Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: General Supervision
The State's SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
Measurement
The State's SPP/APR includes an SSIP that is a comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The SSIP includes each of the components described below.
Instructions
Baseline Data: The State must provide baseline data that must be expressed as a percentage and which is aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families.
Targets: In its FFY 2020 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2022, the State must provide measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the six years from FFY 2020 through FFY 2025. The State's FFY 2025 target must demonstrate improvement over the State's baseline data.
Updated Data: In its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPPs/APRs, due February 2022 through February 2027, the State must provide updated data for that specific FFY (expressed as percentages) and that data must be aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families. In its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPPs/APRs, the State must report on whether it met its target.
Overview of the Three Phases of the SSIP
It is of the utmost importance to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families by improving early intervention services. Stakeholders, including parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities, early intervention service (EIS) programs and providers, the State Interagency Coordinating Council, and others, are critical participants in improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and must be included in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the SSIP and included in establishing the State's targets under Indicator 11. The SSIP should include information about stakeholder involvement in all three phases.
Phase I: Analysis:
- Data Analysis;
- Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity;
- State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families;
- Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies; and
- Theory of Action.
Phase II: Plan (which is in addition to the Phase I content (including any updates) outlined above:
- Infrastructure Development;
- Support for EIS Program and/or EIS Provider Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and
- Evaluation.
Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation (which is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content (including any updates) outlined above:
Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SSIP.
Specific Content of Each Phase of the SSIP
Refer to FFY 2013-2015 Measurement Table for detailed requirements of Phase I and Phase II SSIP submissions.
Phase III should only include information from Phase I or Phase II if changes or revisions are being made by the State and/or if information previously required in Phase I or Phase II was not reported.
Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation
In Phase III, the State must, consistent with its evaluation plan described in Phase II, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. This includes: (A) data and analysis on the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long-term outcomes or objectives for implementation of the SSIP and its progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families (SiMR); (B) the rationale for any revisions that were made, or that the State intends to make, to the SSIP as the result of implementation, analysis, and evaluation; and (C) a description of the meaningful stakeholder engagement. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
A. Data Analysis
As required in the Instructions for the Indicator/Measurement, in its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPP/APR, the State must report data for that specific FFY (expressed as actual numbers and percentages) that are aligned with the SiMR. The State must report on whether the State met its target. In addition, the State may report on any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that were collected and analyzed that would suggest progress toward the SiMR. States using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model) should describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR if that was not described in Phase I or Phase II of the SSIP.
B. Phase III Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
The State must provide a narrative or graphic representation, e.g., a logic model, of the principal activities, measures and outcomes that were implemented since the State's last SSIP submission (i.e., April 1, 2021). The evaluation should align with the theory of action described in Phase I and the evaluation plan described in Phase II. The State must describe any changes to the activities, strategies, or timelines described in Phase II and include a rationale or justification for the changes. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
The State must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that were implemented, and the short-term outcomes achieved, including the measures or rationale used by the State and stakeholders to assess and communicate achievement. Relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance) and explain how these strategies support system change and are necessary for: (a) achievement of the SiMR; (b) sustainability of systems improvement efforts; and/or (c) scale-up. The State must describe the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2020 APR, report on anticipated outcomes to be obtained during FFY 2021, i.e., July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022).
The State must summarize the specific evidence-based practices that were implemented and the strategies or activities that supported their selection and ensured their use with fidelity. Describe how the evidence-based practices, and activities or strategies that support their use, are intended to impact the SiMR by changing program/district policies, procedures, and/or practices, teacher/provider practices (i.e., behaviors), parent/caregiver outcomes, and/or child outcomes. Describe any additional data (i.e., progress monitoring data) that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based practices and inform decision-making for the next year of SSIP implementation.
C. Stakeholder Engagement
The State must describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts and how the State addressed concerns, if any, raised by stakeholders through its engagement activities.
