Monitoring Priority:

Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

Results indicator: 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)


Does your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or "at-risk infants and toddlers") under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i)? No


Historical Data -Baseline Year 2009

Summary Statement
(Outcome A, B, and C)
Target/Data
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Outcome A: Summary Statement A1 Target N/A 64.50% 65.60% 66.00% 66.50% 66.90%
Outcome A: Summary Statement A1 Data 64.10% 65.60% 66.40% 68.22% 70.40% 70.55%
Outcome A: Summary Statement A2 Target N/A 64.50% 63.30% 63.30% 63.50% 63.50%
Outcome A: Summary Statement A2 Data 64.20% 63.30% 63.10% 62.42% 64.40% 64.58%
Outcome B: Summary Statement B1 Target N/A 78.50% 77.00% 77.50% 78.00% 78.40%
Outcome B: Summary Statement B1 Data 78.00% 77.00% 78.20% 78.47% 79.70% 80.17%
Outcome B: Summary Statement B2 Target N/A 52.50% 48.00% 49.00% 49.80% 50.00%
Outcome B: Summary Statement B2 Data 52.40% 49.60% 50.30% 49.44% 51.60% 52.90%
Outcome C: Summary Statement C1 Target N/A 75.50% 74.50% 75.00% 75.70% 76.10%
Outcome C: Summary Statement C1 Data 75.30% 75.50% 76.40% 76.57% 77.90% 77.60%
Outcome C: Summary Statement C2 Target N/A 57.00% 55.00% 55.50% 56.20% 56.40%
Outcome C: Summary Statement C2 Data 56.80% 56.00% 56.80% 56.03% 57.90% 58.27%

FFY 2014  - FFY 2018 Targets

 Target FFY 2014 FFY 2015 FFY 2016 FFY 2017 FFY 2018
Target Summary Statement A1 67.30% 67.70% 68.10% 68.50% 68.90%
Target Summary Statement A2 63.70% 63.90% 64.10% 64.30% 64.50%
Target Summary Statement B1 78.80% 79.20% 79.60% 80.00% 80.40%
Target Summary Statement B2 50.20% 50.40% 50.60% 50.80% 51.00%
Target Summary Statement C1 76.50% 76.90% 77.30% 77.70% 78.10%
Target Summary Statement C2 56.60% 56.80% 57.00% 57.20% 57.40%

Explanation of Changes

Target number for Summary Statement A2 for FY2018 was not prepopulated

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input - Please see the Stakeholder Involvement section of the introduction.


FFY 2014 SPP/APR Data

Total Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed: 9506


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

Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills
(including social relationships)
Number of Children Percentage of Children
a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning 59 0.62%
b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 2063 21.70%
c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 1593 16.76%
d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 2733 28.75%
e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 3058 32.17%
Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills
(including social relationships)
Numerator Denominator FFY 2013 Data FFY  2014 Target FFY 2014 Data
A1. 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 turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d). 4326 6448 70.55% 67.30% 67.09%
A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e). 5791 9506 64.58% 63.70% 60.92%

Explanation of A1 Slippage

The Bureau thoroughly reviewed the data for Child Outcomes (Indicator 3) and  determined that  a combination of  reasons contributed  to the state's slippage for "Outcome A - Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)".

This year, the Bureau decided to have all data be consistent with the Results Driven Accountability Determination scorecard from OSEP, and elected to use 618 Child Exit data for this Indicator 3. Historically, the State has used several datasets for the various Indicators; and

During this year's analysis of child outcome data, it was noted fewer children had matched pairs - they did not receive a child outcomes assessment at both entry and exit. Additionally, we know through the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase I data analysis, that the quality of the child outcomes data is not consistent across the state.

The Bureau acknowledges that improvements are needed to the data system to account and prevent "impossible" child outcomes ratings. To remedy the problem, the Bureau has engaged in several initiatives and activities:

A request to the Department's MIS Division, which houses the Cornerstone data system used by Early Intervention,  to implement controls that will correct the serious data fidelity issues has been submitted. The State has been participating in an intensive Technical Assistance (TA) Cohort focusing on quality child outcomes. There are several improvement activities being considered to enhance the State's child outcome process and its fidelity. The State's is combining these efforts with its SSIP.

