Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:

See Indicator 1 for a description of this process. The EI Program will make the Illinois APR and 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 office; and the Early Childhood Intervention Clearinghouse). The APR and SPP documents will also be available to the public at each of the 25 CFC offices.

On April 1, 2006, the Illinois Early Intervention program began utilizing the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center child outcomes summary form (COSF) statewide for all initial and renewal IFSPs as well as for exit conferences within 90 days of a child turning three. A few entries were made prior to that time in a pilot phase and are included in this analysis. The Illinois Child Outcomes Rating Scale and Summary form is attached. This form includes instructions for its use. Illinois also follows the ECO Center guidance that scores of six or seven on its seven-point scale be considered demonstrating development equivalent to same age peers.

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

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

  1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
  2. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and
  3. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

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

Measurement:

  1. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  2. If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.
  1. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy):
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  2. If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.
  1. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs:
    1. 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.
    2. 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 the (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    3. 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 the (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    4. 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 the (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    5. 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 the (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
  2. If a + b + c + d + e does not sum to 100%, explain the difference.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Progress:

An infant or toddler's developmental status upon entry to the Part C Early Intervention Services System is determined via a comprehensive assessment using multiple sources of information, including one or more approved assessment instruments, a review of pertinent records, clinical observation, and parent interview. The assessment process for eligible children yields valuable information that is used in the development of child outcomes. Progress toward the outcomes identified on the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is measured annually, or more frequently if necessary, by the IFSP team through the use of approved assessment instruments, clinical observation and/or parent interview. Strategies, services and supports are created and/or modified as necessary to best meet the child and family's changing needs.

Measurement of progress toward the three child outcomes identified by OSEP has been incorporated into the current system of progress measurement. IFSP teams will continue to have available to them a variety of formal assessment instruments, including both curriculum based and norm-referenced instruments. In order to summarize the outcome data in a format consistent with OSEP's measurement criteria, IFSP teams will complete an Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) as outlined by the ECO Center. The Outcome Summary Form has been integrated into Illinois' current IFSP document, which is - for the most part - an electronic document and has been completed online.

In order to integrate the Outcome Summary Form into the current IFSP document, modifications to the Cornerstone data management system were completed. A workgroup made up of stakeholders representing service providers, service coordinators and families assisted in identifying needed system changes as well as policy and procedure changes related to assessment and IFSP development. The Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI) discussed the process at several of its meetings and reviewed and approved final procedures prior to implementation. All data system changes were complete by March 2006. Testing was completed during March and statewide implementation went into affect on April 1, 2006.

The Early Intervention Training Program developed and implemented a training module that adequately addressed the new reporting requirements, new policies and procedures, methods for translating assessment information into progress measurement, achieving consensus and completing the new Outcome Summary Form. The training module was reviewed by the IICEI in January 2006 and was disseminated statewide in February 2006. Ongoing technical assistance is being provided by Bureau staff as needed. Monitoring of appropriate assessment procedures and accurate data input will be conducted by the EI Monitoring Program.

Progress Data for FFY06/SFY 07:

There were 611 useable entry-exit paired records for both questions A and B, social-emotional and acquisition of knowledge and skills. There were 608 matched entry-exit records for question C, meeting needs. There were a total of 613 records involved. Several were missing one or more entries at entry or exit. Several could not be completed because yes/no responses were not provided and there was not an obvious answer.

The lowest proportion of children not making progress was for social relationships, 94.3%, compared to 96.1% for acquisition of knowledge and skills and 95.4% for meeting needs.
Total A B C D E
Positive Relationships (Count) 611 35 75 112 140 249
Positive Relationships (Percent) 100.0% 5.7% 12.3% 18.3% 22.9% 40.8%
Acquire Skills & Knowledge 611 24 99 171 236 81
Acquire Skills & Knowledge 100.0% 3.9% 16.2% 28.0% 38.6% 13.3%
Meet Needs 608 28 85 133 240 122
Meet Needs 100.0% 4.6% 14.0% 21.9% 39.5% 20.1%

Rating EntrySocial-Emotional ExitSocial-Emotional

Social-Emotional Functioning Equivalent to Same Age Peers.
Rating Entry # Entry % Exit # Exit %
1 14 2.3% 3 0.5%
2 36 5.9% 12 2.0%
3 89 14.6% 26 4.2%
4 77 12.6% 58 9.5%
5 116 19.0% 123 20.1%
6 115 18.8% 129 21.0%
7 164 26.8% 262 42.7%
Total 611 100.0% 613 100.0%

Average:

  • Entry: 5.02
  • Exit: 5.81

Change: 0.78

At entry, 45.7% of children had social-emotional functioning equivalent to same age peers. This improved by 18.1% to 63.8% at exit. That is the highest same age functioning of the three measures but that is just because a high proportion were at same age functioning at entry. There was the smallest improvement in the percentage and in the average score. At the low end of functioning, the proportion of cases scored as emerging (3) or lower fell from 22.7% at entry to 6.7% at exit. The average score improved from 5.02 for entries to 5.81 at exit.

