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. States report in both the numerator and 

denominator under Indicator 1 on the number of 

children for whom the State ensured the timely 

initiation of new services identified on the IFSP. 

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 

 

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

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 

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, methods to ensure 

correction, 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 

Data Source:

State selected data source.

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. 
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

(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.

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

Measurement:

Outcomes:

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 

(See General Instructions page 2 for additional 

instructions on sampling.)

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 
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

(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 

assessed)] times 100.

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 

and toddlers it serves under Part C (including 

developmentally delayed children, children with 

diagnosed conditions, and at-risk infants and 

toddlers).
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

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

4. Percent of families participating in Part C 

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)

Data Source:

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.

Sampling of families participating in Part C is 

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 toddlers birth to 1 with 

IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and 

toddlers birth to 1)] times 100 compared to national 

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 
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

data. 1. If not, explain. 

6. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 

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 toddlers birth to 3 with 

IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and 

toddlers birth to 3)] 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.

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 were

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. 
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

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, methods to ensure 

correction, 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

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 

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 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

all parties, not more than nine months, 

prior to the toddler’s third birthday for 

toddlers potentially eligible for Part B 

preschool services.

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

with disabilities exiting Part C who were 

potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.

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, methods to ensure correction, 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 and targets 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 

as the State’s 618 data, explain.

States are not required to report data at the EIS 
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

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 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 (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. The SSIP includes 

each of the components described below.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INDICATOR/MEASUREMENT –

Baseline Data: In its FFY 2013 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2015, the State must provide FFY 2013 baseline 

data that must be expressed as a percentage and which is aligned with the State-identified Measurable 

Results for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.

Targets: In its FFY 2013 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2015, the State must provide measurable and rigorous 

targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the five years from FFY 2014 through-FFY 2018. The State’s 

FFY 2018 target must demonstrate improvement over the State’s FFY 2013 baseline data.

Updated data: In its FFYs 2014 through FFY 2018 SPPs/APRs, due February 2016 through February 2020, 

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. In its FFYs 

2014 through FFY 2018 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 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 children 

with disabilities and must be included in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the SSIP and

included in establishing the State’s targets under Indicator 17. The SSIP should include information about 

stakeholder involvement in all three phases.

Phase I: Analysis (which the State must include with the February 2, 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for 

FFY 2013):

 Data Analysis; 

 Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity;

 State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities;

 Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies; and

 Theory of Action.

Phase II: Plan (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content (including any updates) outlined above, the State 

must include with the February 1, 2016 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014):

 Infrastructure Development; 

 Support for EIS Program and/or EIS Provider Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; and

 Evaluation.

Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation (which, in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content (including 

any updates) outlined above, the State must include with the February 1, 2017 submission of its SPP/APR 

for FFY 2015, and update in 2018, 2019, and 2020):
2015 Part C SPP/APR

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

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

 Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SSIP. 

SPECIFIC CONTENT OF EACH PHASE OF THE SSIP

Phase I: Analysis

Phase I of the SSIP includes a detailed analysis that will guide the selection of coherent improvement 

strategies to increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in EIS programs and/or EIS providers

to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Phase I must include the following five areas:

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

SPP/APR indicators, 618 data collections, and other available data as applicable, to: (1) select the 

State-identified Measureable Result for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, and (2) identify root 

causes contributing to low performance. The description must include information about how the 

data were disaggregated by multiple variables (e.g., EIS program and/or EIS provider, geographic 

region, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, etc.) As part of its data analysis, the State 

should also consider compliance data and whether those data present potential barriers to 

improvement. In addition, if the State identifies any concerns about the quality of the data, the 

description must include how the State will address these concerns. Finally, if additional data are 

needed, the description should include the methods and timelines to collect and analyze the

additional data.

 Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity: A description of how 

the State analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to support improvement and build 

capacity in EIS programs and/or EIS providers to implement, scale up, and sustain the use of 

evidence-based practices to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. State systems 

that make up its infrastructure include, at a minimum: governance, fiscal, quality standards, 

professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability/monitoring. The description 

must include current strengths of the systems, the extent the systems are coordinated, and areas for 

improvement of functioning within and across the systems. The State must also identify current 

State-level improvement plans and other early learning initiatives, such as Race to the Top-Early 

Learning Challenge and the Home Visiting program and describe the extent that these new initiatives 

are aligned, and how they are, or could be, integrated with, the SSIP. Finally, the State should 

identify representatives (e.g., offices, agencies, positions, individuals, and other stakeholders) that 

were involved in developing Phase I of the SSIP and that will be involved in developing and 

implementing Phase II of the SSIP. 