Additional Implementation Activities
The State should identify any activities not already described that it intends to implement in the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2020 APR, report on activities it intends to implement in FFY 2021, i.e., July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022) including a timeline, anticipated data collection and measures, and expected outcomes that are related to the SiMR. The State should describe any newly identified barriers and include steps to address these barriers.
11 - Indicator Data
Section A: Data Analysis
What is the State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR)?
To increase the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities who demonstrate greater than expected progress in the acquisition and use of knowledge and skills in our pilot areas by .11 percentage points by FFY2025.
Has the SiMR changed since the last SSIP submission? (yes/no) YES
Provide a description of the system analysis activities conducted to support changing the SiMR.
The state has updated the SiMR to reflect the current status of the system. Analyses of the changes in performance over the initial years of the SSIP revealed that baseline data was inaccurate. The SiMR has been updated to reflect the impact of current practices on child outcomes summary ratings.
Please list the data source(s) used to support the change of the SiMR.
Child outcomes summary data collected through the state's database was used to inform the change in the SiMR.
Provide a description of how the State analyzed data to reach the decision to change the SiMR.
The state reviewed data from all years of the SSIP and noted trends in performance. These trends were then shared with stakeholders. Analysis also included examining the patterns of entry ratings over time and it was noted that entry ratings have trended downward, indicating an improved understanding of age-anchored development rather than a decrease in actual child performance.
Please describe the role of stakeholders in the decision to change the SiMR.
Stakeholders reviewed data analysis and improvement activities and recommended the change. They feel the change better reflects the impact of improvement activities. Given the addition of more pilot sites in coming years, they felt an adjustment to the baseline and targets was warranted.
Is the State using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model)? (yes/no) YES
Provide a description of the subset of the population from the indicator.
Current State Systemic Improvement Plan efforts have focused on three pilot areas. As stated in the Phase 2 Plan, these sites (Williamson County, Aurora, and East St. Louis) were selected to leverage resources and continue the work started during the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant.
Is the State's theory of action new or revised since the previous submission? (yes/no) NO
Please provide a link to the current theory of action (pdf).
Progress toward the SiMR
Please provide the data for the specific FFY listed below (expressed as actual number and percentages).
Select yes if the State uses two targets for measurement. (yes/no) NO
Historical Data
Targets
| FFY |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target Greater than or = |
67.28% |
67.23% |
67.25% |
67.27% |
67.29% |
67.31% |
FFY 2020 SPP/APR Data
| # of children demonstrating greater than expected growth |
# of children exiting not comparable to same-aged peers |
FFY 2019 Data |
FFY 2020 Target |
FFY 2020 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 183 |
272 |
62.08% |
67.28% |
67.28% |
N/A |
N/A |
Provide the data source for the FFY 2020 data.
The state continues to use the state's database as the source for FFY2020 data.
Please describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR.
Data for the SiMR are collected through the Child Outcomes Summary Process that utilizes input from all IFSP team members. The data for the ratings is then entered by the child's service coordinator. Data are then pulled for each of the three pilot areas and summarized based on progress category. Since Illinois is currently implementing their SSIP in three areas, we have historically used a weighted average to compute the SIMR for the subset of the state where the SSIP is being implemented. The weighted average is computed by multiplying the summary statement value for the area by the total number of matched pairs for the area. Then summing these weighted percentages across the three areas and dividing the sum by the total number of matched pairs across the three areas. The formula is ((SS1_area1* number of matched pairs_area1)+ (SS1_area2* number of matched pairs_area2) + (SS1_area3* number of matched pairs_area3))/( number of matched pairs_area1+ number of matched pairs_area2+ number of matched pairs_area3). To adapt this methodology to the new data entry format required by the APR submission system, this year we computed the numerator by multiplying the total number of matched pairs by the weighted average percent computed using the formula above. We used the total number of matched pairs as the denominator.
