Indicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan

Instructions and Measurement

Monitoring Priority: General Supervision
The State's SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
Measurement
The State's SPP/APR includes an SSIP that is a comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The SSIP includes each of the components described below.
Instructions
Baseline Data: The State must provide baseline data expressed as a percentage and which is aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families.
Targets: In its FFY 2020 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2022, the State must provide measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the six years from FFY 2020 through FFY 2025. The State's FFY 2025 target must demonstrate improvement over the State's baseline data.
Updated Data: In its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPPs/APRs, due February 2022 through February 2027, the State must provide updated data for that specific FFY (expressed as percentages) and that data must be aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families. In its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPPs/APRs, the State must report on whether it met its target.
Overview of the Three Phases of the SSIP
It is of the utmost importance to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families by improving early intervention services. Stakeholders, including parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities, early intervention service (EIS) programs and providers, the State Interagency Coordinating Council, and others, are critical participants in improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and must be included in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the SSIP and included in establishing the State's targets under Indicator 11. The SSIP should include information about stakeholder involvement in all three phases.
Phase I: Analysis:

Data Analysis;
Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity;
State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families;
Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies; and
Theory of Action.

Phase II: Plan (which is in addition to the Phase I content (including any updates) outlined above:

Infrastructure Development;
Support for EIS Program and/or EIS Provider Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and
Evaluation.

Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation (which is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content (including any updates) outlined above:

Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SSIP

Specific Content of Each Phase of the SSIP
Refer to FFY 2013-2015 Measurement Table for detailed requirements of Phase I and Phase II SSIP submissions.
Phase III should only include information from Phase I or Phase II if changes or revisions are being made by the State and/or if information previously required in Phase I or Phase II was not reported.
Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation
In Phase III, the State must, consistent with its evaluation plan described in Phase II, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. This includes: (A) data and analysis on the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long-term outcomes or objectives for implementation of the SSIP and its progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families (SiMR); (B) the rationale for any revisions that were made, or that the State intends to make, to the SSIP as the result of implementation, analysis, and evaluation; and (C) a description of the meaningful stakeholder engagement. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
A. Data Analysis
As required in the Instructions for the Indicator/Measurement, in its FFYs 2020 through FFY 2025 SPP/APR, the State must report data for that specific FFY (expressed as actual numbers and percentages) that are aligned with the SiMR. The State must report on whether the State met its target. In addition, the State may report on any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that were collected and analyzed that would suggest progress toward the SiMR. States using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model) should describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR if that was not described in Phase I or Phase II of the SSIP.
B. Phase III Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
The State must provide a narrative or graphic representation, (e.g., a logic model) of the principal activities, measures and outcomes that were implemented since the State's last SSIP submission (i.e., February 1, 2023). The evaluation should align with the theory of action described in Phase I and the evaluation plan described in Phase II. The State must describe any changes to the activities, strategies, or timelines described in Phase II and include a rationale or justification for the changes. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
The State must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that were implemented, and the short-term outcomes achieved, including the measures or rationale used by the State and stakeholders to assess and communicate achievement. Relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance) and explain how these strategies support system change and are necessary for: (a) achievement of the SiMR; (b) sustainability of systems improvement efforts; and/or (c) scale-up. The State must describe the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2022 APR, report on anticipated outcomes to be obtained during FFY 2023, i.e., July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024).
The State must summarize the specific evidence-based practices that were implemented and the strategies or activities that supported their selection and ensured their use with fidelity. Describe how the evidence-based practices, and activities or strategies that support their use, are intended to impact the SiMR by changing program/district policies, procedures, and/or practices, teacher/provider practices (e.g., behaviors), parent/caregiver outcomes, and/or child outcomes. Describe any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based practices and inform decision-making for the next year of SSIP implementation.
C. Stakeholder Engagement
The State must describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts and how the State addressed concerns, if any, raised by stakeholders through its engagement activities.
Additional Implementation Activities
The State should identify any activities not already described that it intends to implement in the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2022 APR, report on activities it intends to implement in FFY 2023, i.e., July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024) including a timeline, anticipated data collection and measures, and expected outcomes that are related to the SiMR. The State should describe any newly identified barriers and include steps to address these barriers.

11 - Indicator Data

Section A: Data Analysis
What is the State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR)?
To increase the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities who demonstrate greater than expected progress in the acquisition and use of knowledge and skills in our implementation areas by .11 percentage points (to 67.39%) by FFY2025.

Has the SiMR changed since the last SSIP submission? (yes/no)
NO

Is the State using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model)? (yes/no)
YES

Provide a description of the subset of the population from the indicator.
In the last fiscal year, we added five new sites to our SSIP cohort. This is in addition to the three original sites. The new sites border the original three sites so that we could bring greater consistency to the region, particularly for providers that may serve more than one area.

Is the State's theory of action new or revised since the previous submission? (yes/no)
NO

Please provide a link to the current theory of action. (see Page 2)

Progress toward the SiMR
Please provide the data for the specific FFY listed below (expressed as actual number and percentages).
Select yes if the State uses two targets for measurement. (yes/no)
NO

Historical Data

Baseline Year	Baseline Data
2020	67.28%

Targets

FFY	Current Relationship	2022	2023	2024	2025
Target	Data must be greater than or equal to the target	67.25%	67.27%	67.29%	67.39%

FFY 2022 SPP/APR Data

#of children demonstrating greater than expected growth	#of children exiting not comparable to same aged peers	FFY 2021 Data	FFY 2022 Target	FFY 2022 Data	Status	Slippage
3,182	4,543	67.76%	67.25%	70.04%	Met target	No Slippage

Provide the data source for the FFY 2022 data.
The state continues to use the state's database as the source for FFY2021 data.

Please describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR.
Data for the SiMR are collected through the Child Outcomes Summary Process that utilizes input from all IFSP team members. The data for the ratings is then entered by the child's service coordinator. Data are then pulled for each of the implementation sites and summarized based on progress category. Since Illinois is now implementing their SSIP in eight areas, we use a weighted average to compute the SIMR for the subset of the state where the SSIP is being implemented. The weighted average is computed by multiplying the summary statement value for the area by the total number of matched pairs for the area. Then summing these weighted percentages across the eight areas and dividing the sum by the total number of matched pairs across the eight areas. The formula follows the same pattern as when there were only three sites, e.g. ((SS1_area1* number of matched pairs_area1)+ (SS1_area2* number of matched pairs_area2) + (SS1_area3* number of matched pairs_area3))/( number of matched pairs_area1+ number of matched pairs_area2+ number of matched pairs_area3). To adapt this methodology to the new data entry format required by the APR submission system, this year we computed the numerator by multiplying the total number of matched pairs by the weighted average percent computed using the formula above. We used the total number of matched pairs as the denominator.

Optional: Has the State collected additional data (i.e., benchmark, CQI, survey) that demonstrates progress toward the SiMR? (yes/no)
NO

Did the State identify any general data quality concerns, unrelated to COVID-19, that affected progress toward the SiMR during the reporting period? (yes/no)
NO

Did the State identify any data quality concerns directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic during the reporting period? (yes/no)
NO

Section B: Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
Please provide a link to the State's current evaluation plan.

Is the State's evaluation plan new or revised since the previous submission? (yes/no)
NO

Provide a summary of each infrastructure improvement strategy implemented in the reporting period.
Strategy implemented: The local leadership teams (LTs) are an integral part of our infrastructure change. They allow us to be responsive to local needs and provide local support for improved practices. These teams have been conducting professional development activities, participating in evaluation activities, and planning for future activities in their local area. The work of these teams has been guided by the Benchmarks of Quality and their action plans.

Strategy implemented: Effective training, support, and technical assistance for EI providers. Training focuses on evidence based, family capacity-building practices. Local leadership teams are supported by state personnel. Technical assistance is provided and state policy and guidance documents are created/revised as needed. This results in early intervention teams utilizing practices that encourage the active participation of families in the intervention process by embedding intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines and activities. To support this strategy, LTs offered professional development on the practices and provided focused conversations for ongoing support. In addition, teams have discussed how they will begin using the fidelity tool to assess practice and guide local professional development opportunities.

As mentioned above, we have now created leadership teams in five more Child and Family Connections offices (CFCs). These teams have begun engaging in initial capacity-building activities related to the child outcomes summary process. They have also completed initial Benchmarks of Quality and are developing action plans to support professional development in their local areas.

