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

Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:
A. Positive social-emotional skills;
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills; and
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

---

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.

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, to be held 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:

Outcomes:

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.

Progress categories for A, B and C:

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.

Summary Statement for Each of the Three Child Outcomes (used for 2008-2009 reporting):

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.

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 Illinois' system of progress measurement. IFSP teams continue to have a variety of formal assessment instruments available to them, 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 complete a Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) as outlined by the ECO Center. The COSF 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 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. All measures are entered into the Cornerstone data system so that it can be queried and analyzed.

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. Early Intervention Bureau staff provides technical assistance as needed. Monitoring of appropriate assessment procedures and accurate data input will be conducted by the EI Monitoring Program.

Progress Data for FFY07/SFY 09:

A total of 4,913 records were found in Cornerstone with a matched entry-exit pair on at least one of the three child outcomes for children who were in care for at least six months. In addition, there must have been at least six months between the entry measurement and the exit measurement. In the analysis that follows, the number for each measurement is slightly lower due to missing data or questionable entries that could not be resolved. This is a significant increase from the 3,397 for the FFY07/SFY08 report and was partially due to the passage of more time since the process first started on April 1, 2006.

However, there also was an increase in the proportion of useable entry-exit pairs from 35.7% to 42.0%. More effort will be made to increase this ratio.

For FFY08/SFY09, compared to FFY07/SFY08, there was a reduction in the proportion of children exiting at age expectation (D or E) in all three areas. The percentage of children who improved functioning but remained behind same age peers (C) decreased for positive relationships and acquisition of knowledge and skills, although it increased for meeting needs. The percentage of children who improved but did not move closer to same age peers increased for all three measures.

Overall, the children measured in FFY08/SFY09 rated lower on the A-E scale than the children measured in the previous year. This was to be expected because this was the first reporting period that included all children, even those entering as infants. Children who enter as infants are more likely to have more obvious and severe disabilities and delays that are more difficult to overcome. Thus, it is more difficult for them to register success relative to same age peers. 

FFY 08/SFY 09	Total	A	B	C	D	E
Positive Relationships
Count	4,910	7	1,052	698	1,192	1,961
Percent		0.14%	21.43%	14.22%	24.28%	39.94%
Acquire Skills & Knowledge
Count	4,909	33	947	1,383	2,096	450
Percent		0.67%	19.29%	28.17%	42.70%	9.17%
Meet Needs
Count	4,901	34	982	1,100	1,990	795
Percent		0.69%	20.04%	22.44%	40.60%	16.22%

Outcome 1: Child has positive social relationships.

		Exit Ratings (Number of Children)								% at Entry
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
Entry Ratings (Number of Children)	1	6	12	11	20	22	10	13	94	1.9%
	2	5	36	57	44	64	38	30	274	5.6%
	3	4	17	66	104	175	119	77	562	11.4%
	4	3	5	39	84	189	133	96	549	11.2%
	5	2	6	37	60	263	399	278	1,045	21.3%
	6	2	5	18	39	155	363	442	1,024	20.8%
	7	4	2	27	30	144	233	924	1,364	27.8%
Total		26	83	255	381	1,012	1,295	1,860	4,912
% at Exit		0.5%	1.7%	5.2%	7.8%	20.6%	26.4%	37.9%

Moved closer to same age peers 2,333  47.5%

Stayed same relative to same age peers  1,742  35.5%%

Farther behind same age peers 837  17.0%

Entry scores for Outcome 1: Social Relationships have consistently been much higher than for the other two outcomes. The percentage of children who entered with the highest score relative to same age peers (7) was 27.8%, compared to just 3.9% for acquisition of knowledge and skills and 5.8% for meeting needs. As a result, the proportion of children who can move closer to same age peers is much lower than for the other two outcomes. This also will impact the formula calculations for summary statements discussed below.

In each of the three years, we have reported data, less than half of children have moved closer to same age peers. It is noteworthy that the proportion of kids who moved closer to same age peers fell each year and the highest rate of children who fell further behind was in the reporting year. As discussed previously, this was a predictable result, since the set of children being evaluated has become more inclusive each year as time has passed and the numbers of children in the data set has increased.

