................................................16

Indicator 4 - Family Outcomes .................................................................................................................30

Indicator 5 - Participation in Early Intervention For Children Under The Age Of One ..............................40

Indicator 6 - Participation in Early Intervention for Children Under the Age of Three ..............................46

Indicator 7 - IFSPs Initiated within 45 Days of Referral ...........................................................................51

Indicator 8 - Transition .............................................................................................................................56

Indicator 9 - Correction of Noncompliance within One Year ....................................................................64

Indicator 10 - Signed Written Complaints Resolved within 60 Days ........................................................71

Indicator 11 - Due Process Hearings Fully Adjudicated within Applicable Timeline ................................73

Indicator 12 - Hearing Requests Resolved through Resolution Session Settlement Agreements ...........75

Indicator 13 - Mediations Resulting in Mediation Agreements .................................................................77

Indicator 14 - Timeliness and Accuracy of Illinois Data ...........................................................................79

Attachment A – Indicator C-9 Worksheet

Attachment B – Indicator 14 Rubric

Attachment C – Family Outcomes Survey

Attachment D - Table 4, Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part C IDEA

APR Template – Part C (4) Illinois State

Part C State Annual Performance Report for FFY2009 Monitoring Priority – Page 1 (OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date: 11/30/2012)

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: The Illinois Annual Performance Report (APR) documents performance data on State targets for each Child and Family Connections (CFC) office and state progress or slippage toward measurable and rigorous targets. The Illinois Early Intervention (EI) Program makes the Illinois APR and State Performance Plan (SPP) available on its web site and through links from the other EI web sites (the Illinois Early Intervention Training Program; Provider Connections, the Early Intervention credentialing/enrollment office; and the Early Intervention Clearinghouse). The APR and SPP documents are also available to the public at each of the 25 CFC offices. A Workgroup of the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI) reviewed the APR and met to discuss the indicators, with an emphasis on proposed target values and improvement activities. The APR was presented to the IICEI for review and comment prior to its submission. In addition CFC managers were given the opportunity to review the draft document and provide input. Both CFC managers and the IICEI reviewed the changes to the SPP, which include annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012/SFY2013 (July 1, 2012 through June 20, 2013). The APR is part of an ongoing process of performance measurement and strategic planning for the Illinois Early Intervention Program. For a number of years, Illinois has been reporting performance data to key stakeholders including the IICEI, the CFC offices, and the general public through various reporting mechanisms. The IICEI receives a data report at each of its meetings. Reports are also provided to IICEI Workgroups. Illinois utilizes a central client tracking system, Cornerstone. No activity can take place without a case being active in Cornerstone. Both CFC office and Department staff can pull reports to track client data. Over time the Cornerstone system has become antiquated and its functionality is limited. Improvement activities are restricted to those that can be implemented within the capacities of the current system. Since January 2002, the program has also utilized a standardized monthly reporting system on a series of performance measures. Since the beginning of SFY 03 (July 1, 2002), Illinois has operated a performance contracting system for CFC offices, based on some of the more important measures found in the monthly statistical reports. These performance measures are also used to identify findings of noncompliance with specific indicators and as part of the process to designate determinations. Other reports to CFC offices include caseload summary and 45 days in intake reports and one that monitors data integrity for the service delay database. These reports allow CFC managers to review service coordinator and child-specific data. Monthly, statewide data on the 32 performance measures are posted on the program’s website and include comparison data with the previous month, previous fiscal years’ averages, and data from the same month in the two previous years. Illinois has greatly improved its documentation of findings and correction of noncompliance. In FFY06/SFY07, it expanded the process to utilize its data system. A system of identification and correction of noncompliance was developed, but not fully implemented until FFY07/SFY08, due to delays in sending notification of findings to CFC offices. Findings based on FFY06/SFY07 were sent in February 2008. Findings based on FFY07/SFY08 data were sent in December 2008. Illinois is now on track to provide timely notification and to monitor and document correction of noncompliance. On August 27, 2009, the Bureau sent a single letter to each CFC office that included the CFC office’s determination (in accordance with 616(a)(1)(C)(i) and 300.600(a) of IDEA 2004) and the notification of findings of noncompliance, based upon FFY08/SFY09data. On September 10, 2010, the Bureau sent a single letter to CFC offices with determinations and notification of findings based upon FFY09/SFY10 data. Illinois has had



in place a system to document the correction of each individual case of noncompliance. It has now added “prong 2,” ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement, as defined in OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place. Workgroups of the IICEI have been formed to address specific indicators (Service Delay Workgroup) and overall operation issues (Finance Workgroup). The IICEI and these Workgroups help analyze data and suggest improvement strategies. The Finance Workgroup keeps informed on financial issues for Early Intervention and identifies strategies that could help impact them. Workgroup members review the status of payment delays, budget updates, applicable legislation, and operation of the Central Billing Office, including the implementation of a new insurance billing unit. The Service Delay Workgroup was formed to support improvement activities for Indicator 1. Initial discussions focused on CFC offices #1 and #3, with suggestions based on local dynamics of that area. The Workgroup has developed recommendations that would support an integrated services approach, which emphasizes collaboration among IFSP team members. Representatives from professional associations were added to the Workgroup to involve them in this dialogue. CFC offices #1 and #6 are currently piloting this option. The Workgroup has also discussed provider recruitment strategies, including strategies for posting unmet service needs. In addition, the Bureau has convened an Outcomes Workgroup to review strategies and outcome data for child and family outcomes (Indicators 3 and 4) and make recommendations regarding improvement activities, timelines and setting target values for child and family outcomes. Membership of the advisory group include several IICEI members, including parent representatives, CFC office managers, Early Intervention providers, including representation across professional disciplines, and research and training staff. House Joint Resolution (HJR) 50 created the Illinois Part C Early Intervention Taskforce in response to an identified need for a comprehensive and thorough review of the Part C Early Intervention Program. The intent of HJR 50 was for the EI Taskforce to make recommendations and action plans to address issues related to workforce, financing, monitoring and evaluation, service delivery, and transitions. HJR 50 required that the Taskforce issue a report with its recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by July 1, 2010. The Taskforce was comprised of a broad-based group of individuals, including parents of infants and toddlers who are or have participated in the Part C EI Program; advocates who focus on early childhood and early intervention; early intervention, educational and healthcare professionals; and state agency personnel working in early childhood, early intervention, mental health and healthcare programs. Each EI Taskforce recommendation has been reviewed and initial steps have been taken for the implementation of recommendations within existing resources. The EI Taskforce report can be found at http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=50753. During FFY08/SFY09, the Early Intervention program initiated the Program Integrity Project to accomplish statewide program equality; fidelity to program principles and state and federal laws; and long-term program stability. The project will result in long-term changes to the system that will be beneficial for infants and toddlers enrolled in the Early Intervention Program and their families, while ensuring that Illinois remains a responsible steward of the funding available for these services.



• The EI Bureau has been sharing a range of data analyses with the IICEI, its Finance and Service Delay Workgroups, and CFC office managers. Three pilot projects are underway to identify and test approaches to promote program integrity. The pilots involve the collection and analysis of data. A plan of training and technical assistance is then developed and implemented to ensure that program principles and procedures regarding eligibility determination and service plan development are being appropriately followed. Lessons learned through these pilots are shared with all CFC managers at monthly CFC managers’ meetings.

• A study has been completed and recommendations received on October 1, 2009 regarding an optimal service coordination model for the Illinois Early Intervention Program. Existing data were considered, six focus groups were held, time studies were completed, individual interviews with national experts were conducted, and recommendations were made based upon best practice research. These recommendations are currently being considered.

• On February 15, 2010, a system ombudsman position was added to the Illinois EI Training Program. The system ombudsman supports the Department’s Program Integrity Project to accomplish statewide program equality, fidelity to program principles and state and federal laws, and long-term program stability. Activities include: data analysis, coordination of focused monitoring activities, development of strategies to promote compliance with program principles and procedures, report writing, and development and implementation of training strategies. The system ombudsman has supported the Program Integrity Project pilots through data analysis; training and support plan development and implementation, and the transfer of strategies from the pilot sites to other CFC areas. In addition, the system ombudsman has visited CFC offices, provided resources to people in the field, reviewed data, identifying areas for clarification or training, and researched what is going on nationally, with the goals to improve program practices and communication between system entities. Strategies for reaching out to other stakeholders (i.e., providers and families) are being explored, including collecting and analyzing existing data.



Part C State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY09/SFY10

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

Indicator 1: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100. Account for untimely receipt of services.

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY09/SFY10 100 percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs will receive the early intervention services on their IFSP within 30 days.

Actual Target Data for FFY09/SFY10:

Indicator 1 [# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner/(total number infants and toddlers with IFSP – IFSPs delayed for family reasons)] X 100 FFY09/SFY10: (18,387-1,111)/18,387 x 100 = 93.96% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%

The month of April data from the service delay reporting system is used for this report. A delay is identified whenever a child waits more than 30 days to receive Early Intervention services on his/her IFSP. Experience shows that service delay varies seasonally. It is low in the first seven or eight months of the federal/state fiscal year then grows in sync with the annual spring jump in the caseload. April has been selected as a representative time period, as it is in the middle of the normal caseload rebound period. While delays are reported here with family delays removed from the calculations, the program generally treats all delays as problems that need to be looked into and addressed. The table below shows performance for the state and for each of the state’s 25 CFC offices in April 2010, followed by statewide performance. It calculates performance both including and excluding delays for family reasons. Statewide, 93.96% of children with IFSPs were experiencing no delays at the end April 2010, excluding family delays. Fifteen CFC offices had 95% or more of their cases with no delays with three of these CFC offices showing no delays. Six CFC offices had between 90% and 95% of their open cases with no delays. Four CFC offices had fewer than 90 % of their open cases with no delays.



Service Delays - All Cases Open in April 2010 Calculated Including & Excluding Family Delays

No Delay Excluding Family Delays: (18,387-1,111)/18,387 = 93.96% No Delay Including Family Delays: 17,276/18,530 = 93.23%

April 2010

CFC # & Area IFSPs Family Delays

Net IFSPs

System Delays

No Delays

No Delays

No System Delays

#1 - LOVES PARK 600 0 600 117 483 80.5% 80.5% #2 - Lake County 804 23 781 32 749 93.2% 95.9% #3 - FREEPORT 350 0 350 72 278 79.4% 79.4% #4 - Kane & Kendall Counties 836 4 832 42 790 94.5% 95.0% #5 - Du Page County 1,193 3 1,190 6 1,184 99.2% 99.5% #6 - N. Suburbs 1,607 3 1,604 15 1,589 98.9% 99.1% #7 - W. Suburbs 1,028 14 1,014 52 962 93.6% 94.9% #8 - SW Chicago 802 9 793 64 729 90.9% 91.9% #9 - Central Chicago 1,110 0 1,110 132 978 88.1% 88.1% #10 - SE Chicago 804 13 791 72 719 89.4% 90.9% #11 - N. Chicago 2,280 52 2,228 202 2,026 88.9% 90.9% #12 - S. Suburbs 1,057 5 1,052 32 1,020 96.5% 97.0% #13 - MONMOUTH 357 0 357 4 353 98.9% 98.9% #14 - PEORIA 490 0 490 36 454 92.7% 92.7% #15 - Joliet 1,374 6 1,368 123 1,245 90.6% 91.0% #16 - DANVILLE 670 1 669 33 636 94.9% 95.1% #17 - QUINCY 215 0 215 0 215 100.0% 100.0% #18 - SPRINGFIELD 358 0 358 5 353 98.6% 98.6% #19 - DECATUR 404 0 404 12 392 97.0% 97.0% #20 - EFFINGHAM 396 0 396 11 385 97.2% 97.2% #21 - BELLEVILLE 676 0 676 0 676 100.0% 100.0% #22 - CENTRALIA 357 0 357 0 357 100.0% 100.0% #23 - NORRIS CITY 209 0 209 33 176 84.2% 84.2% #24 - CARBONDALE 157 0 157 2 155 98.7% 98.7% #25 - McHenry County 396 10 386 14 372 93.9% 96.4% State 600 0 600 117 483 93.23% 93.96%Cook County 804 23 781 32 749 92.35% 93.38% Collar Counties 350 0 350 72 278 94.29% 95.24% Downstate 836 4 832 42 790 93.78% 93.80%

April 2009 State 8,614 112 8,502 406 8,096 93.36% 94.33%Cook County 4,754 78 4,676 370 4,306 93.99% 95.22% Collar Counties 5,515 5 5,510 283 5,227 90.58% 92.09% Downstate 8,614 112 8,502 406 8,096 94.78% 94.86%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress or Slippage for Indicator 1: Overall, the percentage of children who receive early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner, excluding delays for family reasons, dropped from 94.33% in FFY08/FSY09 to 93.96% in FFY09/SFY10.



In FFY09/SFY10, 15 CFC offices had more than 95% of open cases with no delays, which is the one fewer than in FFY08/SFY09. The number of CFC offices with open cases with no delays increased from 2 to 3 over the same time periods. When looking at regions of the state, a decrease was seen in Cook County CFC office areas (from 95.22% to 93.38%) and in downstate CFC office areas (from 94.86% to 93.80%). An improvement was seen in the Collar Counties CFC office areas (from 92.09% to 95.24%). Service delays continue to be a chronic problem in northern Illinois (CFC #1 and CFC #3), although CFC #9 (central Chicago) and CFC #23 (southern counties) are also represented in the four CFC areas with less than 90% of open cases with no delays. Service delays are impacted by a number of factors: • Payment delays;

• Low reimbursement rates, when compared to other systems of care;

• Lack of providers willing to provide services in natural environments;

• Lack of coverage in sparsely populated rural areas and in urban areas with high crime

rates; and

• Competitive environments for limited number of available providers, particularly in urban areas where multiple job opportunities are available.

Illinois’ financial situation has resulted in delays in payments to Early Intervention service providers. This situation worsened in FFY09/SFY10 and resulted in a more statewide problem with recruitment and retention of active service providers in the system. Although service delay data show a slight decrease, this does not mean that CFC offices have not had to address increasing challenges related to provision of specific services or coverage in particular geographic areas. It also does not reflect the increased financial burden on the EI provider community. While new providers continue to enter the system, current providers may decide to modify their practice to limit the number or eliminate services they provide to EI enrolled children. Improvement Activities Completed: Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource In FFY09/SFY10, expand Program Integrity Pilot to include three additional targeted CFC areas.

In FFY09/SFY10, two pilot projects have been added to the initial pilot of the Program Integrity Project to identify and test approaches to promote program integrity. The pilots involve the collection and analysis of data. A plan of training and technical assistance is then developed and implemented to ensure that program principles and procedures regarding eligibility determination and service plan development are being appropriately followed. Lessons learned through these pilots are shared with all CFC managers at monthly CFC managers’ meetings. Plans are underway for a fourth pilot site.



Effective February 15, 2010, a system ombudsman position will be added to the Early Intervention Training Program to support the Program Integrity Project.

On February 15, 2010, a system ombudsman position was added to the Early Intervention Training Program. The system ombudsman supports the Department’s Program Integrity Project to accomplish statewide program equality, fidelity to program principles and state and federal laws, and long-term program stability. Activities include: data analysis, coordination of focused monitoring activities, development of strategies to promote compliance with program principles and procedures, report writing, and development and implementation of training strategies. The system ombudsman has supported the Program Integrity Project pilots through data analysis; training and support plan development and implementation, and the transfer of strategies from the pilot sites to other CFC areas. In addition, the system ombudsman has visited CFC offices, provided resources to people in the field, reviewed data, identifying areas for clarification or training, and researched what is going on nationally, with the goals to improve program practices and communication between system entities. Strategies for reaching out to other stakeholders (i.e., providers and families) are being explored, including collecting and analyzing existing data.

In FFY09/SFY10, the program will work with the IICEI and its Service Delay Workgroup to finalize recommendations regarding an Integrated Team Approach and pilot this strategy in a target area.

In FFY09/SFY10 the Service Delay Workgroup, presented to the IICEI recommendations that would support an integrated services approach, which emphasizes collaboration among IFSP team members. CFC offices #1 and #6 are currently piloting this option. The Workgroup has also discussed provider recruitment strategies, including strategies for posting unmet service needs.

Another improvement activity includes the following: • Beginning in FFY09/SFY10, CFC offices began receiving a monthly report to monitor data

integrity for the service delay database. This report provides the names of children who have been removed from the CFC office’s service delay list, without a resolution being documented in the CFC office’s service delay monthly report. The CFC office then corrects these data errors.

