1. Early Childhood Transition APR Indicators and National Trends
Kathy T. Whaley, NECTAC
Presentation for the session on
“Trends and highlights from the Annual Performance Reports “
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference
December 8, 2009

2. Effective General Supervision Part C Indicator C8 - Effective Transition
Indicator #8: Percent of all children exiting Part C who received timely transition planning to support the child’s transition to preschool and other appropriate community services by their third birthday including:
A) IFSPs with transition steps and services
B) Notification to LEA, if child potentially eligible for
Part B
C) Transition conference, if child potentially eligible
for Part B.

3. IDEA Regulatory Basis for Indicator
IFSPs with transition steps and services, regulations specify that “The IFSP must include the steps to be taken to support the transition of the child, in accordance with ” [ (h)].
Notification to LEA, if child potentially eligible for Part B, Part C regulations specify that the Lead Agency will "Notify the local education agency for the area in which the child resides that the child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services under Part B" [ (b)(1)].
Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B, Part C regulations specify that “In the case of child who may be eligible for preschool services under Part B of the Act, with the approval of the family of the child, [the lead agency will] convene a conference among the lead agency, the family, and the local educational agency” [ (b)(2)(i)].

4. Overall Trends Across Sub-indicators
More states report higher rates of compliance in notifying LEAs of potentially eligible children (8B) and documenting transition steps within the IFSP (8A) than for holding transition conferences (8C)
More states report full and substantial compliance regarding Notification to LEA (8B)
All states reported data on all sub indicators.

5. Full and Substantial Compliance
Percentage of states at full or substantial compliance:
C8A – 70%
- 19 states at 100%, 20 states at 95-99% (39 states)
C8B – 80 %
- 32 states at 100%, 13 states at 95-99% (45 states)
C8C – 55 %
- 13 states at 100%, 18 states at 95-99% (31 states)

6. Progress 07-08 IFSP Steps (8A) – 31 states made progress
(10 maintained 100%)
Notification (8B) – 22 states made progress
(23 maintained 100%)
Conference (8C) – 34 states made progress
(5 maintained 100%)

8. Progress attributed to:
Clarification of policies, specific training/TA
Improved monitoring/data processes to
include sub indicator requirements
Revised IFSP forms 8B
Improved data sharing procedures and data
entry accuracy; Systematized notification
protocols; increased frequency of reports
Improved local collaboration
Targeted training of Service Coordinator/Data
Managers 8C
Utilization of focused monitoring/improved data
collection
Training/TA and policy clarification
Collaboration between agencies

9. Slippage 07-08 IFSPs with Transition Steps/Services (N=12)
Notification to LEA (N=9)
Transition Conference (N=13)
Reasons given:
Inaccurate or changing data systems/sources
Issues of data entry and reporting
IFSPs needed elements and instructions for documenting transition
Unclear policies
Staff shortages, increasing caseloads, staff turnover

10. National Issues – Part C
Transition Conference
Difficulty scheduling the meeting with required participants
Late referrals to the system
Clarifying role and level of participation by LEA
Clarifying policies for timeline requirements
Differentiating between referral and LEA notification policies

11. National Issues – Part C
Data Capacity
Inability to report on all sub-indicators (Progress!)
Missing required data elements such as the ability to identify exceptional family circumstances causing delays in conference timelines
Accuracy of data entry
Ability to generate reports to assist with data verification as part of monitoring
Data sharing with Part B and processes for notification

12. Themes
Improving data collection, record keeping, data analysis and data sharing
Clarifying policies and aligning the consistency of policies across C and 619
Improving communication and collaboration across Part C and 619
Training and TA linked to monitoring and correction of non-compliance, often cross-agency.
Collaborative and joint training efforts with Part B, Section 619

13. Effective General Supervision Part B Indicator B12 - Effective Transition
INDICATOR #12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 and who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.

14. IDEA Regulatory Basis for Indicator
IDEA specifies that, in order for a state to be eligible for a grant under Part B, it must have policies and procedures that ensure that, “Children participating in early intervention programs assisted under Part C, and who will participate in preschool programs assisted under this part [Part B] experience a smooth and effective transition to those preschool programs in a manner consistent with 637(a)(9). By the third birthday of such a child an individualized education program has been developed and is being implemented for the child” [Section 612 (a)(9)].

15. Overall Trends Across Indicator
States show steady progress by national average of reported data
Baseline 72%
FFY %
FFY %
Changes to data systems decreased performance for some states but considered more accurate

17. Progress and Slippage 34 States reported progress
6 States reported slippage (4 at 95% or higher)
4 States – unable to calculate*
9 states reported no change in performance
(all performing at 95% or higher)
*(One state did not provide data. Data not considered valid and reliable for three states)

18. Full and Substantial Compliance
Full Compliance
06-07 N= 5 States
07-08 N=10 States
Substantial Compliance
06-07 N= 14 States
07-08 N= 19 States
29 States Reporting Substantial Compliance or higher as compared to 19 States in prior reporting period

19. The NA2 States Fourteen Made Progress

20. Progress Attributed To:
Improvements of Data Collection and Analysis Processes (#1)
Training, TA and Policy Clarification (#2)
Improved Collaboration with Part C and other entities (#3)
Improvements to monitoring processes and other factors
(31 out of 34 states provided an explanation for progress)

21. Slippage Attributed to:
Most states reporting slippage reported performance above 95%
Only 4 out of 6 provided explanation
Presence of specific LEAs in monitoring cycle, moving from a monitoring approach to statewide reporting
Difficulty in conducting timely evaluations
Staffing capacity
Late referrals from Part C

22. National Issues – Part B
Data Capacity
Inability to report on all measurement components and requirements (Much Better!)
Missing required data elements such as the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed. (Much Better!)
difficulty determining Measurement D which describes the number of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services. (Still An Issue!)

23. National Issues – Part B
Data Capacity
inability to merge and share data systems with Part C for verification of 618 exit data
assignment of student identifiers
implementing new automated or Web-based systems
Greatly Improved but Still An Issue…..

24. National Issues – Part B
Coordination/Collaboration
Late referrals from Part C that created delays in timelines for determining eligibility
Late referrals to Part C
Delays in scheduling meetings and conferences
Delays in conducting initial evaluations
Data sharing

25. National Issues – Part B
Policy and Procedures
Child find and Part C notification procedures
Part C referral
Timelines for initial evaluations, eligibility determination, and implementation of IEPs,
Summer birthdays
Family and Life Issues

26. Themes Better data! Better monitoring of compliance requirements
MOUs and improved collaboration with Part C
Clarified policies and guidance
Collaborative training and TA
Inconsistencies across states in policies regarding reasons for delay
Delays in initial evaluation
Late referrals

27. Lessons Learned…..
Knowing each others program mission and responsibilities
Knowing each other - Effective Personal Relationships
Data is crucial but may not tell the whole story about quality practices
Don’t rest on your laurels – maintenance
Make transition someone’s job
Start earlier to allow for the unforeseen

28. Transition TA Resources
National Early Childhood Transition Initiative
National Early Childhood Transition Center
NECTAC Resource Collection on Transition from Part C to Preschool SPP/APR Calendar: Technical Assistance Related to SPP Indicators and Determinations