Social Relationships History	FFY06/ FY07	FFY07/ SFY08	FFY08/ SFY09
Moved closer to same age peers	48.9%	48.5%	47.5%
Stayed same relative to same age peers	36.0%	38.5%	35.5%
Farther behind same age peers	15.1%	13.0%	17.0%
Average Rating at Entry	5.02	5.13	5.18
Average Rating at Exit	5.81	5.79	5.77
Change	0.79	0.66	0.59
Count of Usable Matched Records	794	3,390	4,912

As was noted above, a large percentage of children entered the program with social relationship skills considered equivalent to same age peers. For summary statement 1 the question is what proportion of children moved closer to same age peers. Since those children were already at that level they are excluded from the calculation. As a result, the number of children included in this calculation is far smaller than for the other two outcomes. That the data set was not representative was another important factor in calculating the summary statement. Unfortunately, Chicago provided less than 10% of the useable entry-exit pairs but almost 20% of the caseload lives in Chicago. Conversely, the collar counties surrounding Cook County were significantly over represented. There are significant differences economically and racially between these areas. To make the sample more representative we have weighted the results by the four large geographic areas. This results in a notable difference for the social relationships summary statements. It increases the percentage of children who improved functioning relative to same age peers from 61.1% to 64.6%. It decreased the percentage of children who left the program equivalent to same age peers from 64.2% to 63.8%.

Children Who Made Substantial Progress In Their Social Relationships

Positive Relationships Summary Statement 1	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Progress (C + D)	235	352	488	815	1,890
All Entering Below Same Age Peers (A+B+C+D)	335	555	841	1,218	2,949
Children Making Substantial Progress	70.1%	63.4%	58.0%	66.9%	64.1%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	576	591	755	1,027	2,949
Revised Progress Count	404	375	438	687	1,904
Weighted Summary Statement Score	70.1%	63.5%	58.0%	66.9%	64.6%

The proportion of children who made substantial progress was the lowest in the collar counties and the highest in Chicago. While those children who both entered and left the program functioning equal to same age peers are removed from this calculation there was an impact because the collar counties had the highest proportion of those children and Chicago had the lowest proportion. This impact becomes more obvious in the weighting, where Chicago's proportion is increased and the collar county weighting is decreased.

Children Who Left The Program Functioning Equivalent To Same Age Peers In Their Social Relationships

Positive Relationships Summary Statement 2	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Functioning Within Age Expectations (D + E)	285	662	1,042	1,164	3,153
All Children Reported	474	982	1,566	1,888	4,910
Children Functioning Within Age Expectations	60.1%	67.4%	66.5%	61.7%	64.2%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	960	983	1,258	1,709	4,910
Revised Progress Count	577	663	837	1,054	3,131
Weighted Summary Statement Score	60.1%	67.4%	66.5%	61.7%	63.8%

For summary statement 2 geographic differences were the opposite of what we see in summary statement 1. Chicago had a low proportion of children leaving functioning at a level equal to same age peers and the collar counties were higher than the average. Thus, when the data is weighted it results in a lower score.

---

Outcome 2: Child acquires and uses knowledge and skills.

		Exit Ratings (Number of Children)								% at Entry
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
Entry Ratings (Number of Children)	1	11	21	29	23	32	29	19	164	3.3%
	2	14	50	82	101	108	74	49	478	9.7%
	3	5	17	122	194	451	320	190	1,299	26.4%
	4	2	12	32	125	343	347	210	1,071	21.8%
	5	1	3	34	66	322	487	371	1,284	26.1%
	6	2	1	15	15	75	151	163	422	8.6%
	7	1	1	7	10	37	42	96	194	3.9%
Total		36	105	321	534	1,368	1,450	1,098	4,912
% at Exit		0.7%	2.1%	6.5%	10.9%	27.9%	29.5%	22.4%

Moved closer to same age peers 3,643 / 74.2%
Stayed same relative to same age peers 877 / 17.9%
Farther behind same age peers 392 / 8.0%

Unlike the social relationships outcome, the proportion of children entering functioning at or near same age peers was small, with just 3.9% scoring a 7 and just 8.6% scoring a 6. However, this meant a very large percentage of children recorded an improved score at exit, 74.2%, and large numbers improved by more than one point. Only 8.0% were thought to have fallen farther behind same age peers.

