Indicator 8A: Early Childhood Transition
Instructions and Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition
Compliance indicator: The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has:
- Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler's third birthday;
- Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the State educational agency (SEA) and the local educational agency (LEA) where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler's third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and
- Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler's third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system.
Measurement
- Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties not more than nine months, prior to their third birthday) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C)] times 100.
- Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prior to their third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.
- Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties not more than nine months, prior to the toddler's third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.
Account for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions
Indicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: 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. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Indicators 8A and 8C: If data are from the State's monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. If data are from State monitoring, also 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.
Indicators 8A and 8C: 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.
Indicator 8B: Under 34 CFR §303.401(e), the State may adopt a written policy that requires the lead agency to provide notice to the parent of an eligible child with an IFSP of the impending notification to the SEA and LEA under IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and 34 CFR §303.209(b)(1) and (2) and permits the parent within a specified time period to "opt-out" of the referral. Under the State's opt-out policy, the State is not required to include in the calculation under 8B (in either the numerator or denominator) the number of children for whom the parents have opted out. However, the State must include in the discussion of data, the number of parents who opted out. In addition, any written opt-out policy must be on file with the Department of Education as part of the State's Part C application under IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and 34 CFR §§303.209(b) and 303.401(d).
Indicator 8C: The measurement is intended to capture those children for whom a transition conference must be held within the required timeline and, as such, only children between 2 years 3 months and age 3 should be included in the denominator.
Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent did not provide approval for the transition conference.
Indicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: 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.
8A - Indicator Data
Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
71.80% |
| FFY |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
94.54% |
96.01% |
96.01% |
87.88% |
98.65% |
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
Data include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler's third birthday. (yes/no)
YES
| Number of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services |
Number of toddlers
with disabilities
exiting Part C |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 351 |
362 |
98.65% |
100% |
96.96% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Slippage is due to our personnel shortages. CFCs were having difficulty hiring service coordinators which lead to increases in caseloads for existing coordinators. When this happened, it became very challenging for all required activities to be completed. In some instances, it was the updating/development of transition steps and services that was impacted.
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services" field to calculate the numerator for this indicator.
0
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Reasons for delay were all CFC-related delays due to personnel shortages and large caseloads for remaining service coordinators.
What is the source of the data provided for this indicator?
State monitoring
Describe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring.
Illinois EI Monitoring monitors all 25 CFC offices for this Indicator. The sample of files pulled is based on the number of children exiting within October who are determined potentially eligible for Part B.
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 |
| 3 |
2 |
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.
The subsequent data collected during the FFY22 monitoring visit verified that two of the three programs that were issued findings last year are now demonstrating 100% compliance and correctly implementing the regulatory requirements for timely transition steps and services.
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
The state was able to verify that the two individual cases of noncompliance were resolved as both of the children who had missing transition steps and services were no longer under the jurisdiction of the program.
FFY 2021 Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
All programs received general technical assistance on transition requirements. We will now use the newly piloted process with the single program that is out of compliance to develop an improvement plan. 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 8A (transition steps and services). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with this program to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely development of transition steps and services. The program will continue to examine their data to determine causes of noncompliance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by high service coordinator caseloads, the Bureau is working to address this issue systemically as well. Some initial changes to CFC funding have been made, and additional options are being explored to improve the recruitment and retention of CFC 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 |
| - |
- |
- |
- |
8A - 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.
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.
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.
Response to actions required in FFY 2021 SPP/APR
The state reported on the findings of noncompliance identified in FFY2021 and subsequent correction and remaining noncompliance. The state also provided the reasons for delay in its FFY2022 narrative for this indicator.
8A - OSEP Response
None
8A - 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.
IFSP WITH TIMELY TRANSITION STEPS/SERVICES
| CFC# |
Sampled Toddlers Exited in October 2022 |
Files with Transition Steps and Services |
Percent with Transition Steps and Services |
| 1- Rockford |
11 |
11 |
100.00% |
| 2- Waukegan*** |
18 |
16 |
88.89% |
| 3- Freeport |
7 |
7 |
100.00% |
| 4- Geneva*** |
18 |
18 |
100.00% |
| 5- Lisle*** |
23 |
23 |
100.00% |
| 6- Arlington Hts.** |
40 |
40 |
100.00% |
| 7- Westchester** |
20 |
20 |
100.00% |
| 8-Chicago SW* |
15 |
15 |
100.00% |
| 9- Chicago Central* |
17 |
13 |
76.47% |
| 10- Chicago SE* |
14 |
14 |
100.00% |
| 11- Chicago North* |
23 |
20 |
86.96% |
| 12- Tinley Park** |
28 |
28 |
100.00% |
| 13- Macomb |
4 |
4 |
100.00% |
| 14- Peoria |
8 |
8 |
100.00% |
| 15- Joliet*** |
35 |
33 |
94.29% |
| 16- Champaign |
10 |
10 |
100.00% |
| 17- Quincy |
5 |
5 |
100.00% |
| 18- Springfield |
9 |
9 |
100.00% |
| 19- Decatur |
10 |
10 |
100.00% |
| 20- Effingham |
7 |
7 |
100.00% |
| 21- O'Fallon |
16 |
16 |
100.00% |
| 22- Centralia |
7 |
7 |
100.00% |
| 23- Norris City |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
| 24- Carbondale |
3 |
3 |
100.00% |
| 25- Crystal Lake*** |
11 |
11 |
100.00% |
| Statewide |
362 |
351 |
96.96% |
| Chicago* |
69 |
62 |
89.86% |
| Suburban Cook County** |
88 |
88 |
100.00% |
| Collar Counties*** |
105 |
101 |
96.19% |
| Downstate |
100 |
100 |
100.00% |
