Indicator 1: Timely Provision of Services
Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments
Compliance indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with Individual Family Service Plans (IFSPs) who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must be based on actual, not an average, number of days. Include the State's criteria for "timely" receipt of early intervention services (i.e., the time period from parent consent to when IFSP services are actually initiated).
Measurement
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.
Account for untimely receipt of services, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select early intervention service (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. States report in both the numerator and denominator under Indicator 1 on the number of children for whom the State ensured the timely initiation of new services identified on the IFSP. Include the timely initiation of new early intervention services from both initial IFSPs and subsequent IFSPs. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
The State's timeliness measure for this indicator must be either: (1) a time period that runs from when the parent consents to IFSP services; or (2) the IFSP initiation date (established by the IFSP Team, including the parent).
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 the Office of Special Education Programs' (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 2021 SPP/APR, the data for FFY 2020), and the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance.
1 - Indicator Data:
Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
98.53% |
| FFY |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
97.89% |
99.52% |
94.23% |
99.79% |
97.95% |
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
| Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner |
Total number of
infants and toddlers
with IFSPs |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 1,611 |
1,785 |
97.95% |
100% |
92.94% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for slippage, if applicable
Illinois' early intervention system has experienced an unprecedented staffing shortage. The system experienced a net loss of approximately 300 providers between 2020 and 2021. Since this time, the program has experienced caseload growth. These factors both contribute to a significant shortage in available services and impact timely service delivery. A number of systemic efforts have been directed at addressing this crisis. They include incentive payments to retain current employees, a marketing campaign to attract new personnel, modification of Child and Family Connections' funding to provide a more predictable level of funding so that fiscal agents feel more confident hiring new staff, cross-state research and cost modeling to better understand payment structures and system costs to make recommendations for improvements, and creation of an IICEI workforce workgroup to examine a number of personnel-related matters.
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive their early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator.
48
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Family delays related to receiving services in a timely manner are related to scheduling challenges. Other reasons for delay can all be attributed to personnel shortages.
Include your State's criteria for "timely" receipt of early intervention services (i.e., the time period from parent consent to when IFSP services are actually initiated).
Illinois Early Intervention considers a service to be timely if the service begins within 30 days of receiving IFSP consent.
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).
Illinois continues to utilize the reporting period of October 1 - October 31 for the corresponding Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). In the case of this APR, the reporting period is October 2022.
Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Illinois has historically utilized the single month of October to represent our collection period. October represents the average number of children entering the program throughout the year without the fluctuations that occur before and after holidays and specific child find events.
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)
Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2021
| Findings of Noncompliance Identified |
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year |
Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected |
Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected |
| 2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
FFY 2021 Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
As indicated above, a number of system level strategies have been enacted to address service delays. In addition, service delays and strategies for addressing them have been discussed at managers' meetings, and the Bureau has created a workgroup to address recruitment and retention issues. Based on our initial piloting of our new process, these two programs will work through a process of identifying barriers and receiving technical assistance from Bureau staff, Early Intervention Training Program staff, and other partners/program managers (as needed) on potential strategies for meeting the regulatory requirements and program expectations for Indicator 1 (timely services). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with these two program to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely services. The programs will receive performance data to examine correction of noncompliance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been significantly impacted by personnel shortages, the Bureau is working to address this issue more systemically and has utilized some strategies and is continuing to explore options for improving the recruitment and retention of qualified staff.
Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2021
| Year Findings of Noncompliance Were Identified |
Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2021 APR |
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected |
Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected |
| FFY 2020 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
FFY 2020
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected
Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements.
The Bureau reviewed a subsequent sample of data (December 2022) for the single program that was out of compliance. Based on this review, the state verified that the program was at 100% compliance and correctly implementing the regulatory requirements for timely service delivery.
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
The state examined individual child records in the state database for the two children who did not receive timely services in FFY2020. Based on this review, the state verified that both children received their IFSP services, albeit delayed.
1 - Prior FFY Required Actions
Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2021, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 for this indicator. In addition, the State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2022 SPP/APR, that the remaining one uncorrected finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 was corrected.