Knowledge & Skills	FFY06/ SSF07	FFY07/ SSF08	FFY08/ SSF09
Moved closer to same age peers	66.0%	75.7%	74.2%
Stayed same relative to same age peers	23.5%	17.6%	17.9%
Farther behind same age peers	10.4%	6.7%	8.0%
Average Rating at Entry	4.09	3.98	3.99
Average Rating at Exit	5.38	5.41	5.41
Change	1.29	1.43	1.42
Count of Useable Matched Records	795	3,394	4,912

Considering the important changes in the composition of the caseload from the last report to this one (noted previously) the summary results were surprisingly similar between the two years. In fact, the average entry and exit scores were almost identical. There was some decrease in the proportion of kids that moved closer to same age peers and the proportion that fell behind increased. This can be explained by the change in the composition of the two data sets.

Children Who Made Substantial Progress In Their Acquisition Of Knowledge And Skills

Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 1	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Functioning Within Age Expectations (D + E)	337	702	1,112	1,328	3,479
All Children Reported	438	889	1,428	1,704	4,459
Children Functioning Within Age Expectations	76.9%	79.0%	77.9%	77.9%	78.0%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	872	893	1,142	1,552	4,459
Revised Progress Count	671	705	889	1,210	3,475
Weighted Summary Statement Score	76.9%	78.9%	77.8%	78.0%	77.9%

Geography had very little impact on the proportion of children who made progress in the acquisition of knowledge and skills. This is partially because there was less than a 3% difference between the four regions in the proportion of children entering the program with equivalent to same age peers.

Children Who Left The Program Functioning Equivalent To Same Age Peers In Their Acquisition Of Knowledge And Skills

Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 2	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Functioning Within Age Expectations (D + E)	249	500	838	983	2,570
All Children Reported	472	981	1,567	1,887	4,907
Children Functioning Within Age Expectations	52.8%	51.0%	53.5%	52.1%	52.4%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	959	983	1,257	1,708	4,907
Revised Progress Count	506	501	672	890	2,569
Weighted Summary Statement Score	52.8%	51.0%	53.5%	52.1%	52.4%

As with summary statement 1, geography had little impact on the proportion of children who left the program functioning equal to same age peers in their acquisition of knowledge and skills. It should be noted that geographic weighting should also help weight for other factors, such as race/ethnicity and income but it does not do so explicitly.

---

Outcome 3: Child takes appropriate action to meet needs.

		Exit Ratings (Number of Children)								% at Entry
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
Entry Ratings (Number of Children)	1	16	19	39	32	38	28	22	194	4.0%
	2	12	31	65	72	97	64	47	388	7.9%
	3	9	33	97	144	314	233	135	965	19.7%
	4	1	8	45	114	280	291	190	929	18.9%
	5	4	6	32	74	329	544	437	1,426	29.1%
	6	3	2	8	24	86	286	308	717	14.6%
	7	2	4	15	10	52	49	153	285	5.8%
Total		47	103	301	470	1,196	1,495	1,292	4,904
% at Exit		1.0%	2.1%	6.1%	9.6%	24.4%	30.5%	26.3%

Moved closer to same age peers 3,399 / 69.3%
Stayed same relative to same age peers 1,026 / 20.9%
Farther behind same age peers 479 / 9.8%

The proportion of children who left the program having moved closer to same age peers was again almost seven in ten. This is less than for Outcome 2. That is explained by the fact only 11.5% of kids for Outcome 2 measured 5 or 6 but for Outcome 3: Meeting Needs it was 20.4%. Higher average scores at entry also explain the slightly higher proportion of kids who fell farther behind, compared to Outcome 2, and the much lower level relative to Outcome 1. The higher the starting place the greater the chance of falling. In particular, children entering at 7 can only fall.

Meets Needs

	FFY06/ SFY07	FFY07/ SFY08	FFY08/ SFY09
Moved closer to same age peers	66.1%	70.6%	69.3%
Stayed same relative to same age peers	22.8%	22.1%	20.9%
Farther behind same age peers	11.1%	7.2%	9.8%
Average Rating at Entry	4.43	4.34	4.28
Average Rating at Exit	5.62	5.6	5.51
Change	1.19	1.26	1.24
Count of Useable Matched Records	793	3,387	4,904

There was not a pattern over the three years in movement relative to same age peers, although average scores both at entry and at exit did decline each year. The comparison of the reporting year to the previous year does show a decline in the proportion of children who moved closer to same age peers and an increase in the proportion who fell farther behind. Again, that can be explained by the inclusion for the first time of significant numbers of children who entered as infants.

