2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 1

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)

Part C Indicator Measurement Table1

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

1. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

who receive the early intervention services 

on their IFSPs in a timely manner.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data to be taken from monitoring or State data 

system and must be based on actual, not an 

average, number of days. Include the State’s criteria 

for “timely” receipt of early intervention services, i.e., 

the time period from parent consent to when IFSP 

services are actually initiated.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who 

receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs 

in a timely manner) divided by the (total # of infants 

and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.

Account for untimely receipt of services, including the 

reasons for delays.

If data are from State monitoring, 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.

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 and if data are from the State’s 

monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect 

these data. Include the timely initiation of new early 

intervention services from both initial IFSPs and 

subsequent IFSPs. Provide actual numbers used in 

the calculation.

The State’s timeliness measure for this indicator 

must be either: (1) a time period that runs from when 

the parent consents to IFSP services; or (2) the IFSP 

initiation date (established by the IFSP Team, 

including the parent). 

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 documented in the child’s 

record. If a State chooses to report in its calculation 

children for whom the State has identified the cause 

 

1 Monitoring Priorities, indicators, and measurements included on the Part C Indicator Measurement Table are to be used to populate designated sections of the SPP and APR Templates. 

Populated templates can be found at http://spp-apr-calendar.rrfcnetwork.org/explorer/view/id/446/?3#category3
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 2

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

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. 

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous 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, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.), and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

2. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

who primarily receive early intervention 

services in the home or community-based 

settings.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who 

primarily receive early intervention services in the 

home or community-based settings) divided by the 

(total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.

For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected 

on a date between October 1 and December 1, 2013

and due on February 1, 2014. Sampling from State’s 

618 data is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target.

The data reported in this indicator should be 

consistent with the State’s reported 618 data

reported in Table 2. If not, explain.

3. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

who demonstrate improved:

A. Positive social-emotional skills 

(including social relationships); 

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and 

skills (including early language/ 

Data Source:

State selected data source.

Measurement:

Outcomes:

Sampling of infants and toddlers with IFSPs is 

allowed. When sampling is used, submit a 

description of the sampling methodology outlining 

how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. 

(See General Instructions page 2 for additional 

instructions on sampling.)
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 3

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

communication); and 

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet 

their needs.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 

relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 

(including early language/communication); and 

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their 

needs.

Progress categories for A, B and C:

a. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not 

improve functioning = [(# of infants and 

toddlers who did not improve functioning) 

divided by (# of infants and toddlers with 

IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

b. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved 

functioning but not sufficient to move nearer 

to functioning comparable to same-aged 

peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who 

improved functioning but not sufficient to 

move nearer to functioning comparable to 

same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants 

and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 

100.

c. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved 

functioning to a level nearer to same-aged 

peers but did not reach it = [(# of infants and 

toddlers who improved functioning to a level 

nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach 

it) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with 

IFSPs assessed)] times 100.

d. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved 

functioning to reach a level comparable to 

same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers 

who improved functioning to reach a level 

comparable to same-aged peers) divided by

(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

assessed)] times 100.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the targets. States will use the 

progress categories for each of the three Outcomes 

to calculate and report the two Summary

Statements. 

Report progress data and calculate Summary

Statements to compare against the six targets. 

Provide the actual numbers and percentages for the 

five reporting categories for each of the three 

outcomes.

In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining 

“comparable to same-aged peers.” If a State is using 

the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child 

Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), then the criteria 

for defining “comparable to same-aged peers” has 

been defined as a child who has been assigned a 

scored of 6 or 7 on the COSF.

In addition, list the instruments and procedures used 

to gather data for this indicator, including if the State 

is using the ECO COSF.

If the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants 

and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial 

developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and 

toddlers”) under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i), the State 

must report data in two ways. First, it must report on 

all eligible children but exclude its at-risk infants and 

toddlers (i.e., include just those infants and toddlers 

experiencing developmental delay (or 

“developmentally delayed children”) or having a 

diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a 

high probability of resulting in developmental delay 

(or “children with diagnosed conditions”). Second, 

the State must separately report outcome data on 

either: (1) just its at-risk infants and toddlers; or (2) 

aggregated performance data on all of the infants 

and toddlers it serves under Part C (including 

developmentally delayed children, children with 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 4

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

e. Percent of infants and toddlers who 

maintained functioning at a level comparable 

to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and 

toddlers who maintained functioning at a level 

comparable to same-aged peers) divided by 

(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

assessed)] times 100.

