Indicator 9: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.)

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: See Indicator 1 for a description of this process.

(The following items are to be completed for each monitoring priority/indicator.)

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 1

Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification:

  1. # of findings of noncompliance made related to priority areas.
  2. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = b divided by a times 100.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

Measurement 2

Percent of noncompliance related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification:

  1. # of findings of noncompliance made related to such areas.
  2. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = b divided by a times 100.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

Measurement 3

Percent of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification:

  1. # of EIS programs in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms.
  2. # of findings of noncompliance made.
  3. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = c divided by b times 100.

For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions, including technical assistance and/or enforcement that the State has taken.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

  1. Components of Illinois Early Intervention Program's General Supervision System.
    • Data Systems - With the exception of two measures (i.e., reasons for delays in intake past 45 days and delays in one or more services), which are manually reported by CFCs, the Illinois EI Program uses analysis of data from its management information systems to identify noncompliance with monitoring priority areas and indicators. Modifications to these systems will be made to support the measure of new indicators. Monthly, the Department monitors and provides to CFCs data on 29 performance measures.
    • Desk Audits - The statewide data manager analyzes statistics each month. The data manager forwards questions and issues to CFC managers, the Chief of the Bureau or Early Intervention, the Bureaus' CFC liaison staff (i.e., four individuals that provide technical assistance to CFCs), and to the EI Monitoring Program. These individuals work together to identify and resolve issues of noncompliance. Data from subsequent months are used to document the correction of noncompliance.
    • Performance Contracting - For several years, the Department has used a system of performance contracting. In SFY 05, nine measures were used to establish incentive payments as part of performance contracts, with payments made to CFCs that fall in the top 12 for each measure. Basic minimum performance standards are established on four measures that may result in a penalty adjustment if basic performance is not met.
    • On-site Monitoring - In September 2004, the Department selected a vendor for compliance monitoring services to support the EI services system. After staff hiring and training and development of monitoring tools and database, the first CFC was monitored in December 2004. By the end of May 2005, all 25 CFCs participated in a monitoring visit. Corrective action plans were requested, received, reviewed, and approved on all areas of noncompliance found. Verification that corrective action plans have been successful in correcting noncompliance will occur at the next annual visits to the CFCs, which begin in January 2006.
    • Complaints, Mediations, and Hearings - If a parent/guardian disagrees with the Illinois Early Intervention Services System on the 1) identification, 2) evaluation, 3) placement of his/her child, or 4) provision of appropriate early intervention services to his/her child or family, he/she has the right to a timely administrative resolution of his/her concerns. There are 3 options for raising issues. The parent/guardian may 1) request mediation; 2) request an impartial administrative proceeding; or 3) submit a complaint to the lead agency. During the resolution of an impartial proceeding or mediation the child will continue receiving appropriate early intervention services currently being provided or, if the family is applying for initial services, the child will receive the services which are not in dispute, unless there is agreement otherwise.
  2. General Supervision System Function
    • Bureau Oversight - The Bureau of Early Intervention, with support of a data manager from the Division or Community Health and Prevention's Performance Support Services unit, coordinates and directs the general supervision system and provides technical assistance. Data have been an integral part of this system for several years, based upon the data systems referenced above. The Chief and staff of the Bureau of Early Intervention oversee the work of the contract entities that are responsible for credentialing and training of providers, maintenance of MIS systems, central billing office operation, and monitoring functions. In addition, Bureau staff are assigned to specific CFCs to provide technical assistance and follow-up on issues identified though the general supervision system.
    • Data Reports - Performance data, described above, is shared within the general supervision system and with the public through several reports. Monthly reports are shared with the CFCs, with follow-up by the data manager or Bureau staff. Quarterly, a report is made to the Illinois General Assembly in which a number of performance measures and system updates are shared and explained. The General Assembly reports are made available to the general public on the Early Intervention web site.
    • CFC Managers' Quarterly Meetings - Every three months, the 25 CFC managers come together for a meeting with Bureau staff. At these meetings, data reports are reviewed and updates are provided by contract entities. New or revised policies and procedures are reviewed and learning opportunities are provided. Work groups are formed to address specific issues and disband when resolution steps are identified.
    • Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI) Bi-monthly Meetings - The IICEI meets on a bimonthly basis to advise and assist the Bureau in the performance of its responsibilities. During these meetings, the Council and the general public in attendance are provided an update of general supervision activities. The Lead Agency Report, which is distributed at each meeting, provides a defined set of performance data that is reviewed and discussed. Work groups are formed to address specific issues and disband when recommendations are reviewed and approved by the Council.
  3. Correction of Noncompliance and Improved Performance.
    • Technical Assistance - Bureau staff provide ongoing technical assistance. Four staff members are each assigned specific CFCs and are available to answer questions, provide information, and follow-up on issues identified through general supervision functions. These and other Bureau staff are also assigned responsibilities associated with monitoring and oversight of contract entities that support supervision functions.
    • Required Corrective Action - The EI Monitoring Program requires the submission of a corrective action plan to address any area of noncompliance identified during monitoring visits. These plans are reviewed and approved. Full compliance with the plans will be determined at the next annual monitoring visit. Bureau staff also request, review, approve, and monitor corrective plans that are submitted in response to issues identified through functions which include data review and complaints, mediations and hearings.
    • Performance Contracting - The system of performance contracting described in #1, above, has been most successful in moving the Illinois Early Intervention System toward full compliance with federal requirements. Data elements for incentive funding or penalty adjustments are reviewed and revised on an annual basis to direct improvements in areas of need.
  4. Data Reporting - In recent years, the Illinois Early Intervention Program has made excellent use of its data systems. Sharing data analyses with CFCs have resulted in positive system changes. Data sharing with the Council, the General Assembly, and the public through various reports have also influenced policy and performance.