Children Who Made Substantial Progress In Their Ability To Meet Their Needs

Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 1	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Functioning Within Age Expectations (D + E)	297	649	933	1,211	3,090
All Children Reported	402	840	1,285	1,579	4,106
Children Functioning Within Age Expectations	73.9%	77.3%	72.6%	76.7%	75.3%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	803	822	1,052	1,429	4,106
Revised Progress Count	593	635	764	1,096	3,088
Weighted Summary Statement Score	73.8%	77.3%	72.6%	76.7%	75.2%

Geographic weighting made very little difference in the net proportion of children who showed progress in their ability to meet their needs. There were more pronounced differences in the regions. Suburban Cook and downstate were higher than Chicago or the collar counties. However, the relative changes to accommodate under represented Chicago and the over represented collar counties canceled each other out.

Children Who Left The Program Functioning Equivalent To Same Age Peers In Their Ability To Meet Their Needs

Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 2	Chicago	Suburban Cook Co.	Collar Counties	Downstate	State
Functioning Within Age Expectations (D + E)	249	563	907	1,066	2,785
All Children Reported	472	980	1,563	1,886	4,901
Children Functioning Within Age Expectations	52.8%	57.4%	58.0%	56.5%	56.8%
Percent of Eligible Cases in Care >6 Months	19.55%	20.03%	25.62%	34.81%	100.0%
Revised Entering Below Same Age Peers	958	982	1,255	1,706	4,901
Revised Progress Count	505	564	728	964	2,761
Weighted Summary Statement Score	52.7%	57.4%	58.0%	56.5%	56.3%

Weighting did result in a reduction in the net proportion of children who left the program functioning at rate equivalent to same age peers. This is because Chicago's proportion was significantly lower than for any of the other three regions. All the others were relatively close.

---

Discussion of Progress Data

With only a few exceptions, baseline data from FF08/SFY09 trended lower for each of the summary statements for all three measures over the three years. It is logical to assume this trend will continue, although hopefully to a lesser extent, for FFY09/SFY10 because there were problems with the entry of data in the first period. Specifically, many Service Coordinators mistakenly thought they were to write over the entry measurements when they made subsequent entries. As a result, the oldest children continued to be under represented in the sample for FFY08/SFY09. As time passes this becomes less of an issue but we see that those who would come in as infants are more likely to have more pronounced delays that are more difficult to overcome, the larger their share of the sample the lower the proportion who will have shown improvement or be functioning equal to same age peers.

For a variety of reasons, it is not realistic to get a matched entry-exit outcome measurement pairing for 100% of children who exit with at least six-months of service. The most obvious problems are cases that close when the program cannot contact the family. The highest proportion of data deemed in compliance with state guidelines was CFC 13, whose caseload is primarily in the Quad Cities. Several other downstate and collar county CFC's had compliance rates in excess of two-thirds of potentially eligible cases. However, three of the four Chicago CFCs were below 20%. We are uncertain if a more representative sample will result in higher or lower outcome measures for children but it will remain a priority for the program.

The following are some of the problems that prevent us from getting useable entry-exit pairs:

No Entry Record

We have continued to reduce this problem there is still a need to reinforce how important it is.

Writing Over Entry Records

A widespread misunderstanding in the field led to the assumption a COSF record should be written over, instead of opening a new one. This problem was identified and addressed during FFY07/SFY08. There was a substantial impact on FFY07/FFY08 performance and some residual impact on the baseline data. This should not be a problem going forward due to new edits in the system but it takes some time to work its way fully through time.

No Exit Record

A widespread misunderstanding in the field led to the assumption a COSF record should be written over, instead of opening a new one. This problem was identified and addressed during FFY07/SFY08. There was a substantial impact on FFY07/FFY08 performance and some residual impact on the baseline data. This should not be a problem going forward due to new edits in the system but it takes some time to work its way fully through time.

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 but it is possible to make invalid entries.