Optional: Has the State collected additional data (i.e., benchmark, CQI, survey) that demonstrates progress toward the SiMR? (yes/no) NO
Did the State identify any general data quality concerns, unrelated to COVID-19, that affected progress toward the SiMR during the reporting period? (yes/no) YES
Describe any data quality issues, unrelated to COVID-19, specific to the SiMR data and include actions taken to address data quality concerns.
We feel that data quality is improving, so we are concerned about continuing to compare our current performance to the FFY13 baseline. The quality of the baseline data is concerning for two reasons, 1) a smaller number of matched pairs went into the baseline ratings (184 versus 267) and 2) the process for ratings at baseline was not age-anchored and likely an overestimation of children's skills. Having more complete data allows us to better understand the system, but also increases the likelihood of greater variability in performance. Given what we have learned from the Leadership Teams, the downward trend in this data is to be expected and not reflective of the value of the activities being implemented through the SSIP or the supports being provided by early intervention in general. We do not feel that these declining percentages are an actual reflection of decreases in performance by children leaving the program, rather they reflect inaccurate data during the baseline period (and, at times, initial ratings) and an improved (and more accurate) process for categorizing children's performance in more recent years. Due to these findings, we have reviewed the data with our stakeholders and made changes to our baseline. Stakeholders agreed that we should use FFY2020 data as our baseline as it is more reflective of the current system and current practices. We feel that this is warranted due to changes in practice and inaccurate information previously being used to establish the initial baseline. Stakeholders also felt that future year targets should reflect minor numeric improvements due to bringing on more programs and the pattern that has been previously observed.
We are still working to understand how adding additional programs to our phased expansion of the SSIP in the coming years will impact the baseline. We are concerned that the data being collected outside of the pilot sites is not yet reflective of desired practice and may experience the same patterns we have seen in the pilot sites. We believe as we ramp-up our efforts to ensure fidelity to the desired Child Outcomes Summary practice and Family Engagement, the COS data will undoubtedly decrease until all areas are fully implementing the desired practices at both entry and exit.
Did the State identify any data quality concerns directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic during the reporting period? (yes/no) YES
If data for this reporting period were impacted specifically by COVID-19, the State must include in the narrative for the indicator: (1) the impact on data completeness, validity and reliability for the indicator; (2) an explanation of how COVID-19 specifically impacted the State's ability to collect the data for the indicator; and (3) any steps the State took to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the data collection.
While the state worked to rapidly implement live video visits, the number of families participating in the system declined during the fiscal year. In addition, despite significant efforts at engagement, many more families were lost to contact than what occurred in prior years. Due to this, we have fewer matched pairs than we did in FFY19. While we feel that the available data is valid and reliable, we were unable to complete exit ratings for many children we were serving. This, therefore, impacts our data completeness. We tried to mitigate the impact of COVID on data collection by offering options for hybrid service delivery. Teams within the pilot sites also increased the frequency for data collection, often moving beyond the initial, annual and exit requirements, to increase the likelihood that there was a usable rating if a family became unresponsive to communication attempts.
Section B: Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
Is the State's evaluation plan new or revised since the previous submission? (yes/no) NO
Describe how the data support the decision not to make revisions to the evaluation plan. Please provide a link to the State's current evaluation plan.
Given the delays in activities that have resulted from COVID, the state feels that it would be premature to revise the evaluation plan. The state's current evaluation plan (pdf) can be found, see pages 9-13 and 21-23. It is hoped that in the coming year, leadership teams will have more opportunities to focus on family engagement efforts and begin using the fidelity tool to evaluate these efforts. It is only through consistent use of the desired evidence-based practices that we expect to see the anticipated positive change in the SiMR.
Provide a summary of each infrastructure improvement strategy implemented in the reporting period.
The local leadership teams (LTs) are an integral part of our infrastructure change. They allow us to be responsive to local needs and provide local support for improved practices. These teams have been conducting professional development activities, participating in evaluation activities, and planning for future activities in their local area. The work of these teams has been guided by the Benchmarks of Quality. Updating their ratings on the Benchmarks of Quality highlighted the need for additional support around child outcomes. We were able to obtain technical assistance from ECTA to broaden teams' understanding of nuances within the child outcomes summary process.
We also continued to focus on our second coherent improvement strategy: Implement effective training for EI providers that focuses on evidence based, family capacity-building practices, and make related changes to the local support structure by creating leadership teams, providing technical assistance, and revising state policy and guidance documents, so that early intervention teams utilize practices that encourage the active participation of families in the intervention process by embedding intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines and activities. To support this strategy, LTs offered professional development on the practices and provided focused conversations for ongoing support.
Describe the short-term or intermediate outcomes achieved for each infrastructure improvement strategy during the reporting period including the measures or rationale used by the State and stakeholders to assess and communicate achievement. Please relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance) and explain how these strategies support system change and are necessary for: (a) achievement of the SiMR; (b) sustainability of systems improvement efforts; and/or (c) scale-up.
The local leadership teams (LTs) are a vital part of our infrastructure change that allow us to be responsive to local needs and provide local support for improved practices which is critical for a high-quality professional development (PD) system. These teams have been conducting professional development activities, participating in evaluation activities, and planning for future activities in their local area. The work of these teams has been guided by the Benchmarks of Quality and all teams have demonstrated significant progress towards achieving the benchmarks necessary for a well-functioning leadership team (100% of items now partially/fully in place). The Benchmarks continue to help the teams develop action plans which guide the activities that will support practice change in their local area. The Benchmarks of Quality support governance, accountability, professional development and technical assistance in each local area. Using the Benchmarks to drive activities keeps teams on track for implementing strategies that will help achieve the SiMR, help sustain and further system improvement, and will be used to support scale-up.
Did the State implement any new (newly identified) infrastructure improvement strategies during the reporting period? (yes/no) YES
Describe each new (newly identified) infrastructure improvement strategy and the short-term or intermediate outcomes achieved.
As noted above, the LTs received additional training on the child outcomes summary process. This strategy helped build LT capacity so that they could better answer the questions that the teams in their local area have. We anticipated that the technical assistance would increase LT members' knowledge of the child outcomes summary process, e.g. breadth of outcomes, decision tree use, age anchoring, etc. Depending on the specific question, evaluation results indicate that 66.7-88.9% of respondents did gain new knowledge that would help them implement the process successfully.
Provide a summary of the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.
LLTs will continue to receive and provide additional professional development (as needed) on the child outcomes summary process. This will build their capacity as well as the capacity of the teams providing services in their area. Evaluation data from these offerings will continue to be used to plan next steps. It is believed that building the capacity of the leadership team will add an important infrastructure element for those struggling with implementing the process. In addition, the State has plans to review additional pieces of data to ensure that the assumptions we are making about improved COS accuracy are real and not indicative of decreased performance for the children in the pilot sites.
List the selected evidence-based practices implemented in the reporting period:
We continue to utilize five Division for Early Childhood (DEC) Recommended Practices (RPs). These RPs were identified as critical for family engagement and addressing barriers to desired service provision.
F1. Practitioners build trusting and respectful partnerships with the family through interactions that are sensitive and responsive to cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic diversity.
INS4. Practitioners plan for and provide the level of support, accommodations, and adaptations needed for the child to access, participate, and learn within and across activities and routines.
TC2. Practitioners and families work together as a team to systematically and regularly exchange expertise, knowledge, and information to build team capacity and jointly solve problems, plan, and implement interventions.
INS13. Practitioners use coaching or consultation strategies with primary caregivers or other adults to facilitate positive adult-child interactions and instruction intentionally designed to promote child learning and development.
E1. Practitioners provide services and supports in natural and inclusive environments during daily routines and activities to promote the child's access to and participation in learning experiences.
Provide a summary of each evidence-based practice.