EntryAcquire Skills ExitAcquire Skills

Rating

Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills
Rating Entry # Entry % Exit # Exit %
1 16 2.6% 5 0.8%
2 59 9.6% 12 2.0%
3 136 22.2% 45 7.4%
4 149 24.3% 87 14.2%
5 164 26.8% 146 23.9%
6 69 11.3% 161 26.3%
7 19 3.1% 156 25.5%
Total 612 100.0% 612 100.0%

Average

  • 4.09
  • Exit: 5.38

Change 1.30

The largest improvements recorded were for acquisition of knowledge and skills. But, exit ratings remained lower than for the other two measures. The proportion of cases functioning equivalent to same age peers in acquisition of skills was just 14.4% but it improved by 37.4% to 51.8% at exit. The proportion rated as emerging or lower (1-3) fell from 34.5% at entry to 10.1% at exit. The average rating was 4.09 for entries and went up to 5.38 for exits.

Meeting Needs
Rating Entry # Entry % Exit # Exit %
1 17 2.8% 4 0.7%
2 34 5.6% 12 2.0%
3 122 20.0% 25 4.1%
4 104 17.0% 66 10.8%
5 188 30.8% 141 23.0%
6 109 17.9% 178 29.1%
7 36 5.9% 186 30.4%
Total 610 100.0% 612 100.0%

Average

  • 4.43
  • Exit: 5.62

Change 1.19

The proportion of cases functioning equivalent to same age peers in meeting needs was 23.8% at entry and improved by 35.7% to 59.5% at exit. The proportion of children rated as emerging or lower (1-3) at entry was 28.3%. It improved to 6.7% at exit. The average rating at entry was 4.43 and went up to 5.62 for exits.

Discussion of Progress Data

As required, only cases in care for at least six months with both entry and exit information have been included. This means that entries generally had to fall within the period between April 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006. Exits had to fall within the period October 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. The maximum number of eligible cases was calculated to be 3,245. This assumes everything was done right at every step in the process. The actual number of useable records was 612. Of that total, almost 65% were useable only by correcting obvious errors, such as not filling in the yes/no progress responses.

The program has identified the following problems that account for this gap:

No Entry Record - This problem seems to have been greater early on. Retraining has emphasized the importance of getting both entry and exit data.

Writing Over Entry Records - Original training and instructions were intended to emphasize the importance of entry measurement and the importance of getting in the habit of completing a new COSF at each IFSP meeting. Unfortunately, in some parts of the state, instructions were interpreted to mean the original record should be reopened and written over. It also is a bit easier to change an existing record than to open a new record. Retraining has emphasized that COSF records should not be written over. The program also has plans to make it impossible to write over a COSF record without higher-level intervention.

No Exit Record - This also appears to have been greater early on. Retraining has emphasized the importance of getting both entry and exit data. Also, although rules require an exit meeting within three months of a child's third birthday, this does not help when the program loses contact with the family, the family chooses to leave the program, or they decline to participate in the exit/transition process.

Not completing Yes/No Responses - Although some missing yes/no responses can be completed, it is not possible to determine this status in other cases. Retraining emphasized the importance of putting those responses in. The Cornerstone data system now requires yes/no progress entries when a prior record exists.

An unexpected finding was that another 121 records that otherwise looked valid showed exit "visit" dates after the termination date. After discussion with CFCs it was determined that these were records of children who left and then reentered the program. Since these data constitute entry rather than exit data, they have been excluded from the entry-exit analysis.

The program shares response rate data with service coordination agencies and utilizes its training program to help individual agencies improve compliance with child outcome reporting. In addition, the state's determination scorecard process includes a provision that assigns a mark against the two agencies with the lowest rate of useable child outcome reports at exit for the calendar year, if they also are less than 50% of the state average.

Since Illinois requires assessment of all children at both entry and exit, it should not have been a problem for the data to be representative of the state. However, the problems noted in the overview did not affect all parts of the state equally. We can measure compliance with state rules by comparing the number of useable matched entry-exit child outcome records pairs to the total number of cases that meet the entry-exit timeline. There were problems in all areas of the state. Collar county and downstate CFCs had similar compliance rates, 26.8% and 23.6% respectively. However, Cook County CFCs had much lower rates of useable data and Chicago CFCs were particularly low.

As was noted earlier, the two agencies with the lowest rate of compliance with the completion of both entry and exit data on children will receive a mark against them on their determination scorecard, if they are also below 50% of the state average. The scorecard is based on calendar year performance. The data reported here is based on the fiscal year.