Strategies around evidence based practices and the child outcome process are the key components of the SSIP Phase II currently under development which will be implemented during Phase III.  These have been selected to propel the State to achieve the State Identified Measurable Result (SiMR). These strategies will focus on the practice of implementing the child outcome process with fidelity while emphasizing evidence practices that encourage the active participation of the families/caregivers in this and all other processes by embedding meaningful intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines. Illinois continues to explore strategies with the Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup that will improve the data collection, the reporting, and use of child outcomes data. The State recently completed the child outcomes measurement system (COMS) self-assessment process through the TA Cohort and this workgroup was able to use it to evaluate the current child outcomes measurement system, to identify areas in need of improvement, and to determine how to improve the system.

Explanation of A2 Slippage

The Bureau thoroughly reviewed the data for Child Outcomes (Indicator 3) and  determined that  a combination of  reasons contributed  to the state's slippage for "Outcome A - Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)".

This year, the Bureau decided to have all data be consistent with the Results Driven Accountability Determination scorecard from OSEP, and elected to use 618 Child Exit data for this Indicator 3. Historically, the State has used several datasets for the various Indicators; and

During this year's analysis of child outcome data, it was noted fewer children had matched pairs - they did not receive a child outcomes assessment at both entry and exit. Additionally, we know through the State SSIP Phase I data analysis, that the quality of the child outcomes data is not consistent across the state.

The Bureau acknowledges that improvements are needed to the data system to account and prevent "impossible" child outcomes ratings. To remedy the problem, the Bureau has engaged in several initiatives and activities:

A request to the Department's MIS Division, which houses the Cornerstone data system used by Early Intervention,  to implement controls that will correct the serious data fidelity issues has been submitted. The State has been participating in an intensive TA Cohort focusing on quality child outcomes. There are several improvement activities being considered to enhance the State's child outcome process and its fidelity. The State's is combining these efforts with its SSIP.

Strategies around evidence based practices and the child outcome process are the key components of the SSIP Phase II currently under development which will be implemented during Phase III.  These have been selected to propel the State to achieve the SiMR. These strategies will focus on the practice of implementing the child outcome process with fidelity while emphasizing evidence practices that encourage the active participation of the families/caregivers in this and all other processes by

embedding meaningful intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines.

Illinois continues to explore strategies with the Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup that will improve the data collection, the reporting, and use of child outcomes data. The State recently completed the COMS self-assessment process through the TA Cohort and this workgroup was able to use it to evaluate the current child outcomes measurement system, to identify areas in need of improvement, and to determine how to improve the system.

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

Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/ communication)
Number of Children Percentage of Children
a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning 43 0.45%
b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 1958 20.60%
c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 2937 30.90%
d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 3935 41.39%
e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 633 6.66%
Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication) Numerator Denominator FFY 2013 Data FFY 2014 Target FFY 2014 Data
B1. 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 turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d). 6872 8873 80.17% 78.80% 77.45%
B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e). 4568 9506 52.90% 50.20% 48.05%

Explanation of B1 Slippage

The Bureau thoroughly reviewed the data for Child Outcomes (Indicator 3) and determined that a combination of reasons contributed to the state's slippage for "Outcome B - Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication)".

  • This year, the Bureau decided to have all data be consistent with the Results Driven Accountability Determination scorecard from OSEP, and elected to use 618 Child Exit data for this Indicator 3.Historically, the State has used several datasets for the various Indicators; and
  • During this year's analysis of child outcome data, it was noted fewer children had matched pairs - they did not receive a child outcomes assessment at both entry and exit. Additionally, we know through the SSIP Phase I data analysis, that the quality of the child outcomes data is not consistent across the state.