As noted above, our stakeholders selected five of the DEC Recommended Practices to guide our family engagement work. The first practice (F1) focuses on how practitioners interact with families and establish trusting, respectful partnerships. The second practice (INS4) focuses on the role of practitioners in helping families plan for and provide the support and adaptations the child needs in order to participate and learn across activities and routines. The third practice (TC2) focuses on the importance of practitioners and families working together to exchange information and expertise so that they build capacity and jointly plan and implement interventions. The fourth practice (INS13) focuses on the use of coaching with caregivers so that they experience positive adult-child interactions that promote child learning and development. The final practice (E1) highlights the importance of providing services within the context of daily routines and activities so that the child has multiple opportunities to engage in learning experiences.
Provide a summary of how each evidence-based practices and activities or strategies that support its use, is intended to impact the SiMR by changing program/district policies, procedures, and/or practices, teacher/provider practices (e.g. behaviors), parent/caregiver outcomes, and/or child/outcomes.
These evidence-based practices, when implemented with fidelity, are intended to change provider practice. Taken in combination, these practices support enhanced parent/child interactions in the context of the family's daily routines. We believe that use of these practices will ultimately enhance the caregiver's capacity to support their child's development. This, in turn, will lead to greater parental confidence and competence and more support for the child's ability to acquire and use their knowledge and skills.
Activities related to this strategy included ongoing professional development around the five selected Recommended Practices (addresses short-term outcome: Early intervention providers have acquired the knowledge necessary to implement selected RPs), continued focused conversations to support implementation (addresses intermediate outcome: Leadership teams will utilize reflection and ongoing PD activities to support local Early Intervention teams in implementing RPs), and the development of a practice profile to examine practice implementation (addresses intermediate outcome: Early Intervention teams utilize the selected RPs in their work with families).
Describe the data collected to monitor fidelity of implementation and to assess practice change.
The primary evaluations collected during this part of the implementation phase are related to professional development and attendees' use of the RPs. These evaluations determine whether or not the intended outcomes were achieved by event participants and if there was a change in participants' use of desired practices. Evaluation data continue to show positive changes. 92% of attendees reported gaining additional information or knowledge about the practices. 100% of respondents report using at least some of the recommended practices often/most of the time. In addition, over 90% of attendees report that the ongoing reflection activities support their competence with the practices.
Describe any additional data (e.g. progress monitoring) that was collected that supports the decision to continue the ongoing use of each evidence-based practice.
Provide a summary of the next steps for each evidence-based practices and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.
We intend to begin using the fidelity tool for the RPs as a self-assessment in the three initial pilot areas. This will provide additional information about where teams are with their use of the practices and provide next steps for professional development. Use of the fidelity tool will lead to greater awareness of desired practices as well as information for LTs to use for ongoing professional development offerings and focused conversations. Greater awareness paired with ongoing professional development and reflection are anticipated to lead to greater use of the practices.
Describe any changes to the activities, strategies, or timelines described in the previous submission and include a rationale or justification for the changes. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
Over the next five years, the State will begin implementing SSIP activities in additional areas. Given the success of the activities in the pilot sites, these activities will be replicated throughout the state. In addition, more use of the family engagement fidelity tool (as described above) will begin in the original pilot sites.We anticipate a replication of the initial activities in additional pilot sites to eventually improve statewide COS accuracy and family engagement.
Section C: Stakeholder Engagement
Description of Stakeholder Input
The large SSIP stakeholder group continues to receive quarterly written updates summarizing implementation. Each summary asks for recipients to contact staff if they have questions about reported activities or suggestions for future activities. The summary also contains a reminder that those receiving the summary should share widely with those whose interests they represent on the large stakeholder group. Other stakeholders have been informed via information provided in the EI Partners' quarterly newsletters (EI Training, EI Clearinghouse, and Provider Connections) and postings on their websites. The SSIP work has also been discussed at each monthly CFC Managers Meeting, each quarterly Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI) meeting, and each monthly EI Partners' meeting. In addition, the Early Intervention Training Program has a resource page dedicated to the State Systemic Improvement Plan (https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/6039/378910) and has created a specific resource page for materials that the local leadership teams are using.
Describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts.
In order to optimize stakeholder involvement and engagement, we continue to utilize the expertise of a variety of groups. For example, the SSIP Stakeholder group (consisting of the state interagency coordinating council members, direct service providers, contracted Child & Family Connections (CFCs which are regional entities that serve as points of entry for EI services) staff, parents, professional provider associations, the Part B/619 coordinator, IDHS planning/evaluation members, parent training and information center staff, and contracted EI partners for training, credentialing, monitoring and clearinghouse) were contacted about the practice profile. They were invited to a brief overview of the tool and provided input on the items that were being proposed. They provided feedback again when the next draft of the profile was available. The Leadership Team workgroup (consisting of Bureau staff, CFC managers, EI Training staff, EI Monitoring personnel, a parent liaison, and an external professional development/evaluation representative) met regularly to ensure that LT activities continued and to determine what (if any) system supports were necessary for continued functioning. The Performance Support workgroup (consisting of EI Bureau, Local Leadership Team members, ECTA representative, EI Training, EI Ombudsman, and EI Monitoring) provided input on the items within the practice profile, identified the need for new consents, shared concerns about the time it would take to score the profile and send feedback, and offered suggestions for making the process successful. Local Leadership Teams (consisting of CFC staff, EI Providers, EI Monitoring, EI Training and parents) continue to provide feedback on practice implementation successes/challenges and ongoing needs related to child outcomes summary support.
Were there any concerns expressed by stakeholders during engagement activities? (yes/no) NO
Additional Implementation Activities
List any activities not already described that the State intends to implement in the next fiscal year that are related to the SiMR.
Illinois has been discussing the ramp-up plan with the various stakeholders for some time. Based on the current infrastructure and the intense work of implementing both coherent improvement strategies, we feel phasing in several CFC offices each year over the next 3-4 years is the most responsible use of available resources. The current plan would spread activities across the entire state in 4-5 years with full implementation by the end of FFY2025. These activities include establishing leadership teams, supporting the EI Partners with sufficient staff and resources to support the LTs and local providers in each new area. . Lastly, and with great excitement, the existing LLTs feel they can and should be a logical mentoring partner to the new LTs. The plan is to eventually phase in regional- level supports to ensure continuity across all locations and full implementation.
Provide a timeline, anticipated data collection and measures, and expected outcomes for these activities that are related to the SiMR.
Illinois envisions phasing in four groups of new LLTs with training and on-going support (approximately 5-6 CFCs annually). The same evaluation and outcome measures used for the initial pilots will continue. Timing of activities and evaluation is dependent on which group a CFC is part of but will mirror the original work. Implementation will be guided by the local leadership team and the benchmarks of quality. Current pilots feel that this approach has been successful and recommend replicating. The next round of pilots, however, will benefit from the existing fidelity tools rather than having to wait for their development. While it is anticipated that the LTs will take time to form and come together as a unified support, the materials to support their work have already been developed.
Describe any newly identified barriers and include steps to address these barriers.
Stakeholders have discussed concerns with all areas having the necessary resources to support the same level of LLT work currently in the three pilots. The ramp up plan is being written to support regional Hubs which should help address areas of lower resources. Also noted was the vital support of the EI Partners, specifically EI Training Program and EI Monitoring. Their use of staff and time have been vital to the success of the pilots but to increase those supports across all 25 CFCs will be a challenge. The planned resolution is to help LLTs and CFCs with additional supports to more quickly build capacity, recognizing the importance of local support for implementation.
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).
11 - Prior FFY Required Actions
N/A
11 - OSEP Response
The State provided targets for FFYs 2020 through 2025 for this indicator, but OSEP cannot accept those targets because the State's end target for FFY 2025 does not reflect improvement over the State's FFY 2013 baseline data. The State must revise its FFY 2025 target to reflect improvement.
11 - Required Actions
N/A
