Indicator 4: Family Involvement
Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments
Results indicator: Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family:
- Know their rights;
- Effectively communicate their children's needs; and
- Help their children develop and learn.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source
State selected data source. State must describe the data source in the SPP/APR.
Measurement
- Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
- Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
- Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
Instructions
Sampling of families participating in Part C is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions page 2 for additional instructions on sampling.)
Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
While a survey is not required for this indicator, a State using a survey must submit a copy of any new or revised survey with its SPP/APR.
Report the number of families to whom the surveys were distributed and the number of respondent families participating in Part C. The survey response rate is auto calculated using the submitted data.
States will be required to compare the current year's response rate to the previous year(s) response rate(s), and describe strategies that will be implemented which are expected to increase the response rate year over year, particularly for those groups that are underrepresented.
The State must also analyze the response rate to identify potential nonresponse bias and take steps to reduce any identified bias and promote response from a broad cross section of families that received Part C services.
Include the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers receiving services in the Part C program. States should consider categories such as race/ethnicity, age of infant or toddler, and geographic location in the State.
States must describe the metric used to determine representativeness (e.g., +/- 3% discrepancy in the proportion of responders compared to target group)
If the analysis shows that the demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are not representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers receiving services in the Part C program, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representative of those demographics. In identifying such strategies, the State should consider factors such as how the State distributed the survey to families (e.g., by mail, by e-mail, on-line, by telephone, in-person), if a survey was used, and how responses were collected.
Beginning with the FFY 2022 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2024, when reporting the extent to which the demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers enrolled in the Part C program, States must include race and ethnicity in its analysis. In addition, the State's analysis must also include at least one of the following demographics: socioeconomic status, parents or guardians whose primary language is other than English and who have limited English proficiency, maternal education, geographic location, and/or another demographic category approved through the stakeholder input process.
States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centers in collecting data.
4 - Indicator Data
Historical Data
| Measure |
Baseline |
FFY |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
| A |
2010 |
Target >= |
70.00% |
70.30% |
70.60% |
70.60% |
70.60% |
| A |
67.82% |
Data |
73.14% |
71.88% |
72.57% |
75.12% |
72.28% |
| B |
2010 |
Target>= |
78.20% |
78.50% |
78.80% |
78.80% |
78.80% |
| B |
76.51% |
Data |
78.37% |
77.06% |
78.43% |
80.50% |
76.64% |
| C |
2010 |
Target>= |
74.80% |
75.10% |
75.40% |
75.40% |
75.40% |
| C |
74.31% |
Data |
77.09% |
76.06% |
77.47% |
78.52% |
76.40% |
Targets
| FFY |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target A (greater or =) |
67.87% |
67.92% |
67.97% |
68.97% |
69.97% |
| Target B (greater or =) |
77.00% |
77.05% |
77.10% |
77.20% |
77.35% |
| Target C>= |
76.25% |
76.32% |
76.37% |
76.47% |
76.57% |
Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input
Illinois works to solicit broad stakeholder input via its various advisory bodies and workgroups. We continue to prioritize family membership on the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI), on the State Systemic Improvement Plan Leadership Teams, as well as all other workgroups. The IICEI, is a Governor-appointed advisory board that meets the federal requirements for a State Interagency Coordinating Council. The membership of the council includes parents, public and private service providers of the Early Intervention (EI) system, a member from the State legislature, a personnel preparation representative, and representatives from various designated State agencies and programs. Its membership also includes representatives from advocacy organizations, Child and Family Connections (CFC) managers, and a designee from the Illinois Early Learning Council. The IICEI discusses programmatic and Bureau-specific challenges and opportunities, reviews and approves the annual performance report (APR), helps determine the setting of State Performance Plan (SPP)/APR target values, and advises the Bureau in the overall performance of the program. The IICEI also, as needed, creates ad-hoc workgroups composed of both council and other subject-matter experts on a variety of subjects to help develop recommendations for consideration by the Bureau.
Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup: The Child and Family Outcomes workgroup is a stakeholder group that is tasked with the goal of reviewing processes that improve outcomes for children and families, as well as the quality of child and family outcomes data. The workgroup includes representation from families, the EI Bureau, EI providers, CFC managers, EI Ombudsman and the EI Training Program (EITP). The Child and Family Outcomes Workgroup focuses its efforts to:
- Ensure that valid and reliable data are collected with consistency by field staff;
- Improve the validity of data reported on child and family outcomes;
- Improve response rates for Family Outcomes surveys, to increase representativeness and validity;
- Promote public awareness and training of child and family outcome measures;
- Explore options for linking child and family outcomes data;
- Support data review and analysis;
- Set baseline and target values; and
- Develop and implement improvement activities.
CFC Managers: Illinois has 25 CFC offices that serve as the regional points of entry, and each CFC office is responsible for the implementation of the Early Intervention Services System within its specific geographic region. A CFC Program Manager is hired by each CFC and they are the point of contact to disseminate information to CFC staff and their community, as appropriate. CFCs are responsible for ensuring all referrals to the Early Intervention Services System receive a timely response in a professional and family-centered manner. Other responsibilities of the CFCs include: child find activities; family-engaged intake; coordination of evaluation/assessment and eligibility determination activities for children; for eligible children- oversight of the development of timely individualized family service plans (IFSP); ongoing service coordination; and transitioning activities before a toddler exits the program or reaches three years of age when potentially eligible for Part B. CFC managers meet monthly with EI Bureau staff to review policies and procedures, provide statewide and local perspectives, offer feedback to the APR and SSIP, identify system challenges, and provide input on improvement strategies.
In addition, there are multiple stakeholder groups that participate in the development of the State's Systemic Improvement Plan. These include the large SSIP stakeholder group, the leadership team workgroup, the local leadership teams, and the performance support workgroup.
Illinois received stakeholder input via the Child & Family Outcomes workgroup and the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI). The Child & Family Outcomes workgroup helped set the targets that were approved by the IICEI. The workgroup routinely reviews the data and makes recommendations about improvements to the state's processes. The workgroup was recently expanded to include family members.
FFY 2021 SPP/APR Data
The number of families to whom surveys were distributed: 15,080
Number of respondent families participating in Part C: 2,236
Survey Response Rate: 14.83%
A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights: 1,657
A2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights: 2,236
B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs: 1,710
B2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs: 2,235
C1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn: 1,607
C2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn 2,177
| Measure |
FFY 2020 Data |
FFY 2021 Target |
FFY 2021 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| A. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights (A1 divided by A2) |
72.28% |
67.87% |
74.11% |
Met target |
No Slippage |
| B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs (B1 divided by B2) |
76.64% |
77.00% |
76.51% |
Did not meet target |
No Slippage |
| C. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn (C1 divided by C2) |
76.40% |
76.25% |
73.82% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for part C slippage, if applicable
Based on the comments collected through the survey, a number of things likely contributed to the slippage for this outcome. Families described challenges with receiving timely responses from service coordinators, accessing individual services on their IFSP, and obtaining desired support through services provided via live video visit rather than in person. Some also expressed a desire for more suggestions about what they could do between visits. Yet others reported challenges with communication and staff turnover. Overall, the challenges related to the workforce and the stress related to COVID seem to be impacting the experiences some families are having in early intervention. That being said, many families still left very positive comments about their experience.
Sampling Question
Was sampling used? NO
Was a collection tool used? YES
If yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NO
The demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers enrolled in the Part C program. NO
If not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representative of those demographics.
Although the responses were representative in some ways, stakeholders are most concerned about the representativeness by race/ethnicity of the responders. We continue to find White families over-represented. In the coming year, we will continue analyzing the parts of the survey process to determine where bias might be introduced (undeliverable surveys and opt outs) so that we can work with stakeholders to address these biases and create strategies that are meaningful for improving responses for the under-represented groups (both by race and region). Depending on what further analyses reveal, we will work with stakeholders to determine potential modification to the process.
Survey Response Rate
| FFY |
2020 |
2021 |
| Survey Response Rate |
14.96% |
14.83% |
Describe strategies that will be implemented which are expected to increase the response rate year over year, particularly for those groups that are underrepresented.
We changed the order of the questions this past year to try to make sure that families who provided partial responses answered the items we report. While that helped to some degree, it did not have as big of an impact as we had hoped. We do think it is important to continue providing families an option of choosing which language they would like to use for completing the survey (English vs. Spanish). We are also working with our outcomes workgroup to examine the trends for undeliverable surveys to see if we can do anything to make sure more families receive the electronic survey.
In terms of reaching underrepresented groups, we have examined both undeliverable and opt out data to see if these are disproportionately impacting delivery to Black families. While undeliverables were more likely to impact delivery to Black families, White families were more likely to opt out of the survey. Other racial groups were pretty evenly distributed across both mechanisms for failed delivery. Given this finding, we will be working with our outcomes workgroup to further understand what is impacting undeliverables including the examination of income information. As a general strategy for increasing response rate, service coordinators have been asked to remind families about the family outcomes survey during the monthly contact preceding the child's exit from the system. We also hope to feature more information about the survey in upcoming system newsletters as well as in other types of opportunities for families.
Describe the analysis of the response rate including any nonresponse bias that was identified, and the steps taken to reduce any identified bias and promote response from a broad cross section of families that received Part C services.
Again this year, we examined response rate by race/ethnicity, region/geographic location, gender and primary language. As noted above, we have examined our undeliverable and opt out survey demographics and will work with the outcomes workgroup to see if anything can be done to increase the number of families the survey reaches. On a positive note, Hispanic families and families whose primary language is Spanish were over-represented in the respondents for the first time.
Though we do not have a good way to understand the outcomes of the families who did not respond, we are able to analyze the outcomes data by race and ethnicity. When the outcomes are analyzed by race and ethnicity, we find that Black families generally report the lowest achievement of outcomes across racial/ethnic groups. Though White families report poorer outcomes than Hispanic and Asian families, they are still higher than Black families. Given this finding and the underrepresentation of Black families in our data, we can hypothesize that our overall outcomes would be even lower if we heard from more Black families. We will continue to work with our outcomes workgroup to examine how bias may be introduced into the survey process. We will continue to offer the survey in at least two languages and offer assistance through the Training Program for families who need support completing the survey. We are also still working to understand the impact income differences have on the data. We are hoping that this may shed some light on why the survey doesn't reach some families, making it impossible for them to respond. We are also enlisting our Partners' help in raising awareness of the survey so that a broader cross section of families know about, and respond to, the survey. Lastly, we are in the midst of developing a new data system and hope that this will provide us a way to directly survey the broad cross section of families that receive early intervention services.
Include the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers enrolled in the Part C program. States should consider categories such as race/ethnicity, age of infant or toddler, and geographic location in the State.
The responses are generally representative (and consistent with last year), with a slight under-representation of Black families and over-representation of White and Hispanic families. Our analysis is included below.
Region (% enrolled in Part C versus % responded)
Region 1 (Chicago) - 23.3 vs. 20.2
Region 2 (Suburban Cook) - 21.5 vs. 21.0
Region 3 (Collar Counties)- 25.1 vs. 29.8
Region 4 (Downstate) - 30.0 vs. 29.0
Gender (% enrolled in Part C versus % responded)
Female - 35.2 vs. 34.7
Male - 64.8 vs. 65.3
Primary Language (% enrolled in Part C versus % responded)
English - 89.0 vs. 88.8
Spanish - 8.9 vs. 10.1
Other - 2.1 vs 1.1
Race (% enrolled in Part C versus % responded)
White - 55.7 vs. 60.0
Hispanic - 25.7 vs. 25.8
Black/African American - 14.9 vs. 10.9
Asian American - 3.7 vs. 3.1
American Indian/Alaskan Native- 0.2 vs. 0.2
Describe the metric used to determine representativeness (e.g., +/- 3% discrepancy, age of the infant or toddler, and geographic location in the proportion of responders compared to target group).
Stakeholders determined that the metric used to determine representativeness would be +/-4% discrepancy in proportion of responders to those surveyed. Stakeholders felt this metric allows Illinois some flexibility while still being innovative with ways to address potential inequities. This allows us to continue to examine both respondents and non-respondents and develop strategies to address any ongoing under- or over- representativeness. Variables examined for representativeness included race/ethnicity, geographic location, gender, and primary language. Given the +/- 4% threshhold, respondents were representative except for region and race/ethnicity, with Collar counties (4.7%) and White families slightly overrepresented (4.3%).
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).
4 - Prior FFY Required Actions
In the FFY 2021 SPP/APR, the State must report whether its FFY 2021 response data are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families enrolled in the Part C program, and, if not, the actions the State is taking to address this issue. The State must also include its analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of the population.
Response to actions required in FFY 2020 SPP/APR
Again this year, we have examined response rate by race/ethnicity, region/geographic location, gender and primary language. Responses were representative on two of the four aspects examined (analysis included in analysis section above), stakeholders continue to be concerned about the representativeness by race/ethnicity of the responders. While we are more representative for Black families this year, White families are still overrepresented. Hispanic families responded in nearly identical proportion to their participation in this system. This is still regarded as a positive trend. While we are unclear as to what lead to the shift in regional discrepancies, the main impact of this discrepancy is seen in the overrepresentation of White responses. In the coming year, we will continue analyzing the parts of the survey process to determine where bias might be introduced (undeliverable surveys and opt outs) so that we can work with stakeholders to address these biases and create strategies that are meaningful for improving responses for the underrepresented groups. Depending on what these analyses reveal, we may consider alternate methods of survey delivery for those unable to receive surveys via text message. We are also taking these results into consideration as we work on the development of our new data management system.
4 - OSEP Response
4 - Required Actions
In the FFY 2022 SPP/APR, the State must report whether its FFY 2022 response data are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families enrolled in the Part C program, and, if not, the actions the State is taking to address this issue. The State must also include its analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of the population.
Family Outcome Survey Results Return Rates & Results
| CFC |
Surveys |
Responses |
Return Rate |
Know Rights -
Scores w/ 4 or more |
Know Rights -
Mean Score |
Communicate Child Needs-
Scores w/ 4 or more |
Communicate Child Needs-Mean Score |
Help Child Develop & Learn-Scores w/ 4 or more |
Help Child Develop & Learn-Mean Score |
| 1- Rockford |
471 |
64 |
13.59% |
70.31% |
4.07 |
68.75% |
4.15 |
62.50% |
4.05 |
| ***2- Waukegan |
640 |
98 |
15.31% |
76.53% |
4.24 |
77.55% |
1.27 |
76.29% |
4.23 |
| 3- Freeport |
385 |
31 |
10.88% |
79.97% |
4.23 |
77.42% |
4.43 |
80.65% |
4.48 |
| ***4- Geneva |
699 |
120 |
17.17% |
82.50% |
4.34 |
80.83% |
4.31 |
79.17% |
4.27 |
| ***5- Lisle |
996 |
175 |
17.57% |
79.43% |
4.33 |
81.71% |
4.40 |
74.12% |
4.27 |
| **6- Arlington Hts. |
1318 |
215 |
16.31% |
79.53% |
4.30 |
79.07% |
4.33 |
74.15% |
4.24 |
| **7- Westchester |
854 |
127 |
14.87% |
65.08% |
3.91 |
71.65% |
4.03 |
66.94% |
3.97 |
| *8- Chicago SW |
631 |
78 |
12.36% |
62.82% |
.84 |
66.67% |
4.00 |
69.74% |
3.87 |
| *9- Chicago Central |
663 |
83 |
12.52% |
77.11% |
4.17 |
71.08% |
4.15 |
75.61% |
4.18 |
| *10- Chicago SE |
663 |
69 |
10.41% |
48.53% |
3.44 |
55.07% |
3.49 |
51.47% |
3.47 |
| *11- Chicago North |
1648 |
221 |
13.41% |
63.18% |
3.97 |
71.95% |
4.07 |
71.36% |
4.07 |
| **12- Tinley Park |
1096 |
128 |
11.68% |
67.19% |
3.95 |
67.72% |
3.95 |
64.80% |
3.90 |
| 13- Macomb |
165 |
23 |
13.94% |
69.57% |
4.22 |
65.22% |
4.25 |
68.18% |
4.12 |
| 14- Peoria |
559 |
80 |
14.31% |
75.00% |
4.28 |
76.25% |
4.36 |
72.37% |
4.18 |
| ***15- Joliet |
1163 |
222 |
19.09% |
79.28% |
4.41 |
82.88% |
4.46 |
82.15% |
4.42 |
| 16- Champaign |
653 |
102 |
15.62% |
72.53% |
4.26 |
76.47% |
4.32 |
72.00% |
4.22 |
| 17- Quincy |
168 |
12 |
7.14% |
83.33% |
4.27 |
83.33% |
4.39 |
70.00% |
4.27 |
| 18- Springfield |
285 |
56 |
19.65% |
76.79% |
4.31 |
76.79% |
4.29 |
71.70% |
4.13 |
| 19- Decatur |
359 |
57 |
15.88% |
87.72% |
4.56 |
91.23% |
4.64 |
87.27% |
4.63 |
| 20- Effingham |
330 |
55 |
16.67% |
85.45% |
4.43 |
85.45% |
4.50 |
79.36% |
4.33 |
| 21- O'Fallon |
556 |
85 |
15.29% |
77.65% |
4.33 |
81.18% |
4.38 |
78.31% |
4.32 |
| 22- Centralia |
333 |
55 |
16.52% |
87.27% |
4.56 |
87.27% |
4.45 |
88.89% |
4.51 |
| 23- Norris City |
128 |
11 |
8.59% |
72.73% |
4.29 |
72.73% |
4.32 |
54.55% |
4.17 |
| 24- Carbondale |
136 |
18 |
13.24% |
77.78% |
4.50 |
83.33% |
4.61 |
88.89% |
4.57 |
| ***25- Crystal Lake |
281 |
51 |
18.15% |
78.43% |
4.35 |
80.39% |
4.36 |
76.47% |
4.23 |
| Statewide |
15,080^ |
2236 |
14.83% |
74.21% |
4.20 |
76.51% |
4.25 |
73.82% |
4.19 |
| *Chicago |
3607 |
451 |
12.50% |
63.47% |
3.90 |
68.29% |
3.99 |
68.79% |
3.96 |
| **Suburban Cook County |
3273 |
470 |
14.36% |
72.28% |
4.10 |
73.99% |
4.14 |
69.92% |
4.02 |
| ***Collar Counties |
3778 |
666 |
17.63% |
79.43% |
4.35 |
81.23% |
4.38 |
78.47% |
4.31 |
| Downstate |
4422 |
649 |
14.68% |
77.66% |
4.33 |
79.20% |
4.38 |
75.47% |
4.19 |
*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