Illinois has greatly improved its documentation of findings and correction of noncompliance. In FFY06/SFY07, it expanded the process to utilize its data system. A system of identification and



correction of noncompliance was developed, but not fully implemented until FFY07/SFY08, due to delays in sending notification of findings to CFC offices. Findings based on FFY06/SFY07 were sent in February 2008. Findings based on FFY07/SFY08 data were sent on December 2008. Illinois is now on track to provide timely notification and to monitor and document correction of noncompliance. On August 27, 2009, the Bureau sent a single letter to each CFC office that included the CFC office’s determination (in accordance with 616(a)(1)(C)(i) and 300.600(a) of IDEA 2004) and the notification of findings of noncompliance, based upon FFY08/SFY09data. On September 10, 2010, the Bureau sent a single letter to CFC offices with determinations and notification of finding based upon FFY09/SFY10 data. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance): Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 94.33%

1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009)

21

2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (verified as corrected within one year from the date of notification to the EIS program of the finding)

1

3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]

20

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) and/or Not Corrected: 1. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number

from (3) above) 20

2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)

0

3. Number of FFY 2008 findings not verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 20

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected: Data are reported to each CFC office for all children exiting Part C who did not receive timely services, based upon 12-month data. Corrective action plans to address noncompliance policies, procedures, and practices are required to be written and implemented for any finding of non-compliance. Service delays are considered in setting determination scorecards if an agency fails to submit a credible corrective action plan for addressing service delays, fails to make adequate progress, or fails to implement major features of the plan. Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 noncompliance or FFY 2008 findings (either timely or subsequent): Verification of correction of noncompliance is outlined below. Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008: For correction of noncompliance, this APR looks at findings identified using FFY07/SFY08 data and adds “prong 2,” ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement, as defined in OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02. Child-specific data were accessed through the Service Delay Reporting system, the Cornerstone system, and file reviews. In all 21 findings of noncompliance it was determined that the CFC has corrected each individual case of noncompliance. Noncompliance was resolved for reasons that include the following: data error,



service provided, family declined service, and child no longer in the system. Illinois has identified that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement for service delays using monthly statistical reports and documenting three consecutive months during which the CFC office has no service delays. In FFY08/SFY09, there were 21 findings, with one finding identified as corrected, leaving 20 findings uncorrected. In FFY09/SFY10, three new findings were identified. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place No FFY06/SFY07 or FFY07/SFY08 findings remain uncorrected. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator:

Statement from the Response Table State’s Response

If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY2009 APR, the state must review it’s improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

See the following new improvement activities.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).


2011 (2011-2012)

100 percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs will receive the early intervention services on their IFSP within 30 days.

2012 (2012-2013)

100 percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs will receive the early intervention services on their IFSP within 30 days.

The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Illinois will use a full 12 months of data for the identification of findings for Indicator 1.

This will be implemented in FFY10/SFY11 as part of the finding notification process and will continue as an ongoing strategy.

Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.

The EI Monitoring Program will increase the number of service coordinators it interviews as part of the on-site monitoring process for CFC offices and will enhance interview questions to capture additional information about the IFSP decision –making process.

These changes will be developed and implemented as part of the FFY10 SFY11 CFC monitoring process.

Resources include the EI Monitoring Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.



The Bureau and its contractors that provide training, credentialing, monitoring, resource materials and billing/claims services will coordinate their efforts to work with professional associations and others that support the EI Program.

This will be an ongoing effort through FFY12/SFY13. In FFY10/SFY11, initial work will focus on coordinating provider recruitment and on education and information sharing regarding appropriate practices for services to infants and toddlers in the EI Program. Web sites that support the EI system will work together to provide discipline-specific, nationally recognized best practice documents, recruitment materials, and information about the EI services system directed to both potential and current EI providers. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention and its contractors.

Expand Program Integrity Pilot to include additional targeted CFC areas.

This will be an ongoing effort through FFY12/SFY13, with 2 to 4 additional CFC areas targeted each year. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention, the EI Training Program, EI System Ombudsman, and the EI Monitoring Program.

Additional data will be provided to CFC offices so they can monitor service delays and address child-specific and system issues in a timely way.

Beginning in July 2011and on an ongoing basis, “mini APR tables” will be provided to CFC offices on a quarterly basis, so that they can monitor performance on Indicators 1, 7, and 8C. Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.




Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: See Indicator 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

Indicator 2: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.


FFY09/SFY10 At least 89.5% of all children with IFSPs active on June 30, 2010 will have their services provided predominately in the home or in community settings.


Indicator 2 (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings/total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs) X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: (16,960/18,266) X 100 = 92.9% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 89.5%

October 31, 2009, data (92.9%) demonstrates a slight improvement in the proportion of children with IFSP services authorized predominately in natural settings and exceeds the target for FFY09/SFY10 of 89.5%. When a service, which is identified in a child’s IFSP, is authorized in the Cornerstone system, a place of service code is designated. When the provider submits a claim for that service, the Early Intervention Central Billing Office (EI CBO) ensures that the place of service code matches the authorization for that service. On a monthly basis, the EI CBO generates a report on services provided predominately in the home or in community settings, which reflects the settings for services that have been processed for payment. The child’s IFSP must include a justification when services are authorized in a non-natural setting, along with a plan to transition to a natural setting, when available.

Predominate Setting History Oct 2007 Oct 2008 Oct 2009 Typically Developing 4.60% 4.2% 5.0%Home 84.90% 88.1% 87.9%Provider Location/Other 10.50% 7.8% 7.1%% Natural Setting 89.50% 92.2% 92.9%Client Count 17,486 18,535 18,266 Centers & Provider Locations 1,841 1,439 1,306



Cases in Predominately in Natural Settings By CFC & Geographic Regions October 2008 October 2009

CFC # & Area Home Day Care/

Comm. Natural Settings Home

Day Care/ Comm.

Natural Settings

#1 - ROCKFORD 82.0% 5.4% 87.4% 79.1% 9.39% 88.5%#2 - Lake County 89.4% 2.0% 91.4% 92.6% 1.91% 94.6% #3 - FREEPORT 70.9% 7.7% 78.5% 68.9% 10.70% 79.6%#4 - Kane & Kendall Counties 91.3% 2.5% 93.8% 93.9% 3.05% 96.9%#5 - Du Page County 94.1% 4.0% 98.0% 97.0% 1.27% 98.3% #6 - N. Suburbs 86.3% 5.7% 92.0% 86.4% 7.86% 94.3% #7 - W. Suburbs 89.6% 2.4% 91.9% 90.7% 3.28% 94.0% #8 - SW Chicago 95.3% 2.2% 97.5% 96.5% 1.38% 97.9% #9 - Central Chicago 88.9% 3.9% 92.8% 92.0% 3.71% 95.7% #10 - SE Chicago 89.9% 0.6% 90.5% 92.1% 0.49% 92.6% #11 - N. Chicago 86.1% 1.9% 88.0% 87.7% 2.21% 89.9% #12 - S. Suburbs 97.5% 1.4% 98.9% 98.6% 1.08% 99.7% #13 - MONMOUTH 86.7% 7.4% 94.1% 82.6% 10.92% 93.5% #14 - PEORIA 33.1% 9.6% 42.7% 25.5% 6.62% 32.2%#15 - Joliet 89.3% 4.8% 94.1% 88.0% 5.33% 93.4% #16 - DANVILLE 74.1% 18.5% 92.6% 74.5% 17.60% 92.1% #17 - QUINCY 85.1% 6.3% 91.4% 82.0% 10.36% 92.3% #18 - SPRINGFIELD 56.9% 34.0% 90.8% 56.7% 33.52% 90.3% #19 - DECATUR 87.4% 10.2% 97.6% 87.8% 9.51% 97.3% #20 - EFFINGHAM 98.7% 1.3% 100.0% 98.5% 0.88% 99.4% #21 - BELLEVILLE 96.5% 0.8% 97.4% 99.2% 0.33% 99.5% #22 - CENTRALIA 98.8% 0.0% 98.8% 97.9% 0.88% 98.8% #23 - NORRIS CITY 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.00% 100.0% #24 - CARBONDALE 93.2% 6.2% 99.4% 92.9% 6.55% 99.4%#25 - McHenry County 92.4% 4.5% 96.9% 92.6% 3.24% 95.9%State 88.1% 4.2% 92.2% 88.0% 4.89% 92.9%Cook County 89.6% 2.8% 92.4% 90.9% 3.21% 94.1%Collar Counties 91.2% 3.7% 94.9% 92.7% 3.08% 95.7%Downstate 80.3% 8.3% 88.6% 79.3% 9.14% 88.4%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10): Progress or Slippage for Indicator 2: Statewide, the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings increased from 92.2% at the end of October 2008 to 92.9% at the end of October 2009. Both Cook County and its collar counties demonstrated an increase in the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings, with 10 out of the 12 CFC offices in these areas showing increases. On the other hand, downstate CFC offices showed a slight decrease (88.6% to 88.4%) when compared to October 2008 data. The data for CFC #14 (Peoria), a CFC office which has faced the greatest challenges to providing services predominately in natural settings, contributes the most to this region’s lower number. Among the downstate CFC offices, only two other CFC offices have a proportion of children serviced predominately in natural settings that falls below 90% (CFC offices #1 and #3), both of which



showed improvement from the previous year. Overall CFC offices’ performance remained fairly constant, with 14 CFC offices making improvements, 7 CFC offices showing modest decreases, one office (CFC #14) with a large decrease, and three offices remaining unchanged. Situations that impact service delays, including payment delays, also impact the availability of services in natural settings. See Indicator 1 for more details. Illinois has greatly improved its documentation of findings and correction of noncompliance. In FFY06/SFY07, it expanded the process to utilize its data system. A system of identification and correction of noncompliance was developed, but not fully implemented until FFY07/SFY08, due to delays in sending notification of findings to CFC offices. Findings based on FFY06/SFY07 were sent in February 2008. Findings based on FFY07/SFY08 data were sent on December 2008. Illinois is now on track to provide timely notification and to monitor and document correction of noncompliance. On August 27, 2009, the Bureau sent a single letter to each CFC office that included the CFC office’s determination (in accordance with 616(a)(1)(C)(i) and 300.600(a) of IDEA 2004) and the notification of findings of noncompliance, based upon FFY08/SFY09data. On September 10, 2010, the Bureau sent a single letter to CFC offices with determinations and notification of finding based upon FFY09/SFY10 data. For correction of noncompliance, this APR looks at findings occurred in FFY08/SFY09. For Indicator 2, Illinois uses its data system and a formal system of notification, as described in Indicator 9, to identify findings and document correction of noncompliance. In SFY08/FFY09, 5 findings of noncompliance were identified for Indicator 2, with all findings of noncompliance corrected within one year. In FFY09/SFY10, 2 new findings were identified. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place. Improvement Activities Completed No new improvement activities were identified in the FFY08/SFY09 APR. Previous improvement activities, such as monthly predominate setting reporting to CFC offices, performance contracting, and identification of findings and development of corrective action plans continue.

Improvement Activities Completed: Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource Illinois has made continued improvements to the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings, with the impact of service delays being the greatest challenge to future progress. The IICEI Service Delay Workgroup is currently considering recommendations for strategies to address these issues. (See Indicator 1.)

In FFY09/SFY10 the Service Delay Workgroup, presented to the IICEI recommendations that would support an integrated services approach, which emphasizes collaboration among IFSP team members. CFC offices #1 and #6 are currently piloting this option. The Workgroup has also discussed provider recruitment strategies, including strategies for posting unmet service needs.

Other improvement activities include the following: • In order to ensure that all providers are addressing the Principles of Early Intervention and

other important policies, rules, regulations and guidelines, effective September 1, 2009, all providers were required to use the guidelines and “Developmental Justification of Need to



change Frequency, Intensity or Location” worksheet found in the EI Service Descriptions, Billing Codes and Rates manual. Providers who wish to request an increase or decrease in the frequency or intensity of an authorization or a change in location to an existing authorization submit a written “Developmental Justification of Need to Change Frequency, Intensity or Location” worksheet to the individual child’s service coordinator. Upon receipt of a justification that contains all required information found in the worksheet, the service coordinator will convene an IFSP review meeting. These guidelines reiterated the federal requirement that EI services must be provided in a natural environment, unless a written justification exists for providing these services in other settings. If a recommendation is made to change the location to a non-natural environment and the IFSP team agrees with the recommendation, the Natural Environment Worksheet must be completed at the IFSP meeting. A May 21, 2010 memo further clarified the need to complete both the “Developmental Justification of Need to Change Frequency, Intensity or Location” and the Natural Environment Worksheet, under these circumstances.

• In the systems overview training, which is required to be completed before a credential is awarded, personal safety and self awareness are discussed as part of the first activity in the face-to-face training session. It is also discussed as part of the online service coordinator training. Many optional training opportunities have been offered around the topic of "Providing Services in Natural Environments" by the EI Training Program, as well as by individual CFC offices. In each of these training sessions, "providing services in high risk areas" was discussed. In addition, both state and national resources focused on providing services in natural settings can be accessed on the EI Training Program web site under the “Natural Environments" tab on the resources page.

• The Program Integrity Project, discussed in the Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development section of Indicator 1, includes a pilot project at CFC #14 (Peoria), a CFC office which has faced the greatest challenges to providing services predominately in natural settings. The pilot project offered additional information based on intensive file reviews. This data supports training and technical assistance strategies to address this problem. Strategies for recruitment have also being implemented. Specific steps taken by CFC #14 during FFY09/SFY10 include the following:

held discussions at all LIC, provider meetings and staff meetings; increased provider recruitment efforts to seek out more independent providers who

typically provide services in natural settings; held a training session on May 20, 2010 for service coordinators and EI providers

outlining the Principles of EI, including delivery of services in natural settings; held meetings with agencies to encourage delivery of service in natural settings; and offered monetary incentives in calendar year 2009 from the grant administrator to

one large agency to offset expenses connected with switching some services to natural settings.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11): The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).




2011 (2011-2012)

At least 90% of all children with IFSPs active on June 30, 2012 will have their services provided predominately in the home or in community settings.

2012 (2012-2013)

At least 90% of all children with IFSPs active on June 30, 2013 will have their services provided predominately in the home or in community settings.

Proposed target values for FFY2011 and FFY2012 reflect a maintenance level when compared to the FFY2010 target value of 90%. Based upon recent years’ data, it appears that the program may have reached a plateau in the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings. In addition, the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings may be negatively impacted by circumstances that impact service delays. (See Indicator 1.) The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources As part of the CFC 14 pilot project, develop and implement a training plan targeting strategies to increase the proportion of children served predominately in natural settings. Other strategies for FFY10/SFY11 include the following: hold provider recruitment fair, distribute recruitment letters to area licensed professionals; and continue discussions with CFC office staff, EI providers and parents. Strategies will be shared with other CFC offices.

The pilot project training and technical assistance plan will be completed and implementation initiated by June 30, 2011. Other listed strategies will be completed by June 30, 2011. Through June 30, 2013, ongoing strategies will be shared with CFC offices through updates at monthly managers’ meetings and through additional pilot projects, when applicable. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention, the EI Training Program, EI System Ombudsman, and the EI Monitoring Program.

Continue to track CFC office performance on services provided predominately in the home or in community settings, but discontinue the practice of issuing findings based strictly upon data.

Effective with the issuing if findings in the first quarter of FFY11/SFY12. Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.




Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments

Indicator 3: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:

A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Measurement: Outcomes: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early

language/communication); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Progress categories for A, B and C: a. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning = [(# of infants and

toddlers who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

b. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

c. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

d. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

e. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

Summary Statement for Each of the Three Child Outcomes: Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 1: Percent = #of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in category (d) divided by [# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (a) plus # of infants and toddlers



reported in progress category (b) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d) times 100. Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Statement 2: Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d) plus [# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (e) divided by the total # of infants and toddlers reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (e)] times 100.


