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/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 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| A |
2010 |
Target (greater or =) |
70.30% |
70.60% |
70.60% |
70.60% |
67.87% |
| A |
67.82% |
Data |
71.88% |
72.57% |
75.12% |
72.28% |
74.11% |
| B |
2010 |
Target (greater or =) |
78.50% |
78.80% |
78.80% |
78.80% |
77.00% |
| B |
76.51% |
Data |
77.06% |
78.43% |
80.50% |
76.64% |
76.51% |
| C |
2010 |
Target (greater or =) |
75.10% |
75.40% |
75.40% |
75.40% |
76.25% |
| C |
74.31% |
Data |
76.06% |
77.47% |
78.52% |
76.40% |
73.82% |
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target A (greater or =) |
67.92% |
67.97% |
68.97% |
69.97% |
| Target B (greater or =) |
77.05% |
77.10% |
77.20% |
77.35% |
| Target C (greater or =) |
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 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.
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
| The number of families to whom surveys were distributed |
14,881 |
| Number of respondent families participating in Part C |
2,250 |
| Survey Response Rate |
15.12% |
| A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights |
1,625 |
| A2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights |
2,250 |
| 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 |
1,679 |
| B2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs |
2,250 |
| 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 |
1,576 |
| C2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn |
2,250 |
| Measure |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 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) |
74.11% |
67.92% |
72.22% |
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) |
76.51% |
77.05% |
74.62% |
Did not meet target |
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) |
73.82% |
76.32% |
70.04% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for part B 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 and obtaining desired support through services provided via live video visit rather than in person. 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.
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 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. 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
| Sampling Question |
Yes /No |
| Was sampling used? |
NO |
| Question |
Yes / No |
| Was a collection tool used? |
YES |
| If yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? |
NO |
Response Rate
| FFY |
2021 |
2022 |
| Survey Response Rate |
14.83% |
15.12% |
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 for all aspects of representativeness. Stakeholders felt this metric allowed Illinois some flexibility with responsiveness while still identifying when meaningful differences exist. 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, geographic location (region), gender, and primary language. Given the +/- 4% threshhold, respondents were representative except in regard to over-representation by respondent families who were white and those living in the collar counties.
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. States must include race/ethnicity in their analysis. In addition, the State's analysis must 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 category approved through the stakeholder input process.
Race:
White - Response - 60.0% / Overall Families Served - 55.57%
Hispanic - Response - 25.8% / Overall Families Served - 25.67%
Black/African American - Response - 10.9% / Overall Families Served -14.9%
Asian American - Response - 3.1% / Overall Families Served - 3.7%
American Indian/Alaskan Native- Response - .2% / Overall Families Served - .2%
Geographic Location:
Region 1 (Cook County) - Response - 20.2% / Overall Families Served- 23.3%
Region 2 (Suburban) - Response - 21.0% / Overall Families Served- 21.5%
Region 3 (Collar Counties)- Response - 29.8% / Overall Families Served- 25.1%
Region 4 (Downstate) - Response - 29.0% / Overall Families Served- 30.0%
Gender:
Female - Response Rate - 34.7% / Overall Children Served - 35.2%
Male - Response Rate - 65.3% / Overall Children Served - 64.8%
Primary Language:
English - Response - 88.8%/ Overall Families Served- 89.0%
Spanish - Response - 10.1% / Overall Families Served- 8.90%
Other - Response - 1.1% / Overall Families Served- 2.1%
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. (yes/no)
NO
If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representative of those demographics.
We continue to explore options for ensuring greater representativeness. A primary approach to increasing representativeness is to increase our response rate (which has been improving). We are also developing some additional strategies to raise awareness of the survey, considering alternate means for survey delivery when families opt out of data messaging or have an undeliverable survey via text message, and examining what supports might be useful for particular groups that may not traditionally respond.
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 moved the three reported questions up earlier in the survey to try to make sure that families who provided partial responses answered the items we report. 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 colleagues in other states through the Equity in Family Outcomes cohort to determine if there are strategies other states are using that might be beneficial for us to try. To date, we feel that increasing public awareness and exploring additional supports for families are the most viable. Our state team has been considering options for increasing the number of languages the survey is available in and how we might be able to add varied supports for families who may need them.
Based on the selected metric (+/-4%), no individual group was underrepresented, but the response rate for Black families was right at the 4% differential.
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 do more to increase awareness of the survey with families. We have discussed providing information in upcoming system newsletters, posting on social media, and embedding in system activities for families, like the quarterly town halls.
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. We continue to work with our outcomes workgroup to examine how bias may be introduced into the survey process through the examination of opt out and undeliverable data and with our TA providers and other states to determine what additional strategies may be needed to improve the response rates of various groups. We are 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.
Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).
4 - Prior FFY 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.
Response to actions required in FFY 2021 SPP/APR
The state has provided the requested information in the narrative for this indicator.
4 - OSEP Response
None
4 - Required Actions
In the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, the State must report whether its FFY 2023 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 response data are representative of the population.
Family Outcome Survey Results Return Rates & Results
|
|
Know Rights |
Communicate
Child Needs |
Help Child
Develop & Learn |
| CFC # |
Responses |
Scores
4 or greater |
Mean
Score |
Scores
4 or greater |
Mean
Score |
Scores
4 or greater |
Mean
Score |
| 1- ROCKFORD |
66 |
65.15% |
3.96 |
66.57% |
4.11 |
60.61% |
3.92 |
| 2 - WAUKEGAN*** |
100 |
72.00% |
4.18 |
74.00% |
4.16 |
71.00% |
4.03 |
| 3 - FREEPORT |
31 |
70.97% |
4.23 |
77.42% |
4.42 |
80.65% |
4.48 |
| 4 - GENEVA*** |
124 |
79.84% |
4.26 |
79.03% |
4.24 |
73.39% |
4.06 |
| 5- LISLE*** |
175 |
75.57% |
4.26 |
79.43% |
4.37 |
70.86% |
4.13 |
| 6 - ARLINGTON HTS.** |
215 |
77.21% |
4.27 |
79.07% |
4.31 |
70.23% |
4.13 |
| 7 - WESTCHESTER** |
127 |
62.20% |
3.85 |
70.87% |
3.99 |
62.99% |
3.76 |
| 8 - CHICAGO SW* |
78 |
62.82% |
3.82 |
65.38% |
3.93 |
66.67% |
3.75 |
| 9 -CHICAGO CENTRAL* |
83 |
72.29% |
4.08 |
65.06% |
4.08 |
71.08% |
4.03 |
| 10 - CHICAGO SE* |
69 |
47.83% |
3.35 |
55.07% |
3.48 |
50.72% |
3.41 |
| 11 - CHICAGO NORTH* |
222 |
61.26% |
3.91 |
68.92% |
4.01 |
66.22% |
3.86 |
| 12- TINLEY PARK ** |
128 |
66.41% |
3.94 |
67.19% |
3.88 |
63.28% |
3.77 |
| 13 - MACOMB |
23 |
69.57% |
4.21 |
65.22% |
4.25 |
65.22% |
3.91 |
| 14 - PEORIA |
80 |
73.75% |
4.24 |
73.75% |
4.31 |
67.50% |
3.97 |
| 15 - JOLIET*** |
226 |
76.99% |
4.35 |
79.65% |
4.35 |
78.76% |
4.22 |
| 16 - BLOOMINGTON |
102 |
72.55% |
4.25 |
76.47% |
4.31 |
70.59% |
4.12 |
| 17 - QUINCY |
12 |
83.33% |
4.27 |
83.33% |
4.39 |
58.33% |
3.56 |
| 18 - SPRINGFIELD |
57 |
75.44% |
4.27 |
75.44% |
4.28 |
66.67% |
3.82 |
| 19 - DECATUR |
56 |
87.50% |
4.52 |
91.07% |
4.62 |
80.36% |
4.34 |
| 20 - EFFINGHAM |
55 |
85.45% |
4.43 |
81.82% |
4.41 |
74.55% |
4.26 |
| 21 - BELLEVILLE |
86 |
77.91% |
4.32 |
79.07% |
4.29 |
75.58% |
4.17 |
| 22 - CENTRALIA |
54 |
87.04% |
4.53 |
87.04% |
4.41 |
83.33% |
4.38 |
| 23 - NORRIS CITY |
11 |
72.73% |
4.05 |
63.64% |
4.17 |
45.45% |
3.86 |
| 24 - CARBONDALE |
18 |
77.78% |
4.44 |
77.78% |
4.43 |
88.89% |
4.57 |
| 25 - CRYSTAL LAKE*** |
52 |
75.00% |
4.15 |
78.85% |
4.19 |
75.00% |
4.01 |
| STATEWIDE |
2250 |
72.22% |
4.15 |
74.62% |
4.19 |
70.04% |
4.01 |
| CHICAGO* |
452 |
61.50% |
3.84 |
65.49% |
3.93 |
64.82% |
3.81 |
| SUBURBAN COOK** |
470 |
70.21% |
4.06 |
73.62% |
4.10 |
66.38% |
3.88 |
| COLLAR COUNTIES*** |
677 |
76.51% |
4.27 |
78.58% |
4.30 |
74.30% |
4.13 |
| DOWNSTATE |
651 |
76.65% |
4.29 |
77.57% |
4.33 |
71.89% |
4.12 |
