Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 7

1. How do you ensure that initial IFSP meetings are conducted within 45 days?
2. Do you have clear policies and timely procedures for all the steps of the IFSP process: logging the referral, assigning a service coordinator, completing the initial evaluation and assessment and holding the initial IFSP meeting within 45 days?
3. How many days do your procedures permit for each activity within the process of referral to the IFSP meeting?
4. If policies and procedures are not consistent state-wide, do some procedures seem to contribute to delays?
5. Do your providers have the necessary knowledge and skills to implement policies and procedures related to completing all required activities from referral through the initial IFSP meeting?
6. Do you provide opportunities for providers to receive training and TA?
7. Do you have adequate numbers of personnel to conduct evaluations?
8. Do you have adequate numbers of service coordinators?
9. Is your monitoring and supervision adequate for this requirement? Did you know you had a problem in this area?
10. Do you have valid and reliable data available to address this indicator?
11. Based on a review of child records, including those where there is noncompliance with timely services, and/or the local data available:
    • How many days following referral was the service coordinator assigned (e.g., regulations require as soon as possible after receiving the referral)?
    • Did the family identify its resources, priorities and concerns related to enhancing their child’s development through a family-directed assessment? If yes, How many days from referral was this family assessment completed?
    • What percent of the delay is related to the intake process? What are the reasons?
    • What percent of delays are related to the process of scheduling and conducting the evaluation of the child? What are the reasons?
    • What percent of the delays are related to the process of completing evaluation reports and scheduling the IFSP meeting? What are the reasons for those delays?
    • In looking at disaggregated data, is there a difference in timeliness based on specific service coordinators? Or based on specific evaluators? Or based on some other variable in our program? What were the reasons?
12. Based on provider interviews:
    • Why do our providers think there are delays in this area?
    • What solutions do they think will address this issue?
    • Do providers know how to fully include families in the IFSP process, information sharing and team decisions?
    • Do providers know how to adapt the IFSP process for culturally or linguistically diverse families?

Original Word Document

Sample Data Collection Form and Local Corrective Action Plan

• Local Corrective Action Plans: Collection and Use of Valid and Reliable Data for Determining Factors Contributing to Noncompliance (2008) developed by NECTAC, WRRC and DAC. See pages 5 - 7 for Indicator 7. This document provides questions a local program team would consider in investigating contributing factors for noncompliance and a framework for developing improvement strategies.
• A sample data collection form (with hypothetical data) shows the types of data that are relevant to collect and analyze for determining compliance with the 45 day timeline and potential reasons contributing to noncompliance. The sample completed Corrective Action Plan, based on the hypothetical data, illustrates how a program might plan to correct non-compliance.
• Part C, Indicator 7 Guidance Suggestions- Technical Assistance Document.

Resources for Streamlining Eligibility Procedures

• TRACE in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), developed an early intervention referral form that physicians and other primary referral sources can use to make a referral to Part C early intervention programs. Guidelines for early intervention programs wishing to customize the referral form are also available.
• For recommendations on streamlining the eligibility process for children with known conditions (presumed eligible) see An Eligibility Determination Algorithm for Part C Early Intervention Enrollment Carl J. Dunst.     

Resources for Streamlining the IFSP Process

• A flowchart of steps/ responsibilities for first 45 days; family assessment; writing functional outcomes; using assessment information to develop IFSPs (IFSP resources).
• State examples of IFSP forms and guidance pieces.
• Two State Guidance documents describing the steps of the IFSP process (Nevada; Maine)
• State examples of on-line training materials for service coordinators and others responsible for guiding the IFSP process.

Resources for Recruiting and Retaining Adequate Personnel to Meet Timelines

• State Activities to Increase Staff Capacity- An analysis of 2006-2007 APRs, Indicators C-1 & C-7 yielded brief descriptions of Improvement Activities.  Each state was contacted for further details and permission to share ideas.
• An Introduction to Personnel Preparation Program Partnerships by the Personnel Improvement Center (PIC), describes a planful process for assuring adequate personnel to meet local needs.
• Statewide Personnel Data Management: Creating a System for Addressing Special Education, Early Intervention and Related Services Personnel Needs by the Personnel Improvement Center describes how a state data system can be used to understand specific personnel needs and develop targeted recruitment and retention strategies.
• ASHA has a listing of strategies used by several states to address shortages of SLPs. Innovative Programs to Address Personnel Vacancies in Health Care and Education
• Transdisciplinary teaming or a primary service provider model can extend the reach of available personnel, by serving more families.

                         -Robin McWilliams Cost Models in Early Intervention and

                         -M”lisa Shelden and Dathan Rush Enhancing Services in Natural Environments

Resources for Improving the Efficiency of Service Models

• A Primary Service Provider Model makes efficient use of available personnel. The Primary Coach Approach resources developed at the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, provide extensive information on how to plan and implement this model. Common Misperceptions about Coaching in Early Intervention clarifies selected aspects of implementing coaching practices.