Describe the short-term or intermediate outcomes achieved for each infrastructure improvement strategy during the reporting period including the measures or rationale used by the State and stakeholders to assess and communicate achievement. Please relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance) and explain how these strategies support system change and are necessary for: (a) achievement of the SiMR; (b) sustainability of systems improvement efforts; and/or (c) scale-up.
The local leadership teams (LTs) are a vital part of our infrastructure change that allow us to be responsive to local needs and provide local support for improved practices which is critical for a high-quality professional development (PD) system. These teams have been conducting professional development activities, participating in evaluation activities, and planning for future activities in their local area. The work of these teams has been guided by the Benchmarks of Quality and all teams have demonstrated significant progress towards achieving the benchmarks necessary for a well-functioning leadership team (100% of items now partially/fully in place). The Benchmarks continue to help the teams develop action plans which guide the activities that will support practice change in their local area. The Benchmarks of Quality support the system framework components of Governance, Accountability and Quality Improvement, and Personnel/Workforce in each local area. Using the Benchmarks to drive activities keeps teams on track for implementing strategies that will help achieve the SiMR, help sustain and further system improvement, and support scale-up. Existing teams have determined that leadership teams provide an integral support for scale up efforts. Our five new sites are supported by the existing leadership teams and have participated in the same capacity-building professional development opportunities that the original three sites received.
Did the State implement any new (newly identified) infrastructure improvement strategies during the reporting period? (yes/no)
YES
Describe each new (newly identified) infrastructure improvement strategy and the short-term or intermediate outcomes achieved.
We expanded implementation to five new CFCs. These sites have begun receiving training, have completed their initial Benchmarks of Quality, and are developing action plans to drive local professional development opportunities.

Given the challenges the initial teams were encountering with determining next steps for family engagement, EITP began searching for aligned curriculum. We have begun engaging with Pyramid model consultants to implement this model in our initial three sites. This will include both training and coaching activities.
Provide a summary of the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.
The original local LTs will continue to receive and provide additional professional development (as needed) on the child outcomes summary process. This will build their capacity as well as the capacity of the teams providing services in their area. Evaluation data from these offerings will continue to be used to plan next steps. It is believed that building the capacity of the leadership team will add an important infrastructure element for those struggling with implementing the process. In addition, stakeholders recommended engaging technical assistance support to review additional pieces of data to ensure that the assumptions we are making about improved COS accuracy are real and not indicative of decreased performance for the children in the pilot sites. We have engaged the DaSy center to look at our data and will be providing an opportunity for all LT members to take the COS Knowledge Check. This will help us feel more confident that those providing support around the COS have the required knowledge to do this effectively.

The five new sites have now created leadership teams that have received professional development and technical assistance so that they are able to support local early intervention teams' use of practices that encourage the active participation of families in the intervention process by embedding intervention strategies into family/caregiver routines and activities.

The original three sites will begin receiving support around Pyramid implementation in their local areas. We anticipate that this will increase the use of our five selected Recommended Practices in these areas.

List the selected evidence-based practices implemented in the reporting period:
We continue to utilize five Division for Early Childhood (DEC) Recommended Practices (RPs). These RPs were identified as critical for family engagement and addressing barriers to desired service provision.
F1. Practitioners build trusting and respectful partnerships with the family through interactions that are sensitive and responsive to cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic diversity.
INS4. Practitioners plan for and provide the level of support, accommodations, and adaptations needed for the child to access, participate, and learn within and across activities and routines.
TC2. Practitioners and families work together as a team to systematically and regularly exchange expertise, knowledge, and information to build team capacity and jointly solve problems, plan, and implement interventions.
INS13. Practitioners use coaching or consultation strategies with primary caregivers or other adults to facilitate positive adult-child interactions and instruction intentionally designed to promote child learning and development.
E1. Practitioners provide services and supports in natural and inclusive environments during daily routines and activities to promote the child's access to and participation in learning experiences.

Provide a summary of each evidence-based practice.
The first practice (F1) focuses on how practitioners interact with families and establish trusting, respectful partnerships. The second practice (INS4) focuses on the role of practitioners in helping families plan for and provide the support and adaptations the child needs in order to participate and learn across activities and routines. The third practice (TC2) focuses on the importance of practitioners and families working together to exchange information and expertise so that they build capacity and jointly plan and implement interventions. The fourth practice (INS13) focuses on the use of coaching with caregivers so that they experience positive adult-child interactions that promote child learning and development. The final practice (E1) highlights the importance of providing services within the context of daily routines and activities so that the child has multiple opportunities to engage in learning experiences. All of these practices align nicely with the Pyramid model curriculum and coaching strategies.