Average Entry & Exit Scores by Measure & CFC

CFC	Useable Pairs	Social Relationships			Acquired Knowledge & Skills			Able to Meet Needs
		Entry SE	Exit SE	SE Chng	Entry KS	Exit KS	Chng KS	Entry Need	Exit Need	Need Chng
#1 - Rockford	277	5.38	5.90	0.53	3.83	5.43	1.59	4.15	5.67	1.52
#2 - Lake Co.	259	4.89	5.59	0.70	3.8	5.35	1.55	4.00	5.27	1.28
#3 - Freeport	65	5.43	5.48	0.05	4.03	5.26	1.23	4.43	5.40	0.97
#4 - Kane-Kendall	156	5.81	5.79	-0.01	4.15	5.22	1.06	4.70	5.40	0.70
#5- DuPage	439	5.77	5.99	0.22	4.00	5.49	1.49	4.60	5.64	1.04
#6 - N Suburbs	623	5.71	6.06	0.34	4.06	5.46	1.41	4.39	5.63	1.24
#7 - W Suburbs	210	4.70	5.43	0.73	3.54	5.12	1.58	3.79	5.11	1.32
#8 - SW Chicago	71	4.83	5.79	0.96	3.70	5.35	1.65	4.06	5.56	1.51
#9 - Central Chicago	104	4.86	5.69	0.84	4.00	5.38	1.38	4.27	5.48	1.21
#10 - SE Chicago	126	4.54	5.38	0.84	3.91	4.98	1.07	3.81	4.98	1.17
#11 - N Chicago	173	4.79	5.72	0.93	3.97	5.48	1.51	4.35	5.57	1.21
#12 - S Suburbs	149	5.12	5.78	0.66	4.11	5.45	1.34	4.29	5.53	1.24
#13 - Macomb	200	5.55	6.01	0.46	4.53	5.62	1.09	5.01	5.87	0.87
#14 - Peoria	165	5.85	6.08	0.23	4.75	5.73	0.98	5.12	5.86	0.74
#15 - Joliet	589	5.49	5.81	0.33	4.39	5.63	1.24	4.65	5.71	1.05
#16 - Bloomington	266	4.64	5.54	0.90	4.03	5.36	1.33	4.02	5.42	1.39
#17 - Quincy	65	4.71	5.26	0.55	3.71	4.74	1.03	3.98	4.75	0.77
#18 - Springfield	57	4.21	5.26	1.05	3.30	4.68	1.39	3.68	4.96	1.28
#19 - Decatur	157	3.98	5.33	1.35	3.67	5.31	1.64	3.59	5.23	1.64
#20 - Effingham	161	4.87	5.66	0.80	3.72	5.55	1.83	3.81	5.55	1.74
#21 - Belleville	184	4.75	5.74	0.99	3.59	5.48	1.90	3.79	5.48	1.68
#22 - Centralia	143	3.88	5.43	1.55	3.07	5.18	2.11	3.20	5.16	1.97
#23 - Norris City	99	4.40	5.44	1.04	3.69	5.3	1.62	4.11	5.54	1.42
#24 - Carbondale	50	4.86	5.64	0.78	3.78	5.22	1.44	3.88	5.30	1.42
#25 - McHenry Co.	125	5.90	6.11	0.22	4.45	5.27	0.82	4.69	5.62	0.93
State - Unweighted	4,913	5.18	5.77	0.59	3.99	5.41	1.42	4.28	5.51	1.24
State - Weighted		5.10	5.73	0.64	3.97	5.38	1.41	4.25	5.48	1.23

* Includes only outcomes measures that met all the necessary criteria, including six months passing between entry and exit measurements & measurements being within three months of initial program entry and program exit.

Distribution of Child Outcome Matched Entry-Exit PairsIncluding Ratio of Compliance with Rules