FFY09/SFY10 Positive Relationships Summary Statement 1: 64.5% Positive Relationships Summary Statement 2: 64.5% Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 1: 78.5% Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 2: 52.5% Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 1: 75.5% Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 2: 57.0%

Actual Data FFY09/SFY10:

Summary Statements

Baseline 2008

Targets FFY 2009

Actual FFY 2009

Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program [(c+d)/(a+b+c+d)] x 100 = (2,952/4,503) x 100= 65.6%

64.1% 64.5% 65.6%

2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they exited the program [(d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)] x 100 = (4,593/7,254) x 100 = 63.3

64.2% 64.5% 63.3%

Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy)

1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program [(c+d)/(a+b+c+d)] x 100 =(5,089/6,613) x 100 = 77.0%

78.0% 78.5% 77.0%



2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they exited the program [(d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)] x 100 = (3,599/7,251) x 100 = 49.6%

52.4% 52.5% 49.6%

Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program [(c+d)/(a+b+c+d)] x 100 = (4,616/6,117) x 100 = 75.5%

75.3% 75.5% 75.5%

2. The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they exited the program [(d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e)] x 100 = (4,059/7,248) x 100 = 56.0%

56.8% 57.0% 56.0%



SUMMARY STATEMENT SCORED BY CFC Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3

CFC City Summary Statement 1

Summary Statement 2

Summary Statement 1

Summary Statement 2

Summary Statement 1

Summary Statement 2

1 Loves Park 68.2% 67.9% 81.0% 48.7% 80.5% 65.1%2 Waukegan 62.6% 67.1% 76.9% 54.5% 78.6% 58.7%3 Freeport 58.5% 66.7% 72.1% 59.0% 70.2% 62.8%4 Geneva 52.1% 71.7% 71.4% 54.6% 67.7% 63.3%5 Lisle 57.6% 72.9% 79.9% 52.5% 73.3% 64.2%6 Arlington Heights 67.8% 72.7% 83.9% 48.1% 80.5% 55.8% 7 Hillside 68.2% 59.7% 86.4% 47.2% 81.8% 52.5%8 Chicago - Hoyne 63.3% 56.3% 75.8% 46.3% 74.8% 48.1%9 Chicago - Harrison 67.0% 57.3% 76.4% 41.6% 77.0% 52.2%

10 Chicago - East 61st St 62.0% 40.0% 68.5% 28.1% 68.3% 27.4%11 Chicago - George St 74.3% 63.4% 79.1% 53.2% 76.4% 56.6%12 Tinley Park 67.5% 72.5% 75.8% 57.3% 72.9% 59.7%13 Monmouth 52.6% 67.7% 66.7% 54.8% 64.3% 63.1%14 Peoria 53.4% 73.2% 67.9% 61.0% 62.0% 71.0%15 Joliet 54.3% 63.7% 71.6% 52.2% 72.5% 63.2%16 Danville 66.9% 60.2% 78.3% 49.9% 78.6% 52.8%17 Quincy 69.7% 45.3% 77.4% 23.3% 79.1% 27.0%18 Springfield 55.9% 49.4% 58.7% 19.5% 63.5% 33.8%19 Decatur 83.5% 45.2% 80.5% 42.3% 81.3% 41.3%20 Effingham 52.3% 56.6% 68.3% 47.3% 70.5% 50.7%21 Belleville 67.1% 52.7% 82.2% 46.0% 84.1% 44.0%22 Centralia 77.5% 47.8% 85.5% 43.3% 82.3% 46.8%23 Norris City 69.5% 44.0% 83.2% 41.0% 73.3% 49.0%24 Carbondale 63.6% 46.4% 82.4% 36.2% 77.0% 42.0%25 Crystal Lake 47.6% 76.0% 67.1% 58.9% 68.3% 68.6%

STATE SUMMARY STATEMENT 65.6% 63.3% 77.0% 49.6% 75.5% 56.0%Summary Statement 1 = Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in [outcome], the percent that substantially increased their rate of growth in [outcome] by the time they exited. Summary Statement 2 = Percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in [outcome], by the time they exited. Collar Counties City of Chicago Suburban Cook County Balance of State



Progress Data for Part C Children FFY 2009

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):

Number of children

% of children

a. Percent of children who did not improve functioning

81 1.12%

b. Percent of children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

1,470 20.26%

c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach

1,110 15.30%

d. Percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

1,842 25.39%

e. Percent of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

2,751 37.92%

Total N = 7,254 100%

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication):

Number of children

% of children


59 .81%


1,465 21.20%

c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach

2,128 29.35%


2,961 40.84%


638 8.80%

Total N = 7,251 100%

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs: Number of children

% of children


58 .80%


1,443 19.91%

c. Percent of children who improved functioning to a 1,688 23.29%



level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach


2,928 40.40%


1,131 15.60%

Total N = 7,248 100%

Positive Relationships Year Total A B C D E

FFY08/SFY09 4,910 7 1,052 698 1,192 1,961 0.14% 21.43% 14.22% 24.28% 39.94%

FFY09/SFY10 7,254 81 1,470 1,110 1,842 2,751 1.12% 20.26% 15.30% 25.39% 37.92%

Acquire Knowledge & Skills Year Total A B C D E

FFY08/SFY09 4,909 33 947 1,383 2,096 450 0.67% 19.29% 28.17% 42.70% 9.17%

FFY09/SFY10 7,251 59 1,465 2,128 2,961 638 0.81% 21.20% 29.35% 40.84% 8.80%

Meet Needs Year Total A B C D E

FFY08/SFY09 4,901 34 982 1,100 1,990 795 0.69% 20.04% 22.44% 40.60% 16.22%

FFY09/SFY10 7,248 58 1,443 1,688 2,928 1,131 0.80% 19.91% 23.29% 40.40% 15.60%

The following two tables represent the distribution of Child Outcomes matched entry-exit pairs compared by fiscal year. This data illustrates the improvement in compliance with program rules by fiscal year.

FFY09/SFY10 Eligible State % Matched Pairs State % ComplianceState Total 13,959 100.00% 8,358 100.00% 59.88%Collar 3,575 25.61% 2,367 28.32% 66.21%Cook 2,694 19.30% 1,310 15.67% 58.25%Chicago 3,614 25.89% 1,924 23.02% 35.83%Downstate 4,076 29.20% 2,757 32.99% 67.64%



FFY08/SFY09 Eligible State %Matched

Pairs State % ComplianceState Total 14,116 100.00% 5,924 100.00% 42.00%Collar 3,616 25.62% 1,954 32.98% 54.00%Cook 2,872 20.03% 1,114 18.80% 39.40%Chicago 2,759 19.55% 584 9.86% 21.20%Downstate 4,914 34.81% 2,272 38.35% 46.20%

Discussion of Improvement Activities and Explanation or Progress or Slippage that occurred during FFY09/SFY09: Progress or Slippage for Indicator 3: In terms of progress or slippage, there are two areas of focus: (1) quality of data, and (2) quality of services. Illinois’ data quality has improved over the last fiscal year as demonstrated by the significant increase in the number of matched entry-exit pairs. This is also evident to the EI Program based on feedback from CFC offices and providers regarding increased use of the decision tree and increased overall understanding of the Child Outcome measurement process, including use of the Child Outcome Summary Form (COS Form). Illinois continues to work to understand the relationship between the Child Outcomes ratings and the quality of EI services and supports being provided. FFY09/SFY10 Progress Data for Part C Children reveals an almost across the board decrease in the percent of children either reaching a level of development comparable to same-aged peers or maintaining functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers (progress categories D and E). Summary Statement data, which focuses on children who have made significant progress and/or have exited the program functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers experienced a similar lag in progress or slippage – failing to meet a majority of the rigorous targets set for FFY09. The EI program, in collaboration with the IICEI, the Outcomes Workgroup and other key stakeholders has considered this lag in progress or slippage and an explanation follows: • Current data is more fully reflective of our EI population. With this being the first year

in which the state is reporting a full cadre of EI participants, the data pool is reflective of children who entered the program at or near birth and participated in the program until age 3. Children who meet these criteria are typically children with medical diagnoses which make them eligible for services early in life or are children with such significant developmental concerns that those concerns are identified very early in the child’s life. By comparison, due to reporting requirements, earlier reported data would have only captured children who entered the program later in life (i.e. 18 – 24 months) and exited at or near age 3 or children who entered and exited the program early in life. Given that the earlier reported data did not include children who entered the program at or near birth and participated in the program until age 3, it is reasonable to assume that progress would decline from the earlier reporting period to this reporting period as children with more significant developmental concerns are added to the data pool.

• Accuracy and compliance have improved. While the natural response to improved accuracy and compliance may be an expectation to see higher numbers, in this case, the opposite may very well be true. Nationally, state Part C programs using the ECO Child Outcome Summary Form have reported concerns with early intervention service coordinators and/or providers rating children higher than they should be. This was a



concern in Illinois as well. However, as training has become more prolific and focused and with more widespread use of the decision tree, early intervention service coordinators and providers in Illinois report a better understanding of the rating process and a feeling that ratings are more accurate now than they may have been early in the COS Form implementation process. This means that while early intervention service coordinators and providers may have rated children slightly higher than they should have at entry, exit scores are less likely to have received that artificial bump and therefore progress does not appear to be as great as it may otherwise have been. However, over time, entry scores will reflect the same level of accuracy as current exit scores and the playing field will level.

Improvement Activities Completed:

Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource

Continued training on the importance of completing the Child Outcomes Summary Form as a normal part of the IFSP and exit process.

In FFY09, training focused on not only the importance of completing the Child Outcomes Summary Form, but also addressing barriers to completing Child Outcomes and improving the quality of Child Outcomes data.

Reassessment by the EI Bureau and the EI Monitoring agency of the uniformity of the administration of the summary form by the end of FFY 08/SFY 09

This activity has been completed. A conclusion was reached that additional training was required to assure more uniform use of the COS Form.

Semi-annual evaluation to assure there are no patterns in the instances where assessments are not being completed at entry and at exit as required.

An initial evaluation was completed and data was reviewed with CFCs in SFY10. CFCs conducted local data analyses and developed local improvement strategies. Early analysis by CFCs resulted in improvements in data collection at both the local and state level.

During FFY 07/SFY 08 the EI program increased training that emphasized the importance of completing child outcomes assessments at every IFSP meeting and the particular importance at the initial IFSP and at exit.

Training was conducted in FFY07/SFY08 and continued in FFY08/SFY09 and FFY09/SFY10. As discussed earlier, training focused on the importance of completing the COS Form, addressing barriers to completing the Child Outcomes measurement process and improving the quality of Child Outcomes data. It is believed that continued training – inclusive of the changes to training that have been incorporated since FFY07/SFY08 – have improved both the quality and the reliability of the child outcome measurement data, as demonstrated by increased rates of matched pair data from CFCs and anecdotal reports by CFC staff and providers involved in the measurement process.

To improve uniformity of administration, having one of the two lowest percentage of

This activity is ongoing.



compliance child outcomes entry-exit pairs was made a negative factor in the CFC determination scorecard, if the percentage is below 50% of the state average effective with CY 2007 and each year thereafter.

During FFY07/SFY08 the EI program emphasized the importance of correctly filling in the child outcome ratings at each IFSP, with particular emphasis on indicating progress was made.


During FFY07/SFY08 and FFY08/SFY09 the EI program reviewed the rates of compliance with rules regarding child outcomes measurement with CFCs, the IICEI and other interested parties and developed strategies to assure uniformity of administration.


During FFY07/SFY08 and FFY08/SFY09 the EI program reviewed the aggregate results from child outcomes measurement and discussed what the results say about the program and made initial plans for activities to improve results.


During FFY08/SFY09 and FFY09/SFY10 the EI program worked with stakeholders, including the IICEI and CFCs to develop goals to improve child outcomes.

This activity is in progress. The Outcomes Workgroup has begun the process of analyzing available Child Outcomes data. Early discussions have focused on assuring reliability and validity of the data. To this end, Illinois is participating in the ENHANCE Project, which is working in multiple states to determine the reliability and validity of the child outcomes measurement process using the ECO COS Form. Additionally, Illinois has created a System Ombudsman position, whose role it is to improve compliance with program rules and principles and, in turn, facilitate better outcomes for children.

During FFY08/SFY09 and FFY09/SFY10 the EI program worked with contractors and stakeholders to educate the public on the early results on child outcome measurement and why it is important, with the help of the Outcomes Workgroup, which will meet at least quarterly starting in December, 2009.

The Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup was convened, met and continues to meet to assist the State in developing strategies for disseminating information regarding the Child and Family Outcomes measurement processes, improving those processes, assuring reliability and validity of outcomes data and improving performance.



By the end of FFY10/SFY11 the EI program will implement specific goals to improve child outcomes.

The EI program is working with the IICEI, the Outcomes Workgroup, and the ENHANCE Project on this activity.

The System Ombudsman position will begin work with the field in February 2010 on improving compliance with program rules and principles. Better compliance with principles will result in better outcomes for children.

The System Ombudsman position has been filled and the System Ombudsman is actively working toward this effort.

By June 30, 2010, the IICEI will create a workgroup to study issues that prevent good outcomes for Hispanic children and families. This group will issue an initial report no later than December 31, 2010.

Due to a number of emergent priorities in the State, including the work of the Early Intervention Taskforce, it was determined that this improvement activity would need to be delayed. Further, it is felt that additional information about outcomes for Hispanic children must be obtained before this activity can be fully implemented. The EI program continues to believe this to be an important activity. A new timeline has been set and the improvement activity has been reworded as follows: By December 31, 2011, the IICEI will create a workgroup to investigate the correlation, if any, between poor family outcomes reported in a prior year by Spanish-speaking families and the child outcome ratings for children in Spanish-speaking households. This group will issue an initial report no later than June 30, 2012.

Special training will be undertaken with CFCs and providers in Chicago to improve the amount of useable data, to be completed no later than June 30, 2010.

This activity has been completed.

The following are other improvement activities that occurred in FFY09/SFY10:

• The data logic for pulling matched pairs data to measure child outcomes was reviewed and revised to address identified problems. Data had been lost if exit data were entered within 120 days of the child’s third birthday, but not within 120 days of the case closure date. Another problem arose when the final IFSP and the termination dates were the same day. Both of these issues have been corrected, allowing additional matched pairs to be included in child outcome data. An issue with the use of an old termination code has also been addressed, with the old code for “moved out of state” being replaced with the correct, current code.

• An edit was made to the Cornerstone system to allow CFC offices to add child outcome data to the system up to 90 days so that missing data can be entered or corrections made by the CFC office.



• In April 2010, the CFC #2 manager volunteered to conduct a file review on the files of children with “unmatched pairs” for child outcome data in her CFC. At a CFC May 2010 managers meeting, the CFC manager presented her analysis of the review. Her presentation was followed by a facilitated discussion among the CFC managers about issues and strategies to improve compliance.

• On June 17, 2010, a meeting of CFC managers from the Chicago area CFC offices (referenced in an improvement activity, above,) was held to further discuss strategies for improving compliance with completing and entering the child outcome data. These CFC offices represent the area of the state with the lowest percentage of children whose electronic files contain matched child outcome pairs.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). A revision to the targets for FFY10/SFY11 is also proposed. Illinois proposes to replace its FFY08/SFY09 baseline data with the FFY09/SFY10 data as it is more fully reflective of Illinois’ EI population for the following reasons: • There was a 41 percent increase from FFY08/SFY09 to FFY09/SFY10 in the number

of matched pairs data available for analysis.

• Increased use of the decision tree and participation in training sessions have increased the understanding of the child outcome measurement process, resulting in data that more accurately reflects child performance.

• With an additional year of data collection, a full cadre of EI participants is reflected in the data, including children with more significant developmental concerns. FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010

(2010 – 2011) Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Outcomes: A. 65.6% for positive social-emotional skills (including social

relationships); B. 77.0% for acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early

language/communication); and C. 74.5% for use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program.



Outcomes: A. 63.3% for positive social-emotional skills (including social



2011 (2011 – 2012)

Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Outcomes: A. 66.0% for positive social-emotional skills (including social


language/communication); and C. 75.0% for use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Outcomes: A. 63.3% for positive social-emotional skills (including social



2012 (2012 – 2013)

Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Outcomes: A. 66.5% for positive social-emotional skills (including social


language/communication); and C. 75.5% for use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turn 3 years of age or exited the program. Outcomes: A. 63.3% for positive social-emotional skills (including social





With input from the Outcomes Workgroup, the proposed performance targets for FFY10, FFY11 and FFY12 have been set using the new baseline data. The targets indicate an increase in two summary statements, while the remaining targets decrease and then improve to target value levels. Based on the information shared under the Progress or Slippage for Indicator 3 discussed earlier, the EI Program is not confident that improvement in terms of increases in stated percentages should be expected.

The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13.

New Improvement Activities Timelines & Resources

The EI program will add two Child Outcomes measurement modules to the Systems Overview training which is currently required of all new service providers. This improvement activity will target both the quality of Illinois’ Child Outcomes data as well as the quality of services designed to improve children’s outcomes.

This activity will be completed no later than February 1, 2011. Resources include, but are not limited to the Early Intervention Training Program.

Utilizing a multifaceted approach to training and support related to the Child Outcomes measurement process, the EI program will develop an online training module in order to improve access to information about the Child Outcomes measurement process. Additionally, the EI program will offer post-training team discussions, mentoring and support to better ensure generalization of skills and consistency of practice. This improvement activity will target both the quality of Illinois’ Child Outcomes data as well as the quality of services designed to improve children’s outcomes.

This activity will be completed no later than February 1, 2011. Resources include, but are not limited to the Early Intervention Training Program.

The EI program will offer post-training team discussions, mentoring and support to better ensure generalization of skills and consistency of practice. This improvement activity will target both the quality of Illinois’ Child Outcomes data as well as the quality of services designed to improve children’s outcomes.

This activity will begin no later than February 1, 2011 and will continue through June 30, 2013. Resources include, but are not limited to the Early Intervention Training Program.



The EI program will begin analyzing Child Outcome data by race/ethnicity and comparing this data to Family Outcome data. This improvement activity will primarily target the quality of services designed to improve children’s outcomes.

This activity will be completed no later than June 30, 2011. Resources include, but are not limited to the workgroup convened to address issues related to the Hispanic and African American communities in Illinois and the EI Data Manager.

The IICEI will create a workgroup to investigate the correlation, if any, between poor family outcomes reported in a prior year by Spanish-speaking families and the child outcome ratings for children in Spanish-speaking households. The focus of the Workgroup will be expanded to include African American families.

This Workgroup will be created by December, 31, 2011 and will issue a report no later than June 30, 2012.

Resources include the IICEI, the EI Training Program, and the Bureau of Early Intervention.





Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

Indicator 4: Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family: A. Know their rights; B. Effectively communicate their children's needs; and C. Help their children develop and learn.

(20 USC 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early

intervention services have helped the family know their rights) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.

C. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.


FFY09/SFY10

73.5% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights

85% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs

89% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn




Weighted Survey Results: Formula: [(Responses 4 or Higher/Returns) x 100]

Percent 4 or Higher

FFY09/SFY10 Target

To what extent has early intervention helped your family know and understand your rights?