Of the five CFCs that were below 50% of the state average for the reporting period, only one serves a majority white caseload, Decatur. The percentage of the caseload comprised by blacks and Hispanics for each of the four Cook County CFCs that fall below 50% are as follows:

Southwest Chicago (8), 83.1%, Central Chicago (9), 91.3%, Southeast Chicago (10), 96.8%, and South Suburban Cook (12), 55.6%. CFC 8 and 10 serve a predominately Black population, while CFC 9 has the highest proportion of cases that are Hispanic. The other Cook County CFCs have large Hispanic populations as well, and they have higher compliance rations. They are better represented in other areas. Asians live predominately in North Chicago, North Cook County and DuPage and Lake Counties. Overall, the CFCs serving Asian populations had compliance in line with the state as a whole. So, their representation in this data is relatively in line with their portion of the caseload.

UseableE/E Pairs % EligibleClosures % ComplianceRatio *

Distribution of Child Outcome Matched Entry-exit Pairs
Including Ratio of Compliance with Rules
CFC Useable
E/E Pairs
Count
Useable
E/E Pairs
Percent
Eligible
Closures
Count
Eligible
Closures
Percent
Compliance
Ratio *
#1 - ROCKFORD 42 6.9% 100 3.1% 42.0%
#2 - LAKE COUNTY 29 4.7% 162 5.0% 17.9%
#3 - FREEPORT 7 1.1% 54 1.7% 13.0%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL 31 5.1% 171 5.3% 18.1%
#5 - DUPAGE COUNTY 129 21.0% 257 7.9% 50.2%
#6 - N. SUBURBS 59 9.6% 228 7.0% 25.9%
#7 - W. SUBURBS 18 2.9% 180 5.5% 10.0%
#8 - S.W. CHICAGO 9 1.5% 142 4.4% 6.3%
#9 - CENTRAL CHICAGO 10 1.6% 155 4.8% 6.5%
#10 - S.E. CHICAGO 1 0.2% 133 4.1% 0.8%
#11 - N. CHICAGO 35 5.7% 322 9.9% 10.9%
#12 - S. SUBURBS 2 0.3% 178 5.5% 1.1%
#13 - MACOMB 36 5.9% 79 2.4% 45.6%
#14 - PEORIA 17 2.8% 127 3.9% 13.4%
#15 - JOLIET 31 5.1% 238 7.3% 13.0%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON 25 4.1% 135 4.2% 18.5%
#17 - QUINCY 5 0.8% 40 1.2% 12.5%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD 10 1.6% 64 2.0% 15.6%
#19 - DECATUR 0 0.0% 89 2.7% 0.0%
#20 - EFFINGHAM 17 2.8% 72 2.2% 23.6%
#21 - METRO E. ST. LOUIS 37 6.0% 117 3.6% 31.6%
#22 - CENTRALIA 30 4.9% 74 2.3% 40.5%
#23 - NORRIS CITY 4 0.7% 28 0.9% 14.3%
#24 - CARBONDALE 9 1.5% 33 1.0% 27.3%
#25 - MCHENRY 20 3.3% 67 2.1% 29.9%
Statewide 613 100.0% 3245 100.0% 18.9%
Chicago 55 9.0% 752 23.2% 7.3%
Suburban Cook 79 12.9% 586 18.1% 13.5%
Collar Counties 240 39.2% 895 27.6% 26.8%
Downstate 239 39.0% 1012 31.2% 23.6%

* Agencies in bold and shaded under 50% of state average compliance.

FFY: 2005 (2005-2006) To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

FFY: 2006 (2006-2007) To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

FFY: 2007 (2007-2008)
Measurable and Rigorous Target: To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

FFY: 2008 (2008-2009)
Measurable and Rigorous Target: To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

FFY: 2009 (2009-2010)
Measurable and Rigorous Target: To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

FFY: 2010 (2010-2011)
Measurable and Rigorous Target: To be submitted with FFY2008 APR due February 2010

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

This is the initial reporting of paired entry and exit data. So, no progress or slippage can be reported. No targets will be established until 2/1/2010.

  • Continued training on the importance of completing the Child Outcomes Summary Form as a normal part of the IFSP and exit process.
  • Assessment by the EI Bureau and the EI Monitoring agency of the uniformity of the administration of the summary form by the end of FFY 06/SFY 07.
  • Evaluation to assure there are no patterns in the instances where assessments are not being completed at entry as required by the end of FFY 06/SFY 07.
  • During FFY07/SFY08, the EI program will increase training that emphasizes the importance of completing child outcome assessments at every IFSP meeting and the particular importance at the initial IFSP and at exit.
  • During FFY07/SFY08, the EI program will emphasize the importance of correctly filing in the child outcome ratings at each IFSP, with particular emphasis on indicating progress was made.