CFC	Eligible Closures	State %	Entered Pairs *	State %	Compliance
#1 - ROCKFORD	515	3.65%	313	5.28%	60.8%
#2 - LAKE CO.	691	4.90%	290	4.90%	42.0%
#3 - FREEPORT	260	1.84%	77	1.30%	29.6%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL	651	4.61%	169	2.85%	26.0%
#5- DUPAGE	896	6.35%	667	11.26%	74.4%
#6 - N SUBURBS	1187	8.41%	717	12.10%	60.4%
#7 - W SUBURBS	797	5.65%	228	3.85%	28.6%
#8 - SW CHICAGO	585	4.14%	82	1.38%	14.0%
#9 - CENTRAL CHICAGO	793	5.62%	115	1.94%	14.5%
#10 - SE CHICAGO	584	4.14%	159	2.68%	27.2%
#11 - N CHICAGO	1503	10.65%	193	3.26%	12.8%
#12 - S SUBURBS	843	5.97%	169	2.85%	20.0%
#13 - MACOMB	297	2.10%	253	4.27%	85.2%
#14 - PEORIA	446	3.16%	198	3.34%	44.4%
#15 - JOLIET	1020	7.23%	683	11.53%	67.0%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON	560	3.97%	321	5.42%	57.3%
#17 - QUINCY	172	1.22%	77	1.30%	44.8%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD	272	1.93%	91	1.54%	33.5%
#19 - DECATUR	299	2.12%	213	3.60%	71.2%
#20 - EFFINGHAM	306	2.17%	209	3.53%	68.3%
#21 - BELLEVILLE	513	3.63%	219	3.70%	42.7%
#22 - CENTRALIA	263	1.86%	165	2.79%	62.7%
#23 - NORRIS CITY	173	1.23%	116	1.96%	67.1%
#24 - CARBONDALE	132	0.94%	55	0.93%	41.7%
#25 - MCHENRY CO.	358	2.54%	145	2.45%	40.5%
STATE	14,116		5,924		42.0%
CHICAGO	2,759	19.55%	584	9.86%	21.2%
SUBURBAN COOK	2,827	20.03%	1,114	18.80%	39.4%
COLLAR COUNTIES	3,616	25.62%	1,954	32.98%	54.0%
DOWNSTATE	4,914	34.81%	2,272	38.35%	46.2%

* Includes instances where the child was in care at least six months & where there was less than six months between entry and exit measurements. Also excludes some cases with data that could not be corrected for use.

The following represents the weighted baseline data and goals for FFY09/SFY10 and FFY10/SFY11. The primary reason for assuming there will be slippage in FFY09/SFY10 is that the reporting year/baseline data was not fully age-representative due to problems with initial entry. We have continued to experience problems with low match rates in Chicago but for those we have been able to use the results do not diverge dramatically from the state overall. Therefore, while we intend to work to make the useable data more representative we do not assume that will have any meaningful impact on the net results. We do think the steps we take will help us start to see improvement in FFY10/SFY11.

Child Outcomes Baseline & Targets	Baseline	FFY09/ SFY10	FFY10/ SFY11
Positive Relationships Summary Statement 1	64.6%	64.5%	65.0%
Positive Relationships Summary Statement 2	63.8%	63.5%	64.0%
Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 1	77.9%	77.5%	78.5%
Acquire Knowledge & Skills Summary Statement 2	52.4%	52.0%	53.0%
Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 1	75.2%	75.0%	75.5%
Able to Meet Needs Summary Statement 2	56.3%	56.0%	56.5%

FFY / Summary Statement	Statement	Outcome A	Outcome B	Outcome C
2008 (2008-2009)
Summary Statement 1	Baseline data provided above	64.6%	77.9%	75.2%
Summary Statement 2	Baseline data provided above	63.8%	52.4%	56.3%
2009 (2009-2010)
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.	A. 64.5% for positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);	B. 77.5% for acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 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.	A. 63.5% for positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);	B. 52.0% for acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and	C. 56.0% for use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
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.	A. 65.0% for positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);	B. 78.5% for acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 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.	A. 64.0% for positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);	B. 53.0% for acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and	C. 56.5% for use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• To improve uniformity of administration, having one of the two lowest percentage of compliant 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 FFY 07/SFY 08 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 FFY 07/SFY 08 and FFY 08/SFY 09 the EI program reviewed the rates of compliance with rules regarding child outcomes measurement with CFCs, the IICEI and other interested parties and develop strategies to assure uniformity of administration.
• During FFY 07/SFY 08 and FFY 08/SFY 09 the EI program reviewed the aggregate results from child outcome measurement and discuss what the results say about the program and make initial plans for activities to improve results.
• During FFY 08/SFY 09 and FFY 09/SFY 10 the EI program worked with stakeholders, including the IICEI and CFCs to develop goals to improve child outcomes.
• During FFY 08/SFY 09 and FFY 09/SFY 10 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.
• By the end of FFY 10/SFY 11, the EI program will implement specific goals to improve child outcomes.
• 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.
• 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.
• Special training will be undertaken with CFC's and providers in Chicago to improve the amount of useable data, to be completed no later than June 30, 2010.