Summary Statements for Each of the Three 

Outcomes:

Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and 

toddlers who entered or exited early intervention 

below age expectations in each Outcome, the 

percent who substantially increased their rate of 

growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or 

exited the program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 1:

Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in 

progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers 

reported in category (d) divided by [# of infants and 

toddlers reported in progress category (a) plus # of 

infants and toddlers reported in progress category (b) 

plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress 

category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in 

progress category (d)] times 100.

Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and 

toddlers who were functioning within age 

expectations in each Outcome by the time they 

turned 3 years of age or exited the program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 2: 

Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in 

progress category (d) plus [# of infants and toddlers 

reported in progress category (e) divided by the total 

# of infants and toddlers reported in progress 

categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.

diagnosed conditions, and at-risk infants and 

toddlers).

4. Percent of families participating in Part C Data Source: Sampling of families participating in Part C is 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 5

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

who report that early intervention services 

have helped the family:

A. Know their rights;

B. Effectively communicate their 

children's needs; and

C. Help their children develop and learn.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

State selected data source. State must clarify the 

data source in the State Performance Plan. 

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating 

in Part C who report that early intervention 

services have helped the family know their rights) 

divided by the (# of respondent families 

participating in Part C)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating 

in Part C who report that early intervention 

services have helped the family effectively 

communicate their children's needs) divided by 

the (# of respondent families participating in Part 

C)] times 100.

C. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating 

in Part C who report that early intervention 

services have helped the family help their children 

develop and learn) divided by the (# of 

respondent families participating in Part C)] times 

100.

allowed. When sampling is used, a description of the 

sampling methodology outlining how the design will 

yield valid and reliable estimates must be submitted 

to OSEP. (See General Instructions page 2 for 

additional instruction on sampling.)

States should describe the results of the calculations 

and compare the results to the target. Include a 

description of how the State has ensured that any 

response data are valid and reliable, including how 

the data represent the demographics of the State. 

Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.

If States are using a survey and the survey is revised 

or a new survey is adopted, States must submit a 

copy with the APR.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C 

Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find

5. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 

with IFSPs compared to national data. 

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618

Measurement:

Percent=[(# of infants and toddler birth to 1 with 

IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and 

toddlers birth to 1)] times 100 compared to national 

data.

For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected 

on a date between October 1 and December 1, 2013

and due on February 1, 2014. Sampling from State’s 

618 data is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target and to national data. The 

data reported in this indicator should be consistent 

with the State’s reported 618 data reported in Table 

1. If not, explain. 

6. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 Data Source: For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 6

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

with IFSPs compared to national data. 

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Data collected under IDEA section 618

Measurement:

Percent=[(# of infants and toddler birth to 3 with 

IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and

toddlers birth to 3)] times 100 compared to national 

data.

on a date between October 1 and December 1, 2013

and due on February 1, 2014. Sampling from State’s 

618 data is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target and to national data. The 

data reported in this indicator should be consistent 

with the State’s reported 618 data reported in Table 

1. If not, explain.

7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers 

with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation 

and initial assessment and an initial IFSP 

meeting were conducted within Part C’s 

45-day timeline.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data to be taken from monitoring or State data 

system and must address the timeline from point of 

referral to initial IFSP meeting based on actual, not 

an average, number of days.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of eligible infants and toddlers with 

IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial 

assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was 

conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline) divided by 

the (# of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and 

assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was 

required to be conducted)] times 100. 

Account for untimely evaluations, assessments, and 

initial IFSP meetings, including the reasons for 

delays.

If data are from State monitoring, 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.

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 and if data are from the State’s 

monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect 

these data. Provide actual numbers used in the 

calculation.

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 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 7

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

documented delays attributable to exceptional family 

circumstances. 

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous 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, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

8. The percentage of toddlers with disabilities 

exiting Part C with timely transition 

planning for whom the Lead Agency has:

A. 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;

B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out 

policy adopted by the State) the SEA 

and the 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

C. 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 

Data Source:

Data to be taken from monitoring or State data 

system.

Measurement:

A. 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.

B. Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting 

Part C where notification (consistent with any optout 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.

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, and provide a 

copy of any checklists, questions or criteria 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.

Indicator 8A: 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 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 8

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

toddlers potentially eligible for Part B 

preschool services.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

C. Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting 

Part C where the transition conference occurred 

at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all 

parties at least 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.

exceptional family circumstances 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 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: 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.

Indicator 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 documented in the 

child’s record. If a State chooses to report in its 

calculation children for whom the State has identified 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 9

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

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.

Indicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed 

information about the timely correction of 

noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table 

for the previous 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, improvement activities completed 

(e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical 

assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement 

actions that were taken.

Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision

9. Percent of hearing requests that went to 

resolution sessions that were resolved 

through resolution session settlement 

agreements (applicable if Part B due 

process procedures are adopted).

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618

Measurement:

Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.

Sampling is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target.

States are not required to establish baseline or 

targets if the number of resolution sessions is less 

than 10. In a reporting period when the number of 

resolution sessions reaches ten or greater, the State 

must develop baseline, targets and improvement 

activities, and report them in the corresponding APR.

States may express their targets in a range, e.g., 75-

85%.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 10

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

as the State’s 618 data, explain.

States are not required to report data at the EIS 

program level.

10. Percent of mediations held that resulted in 

mediation agreements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618

Measurement:

Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 

100.

Sampling is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target.

States are not required to establish baseline or 

targets if the number of mediations is less than 10. 

In a reporting period when the number of mediations 

reaches ten or greater, the State must develop 

baseline, targets and improvement activities, and 

report them in the corresponding APR.

The consensus among mediation practitioners is that 

75-85% is a reasonable rate of mediations that result 

in agreements and is consistent with national 

mediation success rate data. States may express 

their targets in a range, e.g., 75-85%.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 

as the State’s 618 data, explain.

States are not required to report data at the EIS 

program level.
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 11

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

INDICATOR 11 – STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MONITORING PRIORITY – GENERAL SUPERVISION 

INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the 

requirements set forth for this indicator. 

MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement 

Plan, focused on improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, that includes 

the following components, as further defined below:

Phase I (which the State must include with its 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013):

a. Data Analysis; 

b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement;

c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity; and

d. Theory of Action;

Phase II (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content outlined above, the State must include with its 2016 

submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014):

e. Infrastructure Development; 

f. Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and

g. Evaluation Plan.

Phase III (which, in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content outlined above, the State must include with 

its 2017 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2015, its 2018 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2016, its 

2019 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2017, and its 2020 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2018):

h. Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP. 

The State’s SPP must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, 

ambitious yet achievable plan for improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The SSIP must 

be a multi-year plan that the State develops in the two phases described below. The basis for this plan is a 

detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the 

State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in early intervention service (EIS) programs and 

providers. In order to improve results, States must assess the capacity of their current infrastructure systems 

and their ability to enhance this infrastructure to increase the capacity of EIS programs and providers to 

implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices that will result in improved outcomes for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data 

sources, including SPP/APR indicators and 618 State-reported data, to identify systemic approaches that will 

lead to improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families across key measures: 

early childhood outcomes and family involvement. 

Phase I must focus on: 1) the collection and analysis of data and other information, and 2) the identification 

of evidence-based practices. Phase II is an implementation plan to: 1) enhance and/or build the State’s 

infrastructure, and 2) support the implementation of evidence-based practices to improve results for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families. 

For a suggested format and the evaluation criteria see www.WEBLINK.

Phase I:

The SSIP submitted by States in the FFY 2013 SPP/APR, due February 2, 2015, must include detailed 

descriptions of these four key areas:

a. Data Analysis: A description of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from 

SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement. The description must include 

information about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvement. In 

addition, the description must include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 12

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

will address this, as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to 

inform areas for improvement. As part of its data analysis, the State should determine if there are 

any compliance issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for students with 

disabilities. 

b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement: A description of improvement strategies on which the 

State will focus that will lead to a measurable child-based result. The State must include in the 

description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus. 