[(609.48/775.60) x 100] 78.58% 73.5%

To what extent has early intervention helped your family effectively communicate your child's needs?

[(665.75/777.50) x 100] 85.63% 85%

To what extent has early intervention helped your family be able to help your child develop and learn?

[(644.45/773.84) x 100]

83.28% 89%

Illinois utilized the revised version of the Family Outcomes Survey (FOS-R) for the first time this year to collect the data for this indicator. A copy of the FOS-R can be found as Attachment C. The FOS-R uses a 5-point rating scale, versus a 7-point scale used in previous versions, to assess the helpfulness of early intervention. The scale includes the following responses: 1 = Not at all helpful, 2 = A little helpful, 3 = Somewhat helpful, 4 = Very helpful, and 5 = Extremely helpful. Also new with the FOS-R are 17 new helpfulness indicators, including five for “know their rights,” six for “effectively communicate their children’s needs,” and six for “help their children develop and learn.” These additional indicators have been added with the belief that the data collected would be more informative and valid than data collected from the previous version of the FOS. Since the FOS-R contains more than one item for each of the OSEP helpfulness indicators, a mean score has been calculated for each indicator. Survey results have been weighted to correct for geographic disparities in returns, resulting in minor for all three measures.

For the second consecutive year Illinois used an all mail survey, with the result of a more representative sample overall. Families were selected in the same way as they have been in the past, based upon a representative sample of children having a six-month review or annual IFSP coming due during a given span of time. The net return rate of about 21% was lower than the 24% from the past year. It is generally agreed that the all mail approach is best for Illinois, but the program will work with the Outcomes Workgroup on ways to improve race, ethnic and geographical representativeness and return rates. Illinois has determined that its data for Indicator 4 are valid and reliable for the following reasons: • The Cornerstone system identifies children who are scheduled for a 6-month and annual

review for survey distribution and links demographic information for those families to survey results for further analysis.

• The survey system allows families to respond anonymously.

• Distribution to families via mail has eliminated intended/unintended influence that service coordinators or EI providers might have on responses.

• Returned surveys are scanned to ensure accurate reporting of results, with written comments entered manually.



• Surveys are distributed, received, scanned, and analyzed by the EI Training Program, with statewide and CFC-specific data reported.

• The Outcomes Work Group reviews data and helps plan improvement activities.

• The Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center has determined that the FOS-R exhibits excellent psychometric properties. Illinois will provide its data to the ECO Center for further analysis.

To what extent has early intervention helped your family know and understand your rights?

Chicago Suburban Cook

Collar Counties Downstate Illinois

Total

Raw Totals

Distributed 1,012 742 846 1,110 3,710Mean Returns/Responses 172.2 143 212.4 248 775.6Mean Return Rate/Responses 17.02% 19.27% 25.11% 22.34% 20.91%Mean Responses 4 or Higher 119.8 112.6 175.6 207.4 615.4% 4 or Higher 69.57% 78.74% 82.67% 83.63% 79.35%Mean Average Response 3.87 4.08 4.25 4.27 4.12Statewide Return % 22.20% 18.44% 27.39% 31.97% 100%Totals Adjusted for Geography

Avg. IFSP in Period 5,078 3,695 4,592 5,228 18,592Caseload % 27.31% 19.87% 24.70% 28.12% 100%Adjusted Returns 211.82 154.11 191.57 218.10 775.6Adjusted Responses 4 or Higher 147.36 121.35 158.37 182.40 609.48% 4 or Higher 69.57% 78.74% 82.67% 83.63% 78.58%Average Response 3.87 4.08 4.25 4.27 4.12To what extent has early intervention helped your family effectively communicate your child's needs?



Total

Raw Totals

Distributed 1,012 742 846 1,110 3,710Mean Returns/Responses 172.5 143.5 213 248.5 777.5Mean Return Rate/Responses 17.05% 19.34% 25.18% 22.39% 20.96%Mean Responses 4 or Higher 138.8 118.67 187.67 225 670.14% 4 or Higher 80.46% 82.69% 88.11% 90.54% 86.19%Average Response 4.11 4.25 4.39 4.47 4.35Statewide Return % 22.19% 18.45% 27.40% 31.96% 100%



Totals Adjusted for Geography

Avg. IFSP in Period 5,078 3,695 4,592 5,228 18,592Caseload % 27.31% 19.87% 24.70% 28.12% 100%Adjusted Returns 212.33 154.49 192.04 218.63 777.5Responses 4 or Higher 170.84 127.75 169.21 197.95 665.75% 4 or Higher 80.46% 82.69% 88.11% 90.54% 85.63%Average Response 4.11 4.25 4.39 4.47 4.35To what extent has early intervention helped your family? Be able to help your child develop and learn?



Total Raw Totals Distributed 1,012 742 846 1,110 3,710Mean Returns/Responses 172.5 143.17 211.5 246.67 773.84Mean Return Rate/Responses 17.05% 19.29% 25.00% 22.22% 20.86%Mean Responses 4 or Higher 141 115.17 178.17 212 646.34% 4 or Higher 81.74% 80.44% 84.24% 85.94% 83.52%Average Response 4.16 4.13 4.13 4.45 4.27Statewide Return % 22.54% 19.81% 25.28% 32.37% 100%



Total

Totals Adjusted for Geography

Avg. IFSP in Period 5,078 3,695 4,592 5,228 18,592Caseload % 27.31% 19.87% 24.70% 28.12% 100%Adjusted Returns 211.33 153.76 191.14 217.60 773.84Responses 4 or Higher 172.74 123.68 161.02 187.01 644.45% 4 or Higher 81.74% 80.44% 84.24% 85.94% 83.28%Average Response 4.16 4.13 4.13 4.45 4.27



FFY 09/SFY 10 Family Outcome Survey Results

Return Rates & Unweighted Results by CFC Know Rights

Communicate Child Needs

Help Child Develop & Learn

CFC # & Area Surveys Returns ReturnRate

Scores4 or >

MeanScore

Scores4 or >

Mean Score

Scores4 or >

MeanScore

#1 - Rockford 105 25 23.81% 86.2% 4.43 89.6% 4.47 75.6% 4.26#2 - Lake County 158 32 20.25% 87.7% 4.35 91.4% 4.45 92.5% 4.52#3 - Freeport 72 16 22.22% 74.4% 4.06 83.0% 4.36 77.5% 4.20#4 - Kane-Kendall Counties 130 37 28.46% 81.9% 4.05 86.4% 4.21 84.1% 4.24#5 - Du Page County 230 61 26.52% 87.2% 4.41 92.2% 4.47 89.3% 4.36#6 - N. Suburbs 397 93 23.43% 79.9% 4.07 86.0% 4.33 83.3% 4.17#7 - W. Suburbs 161 24 14.91% 80.0% 4.11 75.0% 3.94 74.3% 4.00#8 - SW Chicago 130 26 20.00% 82.7% 4.17 94.0% 4.67 94.5% 4.32#9 - Central Chicago 165 17 10.30% 63.5% 3.52 75.5% 3.56 76.4% 3.75#10 - SE Chicago 136 13 9.56% 55.9% 3.25 57.8% 3.51 69.2% 3.68#11 - N. Chicago 581 117 20.14% 69.3% 3.91 80.8% 4.20 80.7% 4.18#12 - S. Suburbs 184 28 15.22% 73.1% 3.93 77.9% 4.19 75.9% 4.12#13 - Monmouth 110 22 20.00% 71.0% 3.91 82.2% 4.49 84.2% 4.30#14 - Peoria 146 36 24.66% 86.6% 4.29 92.3% 4.44 86.5% 4.30#15 - Joliet 248 63 25.40% 74.3% 4.04 82.9% 4.26 73.6% 4.04#16 - Danville 162 40 24.69% 85.9% 4.41 88.8% 4.48 85.4% 4.40#17 - Quincy 40 9 22.50% 86.6% 4.36 100.0% 4.74 96.3% 4.72#18 - Springfield 45 15 31.11% 90.0% 4.26 91.7% 4.26 89.8% 4.29#19 - Decatur 81 24 29.63% 85.6% 4.43 94.2% 4.71 83.3% 4.34#20 - Effingham 95 19 20.00% 73.6% 4.16 94.2% 4.52 90.3% 4.53#21 - Belleville 101 25 24.75% 90.4% 4.35 96.4% 4.57 95.5% 4.44#22 - Centralia 76 20 26.32% 74.7% 4.06 85.1% 4.36 82.6% 4.32#23 - Norris City 38 4 10.53% 95.0% 4.55 100.0% 4.67 100.0% 4.67#24 - Carbondale 39 5 12.82% 100.0% 4.63 100.0% 4.60 100.0% 4.60#25 - McHenry County 80 22 27.50% 89.6% 4.63 89.4% 4.62 88.6% 4.61Cook County 1,754 318 18.13% 73.73% 3.97 81.48% 4.17 81.15% 4.15Collar Counties 846 215 25.41% 82.67% 4.25 88.11% 4.39 84.24% 4.13Downstate 1,110 260 23.42% 83.63% 4.27 90.54% 4.47 85.94% 4.45STATEWIDE 3,710 793 21.37% 79.4% 4.12 86.2% 4.35 83.5% 4.27

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress or Slippage for Indicator 4: • In FFY09/SFY10, the percentage of families that indicated a positive response for knowing

and understanding their rights was 78.58%, which exceeds the target of 73.5% and demonstrates an increase from FFY08/SFY09 data (71.85%).

• In FFY09/SFY10, the percentage of families that indicate a positive response for families being able to communicate child needs was 85.63%, which exceeds the target of 85% and demonstrates an increase from FFY08/SFY09 data (83.81%).



• In FFY09/SFY10, the percentage of families for being able to help their child develop and learn was 83.28%, which fell short of the target of 89% and demonstrates a decrease from FFY08/SFY09 data (88.27%).

Implementation of the new FOS-R did “raise the benchmark” on what constituted a positive response from families. In past years, responses on the helpfulness scale of “good” and “excellent” (5, 6 or 7 on a 7 point scale) were considered positive responses. This year, responses of “very helpful” and “extremely helpful” (4 or 5 on a 5 point scale) were considered positive responses, with a response of “somewhat helpful” not considered a positive response. The change in the scale and the addition of the helpfulness indicators may have directly contributed to both progress in two measures and slippage in the third. This version of the survey provides more informative data that will help guide providers to make program improvements that will directly impact these indicators for families. The data will also help the state identify training and technical assistance needs and will support policy review and revisions, as needed.

Downstate again had the highest scores on knowing rights and communicating your child’s needs. Statewide a big jump was seen in both measures, with the exception of Chicago, which saw about a 1% decrease in both areas. The Collar Counties had the highest scores for helping their children develop and learn, but, overall, these scores dropped statewide. Scores for respondents from Suburban Cook County and the Collar Counties had the biggest jump of 16.44% and 12.8% in the area of knowing rights from the previous year. When comparing the distribution of surveys by race/ethnicity to the data for the children enrolled in the program, there was good representation for Whites (54% of surveys/53% of children enrolled), Blacks (14% of surveys/15% of children enrolled), and Hispanics (27% of surveys/27% of children enrolled). Concerns continue about the responses of Hispanics and Blacks. This year the return rates for both Spanish and English speaking Hispanic families were 14.72% and 13.59% respectively and return rate for Black families was 10.87%, all significantly less than the 25.11% return rate for White families. Local/CFC level data continue to illuminate the differential return rate problem. Weighting the four large regions helps adjust for this, but there are also disparities within those larger regions. For instance, CFC offices 9 and 10, which serve Chicago, had the lowest rating scores and the lowest return rate. CFC offices 9 and 10 are in an economically poor area. At the other end of that spectrum, CFC offices 4 and 5, Kane, Kendall, and Du Page counties, represents more middle class and wealthier areas and they had the state’s highest return rate. Responses from these CFC areas were slightly higher than the state average. Their responses did not differ as much as those for the collar counties as a whole but their results do pull up the averages somewhat. Unlike previous years, Spanish language survey results came in much higher than the average, both in average scores and in the percentage responding with scores of 4 or higher. Spanish speaking families responded with a 4 or higher at a rate of 94.6% for helpfulness in knowing their rights, 90.95% for helpfulness in communicating their child’s needs and 93.56% for helping their child develop and learn.



As was the case last year, the program focused on taking steps that would improve outcomes for families. However, there were several changes in the program environment that help explain the decline in the area of helping your child develop and learn: • Service delays, discussed in Indicator 1, may foster a sense of dissatisfaction with the

program in families who are waiting to receive services for their child.

• Provider payment delays may contribute to unease for families.

• As noted before, the change in the scale and the addition of the helpfulness indicators in the survey directly contributed to both progress in two areas and slippage in one area. It is believed that these results are more informative and valid than in years past.

Improvement Activities Completed: Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource The System Ombudsman will work to enhance high-level conformity with the spirit of Early Intervention rules, laws and philosophy. The System Ombudsman also will observe and make recommendations on local practice as it relates to the three family outcomes.

On February 15, 2010, a system ombudsman position was added to the Illinois EI Training Program. The ombudsman has visited each of the CFCs to assess areas of strengths and concerns and is work to provide plans for training and technical assistance opportunities to address identified challenges. Other Program Integrity Project strategies have been piloted, with some system impact realized.

The IICEI will create a workgroup to study issues related to Hispanics. This workgroup will recommend program changes that will have a positive impact on the way Hispanics experience the program and thus their outcomes.

This activity was not completed due to additional Workgroups that were formed around a special Early Intervention Legislative Taskforce. An IICEI Workgroup to study issues related to Hispanics will be created by December, 31, 2011 and will issue a report no later than June 30, 2012.

The program will do whatever it can to limit provider payment delays. Effective January 1, 2010 the state has included EI payments under its state Prompt Payment Act, which says the state must make an additional payment if bills are not paid within 60 days.

This situation was monitored daily by Bureau staff and every effort was made to utilize all available funds, including state general revenue, federal Part C, Medicaid reimbursement, and family fee funds. Payments were made as funds became available.

The ECO/Illinois/Texas survey tool is being revised to make it appear shorter and less intimidating to families. It is anticipated this will improve the response rate.

A revised version of the Family Outcomes Survey was used to collected data from Illinois families.

Illinois chose to use this new survey format in order to better measure family outcomes and determine the helpfulness of early intervention programs. The revised version contains more detailed information to guide program improvement activities and uses a modified survey format.



The Outcomes Workgroup will recommend steps to be taken that will help increase survey return rates and help make returns more representative of the caseload for FFY09/ SFY10 and following years.

The Outcomes Workgroup discussed child and family outcomes data and made recommendations for improvement activities.

In addition, as part of minority outreach strategies, the Early Intervention Clearinghouse began developing bilingual information for families and will develop and maintain translated program documents for use by CFC offices. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). A revision to the targets for FFY10/SFY11 is also proposed.

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target 2010

(2011-2012) 78% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights

85.8% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs 85.0% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn

2011 (2011-2012)

78.5% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights


2012 (2012-2013)

79% of respondent families participating in Part C will report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights


Illinois’ baseline data (from FFY05/SFY06) included the weighted values of 76.8% of respondent families reported that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights; 86.5% of respondent families reported that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs; and 90.2% of respondent families reported that



early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn. The proposed target values maintain the baseline target for two indicators (effectively communicate your child’s needs and able to help your child develop and learn) in FFY2012/SFY2013, as the baseline values are well over current performance. Interim years demonstrate a gradual increase to baseline values. Improvement over baseline for the third indicator (know and understand your rights) has been demonstrated and should continue as improvement activities are implemented. Survey data are still stabilizing as strategies to increase both the number of surveys distributed and return rates will have an impact on the ability of the data to be representative across CFC office areas and populations served. Revisions to proposed targets and improvement activities were discussed with the Outcomes Workgroup. The Workgroup includes parent representatives from the IICEI, CFC office managers, Early Intervention providers, and research and training staff. The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources The Outcomes Workgroup will develop a guidance document to help CFCs report the local results of the FOS to the community. Based on what is learned from the survey data statewide and locally, providers and programs will have an opportunity to reflect on the data and may choose to make changes or adjustments in their practice with families to see an improvement in family outcomes and/or individual indicators.

This will be completed in FFY10/SFY11. Resources include the Outcomes Workgroup, the EI Training Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

The Illinois EI Training Program will imbed training on the FOS indicators in both their online training modules and as a part of face-to face training opportunities for providers. The intent of this training will be to highlight the importance of what is asked of families as a part of the FOS, and to highlight how data from the FOS can help states see how their families are doing, identify any areas in need of improvement, and then, after program adjustments, assess the impact of those changes—with the goal of moving to ever higher percentages of families reporting outcomes attained.

This will be completed in FFY10/SFY11 and will continue as an ongoing activity. Resources include EI Training Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

The IICEI will create a Workgroup to study issues related to Hispanics. This Workgroup will recommend program changes that will have a positive impact on the way Hispanics experience the program and thus their outcomes. The focus of this group will be expanded to include African American families.

This Workgroup will be created by December, 31, 2011 and will issue a report no later than June 30, 2012. Resources include the IICEI, the EI Training Program, and the Bureau of Early Intervention.



