Indicator 8C: 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.
8C - Indicator Data
Historical Data
| Baseline Year |
Baseline Data |
| 2005 |
77.80% |
| FFY |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Data |
82.51% |
82.26% |
88.32% |
82.94% |
84.39% |
Targets
| FFY |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
| Target |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data
Data reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has 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. (yes/no)
YES
| Number 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 |
Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B |
FFY 2021 Data |
FFY 2022 Target |
FFY 2022 Data |
Status |
Slippage |
| 896 |
1,188 |
84.39% |
100% |
82.21% |
Did not meet target |
Slippage |
Provide reasons for slippage, if applicable
This is another indicator that was impacted by personnel shortages. High caseloads and staff turnover meant that some meetings did not occur as intended.
Number of toddlers for whom the parent did not provide approval for the transition conference
This number will be subtracted from the "Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B" field to calculate the denominator for this indicator.
58
Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances
This number will be added to the "Number 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" field to calculate the numerator for this indicator.
33
Provide reasons for delay, if applicable.
Family reasons for delay include, but are not limited to child/family illness, missed/rescheduled appointments by the family, and other scheduling challenges. Program reasons for delay include, but are not limited to personnel shortages, inadequate data for forecasting, and unsuccessful local procedures with school district.
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 month of October does reflect the average number of children potentially eligible who exit the program through the year. Using October's data also aligns the data collection and reporting across all Compliance Indicators.
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
Due to the large number of noncompliant programs, all programs received general technical assistance on transition practices during a CFC Manager meeting. We will use the new process with the two programs that are out of compliance to develop improvement plans. Based on the initial pilot of our new process, these 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 8C (transition planning conference). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with this program to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely transition conferences. These programs will continue to receive data to understand their performance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by high service coordinator caseloads and challenges with extracting needed dates from the data system, the Bureau is working to address these issues more systemically. There have been changes to CFC funding and a new data system is in development.
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 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
| FFY 2018 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
| FFY 2017 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
FFY 2020
Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
All programs received general technical assistance on transition practices during a CFC Manager meeting. We will be working with the two programs that are out of compliance to develop improvement plans. Based on the initial pilot of our new process, these 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 8C (transition planning conference). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with these programs to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely transition conferences. The programs will receive data to understand their performance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by high service coordinator caseloads and challenges with extracting needed dates from the data system, the Bureau is working to address these issues more systemically. There have been changes to CFC funding and a new data system is in development.
FFY 2018
Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
All programs received general technical assistance on transition practices during a CFC Manager meeting. We will use the new process with the two programs that are out of compliance to develop improvement plans. Based on the initial pilot of our new process, these 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 8C (transition planning conference). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with these programs to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely transition conferences. The programs will continue to receive data to understand their performance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by high service coordinator caseloads and challenges with extracting needed dates from the data system, the Bureau is working to address these issues more systemically. There have been changes to CFC funding and a new data system is in development.
FFY 2017
Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected
Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements.
The state reviewed subsequent data comprised of a sample of all children exiting Part C for one month (December 2022) in the state's data system for the programs demonstrating noncompliance. Based on this review, the State was able to verify that one of the programs is now demonstrating full compliance with the regulatory requirements for timely transition conferences. They had timely transition conferences for 100% of the children in the sample.
Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected.
The state also verified that all 22 of the individual cases of noncompliance from FFY17 for this program were resolved as the children are no longer under the jurisdiction of the program.
FFY 2017
Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected
Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected
All programs received general technical assistance on transition practices during a CFC Manager meeting. We will be using the new process with the remaining program from FFY17 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 8C (transition planning conference). Bureau and Training Program staff will work closely with this program to identify additional resources and technical assistance opportunities to support timely transition conferences. The program will continue to receive data to understand their performance and evaluate the effectiveness of selected improvement strategies. Since we know that this indicator has been impacted by high service coordinator caseloads and challenges with extracting needed dates from the data system, the Bureau is working to address these issues more systemically. There have been changes to CFC funding and a new data system is in development.
