Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find
Compliance indicator: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must address the timeline from point of referral to initial IFSP meeting based on actual, not an average, number of days.
Measurement
Percent = [(# of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline) divided by the (# of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted)] times 100.
Account for untimely evaluations, assessments, and initial IFSP meetings, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select 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. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
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 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.
7 - Indicator Data
Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
98.67% |
| FFY |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
99.83% |
99.98% |
99.99% |
100.00% |
99.80% |
Targets
| FFY |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
FFY 2020 SPP/APR Data
| Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline |
Number of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted |
FFY 2019 Data |
FFY 2020 Target |
FFY 2020 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 1,473 |
1,473 |
99.80% |
100% |
100.00% |
Met target |
No Slippage |
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator.
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
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).
October 2020
Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
The number of children with new initial IFSPs across the fiscal year is relatively close to this single collection month. This single collection month also is consistent with other compliance indicator collection activity.
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 |
| 1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2019 - NA
7 - 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. 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 noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 for this indicator: (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
The state did issue a single finding of noncompliance in FFY2019 for CFC 24, the only program not demonstrating 100% compliance for this indicator. The state was, however, able to verify through a subsequent review of a full month of data collected through the State data system that CFC 24 is now correctly implementing timely IFSP development/implementation. The state was also able to verify through the data system that each individual case of noncompliance had been corrected by verifying that the one child with a delayed IFSP did subsequently have an IFSP developed, albeit late.
7 - 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.
7 - Required Actions
Indicator 7: 45-Day Timeline
Compliance Indicator: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline.
| CFC # |
TOTAL INITIAL IFSP (Oct. 2020) |
EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES/
COVID |
PERCENT ON TIME |
| 1 |
41 |
13 |
100.00% |
| **2 |
74 |
28 |
100.00% |
| 3 |
31 |
0 |
100.00% |
| **4 |
81 |
26 |
100.00% |
| **5 |
81 |
7 |
100.00% |
| *6 |
143 |
15 |
100.00% |
| *7 |
75 |
18 |
100.00% |
| *8 |
64 |
20 |
100.00% |
| *9 |
73 |
14 |
100.00% |
| *10 |
64 |
30 |
100.00% |
| *11 |
152 |
30 |
100.00% |
| *12 |
91 |
27 |
100.00% |
| 13 |
22 |
2 |
100.00% |
| 14 |
56 |
12 |
100.00% |
| **15 |
105 |
10 |
100.00% |
| 16 |
68 |
30 |
100.00% |
| 17 |
23 |
3 |
100.00% |
| 18 |
32 |
12 |
100.00% |
| 19 |
31 |
14 |
100.00% |
| 20 |
34 |
3 |
100.00% |
| 21 |
61 |
3 |
100.00% |
| 22 |
31 |
5 |
100.00% |
| 23 |
9 |
7 |
100.00% |
| 24 |
10 |
8 |
100.00% |
| **25 |
21 |
4 |
100.00% |
| Statewide |
1,473 |
341 |
100.00% |
| *Chicago - Cook County |
353 |
94 |
100.00% |
| *Suburban - Cook County |
309 |
60 |
100.00% |
| ** Collar Counties (2, 4, 5, 15, * 25) |
362 |
75 |
100.00% |
| Downstate (All Others) |
449 |
112 |
100.00% |
*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
