**2015 Part C SPP/A PR** 

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 A nnual Performance Report (**  **APR) Part C Indicator Measurement Table**  **1**
**Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement**  **Instructions for Indicators/Measurement Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention S**  **ervices 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. **Me asurement:**  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 fo r 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 mo nitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Include the timely initiation of new early intervention services from both initial IFSPs and subsequent I FSPs. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation. The State’s timeliness measure for this indicator mu st 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 T eam , 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 fa mi ly 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 u sed 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/44 6/?3#category3**2015 Part C SPP/A PR** 

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 tim ely 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 (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (e.g., review of policies and procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.), and any enforceme nt 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 **Me asure**  **ment:** Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the hom e or community

- based settings) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100. For this indicator, report 618 data th at were collected on a date between October 1 and December 1, 20 1 3 and due on February 1, 20 1 4 . 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 indica tor 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

- em otional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ **Data Source:** State selected data source. **Me asurement:**  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/A PR** 

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

- em otional 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 d id not im prove 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 im proved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to sam e - 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 sam e - aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level com parable to same

- aged peers) divid ed 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. Re port 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

“ com parable to same

- aged peers.” If a State is using the E arly Childhood Outcomes Center (E CO ) 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 sub stantial developmental delays (or “at

- risk infants and toddlers”) under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i), the State mu st 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 thos e 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”). S econd, 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 w ith**2015 Part C SPP/A PR** 

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 ma intained functioning at a level comparable to same

- aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level com parable 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 eac h Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program. **Me asurement for Summary Statement 1:**  Percent = # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infan ts 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. **Me asurement**  **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/A PR** 

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. **Me asurement:**  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 earl y 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 ea rly 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 descrip tion 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 a nd 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 **Me asurement:**  Percent=[(# of infants and toddler birth to 1 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infa nts 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, 20 1 3 and due on February 1 , 20 1 4 . Sampling from State’ s 618 data is not allowed. Describ e 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/A PR** 

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 **Me asurement:**  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, 20 1 3 and due on February 1, 20 1 4 . 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 me eting 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 m ust address the timeline from point of referral to initial IFSP meeting based on actual, not an average, number of days. **Me asurement:**  Percent = [(# of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an ini tial 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, assess me nts, 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 colle cted (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 mo nitoring, 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 fa mi ly circumstances , as defined in 34 CFR §303.310(b), documented in the child’s record. If a State chooses to re port 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/A PR** 

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 (m ore than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement activities com pleted (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 mo re 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. **Me asurement:**  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 mo nths, prior to their third birthday) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities ex iting Part C)] tim es 100. B. 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 potent ially 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 mo nitoring, describe the procedures, and provide a copy of any checklists, questions or criteria used t o 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/A PR** 

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 oc curred 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 eligi ble 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 except ional family circumstances documented in the child’s record, the num bers of these children are to be included in the num erator 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 ma y adopt a written policy that requires the lead agenc y to provide notice to the parent of an e ligible 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 pare nts who opted out. In addition, any written opt

- out polic y m ust 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 ca lculation, 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 iden tified 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/A PR** 

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 doc um ented in the child’s record, the num bers of these children are to be included in the num erator 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 num ber 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 n ot ensure tim ely 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 continuin g 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 hearin g 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 **Me asurement:**  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 session s is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of resolution sessions reaches ten or greater, the State mu st develop baseline, targets and improvement activities, and report them in the corresponding APR. States may

express their targets in a ra nge, e.g., 75

- 85%. If the data reported in this indicator are not the same**2015 Part C SPP/A PR** 

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 me diation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442) **Data Source:** Data collected under IDEA section 618 **Me asurement:**  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 repo rt 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 me diation success rate data. States may express their targets in a ra nge, 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/A PR** 

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table

– Page

- 11 (OMB NO: 1820

- 0578 / Expiration Date:) **INDIC AT**  **OR 11**

**– ST** **AT E SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PL**  **AN**
MONITORING PRIORITY

– GENERA L SUPERVISION
**INDIC AT**  **OR** : The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
**MEA SUREMENT**  : The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi

- ye ar 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 201 7 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.

Th e State’s SPP must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, am bitious 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 (EI S) 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 im plem ent, 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

- re ported 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.W EBLINK

. 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 mu st 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/A PR** 

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 tim elines 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 disabil ities.
b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement: A description of im provement 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 ide ntification 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 wit h disabilities and their families, and the results of this analysis. State system com ponents include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability. The description must include the stren gths of the system, how components of the system are coordinated, and areas for improvement within and across com ponents of the system. The description must also include an analysis of initiatives in the State, including early childhood initiatives within the State’s lead agenc y 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 im provement 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 t he description the changes in the State system, and EIS program and provider practices, that must occur to achieve the State

- identified, me asurable improvement in results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. States should conside r developing a logic model that shows the relationship between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi

- ye ar period.
Phase II: The multi

- ye ar plan submitted by the State in the FFY 2014 SPP/APR, due no later than F ebruary 1, 2016, mu st, 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 im provement 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 subm itted information to improve its accuracy. e. Infrastructure Development: The SSIP must include a plan to implement needed State s ys tem im provements to enable the State to build the capacity of EIS programs and providers to implement and scale

- up evide nce - 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 initiative s within the State’s lead agenc y 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 mu st 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/A PR** 

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 imp lem ented 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 S SIP. 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 rev isions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its evaluation.



### PAPERWORK BURDEN STA**TEMENT** 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, 1 0 0 hours completing the APR. These estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching any existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data nee ded, and com pleting 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 est im ate 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, Wa shington, 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.