8C - 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 two (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020, two (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2018, two (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017, one (1) uncorrected finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2015, and three (3) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2012 were 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, FFY 2018, FFY 2017, FFY 2015, and FFY 2012: (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 FFY21, sixteen programs were out of compliance with this Indicator when APR data was reviewed. Of these sixteen, ten still had open findings from prior years (see narratives for FFY20, FFY2018, FFY2017, FFY2015, and FFY2012). Through a subsequent review of a sample of one month's data (December 2021) from the state's database for the remaining six programs, the State was able to verify that four of these programs were now demonstrating full compliance (pre-finding correction) with the regulatory requirements for timely transition conferences. The State was also able to verify that individual instances of noncompliance were resolved for these four programs because five of the children had transition conferences, albeit late, before exiting the program and the other six are no longer under the jurisdiction of the program. Unfortunately, two of the programs were not able to demonstrate correction and were issued findings. This is reflected in the indicator data.
Due to the limited number of rows in the table for uncorrected noncompliance, we are using this narrative box to report on older remaining noncompliance.
FFY 2015
We are pleased to report that the State has been able to verify that the program with the one remaining finding from FFY2015 is now successfully implementing the regulatory requirements for timely transition planning. When the Bureau reviewed the data for the FFY22 APR, this program demonstrated 100% compliance with regulatory requirements with its October 2022 data. The Bureau was also available to verify that individual instances of noncompliance were resolved as all 66 of the children without timely transition conferences in FFY2015 are no longer under the jurisdiction of the program.
FFY 2012
The three remaining findings from 2012 remain uncorrected. The Bureau launched its pilot for our new process to address longstanding noncompliance with one of these programs. Program leadership has been working with the Bureau, EITP, EITAM, and national technical assistance centers' staff to improve understanding of requirements, determine barriers to success, and develop strategies that will address the barriers. The next step for this and the other two programs still demonstrating noncompliance will be to develop an improvement plan to address their noncompliance. Additional data will be reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the strategies, once implemented, and the plan will be updated accordingly.
8C - 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.
8C - 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 (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021, two (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020, two (2) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2018, one (1) uncorrected finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017, and three (3) uncorrected findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2012 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, FFY 2020, FFY 2018. FFY 2017, and FFY 2012: (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.
TIMELY TRANSITION
| CFC # |
Potentially Eligible for Part B (OCT. 2022) |
Family did not provide consent to Transition |
Exceptional Family Circumstances/COVID |
Timely Transition Conferences (conducted at least 90 days before 3rd birthday) |
% of Timely Transition Conference |
| 1-Rockford |
53 |
1 |
1 |
46 |
90.4% |
| 2- Waukegan*** |
49 |
2 |
0 |
35 |
74.5% |
| 3-Freeport |
22 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
100.0% |
| 4- Geneva*** |
64 |
6 |
1 |
57 |
100.0% |
| 5- Lisle*** |
77 |
7 |
2 |
59 |
87.1% |
| 6- Arlington Hts.** |
103 |
2 |
3 |
94 |
96.0% |
| 7- Westchester** |
70 |
5 |
2 |
57 |
90.8% |
| 8- Chicago SW* |
50 |
0 |
2 |
24 |
52.0% |
| 9- Chicago Central* |
39 |
3 |
5 |
18 |
63.9% |
| 10- Chicago SE* |
43 |
1 |
5 |
21 |
61.9% |
| 11- Chicago North* |
98 |
3 |
1 |
50 |
53.7% |
| 12- Tinley Park** |
127 |
14 |
9 |
82 |
80.5% |
| 13- Macomb |
12 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
100.0% |
| 14- Peoria |
54 |
2 |
1 |
41 |
80.8% |
| 15- Joliet*** |
109 |
3 |
0 |
87 |
82.1% |
| 16- Champaign |
34 |
2 |
0 |
27 |
84.4% |
| 17- Quincy |
10 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
88.9% |
| 18- Springfield |
25 |
0 |
0 |
24 |
96.0% |
| 19- Decatur |
28 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
100.0% |
| 20- Effingham |
17 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
100.0% |
| 21- O'Fallon |
43 |
0 |
0 |
43 |
100.0% |
| 22- Centralia |
17 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
100.0% |
| 23- Norris City |
6 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
100.0% |
| 24- Carbondale |
11 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
90.9% |
| 25- Crystal Lake*** |
27 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
96.3% |
| Statewide |
1,188 |
58 |
33 |
904 |
82.9% |
| Chicago* |
230 |
7 |
13 |
113 |
56.5% |
| Suburban Cook County** |
300 |
21 |
14 |
233 |
88.5% |
| Collar Counties*** |
326 |
18 |
4 |
263 |
86.7% |
| Downstate |
332 |
12 |
2 |
295 |
92.8% |