Illinois will discontinue the use of mailing to a sampling of families participating in the program. All families enrolled in the program during a designated month will be sent a Family Outcomes Survey.

This will be initiated in FFY10/SFY11 and will continue as an ongoing activity. Resources include the EI Training Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

An online survey will be developed as an option for families to complete the Family Outcomes Survey. The online option will be available in both English and Spanish. The online option will not replace the paper version of the FOS. It is the hope that by offering an online option for FOS completion Illinois will see an increase in the overall return rate.

This will be completed in FFY10/SFY11 and will remain as an ongoing activity. Resources include the EI Training Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

To increase the return rate for African American and Hispanic families surveyed statewide and for all families’ surveyed living in the City of Chicago, targeted phone calls will be made to families who have not returned a completed survey two weeks following the distribution of the surveys. Phone calls will be made by the EI Training Program staff and will be done for both English and Spanish speaking families. Families will be given the option to complete the survey over the phone at the time of the phone call.

This will be completed in FFY10/SFY11 and will remain as an ongoing activity. Resources include the EI Training Program.

The Illinois EI Training Program will develop a specific online training module for providers focused on cultural competency with the goal of increasing the percentage of African American and Hispanic Families reporting outcomes attained.

This will be completed in FFY11/SFY12. Resources include the EI Training Program and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

The EI Clearinghouse will develop materials for distribution to families and update information on its website to help ensure that families are well informed or their rights.

This work will begin in FFY10/SFY11 and will continue as on ongoing activity. Resources include the EI Clearinghouse, the EI Training Program, CFC offices and the Bureau of Early Intervention.

Graduate student research on issues that may impact family outcomes will be approved and the resulting information considered for future improvement activities.

This work will begin in FFY10/SFY11 and will continue as on ongoing activity. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention and Illinois graduate programs who contact the program for support and approval of research topics.





Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find

Indicator 5: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs compared to national data.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 1)] times 100 compared to national data.


FFY09/SFY10 The percentage of all children in Illinois under age 1 served through an IFSP will be at least 1.33%, approximately 2,420 children.


Indicator 5 Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 1)] times 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: Based on October 31, 2009 data (1,950/18,133) X 100= 1.08% Illinois ranks 22th out of all states and D.C.

Based on October 31, 2009 data, Illinois reported 1,950 children under 1 had active IFSPs, equal to a 1.08% participation rate. That is lower than the 1.13% for October 31, 2008, and falls short of the FFY09/SF10 target of 1.33%. Illinois does perform above the national percentage of 1.03%. Illinois has fallen from a ranking of 19 in FFY08/SFY09 to 22 among the 50 states and D.C. The following chart provides statewide, regional, and CFC office participation rate histories. The participation rates are based upon June 30, 2010 data, with the census estimates used for the population of infants and toddlers birth to 1. For previous years, the participation rates were calculated using birth data rather than census estimates. Birth data for Illinois infants that are born in bordering states are no longer available to the program.



Participation Rate Under 1 History by CFC & Region

End of: FY09 6 Year

CFC # & Area SFY04 SFY05 SFY06 SFY07 SFY08 SFY09 SFY10 Rank Change Change

#1 - ROCKFORD 1.44% 1.15% 1.28% 1.46% 1.22% 1.25% 0.98% 16 -21.96% -32.25%#2 - Lake County 0.66% 0.86% 1.00% 0.91% 0.75% 0.88% 0.61% 25 -30.45% -7.26% #3 - FREEPORT 1.25% 1.59% 1.10% 1.50% 1.25% 1.68% 0.93% 18 -44.62% -25.57%#4 - Kane & Kendall Co. 0.76% 1.19% 1.01% 1.20% 0.97% 1.02% 0.63% 24 -38.61% -17.61%#5 - Du Page County 0.94% 0.97% 0.92% 0.99% 0.95% 0.96% 0.96% 17 0.30% 2.43% #6 - N. Suburbs 0.93% 1.10% 1.28% 1.38% 1.43% 1.31% 1.37% 5 4.91% 47.77% #7 - W. Suburbs 0.88% 0.93% 1.10% 1.25% 1.30% 1.30% 1.16% 11 -10.47% 32.26% #8 - SW Chicago 1.33% 1.60% 1.40% 1.44% 1.42% 1.44% 1.38% 4 -4.47% 3.43% #9 - Central Chicago 1.28% 1.20% 1.53% 2.05% 1.68% 1.60% 1.58% 3 -1.25% 23.43% #10 - SE Chicago 1.54% 1.68% 1.67% 1.90% 1.42% 1.45% 1.20% 10 -17.23% -22.07% #11 - N. Chicago 0.95% 1.00% 1.20% 1.33% 1.21% 1.20% 1.36% 6 13.61% 43.51% #12 - S. Suburbs 1.37% 1.60% 1.45% 1.30% 1.22% 1.21% 1.01% 14 -16.22% -26.00% #13 - MONMOUTH 0.63% 1.38% 1.01% 1.24% 1.16% 1.06% 1.01% 15 -5.15% 59.59% #14 - PEORIA 0.63% 0.74% 0.98% 0.94% 1.13% 0.83% 0.72% 23 -12.66% 15.06%#15 - Joliet 1.15% 1.26% 1.01% 0.96% 1.13% 1.04% 0.80% 22 -23.49% -30.81% #16 - DANVILLE 0.69% 0.83% 0.95% 1.28% 1.31% 1.21% 1.24% 8 2.34% 79.46% #17 - QUINCY 0.85% 1.28% 1.29% 1.84% 1.84% 1.94% 0.91% 19 -52.92% 7.46% #18 - SPRINGFIELD 1.45% 1.22% 1.39% 1.49% 1.30% 1.13% 1.13% 12 -0.35% -22.35% #19 - DECATUR 0.94% 1.41% 1.29% 1.60% 1.51% 1.92% 1.24% 9 -35.63% 31.48% #20 - EFFINGHAM 1.29% 2.13% 1.61% 1.99% 1.99% 2.07% 1.85% 2 -10.45% 43.69% #21 - BELLEVILLE 0.86% 1.03% 0.94% 0.78% 0.97% 1.31% 0.80% 21 -38.95% -7.01% #22 - CENTRALIA 1.53% 1.61% 1.39% 1.60% 1.56% 1.28% 1.31% 7 2.38% -14.35% #23 - NORRIS CITY 2.88% 3.35% 4.27% 2.65% 2.75% 4.51% 2.29% 1 -49.19% -20.43% #24 - CARBONDALE 0.63% 1.14% 1.33% 1.28% 1.11% 1.25% 1.07% 13 -14.48% 69.67%#25 - McHenry County 1.36% 1.02% 0.94% 0.99% 1.28% 1.13% 0.90% 20 -20.57% -34.00%Statewide 1.06% 1.21% 1.20% 1.30% 1.25% 1.21% 1.08% -9.92% 2.83%Cook (6-12) 1.14% 1.25% 1.35% 1.48% 1.36% 1.31% 1.31% 0.00% 14.91%Collar Counties (2,4,5,15,25) 0.97% 1.09% 1.05% 1.07% 1.11% 1.07% 0.77% -28.04% -20.62%Downstate (Others) 1.03% 1.26% 1.12% 1.24% 1.22% 1.19% 1.00% -15.97% -2.91%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress/Slippage for Indicator 5: The October 31, 2009 under 1 participation rate of 1.08% is lower than the October 31, 2008 participation rate of 1.13%, and falls short of the FFY09/SF10 target of 1.33%. Illinois has fallen from a ranking of 19 in FFY08/SFY09 to 22 among the 50 states and D.C. Illinois performed above the national percentage of 1.03%. In addition, 13 CFC offices have participation rates above the national percentage. Five CFC offices have increased under 1 participation rates from the previous year.



In the six years between the end of FFY03/SFY04 and the end of FFY09/SFY10, the under 1 participation rate increased statewide and for 13 CFC offices. The Cook County CFC offices, as a group, achieved an increase. Regional data for Collar County CFC offices and the remaining CFC offices outside of Cook County show a downward trend. Data provided in Indicator 6 demonstrate a decrease in under 3 participation rate (from 3.43% on October 31, 2008 to 3.38 on October 31, 2009). It is not clear why Illinois has experienced a proportionally larger decline in its under 1 participation rate. The following rationales identify several important factors.

• Of the 10 CFC offices with the greatest drop in under 1 participation rates, all but one office borders on another state. For these CFC offices, the change in the use of census estimates for the population of infants and toddlers birth to 1, rather than birth data, may have contributed to these decreases.

• System stresses aggravated by the State’s fiscal situation and the resulting delays in payments to providers may have diverted CFC office from efforts to target the under 1 population.

• Economic stressors on families may result in fewer families accessing program services.

• During FFY08/SFY09, the Early Intervention program initiated the Program Integrity Project to accomplish statewide program equality; fidelity to program principles and state and federal laws; and long-term program stability. As a result of the Program Integrity Project, the program anticipated a reduced growth rate or a decline in overall enrollment in the program in FFY09/SFY10. Initial efforts focused on eligibility determination to make sure that process was being conducted according to policy and procedure, so that appropriate determinations will be made.

CFC managers provided their perspective on why under 1 participation rates have fallen or remained stable. They described insurance/HMO influences on physicians’ decisions to retain child in system services, rather than referring them to the EI Program, until insurance benefits have been exhausted. In addition, acting as good stewards of program funds, CFC offices evaluate premature infants for EI eligibility, but do not keep the case open if the infant does not need services at the time and the family chooses not to remain in the program. These families are periodically contacted regarding participation.

Improvement Activities Completed: Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource The improvement activities described above are ongoing efforts.

The Early Intervention Program coordinated efforts with the Illinois Department of Public Health to ensure that all infants who are registered in the Illinois Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Reporting System (APORS) have been referred to Early Intervention. Referral information is being sent to the Bureau of Early Intervention and is then forwarded to the appropriate CFC office. The CFC office contacts the family if the infant is not already enrolled in the program. The Bureau continues to work with APORS to help ensure that evaluations are completed and service plans are in place for eligible children.



Participate in advisory groups and pilot activities to promote the referral of infants to the Early Intervention Program, such as the Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) III project, the EI/Medical Home project, and the development of an early childhood community referral pilot system in select communities.

In its first year, the ABCD III, Illinois Healthy Beginnings II (IHB2) project focused on: facilitating stakeholder input, surveying the 25 CFC offices about their current technical and staffing capacity to participate as a pilot project; reviewing draft materials for use in the pilot projects, including a universal referral and follow-up form and IFSP summary form; and reviewing barriers, policy and protocol for stakeholders. Bureau of Early Intervention staff, in response to an invitation from the IL Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS), participate on Workgroups of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) child Health Quality Demonstration Grant. One goal of the grant project is to improve perinatal and early childhood health outcomes, including assuring that existing systems, such as Early Intervention, are linked to the medical home and developing a mechanism to link the NICU to the medical home and to EI to promote better care and coordination and earlier entry into EI.

Another improvement activity includes the following:

• In addition to the projects identified above, EI has participated in the Enhancing Developmentally Oriented Primary Care (EDOPC) initiative. This collaborative project began in 2005 with the goals to improve delivery and financing of preventive health and developmental services for children birth to three and build on existing programs to develop a range of strategies for primary care settings. The initiative has provided training and implemented strategies to promote developmental screening and referral to EI, including facilitating communication between primary care providers and EI.



2010 (2010-2011)

On October 31, 2010, the percentage of all children in Illinois under age 1 served through an IFSP will be at least 1.08%.

2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)




The proposed performance targets for FFY10, FFY11 and FFY12 have been set at the FFY09/SFY10 performance level due to the factors facing the EI Program, as discussed above. With several of these factors out of the control of the program, Illinois is not confident that improvement in terms of increases in stated percentages should be expected. The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources The APORS referral process will be reviewed to ensure that it has been successfully implemented.

By December 2010, the CFC offices will be surveyed to determine if the process is being implemented appropriately and is responsive to the needs of CFC offices and families identified through the APORS. Information from the survey will be discussed with CFC offices. Resources include APORS, the Bureau of Early Intervention, and the CFC offices.

Continue participation in ABCD III, IHB2 project, including CFC office participation in pilot project activities and data sharing between the HFS and the IL Department of Humans Services/EI.

Selection of pilot sites will be completed by January 2011. Pilot activities and the development and implementation of data sharing activities will be an ongoing activity. Resources include HFS and its IHB2 Project Management Committee and subcommittees, Bureau of Early Intervention, and CFC offices.

Continued participation in CHIPRA Child Health Quality Demonstration Grant.

Bureau staff will continue participation in Workgroups and assist in the development and implementation of strategies throughout the grant period (i.e., 2015). Resources include HFS and its CHIPRA Child Health Quality Demonstration Grant Workgroups, Bureau of Early Intervention, and CFC offices.

Continue participation in EDOPC. Bureau and EI Training Program staff will continue participation in the EDOPC advisory group and CFC offices will participate in pilot project activities. Resources include the Advocate Health Care Steps Program, Illinois Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Bureau of Early Intervention, EI Training Program, and CFC offices.



Utilize Program Integrity pilot project efforts to identify barriers to participation of infants in the program and develop strategies that can be shared with other CFC offices.

A CFC office with low under 1 participation rate will be chosen as a pilot project in FFY10/SFY11. Identification of barriers, implementation of strategies, and sharing strategies with other CFC offices will be an ongoing effort. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention, the EI Training Program, EI System Ombudsman, and the EI Monitoring Program.






Indicator 6: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs compared to national data. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 3)] times 100 compared to national data.


FFY09/SFY10 The percentage of children in Illinois under age 3 served through an IFSP will be at least 3.37%, approximately 18, 020 children.


Indicator 6 Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 3)] times 100 compared to national data. FFY09/SFY10 Result (based on October 31, 2009 data): (18,266/540,688) X 100= 3.38% Illinois is ranked 15th among all states and D.C

Based on October 31, 2009 data, Illinois reported 18,266 children under 3 had active IFSPs, equal to a 3.38% participation rate. That is lower than the October 31, 2008 participation rate of 3.43%, but exceeds the FFY09/SFY10 target value of 3.37%. Illinois is ranked 15th among all states and D.C., down from 13th in the previous year. The following chart provides statewide, regional, and CFC office participation rate histories. The participation rates are based upon June 30, 2010 data, with the census estimates used for the population of infants and toddlers birth to 3. For previous years, the participation rates were calculated using birth data rather than census estimates. Birth data for Illinois infants that are born in bordering states are no longer available to the program.



Participation Rate History by CFC & Region

End of FY09 6 Year

CFC # & Area SFY04 SFY05 SFY06 SFY07 SFY08 SFY09 SFY10 Rank Change Change

#1 - LOVES PARK 3.38% 3.43% 3.26% 3.33% 3.76% 3.60% 3.46% 17 -4.01% 2.24%#2 - Lake County 2.61% 2.75% 2.72% 2.57% 2.85% 2.69% 2.81% 25 4.53% 7.74% #3 - FREEPORT 3.34% 3.76% 3.49% 3.80% 3.45% 3.78% 3.50% 15 -7.30% 4.92%#4 - Kane & Kendall Counties 2.77% 3.06% 2.86% 3.03% 3.07% 3.03% 2.92% 23 -3.78% 5.25%#5 - Du Page County 2.73% 2.92% 3.11% 3.24% 3.16% 3.35% 3.54% 13 5.59% 29.57% #6 - N. Suburbs 2.60% 2.90% 3.25% 3.62% 4.01% 3.90% 4.07% 6 4.47% 56.71% #7 - W. Suburbs 2.87% 3.09% 3.43% 3.66% 3.84% 3.87% 4.25% 3 9.74% 47.97% #8 - SW Chicago 2.86% 3.13% 3.20% 3.27% 3.43% 3.55% 3.77% 11 6.20% 31.82% #9 - Central Chicago 2.71% 2.73% 3.11% 3.71% 3.65% 3.97% 3.86% 8 -2.80% 42.39% #10 - SE Chicago 2.75% 2.99% 3.15% 3.22% 3.03% 3.24% 3.18% 21 -1.99% 15.48% #11 - N. Chicago 3.28% 2.49% 2.75% 2.98% 3.31% 3.75% 3.80% 10 1.20% 15.70% #12 - S. Suburbs 3.23% 3.37% 3.19% 3.33% 3.40% 3.35% 3.62% 12 8.04% 12.06% #13 - MONMOUTH 2.33% 2.71% 3.11% 3.48% 3.26% 3.20% 3.17% 22 -1.05% 35.90% #14 - PEORIA 2.40% 2.76% 2.90% 3.30% 3.55% 3.39% 3.37% 19 -0.64% 40.35%#15 - Joliet 3.07% 3.37% 3.36% 3.25% 3.53% 3.66% 3.48% 16 -4.91% 13.37% #16 - DANVILLE 2.41% 2.79% 2.91% 2.95% 3.42% 3.44% 3.53% 14 2.53% 46.35% #17 - QUINCY 2.63% 2.66% 2.81% 3.75% 3.55% 3.85% 3.83% 9 -0.51% 45.65% #18 - SPRINGFIELD 3.24% 3.46% 3.49% 3.54% 3.78% 4.08% 4.14% 5 1.57% 27.91% #19 - DECATUR 3.02% 3.06% 3.32% 3.70% 3.32% 3.95% 4.05% 7 2.43% 33.97% #20 - EFFINGHAM 4.02% 4.35% 4.47% 4.67% 4.51% 4.42% 4.35% 2 -1.63% 8.15% #21 - BELLEVILLE 2.26% 2.48% 2.55% 2.57% 2.74% 3.09% 2.85% 24 -7.84% 26.01% #22 - CENTRALIA 3.90% 4.36% 4.20% 4.46% 4.42% 4.31% 4.21% 4 -2.40% 7.86% #23 - NORRIS CITY 6.44% 7.82% 6.91% 6.98% 7.95% 8.52% 7.63% 1 -10.44% 18.49% #24 - CARBONDALE 2.30% 3.03% 3.04% 2.80% 3.04% 3.46% 3.39% 18 -1.90% 47.58%#25 - McHenry County 3.67% 3.45% 3.17% 3.12% 3.61% 3.33% 3.29% 20 -1.20% -10.35%Statewide 2.84% 3.07% 3.13% 3.30% 3.45% 3.56% 3.59% 0.80% 26.35%Cook (6-12) 2.68% 2.89% 3.10% 3.35% 3.52% 3.66% 3.81% 4.07% 42.12%Collar Counties (2,4,5,15,25) 2.87% 3.06% 3.05% 3.05% 3.21% 3.21% 3.23% 0.63% 12.55%Downstate (Others) 3.06% 3.38% 3.26% 3.46% 3.58% 4.08% 3.62% -11.31% 18.26%

Note: Rates inflated about 1.25% due to inclusion of children over 36 months but less than 37 months, waiting for transition process to be finalized. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress/Slippage for Indicator 6: The October 31, 2009 under 3 participation rate of 3.38% is lower than the October 31, 2008 participation rate of 3.43%, and exceeds the FFY09/SF10 target of 3.37%. Illinois has fallen from a ranking of 13 in FFY08/SFY09 to 15 among the 50 states and D.C. Illinois performed above the national percentage of 2.67%. In addition, all 25 CFC offices have participation rates above the national percentage.