The State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build the 

capacity of EIS programs and providers and supports to improve the identified result for infants and 

toddlers and their families with disabilities. (For example, the State might be working to improve the 

validity and representativeness of their data on early childhood outcomes and family involvement.) 

c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity: A description of how the State analyzed 

the capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in EIS programs and 

providers to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for infants 

and toddlers with disabilities and their families, and the results of this analysis. State system 

components include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, 

technical assistance, and accountability. The description must include the strengths of the system, 

how components of the system are coordinated, and areas for improvement within and across 

components of the system. The description must also include an analysis of initiatives in the State, 

including early childhood initiatives within the State’s lead agency for Part C and other early 

childhood initiatives, which can have an impact on infants and toddlers and their families with 

disabilities. The State must include in the description how decisions are made within the State 

system and the representatives (e.g., agencies, positions, individuals) that must be involved in 

planning for systematic improvements in the State system.

d. Theory of Action: Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe 

the general improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need 

to be met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for infants and toddlers 

and their families with disabilities. The State must include in the description the changes in the State 

system, and EIS program and provider practices, that must occur to achieve the State-identified, 

measurable improvement in results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. States 

should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the 

outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period. 

Phase II:

The multi-year plan submitted by the State in the FFY 2014 SPP/APR, due no later than February 1, 2016, 

must, in addition to the content described above for Phase I, include the steps needed to implement the 

SSIP, including identification of the improvement strategies, mechanisms and resources for implementing the 

improvement activities, and the timelines for beginning and completing the improvement strategies. Finally, 

ongoing formative evaluation must be addressed so the plan can be adjusted as necessary. In addition to 

submitting the items below, the State may also amend previously submitted information to improve its 

accuracy.

e. Infrastructure Development: The SSIP must include a plan to implement needed State system 

improvements to enable the State to build the capacity of EIS programs and providers to implement 

and scale-up evidence-based practices to advance the State-identified, measurable improvement in 

results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The plan must include how the 

State will align its improvement work with other early childhood initiatives within the State’s lead 

agency for Part C and initiatives that are implemented by agencies other than the lead agency, which 

can have an impact on infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, and leverage 

resources from these initiatives. The plan must also include improvement activities that will be 

taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement them, how 

the expected outcomes of these activities will be measured, and timelines for completing the 

activities. 

f. Support for Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices by EIS programs and providers: The SSIP 

must include a plan to support EIS programs and providers in identifying and implementing the 

evidence-based practices that will result in changes in EIS program and provider practice to improve 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 13

(OMB NO: 1820-0578 / Expiration Date:)

in the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for infants and toddlers. The plan must 

describe how the State will align its support for EIS programs and providers with other initiatives in 

the State, and leverage resources from these initiatives. The plan must also include activities that 

will be taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement 

them, how the expected outcomes of these activities will be measured, and timelines for completing 

the activities. The State must include in the plan how the State will support EIS programs and 

providers in scaling up and sustaining the implementation of the evidence-based practices once they 

have been implemented with fidelity.

g. Evaluation Plan: A description of how the State will evaluate the implementation of its SSIP. The 

plan must include the methods that will be used to collect and analyze data related to specific 

activities and outcomes of the SSIP. The description must also include how the State will use the 

results of the evaluation to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of the plan and the 

progress toward achieving intended outcomes, and make modifications to the SSIP as necessary.

Phase III:

The results of its ongoing evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP, including the extent to which the 

State has implemented them, the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the 

established goals, and any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its evaluation.

PAPERWORK BURDEN STATEMENT

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. It is estimated that each respondent 

will spend approximately 1,100 hours completing the APR. These estimates include time for reviewing 

instructions, searching any existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection required 

to obtain or retain benefits (20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1); 20 U.S.C. 1442; 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)). Send 

comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW,

Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1820-

0578. Note: Please do not return the completed Part C SPP or APR forms to this address.