Provide a summary of how each evidence-based practices and activities or strategies that support its use, is intended to impact the SiMR by changing program/district policies, procedures, and/or practices, teacher/provider practices (e.g. behaviors), parent/caregiver outcomes, and/or child/outcomes.
These evidence-based practices, when implemented with fidelity, are intended to change provider practice. Taken in combination, these practices support enhanced parent/child interactions in the context of the family's daily routines. We believe that use of these practices will ultimately enhance the caregiver's capacity to support their child's development. This, in turn, will lead to greater parental confidence and competence and more support for the child's ability to acquire and use their knowledge and skills.

Activities related to this strategy included ongoing professional development around the five selected Recommended Practices (addresses short-term outcome: Early intervention providers have acquired the knowledge necessary to implement selected RPs), continued focused conversations to support implementation (addresses intermediate outcome: Leadership teams will utilize reflection and ongoing PD activities to support local Early Intervention teams in implementing RPs), and the development of a practice profile to examine practice implementation (addresses intermediate outcome: Early Intervention teams utilize the selected RPs in their work with families).

Describe the data collected to monitor fidelity of implementation and to assess practice change.
The primary evaluations collected during this part of the implementation phase are related to professional development and attendees' use of the RPs. These evaluations determine whether or not the intended outcomes were achieved by event participants and if there was a change in participants' use of desired practices. Evaluation data continue to show positive changes. This date includes a mix of pre-post data and event surveys. 88.7% of attendees reported gaining additional information or knowledge about the practices. In addition, over 95% of attendees report that the ongoing reflection activities support their competence with the practices. As can be seen by our evaluation plan, we believe that before practitioners can use the practices, they must have knowledge of the practices. While we have not yet collected data on their implementation of the practices, we plan to begin collecting this data over the next year.

Describe any additional data (e.g. progress monitoring) that was collected that supports the decision to continue the ongoing use of each evidence-based practice.
N/A

Provide a summary of the next steps for each evidence-based practices and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next reporting period.
The fidelity tool for the RPs is beginning to be used as a self-assessment in the three initial pilot areas. (The additional five sites are currently focused on the child outcomes process.) The self-assessment will provide additional information about where teams are with their use of the practices and provide next steps for professional development. Teams will be using the Pyramid Benchmarks of Quality as well. This will help teams determine what is needed for successful implementation as well as provide information for LTs to use for action planning. Pyramid implementation is anticipated to provide the supports and information needed to ensure greater use of the selected practices.

Does the State intend to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications? (yes/no)
NO

If no, describe any changes to the activities, strategies or timelines described in the previous submission and include a rationale or justification for the changes.
Modification: Use of Pyramid Model. The three original sites will begin planning for Pyramid implementation in the coming year. We feel that this is needed to provide direction and support for achieving our second coherent improvement strategy which targets family engagement.

Section C: Stakeholder Engagement
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.

Describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts.
In order to optimize stakeholder involvement and engagement, we continue to utilize the expertise of a variety of groups. For example, the SSIP Stakeholder group (consisting of the state interagency coordinating council members, direct service providers, contracted Child & Family Connections [CFCs which are regional entities that serve as points of entry for EI services] staff, parents, professional provider associations, the Part B/619 coordinator, IDHS planning/evaluation members, parent training and information center staff, and contracted EI partners for training, credentialing, monitoring and clearinghouse) provided feedback on the practice profile and receive quarterly updates on progress. The Leadership Team workgroup (consisting of Bureau staff, CFC managers, EI Training staff, EI Monitoring personnel, a parent liaison, and an external professional development/evaluation representative) had regularly scheduled virtual meetings to ensure that LT activities continued and to determine what (if any) system supports were necessary for continued functioning. The Performance Support workgroup (consisting of EI Bureau, Local Leadership Team members, ECTA representative, EI Training, EI Ombudsman, and EI Monitoring) provided input on the items within the practice profile, identified the need for new consents, shared concerns about the time it would take to score the profile and send feedback, and offered suggestions for making the process successful. Local Leadership Teams (consisting of CFC staff, EI Providers, EI Monitoring, EI Training and parents) meet either in person or virtually to continue to provide feedback on practice implementation successes/challenges and ongoing needs related to child outcomes summary support.

Were there any concerns expressed by stakeholders during engagement activities? (yes/no)
NO

Additional Implementation Activities
List any activities not already described that the State intends to implement in the next fiscal year that are related to the SiMR.

Provide a timeline, anticipated data collection and measures, and expected outcomes for these activities that are related to the SiMR.

Describe any newly identified barriers and include steps to address these barriers.

Provide additional information about this indicator (optional).

11 - Prior FFY Required Actions

None

11 - OSEP Response

The State revised its FFY 2025 target for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.

Indicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan