Indicator 7: 45-Day Timeline
Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find
Compliance indicator: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must address the timeline from point of referral to initial IFSP meeting based on actual, not an average, number of days.
Measurement
Percent = [(# of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline) divided by the (# of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted)] times 100.
Account for untimely evaluations, assessments, and initial IFSP meetings, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select 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. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
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 child-specific and regulatory/systemic noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response 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 2022 SPP/APR, the data for FFY 2021), and the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance.
7 - Indicator Data
Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
98.67% |
| FFY |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
99.99% |
100.00% |
99.80% |
100.00% |
99.49% |
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom
an initial evaluation and
assessment and an initial
IFSP meeting was conducted
within Part C's 45-day
timeline |
Number of eligible
infants and toddlers evaluated and
assessed for whom
an initial IFSP
meeting was required
to be conducted |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 1,762 |
1,784 |
99.49% |
100% |
99.38% |
Did not meet target |
No Slippage |
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator.
11
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Family delays were related to child/family illness, missed appointments, or scheduling challenges. Other delays were attributed to personnel shortages and challenges with tracking/documentation.
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).
October 2022
Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
The number of children with new initial IFSPs across the fiscal year is relatively close to this single collection month. This single collection month also is consistent with other compliance indicator collection activity.
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 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
FFY 2021 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected
Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements.
There were four programs out of compliance when the data for the FFY21 APR was pulled (October 2021). Two of these programs were able to demonstrate both systemic and child-specific correction in a subsequent data pull (December 2021) and were not issued findings (pre-finding correction. Therefore two programs received findings in FFY21. Subsequently, the state was able to verify via updated data from October 2022 that one of the two programs demonstrating noncompliance in FFY2021 is now at 100% compliance and correctly implementing the regulatory requirements related to the 45-day timeline.
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
The state verified through its state database that the two children whose IFSPs were delayed beyond the 45-day timeline now have IFSPs, although late.
FFY 2021 Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
A number of strategies were implemented to help CFCs address their staffing shortages. These strategies related to increasing funding and providing more predictable funding. We will use our newly piloted process with the single program that is out of compliance to develop an improvement plan. Based on the initial pilot, this program 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 7 (45-day timeline). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with this program to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely IFSP development. The program will continue to receive performance data to examine correction of noncompliance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by personnel shortages and high service coordinator caseloads, 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 |
| - |
- |
- |
- |
7 - Prior FFY Required Actions
The State did not provide the reasons for delay as required by the Measurement Table. The State must report reasons for delay for FFY 2022 in its FFY 2022 SPP/APR.
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.
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 noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 for this indicator: (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
The reasons for delay have been provided for FFY2022. In FFY2021, four programs demonstrated less than 100% compliance with the 45- day timeline when the initial APR data was pulled (October 2021). Two of these programs were able to demonstrate 100% compliance with regulatory requirements based on a subsequent sample of data that was pulled from the state database in December 2021. The state was also able to verify that the two individual instances of noncompliance were corrected. One child received services, albeit late, and the other child is no longer under the jurisdiction of the program. The other two programs were not able to demonstrate compliance and were issued findings. They received general technical assistance and the one remaining noncompliant program will be assisted with developing an improvement plan.
7 - 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.
7 - 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 finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 was 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 # |
TOTAL INITIAL IFSP (Oct. 2022) |
EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES/COVID |
TIMELY IFSP (WITH FEC/COVID) |
PERCENT ON TIME |
| 1-Rockford |
57 |
2 |
56 |
98.25% |
| 2- Waukegan*** |
85 |
0 |
85 |
100.00% |
| 3-Freeport |
29 |
1 |
29 |
100.00% |
| 4- Geneva*** |
89 |
3 |
89 |
100.00% |
| 5- Lisle*** |
98 |
0 |
98 |
100.00% |
| 6- Arlington Hts.** |
170 |
1 |
170 |
100.00% |
| 7- Westchester** |
94 |
5 |
94 |
100.00% |
| 8- Chicago SW* |
60 |
13 |
60 |
100.00% |
| 9- Chicago Central* |
80 |
11 |
75 |
93.75% |
| 10- Chicago SE* |
49 |
7 |
49 |
100.00% |
| 11- Chicago North* |
151 |
5 |
151 |
100.00% |
| 12- Tinley Park** |
150 |
18 |
150 |
100.00% |
| 13- Macomb |
29 |
5 |
29 |
100.00% |
| 14- Peoria |
96 |
1 |
95 |
98.96% |
| 15- Joliet*** |
145 |
3 |
145 |
100.00% |
| 16- Champaign |
66 |
30 |
66 |
100.00% |
| 17- Quincy |
20 |
0 |
20 |
100.00% |
| 18- Springfield |
33 |
0 |
33 |
100.00% |
| 19- Decatur |
52 |
3 |
52 |
100.00% |
| 20- Effingham |
31 |
0 |
31 |
100.00% |
| 21- O'Fallon |
90 |
1 |
90 |
100.00% |
| 22- Centralia |
38 |
0 |
38 |
100.00% |
| 23- Norris City |
6 |
0 |
4 |
66.67% |
| 24- Carbondale |
17 |
8 |
15 |
88.24% |
| 25- Crystal Lake*** |
49 |
1 |
49 |
100.00% |
| Statewide |
1,784 |
118 |
1,773 |
99.38% |
| Chicago* |
340 |
36 |
335 |
98.53% |
| Suburban Cook County** |
414 |
24 |
414 |
100.00% |
| Collar Counties*** |
466 |
7 |
466 |
100.00% |
| Downstate |
564 |
51 |
558 |
98.94% |