When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in the FFY 2022 SPP/APR, that it has verified that each EIS program or provider with findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 and each EIS program or provider with remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2020: (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 2022 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 2021, although its FFY 2021 data reflect less than 100% compliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2021.
Response to actions required in FFY 2021 SPP/APR
In FFY 21, there were twelve programs that did not demonstrate 100% compliance with the initial data pull (October 2021). The state verified correction of noncompliance for nine of these programs prior to issuing findings (pre-finding correction). For these programs, the state reviewed a sample of subsequent data from December 2021 to determine compliance with regulatory requirements related to timely service delivery. These nine programs demonstrated 100% compliance in the subsequent review of their data. Individual child correction was also verified for all children who did not receive timely services. All children in these nine programs received their IFSP services, albeit late. One of the twelve programs had an open finding from FFY2020 so was not issued a new finding in FFY2021. Two findings were then issued for FFY2021 as the subsequent review of a sample from December's data did not indicate that these programs were now in compliance. The Bureau worked with these (and all) programs to explore options for provider recruitment and retention on a systemic level.
1 - 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, 2022- June 30, 2023). 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.
1 - Required Actions
Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2022, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2022 for this indicator. In addition, the State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, that the remaining two uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 were corrected. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, that it has verified that each EIS program or provider with findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2022 and each EIS program or provider with remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2021: (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 QA 23-01. In the FFY 2023 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 2022, although its FFY 2022 data reflect less than 100% compliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2022.
|
IFSPs INITIATED WITHIN 45 DAYS |
| CFC # |
ACTIVE IFSP (OCT. 2022) |
FAMILY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (FEC) |
NET IFSPs (LESS FEC) |
NO DELAYS
(OSEP Reportable) |
% of NO DELAYS
(NO DELAYS +
FEC/ACTIVE IFSP) |
| 1-Rockford |
57 |
4 |
53 |
47 |
89.5% |
| 2- Waukegan*** |
85 |
0 |
85 |
80 |
94.1% |
| 3-Freeport |
29 |
0 |
29 |
24 |
82.8% |
| 4- Geneva*** |
89 |
14 |
75 |
74 |
98.9% |
| 5- Lisle*** |
98 |
1 |
97 |
94 |
96.9% |
| 6- Arlington Hts.** |
171 |
3 |
168 |
151 |
90.1% |
| 7- Westchester** |
94 |
0 |
94 |
94 |
100.0% |
| 8- Chicago SW* |
60 |
3 |
57 |
57 |
100.0% |
| 9- Chicago Central* |
80 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
100.0% |
| 10- Chicago SE* |
49 |
1 |
48 |
47 |
98.0% |
| 11- Chicago North* |
151 |
5 |
146 |
139 |
95.4% |
| 12- Tinley Park** |
150 |
1 |
149 |
141 |
94.7% |
| 13- Macomb |
29 |
0 |
29 |
23 |
79.3% |
| 14- Peoria |
96 |
2 |
94 |
51 |
55.2% |
| 15- Joliet*** |
145 |
1 |
144 |
133 |
92.4% |
| 16- Champaign |
66 |
0 |
66 |
60 |
90.9% |
| 17- Quincy |
20 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
100.0% |
| 18- Springfield |
33 |
0 |
33 |
33 |
100.0% |
| 19- Decatur |
52 |
6 |
46 |
45 |
98.1% |
| 20- Effingham |
31 |
0 |
31 |
31 |
100.0% |
| 21- O'Fallon |
90 |
1 |
89 |
89 |
100.0% |
| 22- Centralia |
38 |
0 |
38 |
36 |
94.7% |
| 23- Norris City |
6 |
0 |
6 |
6 |
100.0% |
| 24- Carbondale |
17 |
0 |
17 |
16 |
94.1% |
| 25- Crystal Lake*** |
49 |
6 |
43 |
40 |
93.9% |
| Statewide |
1,785 |
48 |
1,737 |
1,611 |
92.9% |
| Chicago* |
340 |
9 |
331 |
323 |
97.6% |
| Suburban Cook County** |
415 |
4 |
411 |
386 |
94.0% |
| Collar Counties*** |
466 |
22 |
444 |
421 |
95.1% |
| Downstate |
564 |
13 |
551 |
481 |
87.6% |
