Indicator 3: Early Childhood Outcomes
Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments
Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:
- Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
- Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication); and
- Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source
State selected data source.
Measurement
Outcomes:
- Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
- Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and
- Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Progress categories for A, B and C:
- Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning = [(# of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
- Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
- Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
- Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
- Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:
Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in category (d)) divided by (# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (a) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (b) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d))] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (e)) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e))] times 100.
Instructions
Sampling of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 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.)
In the measurement, include in the numerator and denominator only infants and toddlers with IFSPs who received early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.
Report: (1) the number of infants and toddlers who exited the Part C program during the reporting period, as reported in the State's Part C exiting data under Section 618 of the IDEA; and (2) the number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. States will use the progress categories for each of the three Outcomes to calculate and report the two Summary Statements.
Report progress data and calculate Summary Statements to compare against the six targets. Provide the actual numbers and percentages for the five reporting categories for each of the three Outcomes.
In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining "comparable to same-aged peers." If a State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Process (COS), then the criteria for defining "comparable to same-aged peers" has been defined as a child who has been assigned a score of 6 or 7 on the COS.
In addition, list the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including if the State is using the ECO COS.
If the State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or "at-risk infants and toddlers") under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i), the State must report data in two ways. First, it must report on all eligible children but exclude its at-risk infants and toddlers (i.e., include just those infants and toddlers experiencing developmental delay (or "developmentally delayed children") or having a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay (or "children with diagnosed conditions")). Second, the State must separately report outcome data on either: (1) just its at-risk infants and toddlers; or (2) aggregated performance data on all of the infants and toddlers it serves under Part C (including developmentally delayed children, children with diagnosed conditions, and at-risk infants and toddlers).
3 - Indicator Data
Does your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or "at-risk infants and toddlers") under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i)? (yes/no)
YES
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 meets quarterly to review system data, discuss system practices, and offer suggestions for improvement. 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 twice 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.
This past year, the EI Clearinghouse conducted an advocacy training to increase the capacity of a diverse group of parents. These parents are from various parts of the state and are now willing to participate in system workgroups and other opportunities for engagement. Some will be participating on the IICEI, technical assistance opportunities, and system workgroups in the coming year.
This year, Illinois is reporting on at-risk infants and toddlers for the first time due to a legislative change making infants and toddlers who experience a substantiated case of abuse or neglect eligible for the program. The lead agency worked with the IICEI to establish the baseline and targets for this new reporting.
Will your separate report be just the at-risk infants and toddlers or aggregated performance data on all of the infants and toddlers it serves under Part C?
At-risk infants and toddlers
Historical Data
| Outcome |
Baseline |
FFY |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| A1 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
68.50% |
68.90% |
68.00% |
66.50% |
67.05% |
| A1 |
67.01% |
Data |
66.70% |
67.71% |
67.99% |
67.01% |
68.11% |
| A1 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| A1 AR |
77.40% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| A2 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
64.30% |
64.50% |
63.50% |
63.30% |
51.25% |
| A2 |
51.20% |
Data |
57.29% |
54.39% |
52.51% |
51.20% |
50.58% |
| A2 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| A2 AR |
76.50% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| B1 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
80.00% |
80.40% |
77.10% |
77.00% |
75.35% |
| B1 |
75.28% |
Data |
75.78% |
76.27% |
76.22% |
75.28% |
74.96% |
| B1 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| B1 AR |
81.60% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| B2 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
50.80% |
51.00% |
49.70% |
49.60% |
42.15% |
| B2 |
42.09% |
Data |
47.06% |
44.90% |
43.48% |
42.09% |
43.01% |
| B2 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| B2 AR |
70.60% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| C1 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
77.70% |
78.10% |
75.60% |
75.50% |
73.45% |
| C1 |
73.40% |
Data |
73.88% |
73.67% |
73.48% |
73.40% |
72.82% |
| C1 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| C1 AR |
88.60% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
| C2 |
2020 |
Target (greater than or =) |
57.20% |
57.40% |
56.10% |
56.00% |
47.15% |
| C2 |
47.08% |
Data |
53.44% |
50.26% |
48.50% |
47.08% |
47.53% |
| C2 AR |
2022 |
Target (greater than or =) |
|
|
|
|
|
| C2 AR |
74.50% |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
Target A1
(greater than or =) |
67.10% |
67.15% |
67.20% |
67.25% |
Target A1 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
77.45% |
77.50% |
77.55% |
Target A2
(greater than or =) |
51.30% |
51.35% |
51.40% |
51.45% |
Target A2 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
76.55% |
76.60% |
76.65% |
Target B1
(greater than or =) |
75.40% |
75.45% |
75.50% |
75.55% |
Target B1 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
81.65% |
81.70% |
81.75% |
Target B2
(greater than or =) |
42.20% |
42.25% |
42.30% |
42.35% |
Target B2 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
70.65% |
70.70% |
70.75% |
Target C1
(greater than or =) |
73.50% |
73.55% |
73.60% |
73.65% |
Target C1 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
88.65% |
88.70% |
88.75% |
Target C2
(greater than or =) |
47.20% |
47.25% |
47.30% |
47.35% |
Target C2 AR
(greater than or =) |
|
74.55% |
74.60% |
74.65% |
Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Number of children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
2 |
0.02% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
3,195 |
26.44% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
3,128 |
25.88% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
3,308 |
27.37% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
2,453 |
20.30% |
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Number of children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
0 |
0.00% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
7 |
13.73% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
5 |
9.80% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
19 |
37.25% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
20 |
39.22% |
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| A1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
6,436 |
9,633 |
68.11% |
67.10% |
66.81% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
| A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
5,761 |
12,086 |
50.58% |
51.30% |
47.67% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode (family wants in person services but can only access support via live video visits/telehealth), and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
Provide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode, and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| A1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
24 |
31 |
|
|
77.42% |
N/A |
N/A |
| A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
39 |
51 |
|
|
76.47% |
N/A |
N/A |
Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication)
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Number of Children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
7 |
0.06% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
3018 |
24.97% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
4,198 |
34.73% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
4,120 |
34.09% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
743 |
6.15% |
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Number of Children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
0 |
0.00% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
7 |
13.73% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
8 |
15.69% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
23 |
45.10% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
13 |
25.49% |
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| B1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
8,318 |
11,343 |
74.96% |
75.40% |
73.33% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
| B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
4,863 |
12,086 |
43.01% |
42.20% |
40.24% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode, and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode, and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| B1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
31 |
38 |
|
|
81.58% |
N/A |
N/A |
| B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
36 |
51 |
|
|
70.59% |
N/A |
N/A |
Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Number of Children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
4 |
0.03% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
3,112 |
25.75% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
3,575 |
29.58% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
4,038 |
33.41% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
1,357 |
11.23% |
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Number of Children |
Percentage of Total |
| a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning |
0 |
0.00% |
| b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers |
4 |
7.84% |
| c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it |
9 |
17.65% |
| d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers |
22 |
43.14% |
| e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers |
16 |
31.37% |
| Not including at-risk infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| C1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
7,613 |
10,729 |
72.82% |
73.50% |
70.96% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
| C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
5,395 |
12,086 |
47.53% |
47.20% |
44.64% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode, and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
Provide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable
We feel that the slippage for this indicator is likely due to a number of factors. These factors include delayed access to services, services that are not able to be delivered via the family's preferred mode, and the ongoing impact of altered experiences for young children during COVID.
| Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlers |
Numerator |
Denominator |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| C1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
31 |
35 |
|
|
88.57% |
N/A |
N/A |
| C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program |
38 |
51 |
|
|
74.51% |
N/A |
N/A |
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
The number of infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.
| Question |
Number |
| The number of infants and toddlers who exited the Part C program during the reporting period, as reported in the State's Part C exiting 618 data |
20,924 |
| The number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program. |
4,332 |
| Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed |
12,137 |
| Sampling Question |
Yes / No |
| Was sampling used? |
NO |
Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary (COS) process? (yes/no)
YES
List the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator.
As stated above, Illinois uses the ECO Center's COS process. This involves using information collected from a variety of sources including parent report, observation, evaluation/assessment, and, for exits, intervention information. For evaluation/assessment, providers in Illinois are allowed to use any of the tools.
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).
Missing data is largely related to children exiting the system due to loss of contact and teams not having meetings to determine ratings during the required timeframes due to high caseloads.
3 - Prior FFY Required Actions
None
3 - OSEP Response
OSEP notes that the with the submission of the State's FFY 2022 SPP/APR the State reported that its Part C eligibility criteria includes infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or "at-risk infants and toddlers") under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i). Further, the State has established baseline data for at-risk infants and toddlers for this indicator, using data from FFY 2022, and OSEP accepts the State's baseline. The State also set targets for at-risk infants and toddlers for this indicator through FFY 2025, and OSEP accepts those targets.
3 - Required Actions
SUMMARY STATEMENT SCORED BY CFC
|
OUTCOME 1 |
OUTCOME 2 |
OUTCOME 3 |
| CFC # |
Matched
pairs |
Summary
Statement 1 |
Summary
Statement 2 |
Summary
Statement 1 |
Summary
Statement 2 |
Summary
Statement 1 |
Summary
Statement 2 |
| 1- Rockford |
485 |
74.30% |
57.30% |
78.10% |
52.00% |
77.40% |
58.80% |
| 2- Waukegan*** |
511 |
54.40% |
37.20% |
62.90% |
30.70% |
61.20% |
32.70% |
| 3- Freeport |
223 |
78.60% |
52.50% |
77.60% |
47.10% |
76.90% |
52.00% |
| 4- Geneva*** |
804 |
53.70% |
35.70% |
58.90% |
34.30% |
56.30% |
36.60% |
| 5- Lisle*** |
843 |
51.20% |
48.40% |
61.50% |
41.80% |
55.20% |
48.60% |
| 6- Arlington Hts.** |
1333 |
72.30% |
53.90% |
78.30% |
44.00% |
76.50% |
49.40% |
| 7- Westchester** |
637 |
72.00% |
45.40% |
77.50% |
38.30% |
74.20% |
41.30% |
| 8-Chicago SW* |
483 |
73.10% |
30.60% |
77.20% |
25.10% |
73.30% |
25.90% |
| 9- Chicago Central* |
322 |
75.20% |
46.60% |
81.00% |
37.90% |
76.80% |
36.00% |
| 10- Chicago SE* |
239 |
65.20% |
14.60% |
66.00% |
14.60% |
69.20% |
13.80% |
| 11- Chicago North* |
790 |
74.70% |
57.10% |
83.90% |
46.20% |
81.70% |
47.00% |
| 12- Tinley Park** |
844 |
75.00% |
31.50% |
78.80% |
22.40% |
77.80% |
24.90% |
| 13- Macomb |
129 |
27.60% |
48.80% |
46.00% |
33.30% |
40.00% |
41.90% |
| 14- Peoria |
517 |
55.50% |
67.90% |
61.60% |
57.30% |
61.20% |
61.30% |
| 15- Joliet*** |
1030 |
60.70% |
48.90% |
68.50% |
44.20% |
64.60% |
50.90% |
| 16- Champaign |
447 |
83.70% |
52.10% |
85.10% |
49.20% |
84.50% |
49.20% |
| 17- Quincy |
206 |
64.40% |
54.40% |
70.00% |
41.70% |
70.10% |
42.20% |
| 18- Springfield |
224 |
54.20% |
25.90% |
70.40% |
19.20% |
61.80% |
27.70% |
| 19- Decatur |
375 |
80.90% |
76.80% |
83.90% |
67.70% |
81.70% |
75.50% |
| 20- Effingham |
330 |
64.70% |
61.20% |
70.90% |
53.30% |
68.40% |
59.40% |
| 21- O'Fallon |
533 |
69.70% |
45.80% |
79.40% |
38.60% |
76.90% |
41.50% |
| 22- Centralia |
308 |
69.60% |
52.60% |
79.30% |
41.60% |
74.00% |
53.90% |
| 23- Norris City |
78 |
76.80% |
53.80% |
76.00% |
50.00% |
83.30% |
53.80% |
| 24- Carbondale |
133 |
56.70% |
52.60% |
74.00% |
37.60% |
74.50% |
61.70% |
| 25- Crystal Lake*** |
313 |
61.30% |
42.50% |
70.40% |
31.30% |
67.80% |
41.50% |
| Statewide |
12137 |
66.80% |
47.80% |
73.40% |
40.40% |
71.00% |
44.80% |
| Chicago* |
1834 |
72.10% |
37.20% |
77.00% |
31.00% |
75.30% |
30.70% |
| Suburban Cook County** |
2814 |
73.10% |
43.60% |
78.20% |
34.90% |
76.20% |
38.50% |
| Collar Counties*** |
3501 |
56.30% |
42.50% |
64.40% |
36.50% |
61.00% |
42.10% |
| Downstate |
3988 |
65.90% |
54.00% |
73.30% |
45.30% |
69.50% |
52.20% |
