Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments
Compliance indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with Individual Family Service Plans (IFSPs) who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must be based on actual, not an average, number of days. Include the State's criteria for "timely" receipt of early intervention services (i.e., the time period from parent consent to when IFSP services are actually initiated).
Measurement
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.
Account for untimely receipt of services, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select early intervention service (EIS) programs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, describe the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period) and how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Targets must be 100%.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State's monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. States report in both the numerator and denominator under Indicator 1 on the number of children for whom the State ensured the timely initiation of new services identified on the IFSP. Include the timely initiation of new early intervention services from both initial IFSPs and subsequent IFSPs. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
The State's timeliness measure for this indicator must be either: (1) a time period that runs from when the parent consents to IFSP services; or (2) the IFSP initiation date (established by the IFSP Team, including the parent).
States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances, as defined in 34 CFR §303.310(b), documented in the child's record. If a State chooses to report in its calculation children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child's record, the numbers of these children are to be included in the numerator and denominator. Include in the discussion of the data, the numbers the State used to determine its calculation under this indicator and report separately the number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) response table for the previous SPP/APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, methods to ensure correction, and any enforcement actions that were taken.
If the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, the data for FFY 2019), and the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance.
1 - Indicator Data - Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
98.53% |
| FFY |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
96.87% |
98.23% |
97.89% |
99.52% |
94.23% |
1 - Indicator Data - Historical Data
| FFY |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Number of infants and toddlers
with IFSPs who receive the early
intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner |
Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs |
FFY 2019 Data |
FFY 2020 Target |
FFY 2020 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 1,438 |
1,451 |
94.23% |
100% |
99.79% |
Did not meet target |
No Slippage |
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive their early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator. 10
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Reasons for delays included: unable to find a provider, unable to provide as many services as recommended by the IFSP team, service provided in a setting other than the natural environment due to not enough providers to deliver service in natural environment, and family circumstances.
Include your State's criteria for "timely" receipt of early intervention services (i.e., the time period from parent consent to when IFSP services are actually initiated).
Illinois Early Intervention considers a service to be timely if the consented service begins no later than 30 days from the IFSP creation. Illinois has 25 regional points of entry called Child & Family Connections (CFC) offices which house the Service Coordination component. Each of the 25 CFCs report monthly on IFSP consented services that have not yet started due to various factors including insufficient number of qualified early intervention direct service providers as well as family exceptional circumstances and delays. The data is collected and utilized to create monthly statistical reports on the status of each of the 25 CFCs service delays as well as other components of performance for each CFC. A Statewide statistical report is also prepared and shared so each CFC can compare their performance with the Statewide average for service delays and other components.
Through the work of our data manager, we have been able to eliminate duplicative data for the same child. Historical reporting had been based on individual services rather than individual children.
What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State database
Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period).
Illinois continues to utilize the reporting period of October 1 - October 31 for the reporting Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). In the case of this APR, the reporting period is October 2020.
Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Illinois has historically utilized the single month of October to represent our collection period. When comparing the full fiscal year (FY) data, the October data still continues to reflect the average with consistency as well as overall data reporting on multiple indicators. Additionally, utilization of the 618 data to prepopulate multiple indicators improves consistent reporting as Illinois uses the October data from the reporting FY period for the 618 Child Count and Setting reporting
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)
Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2019
| Findings of Noncompliance Identified |
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year |
Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected |
Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected |
| 2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
FFY 2019 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected
Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements.
Through a subsequent review of the two non-compliant program's monthly service delay data, Bureau staff were able to determine that both of the program's with noncompliance were now demonstrating full compliance with regulatory requirements. The review of subsequent data included a sample pulled from the service delay list. Based upon this review, the state was able to verify that all children in the program during this timeframe received their services in a timely manner-100%
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
For this indicator in accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02, the state examined the individual cases of noncompliance. The state verified via the service delay list that all the individual children identified in FFY2019 ultimately received services, even though they were delayed. Therefore, all children whose services were delayed were no longer waiting for services.
Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2019
| Year Findings of Noncompliance Were Identified |
Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2019 APR |
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected |
Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected |
| FFY 2015 |
11 |
11 |
0 |
FFY 2015 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected
Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements.
Through a subsequent review of the non-compliant programs' monthly service delay data, Bureau staff were able to determine that all eleven programs with noncompliance were now able to demonstrate full compliance with regulatory requirements. The review of subsequent data included a sample pulled from the service delay list. Based upon this review, the state was able to verify that all children in the program during this timeframe received their services in a timely manner-100 compliance%
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
For this indicator in accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02, the state examined the individual cases of noncompliance. The state verified that all individual cases of noncompliance were resolved because the individual children identified in FFY2015 were no longer under the jurisdiction of the program.
1 - Prior FFY Required Actions
Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2019, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 for this indicator. In addition, the State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, that the remaining 11 uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2015 were corrected. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, that it has verified that each EIS program or provider with findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 and each EIS program or provider with remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2015: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program or provider, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.
If the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2019, although its FFY 2019 data reflect less than 100% compliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2019.
Response to actions required in FFY 2019 SPP/APR
While the state issued two findings for Indicator 1 in FFY2019, both programs corrected their noncompliance within the year timeframe. Of the 11 remaining findings from FFY 2015, all 11 programs have now come into compliance (see details within the narratives under FFY 2019 and FFY 2015 findings section).
1 - OSEP Response
The State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State further reported that it did not use data for the full reporting period (July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021). The State described how the time period in which the data were collected accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
The State did not demonstrate that the EIS program or provider corrected the findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 it did not report that it verified correction of those findings, consistent with the requirements in OSEP Memo 09-02. Specifically, the State did not report that that it verified that each EIS program or provider with noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program or provider.
1 - Required Actions - NA
IFSPs INITIATED WITHIN 45 DAYS
| CFC # |
ACTIVE IFSP (OCT. 2020) |
FAMILY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (FEC) |
NET IFSPs (LESS FEC) |
NO DELAYS (OSEP Reportable) |
% of NO DELAYS (NO DELAYS + FEC/ACTIVE IFSP) |
| 1 |
41 |
0 |
41 |
41 |
100.00% |
| **2 |
78 |
1 |
77 |
77 |
100.00% |
| 3 |
30 |
0 |
30 |
30 |
100.00% |
| **4 |
79 |
1 |
78 |
78 |
100.00% |
| **5 |
80 |
2 |
78 |
78 |
100.00% |
| *6 |
142 |
1 |
141 |
141 |
100.00% |
| *7 |
75 |
0 |
75 |
75 |
100.00% |
| *8 |
61 |
0 |
61 |
61 |
100.00% |
| *9 |
72 |
0 |
72 |
72 |
100.00% |
| *10 |
63 |
1 |
62 |
62 |
100.00% |
| *11 |
157 |
4 |
153 |
152 |
99.36% |
| *12 |
90 |
0 |
90 |
90 |
100.00% |
| 13 |
22 |
0 |
22 |
20 |
90.91% |
| 14 |
53 |
0 |
53 |
53 |
100.00% |
| **15 |
104 |
0 |
104 |
104 |
100.00% |
| 16 |
66 |
0 |
66 |
66 |
100.00% |
| 17 |
21 |
0 |
21 |
21 |
100.00% |
| 18 |
31 |
0 |
31 |
31 |
100.00% |
| 19 |
32 |
0 |
32 |
32 |
100.00% |
| 20 |
29 |
0 |
29 |
29 |
100.00% |
| 21 |
58 |
0 |
58 |
58 |
100.00% |
| 22 |
30 |
0 |
30 |
30 |
100.00% |
| 23 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
7 |
100.00% |
| 24 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
10 |
100.00% |
| **25 |
20 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
100.00% |
| Statewide |
1,451 |
10 |
1,441 |
1,438 |
99.79% |
| *Chicago - Cook County |
353 |
5 |
348 |
347 |
99.72% |
| *Suburban - Cook County |
307 |
1 |
306 |
306 |
100.00% |
| ** Collar Counties (2, 4, 5, 15, * 25) |
361 |
4 |
357 |
357 |
100.00% |
| Downstate (All Others) |
430 |
0 |
430 |
428 |
99.53% |
*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