The Illinois' State Performance Plan and APR response to Indicator 9 have been updated to reflect changes in its general supervision system. Illinois has been among the states that defined noncompliance by individual instances, rather than grouping those individual instances as a single finding under an EI services program (i.e., by CFC). In addition, past SPP/APR Indicator 9 documentation had emphasized a broader look at noncompliance in areas other than the monitoring priorities of Indicators 1, 2, 7, 8a, 8b, and 8c.

Illinois' system of data collection, analysis, and reporting has been described under the preceding indicators. This system involves monthly reporting to CFC offices on 32 data elements and the use of selected elements for incentive payments or penalty adjustments as part of a performance contracting system. Currently, Illinois has quarterly penalty adjustments related to noncompliance with indicators 2 (natural settings) and 7 (45-days). System data are also used in setting determinations as required in Section 616 of IDEA. In preparation for full implementation, determination methodology, scores, and designations (i.e., meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention) for FFY 06/SFY 07 have been shared with CFC offices. The EI specialist assigned to each office with noncompliance has met with the CFC office to discuss issues related to noncompliance, as well as help develop strategies to ensure compliance within one year. In FFY 07/SFY 08, Illinois will establish a formal system of written notification, tracking and documentation of correction of noncompliance, and enforcement actions, when indicated.

System data are supplemented by on site monitoring activity. As part of a contractual agreement with the lead agency, the Illinois EI Monitoring Program conducts on-site monitoring visits to the 25 CFC offices. Several elements of the monitoring tool can be tied to priority indicators. Correction of noncompliance reflected by these elements is included in the Indicator C-9 Worksheet, below. Following monitoring visits, CFC offices submit a corrective action plan for approval and areas of noncompliance are reviewed for full compliance at the CFC office's next monitoring visit. In FFY 06/SFY 07, all but one CFC scored favorably on the following item. "There is evidence that the previous fiscal year Corrective Action Plan has been implemented and continues to address areas of violation."

If a CFC is identified in noncompliance under both onsite monitoring and data criteria, both indicators of noncompliance must be corrected. Correction of noncompliance occurs in the following circumstances.