Ten CFC offices have increased under 3 participation rates from the previous year. The participation rates in Cook County and collar county CFC offices have increased. Regional data for the remaining CFC offices show a downward trend. Since FFY03/SFY04, 24 of the CFC offices have increased participation rates. Data provided in Indicator 6 demonstrate a decrease and indicate an overall leveling off of the under 3 participation rate. As stated in Indicator 5, the following rationales identify several important factors.

• System stresses aggravated by the State’s fiscal situation and the resulting delays in payments to providers may have diverted CFC office from efforts to increase participation rates.

• Economic stressors on families may result in fewer families accessing program services.

• During FFY08/SFY09, the Early Intervention program initiated the Program Integrity Project to accomplish statewide program equality; fidelity to program principles and state and federal laws; and long-term program stability. As a result of the Program Integrity Project, the program anticipated a reduced growth rate or a decline in overall enrollment in the program in FFY09/SFY10. Initial efforts focused on eligibility determination to make sure that process was being conducted according to policy and procedure, so that appropriate determinations will be made.

Improvement Activities Completed: Previous improvement activities, such as monthly reporting to CFC offices, performance contracting, and identification of findings and development of corrective action plans continue. In addition, the bulk of funding to CFC offices for service coordination is distributed based on average caseloads over a recent period. Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource The Program Integrity Project efforts initiated in FFY08/SFY09 and described above (Indictor 1) will continue.

Three pilot projects are underway to identify and test approaches to promote program integrity. The pilots involve the collection and analysis of data. A plan of training and technical assistance is then developed and implemented to ensure that program principles and procedures regarding eligibility determination and service plan development are being appropriately followed. Lessons learned through these pilots are shared with all CFC managers at monthly CFC managers’ meetings.

Participation in advisory groups and pilot activities, described in Indicator 5.

See Indicator 5 regarding status of participation in ABCD III, IHB2 and CHIPRA Child Health Quality Demonstration Grant projects.





2010 (2010-2011)


2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)


The proposed performance targets for FFY10, FFY11 and FFY12 maintain the FFY2009 target value of 3.37%, due to the factors facing the EI Program, as discussed above. With several of these factors out of the control of the program, Illinois is not confident that improvement in terms of increases in stated percentages should be expected. The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Continue participation in ABCD III, IHB2 project, including CFC office participation in pilot project activities and data sharing between the HFS and the IL Department of Humans Services/EI.

Selection of pilot sites will be completed by January 2011. Pilot activities and the development and implementation of data sharing activities will be an ongoing activity. Resources include HFS and its IHB2 Project Management Committee and subcommittees, Bureau of Early Intervention, and CFC offices.

Continued participation in CHIPRA Child Health Quality Demonstration Grant.

Bureau staff will continue participation in Workgroups and assist in the development and implementation of strategies throughout the grant period (i.e., 2015). Resources include HFS and its CHIPRA Child Health Quality Demonstration Grant Workgroups, Bureau of Early Intervention, and CFC offices.

Continue participation in EDOPC. Bureau and EI Training Program staff will continue participation in the EDOPC advisory group and CFC offices will participate in pilot project activities. Resources include the Advocate Health Care Steps Program, Illinois Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics, Bureau of Early Intervention, EI Training Program, and CFC offices.



In order to bring the state into full compliance with CAPTA, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) will implement a process to screen children that reside in intact families and refer to EI, when appropriate.

DSCF staff hiring will be completed in FFY10/SFY11 and screening of children that reside in intact families will begin. CFC office staff will receive training as the screening process is rolled out statewide. This screening will be an ongoing strategy. Resources include DCFS and Bureau of Early Intervention staff, CFC offices and the Early Intervention Training Program.






Indicator 7: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline) divided by the (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted)] times 100. Account for untimely evaluations, assessments, and initial IFSP meeting, including the reasons for delays.


FFY09/SFY10 100% of new IFSPs will be initiated within 45 days of referral.


Indicator 7: [IFSP initiated within 45 days of referral /(Total IFSPs – Cases delayed for family reasons)] X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: [(16,736+142)/16,970] X100 = 99.46% FY08/SFY09 Target = 100%

Illinois utilized its Cornerstone system to measure the time in intake for every child referred to Early Intervention during the time period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. In response to Indicator 7, data exclude cases delayed for family reasons. The last column in the following chart provides statewide and CFC-specific data for Indicator 7. CFC offices assign a reason (i.e., CFC, family or provider) when a case takes more than 45 days. These data are provided in the following chart, along with a calculation for IFSPs initiated within 45 days (in “On Time column) that includes cases delayed for family reasons. The EI Program includes IFSPs that have been delayed for family reasons when reporting performance data to CFC offices, as delays for any reason can be detrimental to children. Seven of the 25 CFC offices demonstrate 100% compliance with the 45-day requirement. All three geographic groupings of the state (i.e., Cook County Collar County and Downstate) have a minimum of 99% compliance, with only four CFC offices falling below 99.0%



FFY 09/SFY 10 IFSPs Initiated* Within 45-Days Reasons for Delay

CFC # & Area Total * Not

Delayed CFC

Delay Family Delay

Provider Delay On Time

On Time Less Family

Delay #1 – LOVES PARK 568 564 2 2 - 99.30% 99.65%#2 - Lake County 754 752 1 1 - 99.73% 99.87% #3 - FREEPORT 294 283 2 7 2 96.26% 98.64%#4 - Kane & Kendall Counties 859 811 10 27 11 94.41% 97.56%#5 - Du Page County 1,115 1,107 3 3 1 99.28% 99.55% #6 - N. Suburbs 1,457 1,451 1 3 - 99.59% 99.79% #7 - W. Suburbs 912 907 - 3 - 99.45% 99.78% #8 - SW Chicago 676 675 - - - 99.85% 99.85% #9 - Central Chicago 916 911 1 3 1 99.45% 99.78% #10 - SE Chicago 625 625 - - - 100.00% 100.00% #11 - N. Chicago 1,990 1,963 - 21 4 98.64% 99.70% #12 - S. Suburbs 962 962 - - - 100.00% 100.00% #13 - MONMOUTH 335 333 - 1 - 99.40% 99.70% #14 - PEORIA 547 522 1 21 3 95.43% 99.27%#15 - Joliet 1,358 1,352 2 2 1 99.56% 99.71% #16 - DANVILLE 652 626 4 12 9 96.01% 97.85% #17 - QUINCY 233 233 - - - 100.00% 100.00% #18 - SPRINGFIELD 320 314 2 4 - 98.13% 99.38% #19 - DECATUR 358 357 - - - 99.72% 99.72% #20 - EFFINGHAM 348 347 - 1 - 99.71% 100.00% #21 - BELLEVILLE 624 580 14 27 2 92.95% 97.28% #22 - CENTRALIA 313 310 - 3 - 99.04% 100.00% #23 - NORRIS CITY 189 189 - - - 100.00% 100.00% #24 - CARBONDALE 158 158 - - - 100.00% 100.00%#25 - McHenry County 407 404 1 1 1 99.26% 99.51%Statewide 16,970 16,736 44 142 35 98.62% 99.46%% of Total 100.0% 98.62% 0.26% 0.84% 0.21% Cook County (6-12) 7,538 7,494 2 30 5 99.42% 99.81% Collar (2, 4, 5, 15, 25) 4,493 4,426 17 34 14 98.51% 99.27% Downstate (All Others) 4,939 4,816 25 78 16 97.51% 99.09%

* Table does not include re-enrollments. Except for average days to initial IFSP, all other tables include reenrollments. Most reenrollments take only a few days and almost never more than 45-days.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress or Slippage for Indicator 7: In FFY09/SFY10, the proportion of cases with IFSPs initiated within 45 days (99.46%) decreased slightly from the FFY08/SFY09 target data (99.49%). Regional data shows little change between the two years. In both FFY08/SFY09 and FFY09/SFY10, four CFC offices fell below 99%, with three of showing some improvement from



the previous year. Major challenges in these areas of the state include EI provider availability and rapid growth in caseloads creating staff vacancy problems for CFC offices. Improvement Activities Completed No new improvement activities were identified in the FFY08/SFY09 APR. Previous improvement activities continue, such as monthly statistical reporting to CFC offices, additional reporting of children that will exceed 45 days in intake by the end of the month, performance contracting, identification of findings and development of corrective action plans, and use of data in the determination score process. Illinois has greatly improved its documentation of findings and correction of noncompliance. In FFY06/SFY07, it expanded the process to utilize its data system. A system of identification and correction of noncompliance was developed, but not fully implemented until FFY07/SFY08, due to delays in sending notification of findings to CFC offices. Findings based on FFY06/SFY07 were sent in February 2008. Findings based on FFY07/SFY08 data were sent on December 2008. Illinois is now on track to provide timely notification and to monitor and document correction of noncompliance. On August 27, 2009, the Bureau sent a single letter to each CFC office that included the CFC office’s determination (in accordance with 616(a)(1)(C)(i) and 300.600(a) of IDEA 2004) and the notification of findings of noncompliance, based upon FFY08/SFY09data. On September 10, 2010, the Bureau sent a single letter to CFC offices with determinations and notification of finding based upon FFY09/SFY10 data. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance): Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for this indicator: 99.49%

1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009)

17

2. Number of FFY 2008 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the EIS program of the finding)

14


3

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) and/or Not Corrected: 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from

(3) above) 3


0


Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected: Corrective action plans to address noncompliance policies, procedures, and practices are required to be written and implemented for any finding of non-compliance. Compliance is considered in setting determination scorecards if an agency fails to submit a credible corrective action plan, fails to make adequate progress, or fails to implement major features of the plans. Determination scores are negatively impacted if the CFC office receives a penalty adjustment for the number of cases in intake over



45 days or is ranked in the bottom five CFC offices for all 10 measures that carry incentive funding, including the proportion of IFSPs completed within 45 days and the lowest average number of days between referral and initial IFSP. Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 noncompliance or FFY 2008 findings (either timely or subsequent): Verification of correction of noncompliance is outlined below. Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008: For correction of noncompliance, this APR looks at findings identified using FFY07/SFY08 data and adds “prong 2,” ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement, as defined in OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02. Child-specific data were accessed through the Cornerstone system and data reports, including those that identify children that exceed 45-day and 75-day time lines. In all findings of noncompliance it was determined that the CFC has corrected each individual case of noncompliance. Illinois has identified that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement for service delays using monthly statistical reports and documenting three consecutive months during which the CFC office has no service delays. In FFY08/SFY09, there were 17 findings, with 14 findings identified as corrected, leaving 3 findings uncorrected. In FFY09/SFY10, 12 new findings were identified. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place. No FFY06/SFY07 or FFY07/SFY08 findings remain uncorrected. Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator:


If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY2009 APR, the state must review is improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.




2011 (2011-2012)

100% of new IFSPs will be initiated within 45 days of referral.

2012 (2012-2013)

100% of new IFSPs will be initiated within 45 days of referral.




New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Policies and procedures will be reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure that the integrity of the referral, intake, evaluation/assessment and IFSP processes are maintained.

This is an ongoing process through June 30, 2013. Resources include the Bureau of Early Intervention and EI Monitoring Program



Part C State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY09/SFY10 Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: See Indicator 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

Indicator 8: Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s 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; and C. Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and

services) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C and potentially eligible for Part B where

notification to the LEA occurred) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.

C. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C and potentially eligible for Part B where the transition conference occurred) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.


FFY09/SFY10 A. 100 percent of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP will have transition steps and services.

B. The LEAs will have been notified of 100 percent of the children exiting Part C that are potentially eligibility for Part B.

C. A transition conference will be held for 100 percent of the children who leave the Part C program at age 3 and whose families have consented to participate in a meeting.

Actual Target Data for FFY09/SFY10):

Indicator 8A: Transition Steps and Services (Number of files with transition steps in IFSP/Total number of files reviewed) X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: (784/798)X 100 = 98.2% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%



Indicator 8B: Referrals Made to LEA = 100% Compliance through data sharing agreement (Referrals/Potentially eligible) X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: (11,491/11,491) X 100 = 100% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%

Indicator 8C: Transition Meetings Held = (Transition meetings/ Potentially eligible excluding family delay) X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: (10,692/10,761) x 100 = 99.4% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%

Terminations Past 30 Mon

Not SE Eligible

Potentially Eligible

Transition Meetings

% With Meetings

Pot. Elig. Ex. Family Delay

Adj. Meetings

DocumentedState Totals 13,616 2,125 11,491 10,692 93.0% 10,761 99.4%

8A - IFSPs with transition steps and services: File reviews completed as part of CFC office onsite monitoring visits indicate that 98.2% [(798 files review -14 files with findings)/798] x 100 of the randomly selected files demonstrated IFSPs with transition steps and services. As part of a contractual agreement with the lead agency, the Illinois EI Monitoring Program conducts annual on-site monitoring visits to the 25 CFC offices. The number of files to be reviewed in a CFC office is based upon the number of active cases, varying from 20 files in a CFC office with a caseload of less than 200 to 56 files for a caseload between 1,800 and 2,000. The number of files is divided by the number of service coordinators and then files are randomly selected to be representative of each service coordinator’s caseload. There are several elements of the CFC monitoring file review tool that relate to documentation of the transition process. In FFY09/SFY10, the Illinois EI Monitoring Program reviewed a total of 798 files. Findings were identified in 14 of those files based on the following transition elements. A file with noncompliance was found in the review of CFC offices #9, #11, #12, #15, #17, and #20. Transition elements from the CFC monitoring file review tool that reflect compliance with Indicator 8(a) include the following:

• There is evidence that six months prior to the child’s third birthday communication began with the family about transition.

• With informed parental consent, service coordinator notified the child’s local educational agency that the child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services under Part B.

• Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form was completed (PA34).

• Transition Efforts are documented in case notes (CMO4). 8B - Referrals made to Local Education Agency (LEA) Illinois utilized the data sharing agreement with Part B/Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to assure that every child who reached 27 months of age or who started EI services after that age were made known to the LEA.



8C - Transition meetings held Data from the Cornerstone system for the time period July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010 are used to document transition meetings. Cases with exceptional family circumstances that have been excluded from this calculation total 730. The last column of the following chart provides statewide and CFC-specific data on compliance with indicator 8C. All areas of the state performed well, with full compliance (100%) in 13 of the 25 CFC offices.

FFY 08/SFY 09 Transition Meetings Held by Area Documented with Cornerstone Data System

Meetings Not Documented Exc. Family Delay

CFC Terminations Over 30 Mon.