The Bureau acknowledges that improvements are needed to the data system to account and prevent "impossible" child outcomes ratings. To remedy the problem, the Bureau has engaged in several initiatives and activities:

  • A request to the Department's MIS Division, which houses the Cornerstone data system used by Early Intervention, to implement controls that will correct the serious data fidelity issues has been submitted.
  • The State has been participating in an intensive TA Cohort focusing on quality child outcomes. There are several improvement activities being considered to enhance the State's child outcome process and its fidelity. The State's is combining these efforts with its SSIP.
  • Strategies around evidence based practices and the child outcome process are the key components of the SSIP Phase II currently under development which will be implemented during Phase III. These have been selected to propel the State to achieve the SiMR. These strategies will focus on the practice of implementing the child outcome process with fidelity while emphasizing evidence practices that encourage the active participation of the families/caregivers in this and all other processes by embedding meaningful intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines.
  • Illinois continues to explore strategies with the Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup that will improve the data collection, the reporting, and use of child outcomes data. The State recently completed the COMS self-assessment process through the TA Cohort and this workgroup was able to use it to evaluate the current child outcomes measurement system, to identify areas in need of improvement,and to determine how to improve the system.
  • 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.

Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Number of children Percentage of children
a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning 46 0.48%
b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 1956 20.58%
c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 2373 24.96%
d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 3681 38.72%
e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 1450 15.25%
Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Numerator Denominator FFY 2013 Data FFY 2014 Target FFY 2014 Data
C1. 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 turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d). 6054 8056 77.60% 76.50% 75.15%
C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e). 5131 9506 58.27% 56.60% 53.98%

Explanation of C1 Slippage

The Bureau thoroughly reviewed the data for Child Outcomes (Indicator 3) and determined that a combination of reasons contributed to the state's slippage for "Outcome C - Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs".

  • This year, the Bureau decided to have all data be consistent with the Results Driven Accountability Determination scorecard from OSEP, and elected to use 618 Child Exit data for this Indicator 3. Historically, the State has used several datasets for the various Indicators; and
  • During this year's analysis of child outcome data, it was noted fewer children had matched pairs - they did not receive a child outcomes assessment at both entry and exit. Additionally, we know through the SSIP Phase I data analysis, that the quality of the child outcomes data is not consistent across the state.

The Bureau acknowledges that improvements are needed to the data system to account and prevent "impossible" child outcomes ratings. To remedy the problem, the Bureau has engaged in several initiatives and activities:

  • A request to the Department's MIS Division, which houses the Cornerstone data system used by Early Intervention, to implement controls that will correct the serious data fidelity issues has been submitted.
  • The State has been participating in an intensive TA Cohort focusing on quality child outcomes. There are several improvement activities being considered to enhance the State's child outcome process and its fidelity. The State's is combining these efforts with its SSIP.
  • Strategies around evidence based practices and the child outcome process are the key components of the SSIP Phase II currently under development which will be implemented during Phase III. These have been selected to propel the State to achieve the SiMR. These strategies will focus on the practice of implementing the child outcome process with fidelity while emphasizing evidence practices that encourage the active participation of the families/caregivers in this and all other processes by embedding meaningful intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines.
  • Illinois continues to explore strategies with the Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup that will improve the data collection, the reporting, and use of child outcomes data. The State recently completed the COMS self-assessment process through the TA Cohort and this workgroup was able to use it to evaluate the current child outcomes measurement system, to identify areas in need of improvement, and to determine how to improve the system.

Explanation of C2 Slippage

The Bureau thoroughly reviewed the data for Child Outcomes (Indicator 3) and determined that a combination of reasons contributed to the state's slippage for "Outcome C - Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs".

  • This year, the Bureau decided to have all data be consistent with the Results Driven Accountability Determination scorecard from OSEP, and elected to use 618 Child Exit data for this Indicator 3.
  • Historically, the State has used several datasets for the various Indicators; and
  • During this year's analysis of child outcome data, it was noted fewer children had matched pairs - they did not receive a child outcomes assessment at both entry and exit. Additionally, we know through the SSIP Phase I data analysis, that the quality of the child outcomes data is not consistent across the state.

