Indicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan

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 2021 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2023, the State must provide measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the five years from FFY 2021 through FFY 2025. The State's FFY 2025 target must demonstrate improvement over the State's baseline data.

Updated Data: In its FFYs 2021 through FFY 2025 SPPs/APRs, due February 1, 2023 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 2021 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 2021 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., February 1, 2022). 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 2021 APR, report on anticipated outcomes to be obtained during FFY 2022, i.e., July 1, 2022-June 30, 2023).

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 2021 APR, report on activities it intends to implement in FFY 2022, i.e., July 1, 2022-June 30, 2023) 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)

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.

In FFY21 State Systemic Improvement Plan efforts still 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)

Please provide a link to the current theory of action.

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)

Historical Data

Baseline Year: FFY20

Baseline Data: 67.28%

Targets

FFY	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Target>=	67.23%	67.25%	67.27%	67.29%	67.31%

FFY 2021 SPP/APR Data

# of children demonstrating greater than expected growth: 145

#of children exiting not comparable to same-aged peers: 214

FFY 2020 Data: 67.28%

FFY 2021 Target: 67.23%

FFY 2021 Data: 67.76%

Status: N/A

Slippage: N/A

Provide the data source for the FFY 2021 data.

The state continues to use the state's database as the source for FFY2021 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)

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)

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.

The state is experiencing caseload growth with declining service coordinator and provider numbers. This has led to unanticipated stressors on everyone's work. Families continue to be lost to contact at higher rates than previously experienced. Due to this, we have fewer matched pairs in the pilot areas than we did in FFY20. 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 virtual and 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

Please provide a link to the State's current evaluation plan.

The state's current evaluation plan can be found. 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.

Is the State's evaluation plan new or revised since the previous submission? (yes/no)

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.

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. In addition, teams have discussed how they will begin using the fidelity tool to assess practice and guide local professional development opportunities.

We have also completed our plans for scale up and will be creating leadership teams in five more Child and Family Connections offices (CFCs).

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. As mentioned above, existing teams have determined that leadership teams provide an integral support for scale up efforts. The next five sites will be supported by the existing leadership teams and will participate in the same capacity-building professional development opportunities that the original three sites received.

Did the State implement any new (newly identified) infrastructure improvement strategies during the reporting period? (yes/no)

Provide a summary of the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.

The original 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, stakeholders recommended engaging technical assistance support 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.

The five new sites will create leadership teams who will begin receiving professional development and technical assistance so that they are able to support local early intervention teams use of practices that encourage the active participation of families in the intervention process by embedding intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines and activities.

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. 95% of attendees reported gaining additional information or knowledge about the practices. In addition, over 90% of attendees report that the ongoing reflection activities support their competence with the practices. As can be seen by our evaluation plan, we believe that before practitioners can use the practices, they must have knowledge of the practices. While we have not yet collected data on their implementation of the practices, we plan to begin collecting this data over the next year.

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.

Though no additional progress monitoring data was collected to support the decision to continue the ongoing use of each practice. The fidelity tool was shared with the parent advisory group and they provided feedback on the utility of the tool. This feedback will be used to make any needed modifications to the tool.

Provide a summary of the next steps for each evidence-based practices and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.

The fidelity tool for the RPs is beginning to be used 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.

Does the State intend to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications? (yes/no)

If no, describe any changes to the activities, strategies or timelines described in the previous submission and include a rationale or justification for the changes.

As mentioned above, we are establishing leadership teams at five more CFCs to scale up practices in the coming fiscal year. These local leadership teams (LTs) will be a vital part of our infrastructure change that allows 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 will participate in professional development activities and plan for future activities in their local area. The work of these teams will be guided by the Benchmarks of Quality and help the teams develop action plans to 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.

Section C: Stakeholder Engagement

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.

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 and has created a specific resource page for materials that the local leadership teams are using. During the annual stakeholder workgroup meeting, participants review progress, review evaluation data, and provide input on the direction of future activities.

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) provided feedback on the practice profile. 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)

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 finalized its plans for scale up. 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 and supporting the EI Partners with sufficient staff and resources to support the LTs and local providers in each new area. The training plan for these LTs will mirror the processes used for the initial pilots. We will build capacity within the leadership teams using existing curriculum and support these LTs as they begin to offer their own professional development to early intervention teams. They will continue to be supported by Training, Monitoring, and Bureau staff.

Provide a timeline, anticipated data collection and measures, and expected outcomes for these activities that are related to the SiMR.

Illinois is phasing in four groups of new LTs with training and on-going support (each group includes 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 recommended replicating the original process. The next round of pilots 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 the current state of the early intervention workforce. They are concerned about the limited provider pool and the existing workload of service coordinators. There are systemic efforts being planned to address these concerns. In addition, marketing efforts will focus on the additional supports available to these new sites as they plan for implementation.

Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).

11 - Prior FFY Required Actions

None

11 - OSEP Response

N/A

Indicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan