Activities that support each of the three improvement strategies will include: 1. Comprehensive supports for youth and families (Equitable access to supports and resources for transition-age youth and their families -the 'who') a. Professional learning for educators b. Education and opportunities for youth and families (sharing information and improving skills) c. Improved access to supports and services for underserved populations 2. Smooth flow of services for transition-age youth (Describe the ideal transition experience - including K - 12 education, critical or core services, early onset of services, professional learning, data sharing to support students across services -the 'what') a. Improve our data match across agencies from 80% to 100% b. Describe (create a profile of) the ideal transition experience(s) based on students in our sample who are engaged in the community after school (Indicator 14C) c. Tracking services and engagement over time by student (CTE pathways, course of study, time in general education, age of referral to transition services, critical transition services such as pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) or Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services, or work-based learning experiences, etc.) 3. Coordination of services for transition-age youth in Utah (Systemic intentional coordination, streamlined referral processes, active collaboration, educating youth and families -the 'how') a. Continue and scale up the work of the STC b. Create a systematic referral process to use for referrals across agencies c. Improve data sharing system to improve communication and coordination in co-serving youth across agencies d. Create a common language to communicate with families about transition without jargon specific to different agencies The STC is developing a Logic Model to guide the implementation of the new SSIP Theory of Action.

########## 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 Year	Baseline Data
2018	9.99%

########## Targets

FFY	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025
Target> =	10.13%	10.40%	10.68%	10.95%	11.22%	11.50%

########## FFY 2020 SPP/APR Data

Number of students with disabilities (SWD) with Speech Language Impairment (SLI) or Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in grades 6 - 8 who are proficient on the Readiness Improvement Success Empowerment (RISE) statewide end-of-level mathematics assessment	Number of students with disabilities (SWD) with Speech Language Impairment (SLI) or Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in grades 6 - 8	FFY 2019 Data	FFY 2020 Target	FFY 2020 Data	Status	Slippage
1,065	11,985	10.13%	8.89%	Did not meet target	N/A

########## Provide the data source for the FFY 2020 data.

Readiness Improvement Success Empowerment (RISE) statewide end-of-level mathematics assessment

########## Please describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR .

Data are collected through the statewide RISE statewide end-of-level mathematics assessment then disaggregated by disability category and grade. The data are analyzed collaboratively by the USBE Special Education and Data and Statistics teams by comparing current year data to previous trend data, as well as the data for this SiMR target population to all students with disabilities and all students with disabilities to all students without disabilities in the state.

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

NO