Not Availableor Eligible

PossiblyEligible

MeetingsHeld

Family Reasons

System Reasons

% of Meetings Documented

#1 - Loves Park 445 65 380 356 24 0 100.0%#2 - Lake Co. 582 80 502 459 37 6 98.7%#3 - Freeport 239 49 190 175 11 4 97.8%#4 - Kane-Kendall Co. 659 97 562 548 12 2 99.6%#5- Du Page County 923 118 805 795 10 0 100.0%#6 - N. Suburbs 1,145 146 999 977 22 0 100.0%#7 - W. Suburbs 732 100 632 528 97 7 98.7%#8 - SW Chicago 521 172 349 325 21 3 99.1%#9 - Central Chicago 743 125 618 564 54 0 100.0%#10 - SE Chicago 524 83 441 384 40 17 95.8%#11 - N. Chicago 1,625 277 1,348 1,121 208 19 98.3%#12 -S. Suburbs 790 96 694 617 72 5 99.2%#13 - Monmouth 281 49 232 229 1 2 99.1%#14 - Peoria 479 67 412 398 14 0 100.0%#15 - Joliet 1,096 96 1,000 965 35 0 100.0%#16 - Danville 492 80 412 403 9 0 100.0%#17 - Quincy 175 40 135 131 4 0 100.0%#18 - Springfield 265 31 234 226 5 3 98.7%#19 - Decatur 273 36 237 234 3 0 100.0%#20 - Effingham 283 57 226 217 8 1 99.5%#21 - Belleville 462 134 328 319 10 -1 100.3%#22 - Centralia 265 55 210 204 5 1 99.5%#23 - Norris City 152 25 127 123 4 0 100.0%#24 - Carbondale 140 14 126 114 12 0 100.0%#25 - McHenry Co. 325 33 292 280 12 0 100.0%Statewide 13,616 2,125 11,491 10,692 730 69 99.4%Chicago 3,413 657 2,756 2,394 323 39 98.4%Suburban Cook 2,667 342 2,325 2,122 191 12 99.4%Collar Counties 3,585 424 3,161 3,047 106 8 99.7%Downstate 3,951 702 3,249 3,129 110 10 99.7%



Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: Progress/Slippage for 8A: In FFY09/SFY10, 98.2% of the files demonstrated IFSPs with transition steps and services, down slightly from 98.9% in FFY08/SFY09. The outcomes of transition efforts indicate that transition steps and services were completed, but not appropriately documented. This represents a minimal decrease in the number of files with appropriate documentation. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 8A (if State reported less than 100% compliance): Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for Indicator 8A: 98.9% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the

period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009) 7


5


2

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 8A Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) and/or Not Corrected: 4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3)

above) 2


0


Actions Taken if Noncompliance for Indicator 8A Not Corrected: Corrective action plans to address noncompliance policies, procedures, and practices are required to be written and implemented for any finding of non-compliance. Compliance is considered in setting determination scorecards if an agency fails to submit a credible corrective action plan, fails to make adequate progress, or fails to implement major features of the plan. Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 noncompliance for Indicator 8A or FFY 2008 findings (either timely or subsequent): Verification of correction of noncompliance is outlined below Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance for Indicator 8A identified in FFY 2008: If the on-site monitoring visit file review shows that a CFC office has one or more files that indicate noncompliance, a finding is identified. Following the monitoring visit, the CFC office submits a corrective action plan for approval and areas of noncompliance are reviewed at the CFC office’s next monitoring visit. In addition, electronic files were reviewed for each child identified in the findings for Indicator 8(A) to ensure that correction has taken place to ensure correction of each individual case of



noncompliance. All the files indicated that transition steps and services had been accomplished (i.e., the child was no longer in the program’s jurisdiction). Seven findings were identified in FFY08/SFY09 through monitoring activities. Following the subsequent on-site monitoring visits completed in FFY09/SFY10, data from the monitoring visits were used to determine implementation of specific regulatory requirements. In all seven findings of noncompliance, it was determined that the CFC has corrected each individual case of noncompliance. Five of the findings were corrected within in one year (i.e., no files out of compliance during subsequent monitoring visit), with two finding remaining uncorrected. These findings represent two CFC offices in which each had one file out of compliance in the FFY09/SFY10 review. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place. No FFY06/SFY07 or FFY07/SFY08 findings for Indicator 8A remain uncorrected. Progress/Slippage for 8B: In FFY08/SFY09 APR and FFY09/SFY10, Illinois demonstrated 100% compliance with 8B. With the full implementation of the data sharing agreement between the EI Program and the ISBE and the subsequent data sharing reports, no areas of noncompliance have been identified and no previous findings of noncompliance remain uncorrected. Progress/Slippage for 8C: In FFY09/SFY10 the number of transition meeting held increased to 99.4%, from 98.6% in the previous year. The number of CFC offices in full compliance (100%) increased from 6 to 13. Increases were seen across CFC regions when compared to FFY08/SFY09, including increases in Chicago (from 98.0% to 98.4%), Suburban Cook (from 99.0% to 99.4%), Collar Counties (from 98.5% to 99.7%) and Downstate (from 98.8% to 99.7%). Although significant improvements have been realized in the documentation of transition meetings in the Cornerstone system, the program continues to emphasize the need for appropriate and timely data entry of this measure. Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 8C (if State reported less than 100% compliance): Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2008 for 8C: 98.6% 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the

period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009) 21


17


4

FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance for Indicator 8C Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) and/or Not Corrected:

4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)

4


1




Actions Taken if Noncompliance for Indicator 8C Not Corrected: Corrective action plans to address noncompliance policies, procedures, and practices are required to be written and implemented for any finding of non-compliance. Compliance is considered in setting determination scorecards if an agency fails to submit a credible corrective action plan, fails to make adequate progress, or fails to implement major features of the plan. Determination scores are negatively impacted if the CFC office is in the bottom five in transition performance measures (i.e., proportion of transition meeting held for children exiting the program at age 3 and eligibility determined when the child leaves the program at age 3.) Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 noncompliance for Indicator 8C or FFY 2008 findings (either timely or subsequent): Verification of correction of noncompliance is outlined below

Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance for Indicator 8C identified in FFY 2008: For correction of noncompliance, this APR looks at findings identified using FFY07/SFY08 data and adds “prong 2,” ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement, as defined in OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02. Child-specific data were accessed through the Cornerstone system and file reviews either documenting that a transition meeting was held/transition was appropriately completed or that the child was no longer in the jurisdiction of the Early Intervention program. Transition information from the Illinois State Board of Education was also reviewed to determine the child's transition outcome. In all 21 findings of noncompliance it was determined that the CFC has corrected each individual case of noncompliance. Illinois has identified that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement for service delays using monthly statistical reports and documenting three consecutive months during which the CFC office has no service delays. In FFY08/SFY09, there were 21 findings, with 17 findings identified as corrected, leaving 4 findings uncorrected within one year. One of those findings has subsequently been corrected. In FFY09/SFY10, 14 new findings were identified. A new system of notification of findings and correction of noncompliance is being implemented that will assist the lead agency and the CFC offices in tracking performance and providing adequate notification when a correction has taken place. Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable): 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings of noncompliance noted in OSEP’s

June 2010, FFY 2008 APR response table for this indicator 2

2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 23. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has NOT verified as

corrected [(1) minus (2)] 0

Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2007: The two remaining findings both involved documentation of child-specific correction. It had not been understood that lack of jurisdiction, alone, rather than a known outcome of special education determination could be used to determine that a finding had been corrected. Lack of jurisdiction has been documented. Improvement Activities Completed: Previous improvement activities continue, such as the use of an EI to Early Childhood tracking form, data sharing with ISBE, EI monitoring, transition training, monthly reporting to CFC offices, performance contracting, identification of findings, and use of data in the determination score process.



Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource The EI Program will continue to work closely with ISBE to identify and address data issues and needs and promote improved communication and practice between CFC offices and LEAs.

The Cornerstone data input screen for transition data has been streamlined to eliminate unneeded data items, support documentation of information collected in the Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form, and ensure that transition data can be easily and accurately entered into the Cornerstone system by CFC office staff. CFC offices 8, 9, 10 and 11 have been meeting with administration staff from the Chicago Public Schools to address transition issues. In addition, the Bureau has spoken with ISBE regarding several issues.

Additional Information Required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):


If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY2009 APR, the state must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.


The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2009 APR, if the remaining two uncorrected noncompliance findings which were identified in FFY2007 were corrected.

These findings were corrected, as stated above.



2011 (2011-2012)

A. 100 percent of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP will have transition steps and services.






2012 (2012-2013)

A. 100 percent of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP will have transition steps and services.



New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Additional data will be provided to CFC offices so they can monitor compliance with transition requirements and address child-specific and system issues in a timely way.

Beginning in January 2011 and on an ongoing basis, a system will be implemented that will provide a monthly list to each CFC office of all children that have not had transition meetings Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services. Beginning in July 2011and on an ongoing basis, “mini APR tables” will be provided to CFC offices on a quarterly basis, so that they can monitor performance on Indicators 1, 7, and 8C. Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.

Continue to address CFC office, LEA, and EI provider training and parent information needs about the transition process.

Continue participation on the Illinois Birth-5 Transition Guidance Committee and coordination of training efforts with Part B. Resources include Bureau of Early Intervention, ISBE, the Illinois Birth-5 Transition Guidance Committee, and the EI Training Program.



Part C State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2009

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development: See Indicator 1

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision

Indicator 9: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance. b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from

identification. Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100. States are required to use the “Indicator C 9 Worksheet” to report data for this indicator (see Attachment A).

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target FFY09/SFY10 100 percent of noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2009:

Describe the process for selecting EIS programs for Monitoring:

This Indicator documents the correction of noncompliance within one year for findings identified in FFY08/SFY09 (i.e., those sent to CFC offices on December 18, 2008, and then revised on March 5, 2009) and on site monitoring visits conducted in FFY08/SFY09. There were no complaints or hearing requests that resulted in a finding of noncompliance. Of the findings identified in FFY08/SFY09, 59.2% were corrected within one year. The target for this indicator is 100%. For finding identified in FFY07/SFY08, 98.2% were corrected within one year. The two remaining uncorrected findings (under 8C) identified in FFY07/SFY08 have been corrected.

Indicator 9 (Target data for FFY 2008 – the percent shown in the last row of the Indicator C 9 Worksheet [(column (b) sum divided by column (a)) times 100]) FFY09/SFY10: (42/71) x 100 = 59.2% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%



Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that Occurred for FFY 2009: The drop in this measure from 98.2% in FFY08/SFY09 to 59.2% can be attributed to the addition of “prong 2” to findings identified for Indicators 1, 7 and 8, ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement, as defined in OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02. When a finding has been identified, the CFC office develops a corrective action plan and implementation is documented. Child-specific data are accessed through the data systems (i.e., the Service Delay Reporting and Cornerstone systems) and file reviews to ensure that correction for that child has occurred. Prong 2 involves the documentation that a CFC office has implemented the regulatory requirement using monthly statistical reports that show three consecutive months during which the CFC office shows (100%) compliance. In FFY09/SFY10, the greatest challenge for correction of noncompliance was for Indicator 1, service delays, in which 20 of the 21 identified findings remain uncorrected. Challenges for timely services are discussed under Indicator 1. Several factors related to compliance with this indicator, including provider payment delays, are not under the control of the CFC office or the Bureau. For other indicators (7 and 8C) the issue involves documenting three consecutive months with 100% compliance. Several CFC offices fall in and out of 100% compliance with one or two consecutive months of compliance, but not 3 consecutive months. Non-compliance usually involves a very small number of children, as demonstrated by CFC-specific date for these indicators. Lack of correction of two findings for 8A involved noncompliance with1file in each of two CFC offices with an uncorrected finding. Improvement Activities Completed: Illinois has a process in place to document the identification and correction of noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification, which builds on Illinois’ extensive use of its data system. The process of notifying CFC offices of findings has been combined with the determination process, allowing CFC offices to fully address areas of concern into a comprehensive correction action plan. As part of efforts to address noncompliance, all new service coordinators complete on-line training modules. The Illinois Early Intervention Training Program continues to update and modify the modules as needed and upon the request and approval of the Department. Improvement Activity Status/Timeline/Resource In the FFY09 APR (to be submitted on 2/1/11), correction of noncompliance will also include “prong 2,” ensuring that CFC offices have correctly implemented the specific regulatory requirement. The attached document provides sample compliance documentation using actual data for Indicators 7 and 8A.

For Indicator 1, 7 and 8C, correction within 12 months of the notification of a finding is now identified when data demonstrate that a CFC office has 100 percent compliance during three consecutive months. For Indicator 8A, correction will be documented when no files at the subsequent annual monitoring review indicate a finding, based upon identified transition elements in the monitoring review tool.



By March 31, 2010, a quarterly data report will be established to provide child-specific information to CFC offices so that they can follow-up on correction of noncompliance for Indicators 1 and 8C.

CFC offices receive monthly reports that identify children that remain on the service delay list. A monthly status update is required. In addition children that have been removed from the list without a known resolution are identified and CFC offices are required to provide the required documentation. Bureau of Performance Support Services staff are currently modifying the monthly statistical report to facilitate the identification of correction of noncompliance and to provide child-specific information regarding 8C.

Timely Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance (corrected within one year from identification of the noncompliance): 1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2008 (the

period from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009) (Sum of Column a on the Indicator C 9 Worksheet)

71

2. Number of findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the EIS programs of the finding) (Sum of Column b on the Indicator C 9 Worksheet)

42

3. Number of findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)] 29

Correction of FFY 2008 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance) and/or Not Corrected:

4. Number of FFY 2008 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)

29


1

6. Number of FFY 2008 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)] 28

Actions Taken if Noncompliance Not Corrected: Corrective action plans to address noncompliance policies, procedures, and practices are required to be written and implemented for any finding of non-compliance. Compliance is considered in setting determination scorecards if an agency fails to submit a credible corrective action plan, fails to make adequate progress, or fails to implement major features of the plan. Determination scores are negatively impacted by poor performance in performance measures. Verification of Correction of FFY 2008 findings (either timely or subsequent): See steps outlined below. Describe the specific actions that the State took to verify the correction in FFY 2009 of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008: When a finding has been identified, the CFC office develops a corrective action plan and implementation is documented. In addition, the following steps are taken.



• Indicator 1: CFC offices submit a monthly Service Delay Report. This report includes a

status code and date the delay was resolved. Child-specific information was used to determine the status of all instances of noncompliance. Child specific data were accessed through the Service Delay Reporting system, the Cornerstone system, and file reviews. All instances of noncompliance were resolved for reasons that include the following: data entry error, service provided, family declined service, and child no longer in system. The status of findings will be monitored quarterly to verify that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement using monthly statistical reports that show three consecutive months during which the CFC office shows (100%) compliance.

• Indicator 2: Illinois uses its data system and a formal system of notification, to identify findings and document correction of noncompliance. In SFY08/FFY09, 5 findings of noncompliance were identified for Indicator 2, with all findings of noncompliance corrected within one year.

• Indicator 7: The data system continues to track a child for whom an evaluation/assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were not conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline. No cases from the findings identified in this report were left unresolved, as indicated in 75-day reports and case-by-case follow-up with CFC offices. The status of findings will be monitored quarterly to verify that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement using monthly statistical reports that show three consecutive months during which the CFC office shows (100%) compliance.

• Indicator 8A: File reviews completed as part of CFC office onsite monitoring visits utilize randomly selected files to determine if IFSPs document transition steps and services. As part of a contractual agreement with the lead agency, the Illinois EI Monitoring Program conducts annual on-site monitoring visits to the 25 CFC offices. The number of files to be reviewed in a CFC office is based upon the number of active cases, varying from 20 files in a CFC office with a caseload of less than 200 to 56 files for a caseload between 1,800 and 2,000. The number of files is divided by the number of service coordinators and then files are randomly selected to be representative of each service coordinator’s caseload. In addition to the development and implementation of corrective action plans, child specific correction is documented and correction documented when no files at the subsequent annual monitoring review indicate a finding. There are several elements of the CFC monitoring file review tool that relate to documentation of the transition process. Transition elements from the CFC monitoring file review tool that reflect compliance with Indicator 8(a) include the following:

There is evidence that six months prior to the child’s third birthday communication began with the family about transition.

With informed parental consent, service coordinator notified the child’s local educational agency that the child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services under Part B.

Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form was completed (PA34).

Transition Efforts are documented in case notes (CMO4).



• Indicator 8B: No findings of noncompliance have been identified for 8B. Electronic transfer of data to the Illinois State Board of Education/Part B, on the state-level, ensures full compliance.

• Indicator 8C: CFC offices conducted case file reviews for all children that did not have a transition meeting entered in the Cornerstone system. CFC offices either confirmed through case notes that a transition meeting had been held/transition appropriate completed or that the child was no longer in the jurisdiction of the Early Intervention program. Transition information from the IL State Board of Education was also reviewed to determine the child's transition outcome. The status of findings will be monitored quarterly to verify that a CFC office had implemented the regulatory requirement using monthly statistical reports that show three consecutive months during which the CFC office shows (100%) compliance.

Correction of Remaining FFY 2007 Findings of Noncompliance (if applicable) If the State reported less than 100% for this indicator in its FFY 2007 APR and did not report that the remaining FFY 2007 findings were subsequently corrected, provide the information below: 1. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings noted in OSEP’s June 2010 FFY

2008 APR response table for this indicator 2

2. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has verified as corrected 2

3. Number of remaining FFY 2007 findings the State has NOT verified as corrected [(1) minus (2)]

0

Correction of Any Remaining Findings of Noncompliance from FFY 2006 or Earlier – not applicable Additional Information required by the OSEP APR Response Table for this Indicator (if applicable):


If the State does not report 100% compliance for this indicator in the FFY09 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and review them, if necessary.

See improvement activities listed below.

In addition, in reporting on Indicator 9 in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must use the Indicator 9 Worksheet.

See Attachment A.

Further, in response to Indicators 1, 7, 8A and 8C in the FFy2009 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.

See description of correction of noncompliance, described above.





2011 (2011-2012)

100 percent of noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.

2012 (2012-2013)

100 percent of noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.

The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts. The following are new improvement activities to be implemented through FFY12/SFY13. New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Additional data will be provided to CFC offices so they can monitor compliance with transition requirements and address child-specific and system issues in a timely way.

Beginning in January 2011 and on an ongoing basis, a system will be implemented that will provide a monthly list to each CFC office of all children that have not had transition meetings


Beginning in July 2011and on an ongoing basis, “mini APR tables” will be provided to CFC offices on a quarterly basis, so that they can monitor performance on Indicators 1, 7, and 8C.


In addition to making findings to CFC offices based upon dispute resolution, complaints and hearings and reporting them in Indicator 9 of the APR, findings will also include those made to individual service providers. The provider will be notified of the finding and child -specific correction of the violation will be ensured. When broader non-compliance exists, the provider will be required to submit and implement a corrective action plan to ensure that the policy, procedure, or practice that led to the noncompliance has been corrected so that future provision of services to other children are compliant.


Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and the EI Monitoring Program.



Illinois Part C is implementing a coordinated system of finding notification and correction. On a quarterly basis, data will be reviewed to ensure that implementation of corrective action plans have been documented, child specific correction has taken place, and CFC offices demonstrate three consecutive months with 100 percent compliance. When compliance with OSEP Timely Correction Memo 09-02 is present, CFC offices will be notified that correction of a finding has taken place. The program will also communicate with the EI Monitoring Program to track and document correction of noncompliance for 8A that has been identified through file reviews as part of the on-site CFC office review process. The system will also track correction of noncompliance identified based upon dispute resolution, complaints and hearings.


Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services and the EI Monitoring Program.

Illinois will use a full 12 months of data for the identification of findings for Indicator 1.



Additional data will be provided to CFC offices so they can monitor service delays and address child-specific and system issues in a timely way.

Beginning in July 2011and on an ongoing basis, “mini APR tables” will be provided to CFC offices on a quarterly basis, so that they can monitor performance on Indicators 1, 7, and 8C.




Part C State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 08/SFY 09



Indicator 10: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100.


2009 (7/1/09-6/30/10)

100 percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

Actual Target Data for FFY09/SFY10

Indicator 10: From Table 4: [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100. FFY09/SFY10 Result: [(7+3)/10]*100=100% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100% 100 percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: The number of signed written complaints remained the same in FFY09/SFY10 as in FFY08/SFY09, with reports issued within the 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint. One complaint was dismissed, as the issue identified in the complaint occurred after the child had aged out of the program. The number of resolutions that required an extended timeline decreased from 5 in FFY08/SFY09 to 3 in FFY09/SFY10. The extended timelines were required to allow staff to investigate complaints, with delays attributable to waits to receive additional information from families or documentation from service providers. Two of these complaints also involved the translation of documents from/into Spanish.



An electronic database is used to track complaint status. Staffing levels have remained stable to facilitate timely resolution. Complaints are resolved within the 60-day timeline, unless exceptional circumstances arise. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).


2011 (2011-2012)

100 percent of all signed written complaints with reports issued will be resolved within the 60-day timeline or the timeline will be extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

2010 (2012-2013)

100 percent of all signed written complaints with reports issued will be resolved within the 60-day timeline or the timeline will be extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.

The improvement activities described in the SPP are ongoing efforts.






Indicator 11: Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the applicable timeline. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100.


2009 (7/1/09-6/30/10)

100 percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the applicable timeline.

Actual Target Data for FFY09/SFY10

Indicator 11 From Table 4: [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100. FFY09/SFY10 Result: No due process complaints were received. FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: In FFY09/SFY10, no due process complaints were received. In FFY08/SFY09, three hearings were requested, but were resolved without a hearing. An electronic database is used to track due process hearing requests. Bureau staffing levels have remained stable to facilitate timely resolution. Contracts are in place with individuals who serve as Impartial Hearing Officer for the Illinois Early Intervention Program. The State has chosen, pursuant to 34 CFR §303.420(a), to adopt mediation and due process procedures in 34 CFR §300.506 through §300.512, and develop procedures that meet the requirements of §303.425. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).




2011 (2011-2012)

100 percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests will be fully adjudicated within the applicable time frame.

2010 (2012-2013)

100 percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests will be fully adjudicated within the applicable time frame.







Indicator 12: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable if Part B due process procedures are adopted).

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.


2009 (7/1/09-6/30/10)

States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of resolution sessions is less than 10.

Indicator 12: From Table 4: (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100. FFY09/SFY10 Result: No due process complaints were received. FFY09/SFY10 Target = Not established

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: No due process complaints were received in FFY09/SFY10. In FFY08/SFY09, three hearing requests were received, but were resolved without a hearing. Contracts are in place with individuals who serve as Impartial Hearing Officer for the Illinois Early Intervention Program. Legal staff of the Lead Agency is available to facilitate the development and negotiation of all resolution session agreements. Hearing requests are tracked using an electronic database. Bureau staffing levels have remained stable to facilitate timely resolution. The State has chosen, pursuant to 34 CFR §303.420(a), to adopt mediation and due process procedures in 34 CFR §300.506 through §300.512, and develop procedures that meet the requirements of §303.425. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY10/SFY11: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).




2011 (2011-2012)


2010 (2012-2013)








Indicator 13: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.


2009 (7/1/09-6/30/10)

94 percent of mediations held will result in mediation agreements.

Indicator 13 From Table 4: [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100. FFY09/SFY10 Result: [(0+1)/1] X 100 = 100% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 94%

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY09/SFY10: In FFY09/SFY10, one mediation request was received, resulting in a mediation agreement that was pending on 6/30/10 but signed on 7/1/10. In FFY08/SFY09, one mediation was held, resulting in a mediation agreement. Bureau staffing levels have remained stable to facilitate timely resolution. An electronic database is used to track mediations. Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY09/SFY10: The State Performance Plan (SPP) has been revised to specify, for each indicator, annual targets and improvement activities for each year through FFY2012 (July1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Since baseline data and data for subsequent years included less than 10 mediations per year, it did not seem reasonable to continue to propose targets, as they probably should not have initially been established. It was not clear if OSEP would allow this change. As a result, it was determined to keep the 2011 and 2012 target values at the FFY2010/SFY2011 level of 94%.




2011 (2011-2012)


2010 (2012-2013)








Indicator 14: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement: State reported data, including 618 data, State performance plan, and annual performance reports, are: a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and

settings; and November 1 for dispute resolution); and b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement. States are required to use the “Indicator 14 Data Rubric” for reporting data for this indicator (see Attachment B).


2009 (7/1/09-6/30/10)

100 percent of state reported data will be timely and accurate.


Indicator 14 From Part C Indicator Data Rubric-Percent of timely and accurate data =(C /70) X 100 FFY09/SFY10 Result: 70/70 X 100 = 100% FFY09/SFY10 Target = 100%

The Illinois Cornerstone system is a statewide database application that is used by all Child and Family Connections (CFC) offices. The application includes a number of edit checks on numeric data, character data, and data fields, as well as content-specific edit checks and logical consistency checks. The design of the Cornerstone system, including all of the edit and logical consistency checks, help ensure the quality and consistency of the data. All 618 data tables and APR data used in responses to Indicators 2 through 9 meet computational and logic edit checks. An electronic database is used to track complaint, mediation and administrative hearing status and outcomes used in response to Indicators 10 - 13. On a monthly basis, CFC offices use an electronic reporting system to submit service delay data for Indicator 1. For Indicator 8A, data are pulled from the EI Monitoring Program’s database that includes information from on-site monitoring visits of CFC offices. All 618 and APR data were accurate to the best knowledge of the lead agency. All reports were submitted in a timely fashion.



Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY08/SFY09: Progress/Slippage for Indicator 14: In FFY08/SFY09 and in FFY09/SFY10, Illinois demonstrated 100% compliance with data accuracy and report submission. Improvement Activities Completed: Previous improvement activities continue, such as distribution of monthly statistical reports, CFC office capacity to run its own reports, Cornerstone edit rights, onsite monitoring visits, service coordination training, data sharing with Illinois State Board of Education/Part B, security for protected health information, CFC Procedure Manual updates, Cornerstone system updates, submission of required federal reports, and maintenance of Bureau staffing. No new improvement activities were identified for FFY09/SFY10, but several steps were taken during this time period to ensure timely and accurate data. These steps include the following: • In addition to offering an online child outcomes training module, the Early Intervention

Training Program has provided eight training sessions statewide entitled, “Team Discussions on Child Outcomes: How, When and Where.” These training efforts will help EI providers and service coordinators improve their skills in determining child outcomes scores.

• The data logic for pulling matched pairs data to measure child outcomes was reviewed and revised to address identified problems. Data had been lost if exit data were entered within 120 days of the child’s third birthday, but not within 120 days of the case closure date. Another problem arose when the final IFSP and the termination dates were the same day. Both of these issues have been corrected, allowing additional matched pairs to be included in child outcome data. An issue with the use of an old termination code has also been addressed, with the old code for “moved out of state” being replaced with the correct, current code.

• An edit was added to the Cornerstone system to allow CFC offices to add child outcome data to the system up to 90 days so that missing data can be entered or corrections made by the CFC office.

• In April 2010, the CFC #2 manager volunteered to conduct a file review on the files of children with “unmatched pairs” for child outcome data in her CFC. At a May 2010 CFC managers meeting, the CFC manager presented her analysis of the review. Her presentation was followed by a facilitated discussion among the CFC managers about issues and strategies to improve compliance.

• On June 17, 2010, a meeting of CFC managers from the Chicago area CFC offices was held to further discuss strategies for improving compliance with completing and entering the child outcome data. These CFC offices represent the area of the state with the lowest percentage of children whose electronic files contain matched child outcome pairs.

• Sharing additional child outcomes data with CFC managers and subsequent steps taken by the managers to ensure compliance with completing the process and entering the data have dramatically increased the number of matched pairs available for analysis of child outcomes.



• Illinois utilized the revised version of the Family Outcomes Survey (FOS-R) for the first time this year to collect the data for this indicator. The FOS-R uses a 5-point rating scale (versus a 7-point scale used in previous versions) to assess the helpfulness of early intervention, ranging from 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat helpful, 4 = Very helpful, and 5 = extremely helpful. Also new with the FOS-R are 17 new helpfulness indicators (5 for “Know their rights”; 6 for “Effectively communicate their children’s needs; and 6 for “Help their children develop and learn”). These additional indicators have been added with the belief that the data collected would be more informative and valid than data collected from the previous version of the FOS.

• In the past, Illinois EI Program has used birth data to calculate participation rates reported in Indicators 5 and 6. These birth data have been provided by the IL Department of Public Health (IDPH) and have included births to Illinois residents who travel to birthing centers in neighboring states. Information about births in neighboring states is no longer available to the program, as data sharing agreements between IDPH and neighboring states do not allow IDPH to share these data with IDHS. Beginning with the FFY09/SFY10 APR, census data has been used to calculate participation rates for CFC offices. It is believed that census data will allow Illinois to accurately and consistently calculate participation rates, particularly for those CFCs that border large metropolitan areas in another state.

• The Cornerstone data input screen for transition data has been streamlined to eliminate unneeded data items, support documentation of information collected in the Early Intervention to Early Childhood Tracking Form, and ensure that transition data can be easily and accurately entered into the Cornerstone system by CFC office staff.

• Beginning in April 2010 methods were developed to provide CFC managers with child specific data for Indictor 1. Each month, CFC managers receive a list of cases that appear as “lost cases, “ which are cases that have been reported as having service delays but appear to be removed from the list without reporting a resolution. CFC offices are asked to respond back with the disposition of each case, to either resolve the case or correct any data errors. Each CFC office is also given a list of children with service delays and must report each month on the status of these cases, as either resolved or still delayed.



2011 (2011-2012)


2012 (2012-2013)





New Improvement Activity Timelines & Resources Access to Early Intervention Cornerstone data will be improved to expedite the process of generating reports. Currently, Cornerstone is not a stand-alone system for EI, but is inclusive of other community health programs, which make it less flexible.

By July 1, 2011, Business Objects will be implemented, which will provide a more efficient way to access EI Cornerstone data directly. The process will create a “universe” that will consist of only EI data. EI data can then be queried from information specific to EI, rather than querying the entire Cornerstone system and then sorting EI data from other program data. Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.

Additional data will be provided to CFC offices so they can monitor compliance with Indicators 1, 7 and 8C and address child-specific and system issues in a timely way.

Beginning in January 2011 and on an ongoing basis, a system will be implemented that will provide a monthly list to each CFC office of all children that have not had transition meetings Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services. Beginning in July 2011and on an ongoing basis, “mini APR tables” will be provided to CFC offices on a quarterly basis, so that they can monitor performance on Indicators 1, 7, and 8C. Resources include the Bureaus of Early Intervention and Performance Support Services.

ATTACHMENT A

INDICATOR C-9 WORKSHEET

Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components

# of EIS Programs

Issued Findings in FFY 2008

(7/1/08 through 6/30/09)

(a) # of Findings of

noncompliance identified in

FFY 2008 (7/1/08 through

6/30/09)

(b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which

correction was verified no later than one year

from identification

1. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner

Monitoring Activities: Self-Assessment/ Local APR, Data Review, Desk Audit, On-Site Visits, or Other

21 21 1

Dispute Resolution: Complaints, Hearings

0 0 0

2. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings


5 5 5


0 0 0

7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline.


17 17 14


0 0 0

8. Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday including: A. IFSPs with transition

steps and services;


7 7 5


0 0 0

8. Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday including:


0 0 0

ATTACHMENT A

Indicator/Indicator Clusters General Supervision System Components

# of EIS Programs

Issued Findings in FFY 2008

(7/1/08 through 6/30/09)

(a) # of Findings of

noncompliance identified in

FFY 2008 (7/1/08 through

6/30/09)

(b) # of Findings of noncompliance from (a) for which

correction was verified no later than one year

from identification

B. Notification to LEA, if child potentially eligible for Part B; and


0 0 0

8. Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday including:

C. Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B.


21 21 17


0 0 0

Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b 71 42

ATTACHMENT B

Part C Indicator 14 Data Rubric

APR Indicator Valid and reliable Correct calculation Total

1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 6 1 1 2 7 1 1 2

8A 1 1 2 8B 1 1 2 8C 1 1 2 9 1 1 2

10 1 1 2 11 1 1 2 12 1 1 2 13 1 1 2

Subtotal 30 APR Score Calculation

Timely Submission Points (5pts for submission of APR/SPP by February 1, 2010.) 5 Grand Total (Sum of Subtotal and Timely Submission Points) 35

Indicator 14 - 618 Data

Table Timely Complete Data

Passed Edit Check

Responded to Date

Note Requests

Total

Table 1 - Child Count Due Date: 2/1/10 1 1 1 1 4

Table 2 - Settings Due Date: 2/1/10 1 1 1 1 4

Table 3 - Exiting Due Date: 11/1/10 1 1 1 N/A 3

Table 4-Dispute Resolution Due Date: 11/1/10 1 1 1 N/A 3

Subtotal 14 Weighted Total (subtotal X 2.5) 35

Indicator #14 Calculation

A. APR Grand Total 35.00 B. 618 Grand Total 35.00 C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) = 70.00

Total NA in APR 0.00 Total NA in 618 0.00

Base 70.00 D. Subtotal (C divided by Base*) = 1.000 E. Indicator Score (Subtotal D x 100) = 100.0

ATTACHMENT C

May 2010

Dear Illinois Early Intervention Family, I would like to invite you to take part in a project created for families like yours. The Illinois Early Intervention Statewide Outcome Survey is for families of young children who have a special need or disability. Findings will help improve services for our Illinois children and their families. The project involves completing the survey included with this letter. If you complete the survey, then you agree to participate. If you decide not to take part in the project, your early intervention services will not be affected. Volunteering your time to take part in this project is completely up to you. The survey may seem long but most families will only need about 5 to 10 minutes to complete it. You choose which family member will complete the survey. The survey may make you think of ways to talk to others about what’s important to your family. Feel free to use the survey as a way to discuss your ideas or hopes with friends, other family members, or service providers. Your answers will not be shared with your child’s early intervention providers or Child and Family Connections staff. Please use the envelope provided to return your completed survey to the Illinois Early Intervention Training Program. Your personal information will be kept strictly confidential. Results from the surveys will be combined and reported in summary form only. We hope every family will participate so that we can get the best information possible. Please return your survey within two weeks. When we receive your survey, we will include your name in a drawing. Results from the project will be available upon request. If you would like more information about the Illinois Early Intervention Statewide Outcome Survey, please call the EI Training Program at (866) 509-3867 ext. 253. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Janet D. Gully, Chief Bureau of Early Intervention

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT D

Illi Pe · meetings. Reports are also provided to IICEI Workgroups. Illinois utilizes a central...

Documents

Transcript of Illi Pe · meetings. Reports are also provided to IICEI Workgroups. Illinois utilizes a central...