 State-identified Measureable Result for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities: A statement of the 

result(s) the State intends to achieve through the implementation of the SSIP. The State-identified 

result(s) may, but need not, be an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR indicator. The 

State-identified result(s) must be clearly based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses and 

must be a child-level outcome in contrast to a process outcome. The State may select a single result 

(e.g., increase the rate of growth in infants and toddlers demonstrating positive social-emotional 

skills) or a cluster of related results (e.g., increase the percentage reported under child outcome B 

under Indicator 3 of the SPP/APR (knowledge and skills) and increase the percentage trend reported 

for families under Indicator 4 (helping their child develop and learn)).

 Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies: An explanation of how the improvement strategies 

were selected, and why they are sound, logical and aligned, and will lead to a measurable 

improvement in the State-identified result(s). The improvement strategies should include the 

strategies, identified through the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses, that are needed to improve 

the State infrastructure and to support EIS program and/or EIS provider implementation of evidencebased practices to improve the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The 

State must describe how implementation of the improvement strategies will address identified root 

causes for low performance and ultimately build EIS program and/or EIS provider capacity to 

achieve the State-identified Measureable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.

 Theory of Action: A graphic illustration that shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent 

set of improvement strategies selected will increase the State’s capacity to lead meaningful change 

in EIS programs and/or EIS providers, and achieve improvement in the State-identified result(s) for 

infants and toddlers with disabilities. 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

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

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

Phase II: Plan

The focus of Phase II is on building State capacity to support EIS programs and/or EIS providers with the 

implementation of evidence-based practices that will lead to measureable improvement in the State-identified 

result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Phase II builds on the data and infrastructure analyses, 

coherent improvement strategies, and the theory of action developed in Phase I. The plan developed in 

Phase II includes the activities, steps and resources required to implement the coherent improvement 

strategies, with attention to the research on implementation, timelines for implementation and measures 

needed to evaluate implementation and impact on the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities.

 Infrastructure Development: Specify improvements that will be made to the State infrastructure to 

better support EIS programs and/or EIS providers to implement and scale up evidence-based 

practices to improve the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Identify the 

steps the State will take to further align and leverage current improvement plans and initiatives in the 

State, including other early learning initiatives such as Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge

and the Home Visiting program, which impacts infants and toddlers with disabilities. This section 

must also identify who will be in charge of implementing the changes to infrastructure, resources

needed, expected outcomes, and timelines for completing improvement efforts. In addition, the 

State should specify how it will involve multiple offices within the State lead agency (LA), as well as 

other State agencies (such as the State educational agency or SEA if different from the LA), in the 

improvement of its infrastructure. 

 Support for EIS Program and/or EIS Provider Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices: Specify 

how the State will support EIS programs and/or EIS providers in implementing the evidence-based 

practices that will result in changes in LA, EIS program and/or EIS provider practices to achieve the 

State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. This section must 

identify steps and specific activities needed to implement the coherent improvement strategies, 

including communication strategies and stakeholder involvement; how identified barriers will be 

addressed; who will be in charge of implementing; how the activities will be implemented with fidelity; 

the resources that will be used to implement them; how the expected outcomes of the improvement 

strategies will be measured; and timelines for completion. In addition, the State should specify how it

will involve multiple offices within the LA (or other State agencies including the SEA) to support EIS 

programs and/or EIS providers in scaling up and sustaining the implementation of the evidencebased practices once they have been implemented with fidelity.

 Evaluation: The evaluation must include short-term and long-term objectives to measure 

implementation of the SSIP and its impact on achieving measureable improvement in the Stateidentified result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and long-term objectives as those children 

enter preschool and kindergarten. The evaluation must be aligned to the theory of action and other 

components of the SSIP, include how stakeholders will be involved, and include the methods that the 

State will use to collect and analyze data to evaluate implementation and outcomes of the SSIP. 

The evaluation must specify how the State will use the information from the evaluation to examine 

the effectiveness of the implementation of the SSIP and the progress toward achieving intended 

improvements in the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities, and to make 

modifications to the SSIP as necessary, and how the information from the evaluation will be 

disseminated to stakeholders.

Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation

In Phase III, the State must, consistent with the evaluation described in Phase II, assess and report on its 

progress in implementing the SSIP. This will include 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 objectives for 

implementation of the SSIP and its progress in achieving the State-identified Measureable Result for Infants 

and Toddlers with Disabilities. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, 

the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision. Also, the State must provide 

a rationale for any revisions that have been made, or revisions the State plans to make, in the SSIP in 

response to evaluation data, and describe how stakeholders were included in the decision-making process. 
2015 Part C SPP/APR

Part C SPP/APR Part C SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 14

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

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.