On-site monitoring shows that a CFC with one or more files that indicate noncompliance during the FFY 05/SFY 06 site visit that has no files that indicate noncompliance during the FFY 06/SFY 07 site visit; or

Data improves from below 95 percent (85 percent for Indicator 2) in FFY 05/SFY 06 to above 95 percent (85 percent for Indicator 2) in FFY 06/SFY 07.

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.

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.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):

A. Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification

Priority Area Non-compliance Identified & Corrected within a Year

Priority Mechanism CFCs CFC w/Delays Child Months Corrected w/in 1 Yr. % Corr. w/in 1 Yr.
Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who received their early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner. Monthly Self-Report 25 19 872 872 100.00%
Percent of infants & toddlers with IFSPs for who an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline   25 22 2,230 2,230 100.00%
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 Data System Meetings/ Potentially Eligible 25 25 1,702 - 0.00%
Total 4,804 3,102 64.60%

No findings of noncompliance were identified through the 6 complaints received during the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.

Discussion of Baseline Data:

  • Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.
  1. During SFY 04/FFY 03, 19 of Illinois CFCs experienced at least one delay in finding an able and willing provider for at least one service for a child within 30 days. Of those, three experienced no problems in SFY 05/FFY 04. These delays involved a total of 872 child months, which represented 0.6% of the total for the year. The actual number of children involved was lower because delays lasting more than one month are counted multiple times. In most cases the delays were resolved within one or two months. In no case did a delay exceed one year.
  2. Percent of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.
  3. During SFY 04/FFY 03, 19 of Illinois CFCs experienced at least one delay in finding an able and willing provider for at least one service for a child within 30 days. Of those, three experienced no problems in SFY 05/FFY 04. These delays involved a total of 872 child months, which represented 0.6% of the total for the year. The actual number of children involved was lower because delays lasting more than one month are counted multiple times. In most cases the delays were resolved within one or two months. In no case did a delay exceed one year.
  • During SFY 04/FFY 03, 22 of the Illinois 25 CFCs failed to complete an initial IFSP within the required 45 days. The total number of cases that took more than 45 days was 2,320. As was documented under Indicator 7, all but 30 of those cases were overdue for family reasons, although Illinois does not make that distinction in its oversight of CFCs. All but a few of CFCs completed FFY 04/FFY 03 without a single IFSP taking more than 45 days for system reasons. There were only 261 instances where a case spent over 75 days in intake and a number of those proved to be false cases caused by data errors. In almost no instance did a case go past 45 days by more than two months and none remained unresolved for more than a year.
  1. The original submission of the SPP regarding transition meetings being held is being revised in conjunction with the FFY 05 APR submission. One reason for the change is the determination that the same data was being kept in two different parts of the Cornerstone data system. In most cases information on a child was only kept in one of the two places. The revision now reflects unduplicated data from both tables. During the FFY 04/SFY 05 baseline period, documentation of transition meetings did not exist for 1,702 children deemed potentially eligible. This included children from all 25 CFCs. EI had no capacity to follow-up on these cases in a systematic way. That capacity now does exist thanks to the data sharing agreement with ISBE and its efforts to require LEAs to report back when EI reports that eligibility was not determined.
  • Percent of noncompliance related to areas not included in the above monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification.
  1. The data table provided under Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005) (B) summarizes information collected in the first round of annual, on-site monitoring visits to the 25 CFCs conducting during year one of a contractual agreement with the EI Monitoring Program. Items are grouped under the Part C requirements 1) Service Coordination, 2) Evaluation/ Assessment, and 3) Procedures for IFSP Development, Review, and Evaluation, and 4) Content of an IFSP. A corrective action plan has been submitted and approved for all areas of noncompliance. Full compliance will be determined at during the second round of on-site monitoring visits to the CFCs scheduled to begin in January 2006.
  • Percent of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification
  1. No findings of noncompliance identified.

FFYMeasurable and Rigorous Target

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2006
(2006-2007)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2007
(2007-2008)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2008
(2008-2009)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2009
(2009-2010)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2010
(2010-2011)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2011
(2011-2012)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.
2012
(2012-2013)
100 percent of system issues identified as noncompliant will be corrected within one year of identification.