Illinois State Systemic Improvement Plan Response

STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN Illinois Response to Results Driven Accountability

VISION FOR RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY Previous vision: All states and local programs will be in 100% compliance Current vision: To create a balance between the focus on improved results and functional outcomes for young children with disabilities while considering compliance as it relates to those results and outcomes. The SPP/APR will be a critical tool for this process.

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Results Driven Accountability The Process/Tool State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), multi-year plan focused on improving results for infants & toddlers with disabilities and their families

RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY (RDA)

SSIP THREE PHASES: PHASE 1 Phase 1 Analysis (submitted April. 1, 2015) Data analysis to determine measurable result & root cause Infrastructure analysis to support improvement and build capacity Identification of a measurable result area (must be child focused) Development of coherent improvement strategies Creation of a theory of action

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 pilot areas by 0.9% by 2018.

ILLINOIS THEORY OF ACTION FOR PART C EARLY INTERVENTION (EI) IF THEN THEN THEN Focused and consistent policies, procedures, manuals and forms CFCs and providers will have materials to support the practices they learned through training and TA and will use available data to guide decision-making when engaging families in EI processes The Lead Agency ensures policies, procedures, manuals and forms reflect family centered practices and desired practices for data collection and use CFCs & providers will be more responsive to the child and family s evolving strengths and needs Infants and toddlers will demonstrate a greater acquisition and use of knowledge and skills Providers will use EBPs to support families in promoting the development of I/Ts receiving EI services Providers will increase their knowledge about best practices in early intervention to increase I/T acquisition of skills and to support families in day to day activities that enhance child skills Providers receive training on EBPs (family capacity building & engagement), Child Outcome process and Infant/Toddler (I/T) Development Provider Training & Technical Assistance (TA) Families will increase their use of daily activities to support their I/Ts development Families will increase their ability to make informed decisions related to their children and increase their capacity to support their children s development External and Internal Knowledge of Family- Centered Practices Referral sources and EI stakeholders understand the role of families in early intervention processes

SSIP THREE PHASES: PHASE 2 Phase 2 - Plan (submitted April 1, 2016) Infrastructure Development Support for local implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) Evaluation

THE GOAL OF LEADERSHIP TEAMS Fidelity of implementation of EBPs that leads to positive outcomes for children, families, providers, and programs

WHY AN IMPLEMENTATION TEAM? No Implementation Team Implementation Team To Making it Happen From Letting it Happen 14% 17 Years 80% 3 Years Improvement in Outcomes Sources: Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2001 Balas & Boren, 2000 Green & Seifert, 2005 Saldana & Chamberlain, 2012

ACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

SSIP PLANNING GROUP Ali Cummins Renee Tetrick Gary Reed Alonda Lockhart Rob Derry Jennifer Grissom Ann Freiburg Rosie Perez Jessica Coonrod Caryn Trip Sandi Hix Julie Vineyard Chelsea Guillen Sarah Isaacs Karrie Potter Christy Morrison Sarah Thompson Kristen Lobsinger Colleen Cunningham Sharon Spinks Kristen Schraml Crystal Grimes Shauna Ruzich Leslie Golde Debbie Einhorn Susan Connor Maria Kastanis Dee Pratcher Susan Fowler Mary Cooney Donna Cech Tammy Robinson Mary Marovich Donna Emmons Terri Kampwerth Mary Spriggs-Ploessl Ellana Mavromatis Theresa Atchley Nicole VanHise

SSIP THREE PHASES: PHASE 3 Phase 3 - Implementation and Evaluation (submitted April 1, 2017) Implementation of evidence-based practices Ongoing evaluation of activities & data-informed revisions

Theory of Change

EARLY INTERVENTION RESULTS/ OUTCOMES We have two primary ways of assessing the results realized from participating in the Early Intervention system: Child Outcomes Family Outcomes

CHILD OUTCOMES PROCESS Child outcomes provide information about a child s progress from system entry to exit (the result of participating in the system). Child outcomes ratings are completed at initial, annual, and exit IFSP meetings. Service coordinators guide the discussion, seeking a rating consensus by the multidisciplinary team. The IFSP team compares each child s functioning to same-age peers on the following three outcomes: positive social-emotional skills, including social relationships; acquisition and use of knowledge and skills; and use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs.

CHILD OUTCOMES PROCESS Children s performance is assigned a rating at entry and exit Comparison of performance from entry to exit (matched pair) is put into a category that describes the child s progress Categories range from did not improve functioning to maintained functioning comparable to same-aged peers Progress categories are collapsed into two summary statements: SS1- Children who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they exited the program SS2- Children who exited program functioning within age expectations