Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

Monitoring Priority:

Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find

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.

FFY 08/SFY09

Measurable and Rigorous Target The percentage of children in Illinois under age 3 served through an IFSP will be at least 3.38% on June 30, 2009, approximately 18, 339 children.

Actual Target Data for FFY08/SFY09:
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.

FFY08/SFY09 Result (based on October 31, 2008 data): (18,535/541,091) X 100= 3.43%

Illinois ranks 13th out of all states.

Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 3)] X 100

FFY08/SRY09 Result (based on June 30, 2009 data): (18,772/541,091) X 100=3.47% FFY08/SRY09 Target = 3.38%

On October 31, 2008, Illinois reported 18,535 children under 3 had active IFSPs, equal to a 3.43% participation rate. [(18,535/541,091)*100=3.43%] That is higher than the 3.31% for the FFY 07 federal report. Illinois remains in the upper third of the 14 states with moderately restrictive eligibility. Illinois' participation rate is ranked 13th among all states, the same ranking as in FFY08/SFY09. The FFY08/SFY 09 reported caseload represents a 41.5% increase over five years, compared to just 18.8% nationwide.

2003 - 2008 Participation Rate Comparisons National & Similar Eligibility States

2003 2007 2008 Change
STATE % of Pop. Rank % of Pop. Rank % of Pop. Rank 1-Year % 5-Year %
States with Moderately Restrictive Eligibility Criteria
RHODE ISLAND 3.48 6 4.61 4 4.79 4 3.90% 37.60%
NEW YORK 4.42 3 4.11 6 4.25 6 3.40% -3.90%
INDIANA 3.62 4 3.44 11 3.64 10 5.80% 0.60%
ILLINOIS 2.42 20 3.31 13 3.43 13 3.50% 41.50%
PUERTO RICO * 1.65 40 3.25 16 3.43 14 5.40% 107.60%
SOUTH DAKOTA 2.66 14 3.27 15 3.14 18 -4.00% 18.00%
NEW JERSEY 2.36 23 2.84 19 2.93 19 3.20% 24.30%
KENTUCKY 2.37 22 2.54 24 2.9 20 14.20% 22.30%
DELAWARE 2.9 10 2.4 26 2.35 28 -2.10% -19.00%
NORTH CAROLINA 1.41 46 2.12 31 2.33 29 9.90% 65.60%
COLORADO 1.56 40 1.92 34 2.17 33 13.00% 39.10%
MINNESOTA 1.78 34 1.83 38 2.1 34 14.80% 18.00%
LOUISIANA 1.75 36 1.78 41 2.03 35 14.00% 15.90%
ALASKA 2.17 26 1.94 33 1.79 42 -7.70% -17.50%
Moderate States# 2.89 2.99 3.12 4.50% 8.10%
Nationwide ^ 2.24 2.52 2.66 5.60% 18.80%

^ Totals excluding children classified as eligible because they are at-risk
# For states listed as moderately restrictive in that year, each year some states change eligibility

The comparisons, provided in the chart above, use October data, which represent a traditionally low point for the caseload. The Indicator target is set using data from June 30, which is both the end of the fiscal year and the traditional high point for the caseload. There were 18,772 open cases of children under 3 on June 30, 2009, representing a participation rate of 3.47% [(18,772/541,091)*100=3.47%], which exceed Illinois' target goal of 3.38%

The following chart provides statewide, regional, and CFC office participation rate histories. The participation rate has increased statewide.

NOTE: CFC counts include the small number of cases open over age 3 for up to 30 days to facilitate final closing. Although the statewide participation rate of 3.46% is based upon census data, the participation rates in the following chart are calculated based on births, instead of population estimates because population estimates are not available to the necessary level.

Participation Rate History By CFC & Region

CFC# & Name End of
SFY 03
End of
SFY 04
End of
SFY 05
End of
SFY 06
End of
SFY 07
End of
SFY 08
End of
SFY 09

Rank
FY 08 %
Change
6 Year
Change
By CFC
#1 - ROCKFORD 2.86% 3.38% 3.43% 3.26% 3.33% 3.76% 3.60% 13 -4.30% 25.90%
#2 - LAKE CO. 2.03% 2.61% 2.75% 2.72% 2.57% 2.85% 2.69% 25 -5.60% 32.50%
#3 - FREEPORT 2.86% 3.34% 3.76% 3.49% 3.80% 3.45% 3.78% 10 9.60% 32.20%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL 2.15% 2.77% 3.06% 2.86% 3.03% 3.07% 3.03% 24 -1.30% 40.90%
#5- DUPAGE 1.95% 2.73% 2.92% 3.11% 3.24% 3.16% 3.35% 18 6.00% 71.80%
#6 - N SUBURBS 1.92% 2.60% 2.90% 3.25% 3.62% 4.01% 3.90% 7 -2.70% 103.10%
#7 - W SUBURBS 2.30% 2.87% 3.09% 3.43% 3.66% 3.84% 3.87% 8 0.80% 68.30%
#8 - SW CHICAGO 2.38% 2.86% 3.19% 3.20% 3.27% 3.43% 3.55% 14 3.50% 49.20%
#9-CENTRAL CHICAGO 2.28% 2.71% 2.73% 3.11% 3.71% 3.65% 3.97% 5 8.80% 74.10%
#10 - SE CHICAGO 2.32% 2.75% 2.99% 3.15% 3.22% 3.03% 3.24% 21 6.90% 39.70%
#11 - N CHICAGO 1.79% 2.28% 2.49% 2.75% 2.98% 3.31% 3.75% 11 13.30% 109.50%
#12 - S SUBURBS 2.50% 3.23% 3.37% 3.19% 3.33% 3.40% 3.35% 18 -1.50% 34.00%
#13 - MACOMB 2.32% 2.33% 2.71% 3.11% 3.48% 3.26% 3.20% 22 -1.80% 37.90%
#14 - PEORIA 2.11% 2.40% 2.76% 2.90% 3.30% 3.55% 3.39% 17 -4.50% 60.70%
#15 - JOLIET 2.41% 3.07% 3.37% 3.36% 3.25% 3.53% 3.66% 12 3.70% 51.90%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON 2.24% 2.41% 2.79% 2.91% 2.95% 3.42% 3.44% 16 0.60% 53.60%
#17 - QUINCY 2.71% 2.63% 2.66% 2.81% 3.75% 3.55% 3.85% 9 8.50% 42.10%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD 3.14% 3.24% 3.46% 3.49% 3.54% 3.78% 4.08% 4 7.90% 29.90%
#19 - DECATUR 2.49% 3.02% 3.06% 3.32% 3.70% 3.32% 3.95% 6 19.00% 58.60%
#20 - EFFINGHAM 3.46% 4.02% 4.35% 4.47% 4.67% 4.51% 4.42% 2 -2.00% 27.70%
#21 - BELLEVILLE 1.86% 2.26% 2.48% 2.55% 2.57% 2.74% 3.09% 23 12.80% 66.10%
#22 - CENTRALIA 4.03% 3.90% 4.36% 4.20% 4.46% 4.42% 4.31% 3 -2.50% 6.90%
#23 - NORRIS CITY 6.19% 6.44% 7.82% 6.91% 6.98% 7.95% 8.52% 1 7.20% 37.60%
#24 - CARBONDALE 1.82% 2.30% 3.03% 3.04% 2.80% 3.04% 3.46% 15 13.80% 90.10%
#25 - MCHENRY CO. 2.49% 3.67% 3.45% 3.17% 3.12% 3.61% 3.33% 20 -7.80% 33.70%
By Location
STATEWIDE 2.30% 2.84% 3.07% 3.13% 3.30% 3.45% 3.56% 3.20% 54.80%
COOK (6-12) 2.14% 2.68% 2.89% 3.10% 3.35% 3.52% 3.66% 4.00% 71.10%
COLLAR (2, 4, 5, 15, 25) 2.16% 2.87% 3.06% 3.05% 3.05% 3.21% 3.21% 0.10% 48.70%
DOWNSTATE (OTHERS) 2.75% 3.06% 3.38% 3.26% 3.46% 3.58% 4.08% 14.00% 48.50%

Notes:
1) Rates inflated about 1.25% due to inclusion of children over 36 months but less than 37 months, waiting for transition process to be finalize.
2) Review of case counting methodology found that approximately 1.5% of the caseload was being excluded inappropriately as duplicates prior to end of FY 04.

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY08/SFY09:

Progress/Slippage for Indicator 6: Illinois' rankings when compared to all states and to states with similar eligibility criteria remained stable from FFY07/SFY08 to FFY08/SFY09. Illinois remains in the top third in both of these comparisons.

Between June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009, 15 of the 25 CFC offices experienced an increase in caseload. All 25 have experienced increases in the last six years. Participation rates have remained stable in the Collar Counties CFC areas and increased in both Cook County and downstate CFC areas.

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. A pilot has been completed involving a CFC office in suburban Cook County to help identify an approach to promote program integrity. The pilot involved the collection and analysis of data. A plan of training and technical assistance has been developed and is being implemented to ensure that program principles and procedures regarding eligibility determination and service plan development are being appropriately followed. In addition, as of December 1, 2009, a system ombudsman position was added to the Early Intervention Training Program to support Program Integrity Project efforts. Statewide efforts to appropriately apply program principles and procedures regarding eligibility may result in a reduced growth rate or a decline in overall enrollment in the program.

Discussions with the IICEI workgroups have led the program to believe that family stress triggered by economic factors is causing some families who might have taken their children in for screening before to pass on taking that step as they deal with what for them are more pressing concerns. In addition, direct cuts to other social service and health service programs and payment delays to these programs have resulted in reductions in the amount of screening being offered by partner agencies as they focus on maintaining their core services.

Improvement Activities

  • The IICEI continues to receive regular reports on a number a measures regarding participation, including the total number of cases with IFSPs, initial IFSPs, new referrals and under 1 participation rate.
  • In addition to several measures specifically targeting the participation rate for children under the age of 1, the total participation rate for children under the age of three is reported to CFC offices monthly. Incentive funding to the top 12 performing CFC offices each quarter is directed to several of the measures that impact the participation rate for children under the age of 1. (See Indicator 5.) Incentive funding is also distributed to CFCs that do the best job of limiting the number of families that leave intake or IFSP by choice or because we cannot find them. Other incentives can be earned for doing the best job of completing IFSPs within 45 days and by providing the shortest average time between referral and initial IFSP. All of these factors have lead to a heightened awareness of the importance of child find, good customer service and, ultimately, to higher participation rates. For instance, the reduction in the average time in intake from almost 80 days to under 30 days has resulted in an ongoing increase of approximately 2,000 children receiving IFSP services.
  • The bulk of funding to CFC offices for service coordination is distributed based on average caseloads over a recent period.
  • As part of designation of determinations, the score of a CFC office is negatively impacted if it is in the bottom 5 CFC offices for all 10 measures that carry incentive funding, including those listed above.
  • The Program Integrity Project efforts initiated in FFY08/SFY09 and described above will continue.

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY09/SFY10:

The improvement activities described above are ongoing efforts. No changes to targets, improvement activities or times are proposed. As a result of the Program Integrity Project, the program anticipates a reduced growth rate or a decline in overall enrollment in the program in FFY09/SFY10. Participation in advisory groups and pilot activities, described in Indicator 5, may offset some of this reduction.