The Bureau acknowledges that improvements are needed to the data system to account and prevent "impossible" child outcomes ratings. To remedy the problem, the Bureau has engaged in several initiatives and activities:

  • A request to the Department's MIS Division, which houses the Cornerstone data system used by Early Intervention, to implement controls that will correct the serious data fidelity issues has been submitted.
  • The State has been participating in an intensive TA Cohort focusing on quality child outcomes. There are several improvement activities being considered to enhance the State's child outcome process and its fidelity. The State's is combining these efforts with its SSIP.
  • Strategies around evidence based practices and the child outcome process are the key components of the SSIP Phase II currently under development which will be implemented during Phase III. These have been selected to propel the State to achieve the SiMR. These strategies will focus on the practice of implementing the child outcome process with fidelity while emphasizing evidence practices that encourage the active participation of the families/caregivers in this and all other processes by embedding meaningful intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines.
  • Illinois continues to explore strategies with the Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup that will improve the data collection, the reporting, and use of child outcomes data. The State recently completed the COMS self-assessment process through the TA Cohort and this workgroup was able to use it to evaluate the current child outcomes measurement system, to identify areas in need of improvement, and to determine how to improve the system.
Question Response
Was sampling used? No
Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)? Yes

Actions required in FFY 2013 response: None

Responses to actions required in FFY 2013 response: None

Child and Family Connections (CFC) # Outcome 1
Summary Statement 1
Outcome 1
Summary Statement 2
Outcome 2
Summary Statement 1
Outcome 2 Summary Statement 2  Outcome 3 Summary Statement 1 Outcome 3 Summary Statement 2
CFC 1 65.1% 67.7% 80.5% 57.8% 77.2% 65.2%
CFC **2 61.4% 53.9% 73.3% 50.7% 74.5% 53.2%
CFC 3 50.0% 53.0% 47.3% 40.9% 52.2% 53.0%
CFC **4 55.7% 65.6% 70.8% 52.1% 66.1% 63.1%
CFC **5 48.8% 65.2% 65.5% 54.1% 55.0% 63.3%
CFC *6 69.0% 71.9% 79.8% 49.3% 78.6% 60.2%
CFC *7 71.9% 54.9% 85.6% 44.6% 84.4% 45.9%
CFC *8 82.4% 58.8% 84.9% 43.9% 84.7% 48.0%
CFC *9 75.4% 55.7% 85.9% 42.7% 81.5% 46.0%
CFC *10 68.5% 41.4% 74.9% 34.8% 73.6% 30.1%
CFC *11 81.0% 68.7% 85.4% 52.7% 82.8% 57.8%
CFC *12 64.4% 45.5% 78.2% 37.1% 74.1% 36.3%
CFC 13 65.1% 68.5% 72.2% 49.5% 68.8% 65.0%
CFC 14 39.1% 73.0% 60.8% 62.5% 56.1% 69.1%
CFC **15 60.2% 58.6% 74.3% 47.8% 68.6% 56.9%
CFC 16 70.3% 50.0% 76.5% 40.0% 78.5% 41.3%
CFC 17 67.4% 64.5% 84.7% 57.9% 87.3% 59.2%
CFC 18 57.3% 39.7% 70.6% 23.1% 67.8% 30.1%
CFC 19 81.6% 67.6% 82.4% 59.0% 78.7% 68.9%
CFC 20 60.0% 65.6% 75.2% 58.0% 76.9% 59.9%
CFC 21 64.4% 64.9% 80.5% 52.2% 78.5% 57.2%
CFC 22 73.1% 56.3% 83.9% 50.0% 84.6% 56.3%
CFC 23 71.2% 41.9% 91.9% 37.1% 82.8% 38.7%
CFC 24 64.8% 56.1% 72.5% 34.7% 73.8% 44.9%
CFC **25 51.6% 60.8% 66.9% 45.6% 62.1% 53.7%
Statewide 67.1% 60.9% 77.4% 48.1% 75.1% 54.0%
*Chicago - Cook County 76.8% 56.2% 82.8% 43.5% 80.7% 45.5%
**Collar Counties (2,4,5,15, & 25) 55.5% 60.8% 70.2% 50.1% 65.3% 58.0%
Downstate (All Others) 63.8% 59.1% 75.3% 47.9% 74.1% 54.5%
*Cook County Offices: * CFC 6 - North Suburban *CFC 7 - West Suburban *CFC 8 - Southwest Chicago *CFC 9 - Central Chicago *CFC 10 - Southeast Chicago *CFC 11 - North Chicago
* CFC 12 - South Suburban