FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

GU Part C FFY2015 State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report

5/15/2017

Page 1 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Introduction to the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Executive Summary:

This Executive Summary includes a description of Guam's Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2015. A description of the Guam's General Supervision System, Technical Assistance System, Professional Development System, Stakeholder Involvement in the development and review of the SPP and APR and how Guam will report the SPP and APR to the public are provided separately within this introduction section of Guam's FFY2015 APR. In FFY 2015, Guam Stakeholders determined targets for Results Indicators through FFY 2018. This FFY 2015 APR includes current performance data on 5 of the 8 Indicators measures: Indicators 2,3,4,5, and 6. For each SPP Indicator measure, Guam reports FFY 2015 data to determine if Guam met its FFY target, and explanation of slippage if Guam did not meet its targets and a response to any issues identified for the Indicator in the 2016 OSEP SPP/APR Determination Letter for Guam's FFY 2015 SPP/APR. Although Guam did not meet all its results and compliance targets in FFY 2015, the stakeholders agreed not to revise the Results targets at this time. As required, for Indicator 11, Guam's Part C State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), Guam will submit its SSIP Phase III, including a description of any midcourse modification on Guam's SSIP Phase III Implementation Plan and Evaluation Plan, no later than April 1, 2017. Response to OSEP Determination Letter, June 28, 2016: Guam's determination was "needs assistance", which remained the same as in 2016. Guam therefore, provides the following information to meet the Secretary's reporting requirements stated in the OSEP June 28, 2016 Determination Letter: Technical Assistance Received for the Department-Wide Special Conditions: GDOE continues to work with the Department's Risk Management Service (RMS) to address Guam DOE's Special Conditions. The GDOE Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan (CCAP) describes the required activities. Letters from the RMS and GDOE CCAP reports can be found on the GDOE website: http://www.gdoe.net. Actions taken as a result of the RMS technical assistance: Guam Part C provides quarterly reports to RMS demonstrating progress towards addressing the Special Conditions.

Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

General Supervision System: The systems that are in place to ensure that IDEA Part C requirements are met, e.g., monitoring systems, dispute resolution systems.

Guam’s Department of Education (DOE) is a unitary system. The Guam Part C Early Intervention System (GEIS) is part of DOE’s Division of Special Education. The Compliance Monitoring Office (CMO), directly under the Superintendent of Education, is responsible for implementing Guam’s General Supervision System. DOE has created effective monitoring strategies that are integrated across all components of the general supervision system. Multiple data sources and methods are used to monitor the public schools and Guam’s Early Intervention System. Selected monitoring activities ensure continuous examination of performance for compliance and results. This includes off-site and on-site monitoring activities. Data from the monitoring activities are used to collect and/or verify performance data for every indicator included in the State Performance Plan (SPP). This analysis process ensures that the monitoring system is designed to maximize the use of monitoring resources to include effective professional development and targeted technical assistance. Overall, the general supervision system includes planned analysis and review of all available monitoring data from on-site, off-site monitoring activities, and dispute resolution. This review process is conducted biannually. CMO manages GDOE's Dispute Resolution System (State Complaints Due Process Hearings, and Mediations). The CMO uses the Dispute Resolution System to identify and correct noncompliance in the implementation of IDEA requirements and to identify components of the system that need improvement (e.g., policies, procedures, guidelines, written agreements). CMO would examine dispute resolution data from Part C to identify issues related to performance and help plan onsite monitoring activities. The Compliance Monitoring office reviews data available through the special education (Part C) data management system as a means 5/15/2017

Page 2 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) to monitor the Early Intervention Program on a biannual basis. Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Technical Assistance System: The mechanisms that the State has in place to ensure the timely delivery of high quality, evidenced based technical assistance and support to early intervention service (EIS) programs.

DOE has a technical assistance system and mechanisms in place to ensure the timely delivery of high quality, evidenced based technical assistance and support to early interventionists and other early childhood service providers. Technical assistance, training and support is provided based on program needs in improving services for low-incidence areas, improving child outcomes, coaching for families, and any other areas identified through a needs assessment or through the SPP/APR. Guam Part C received technical assistance from the following: Technical assistance was also received for the development of Guam’s Part C FFY 2015 State Performance Plan through OSEP-funded TA Centers and Resources such as DaSY Center, IDEA Data Center, Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA), (through the OSEP technical assistance calls or through email) and through the University of Guam Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service (CEDDERS). Technical assistance and support from Guam DOE's Compliance Monitoring Office on the General Supervision Part C requirements and the Monitoring System. There are also mechanisms in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the technical assistance, training, and support provided. One strategy that the Program begun using to measure the impact of the training are assessed through self assessment surveys that are conducted before and after the training to determine the levels of understanding and competencies of the providers and then with a follow-up observation to see if there are changes in the implementation of evidenced-based practices. Some other ways is the review of data compiled from the training evaluations, observations, and feedback from service providers.

Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Professional Development System: The mechanisms the State has in place to ensure that service providers are effectively providing services that improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

As part of Guam DOE’s State Strategic Plan, several goals were developed to improve educational outcomes for all students. One such goal is that GDOE instructional personnel will meet high standards for qualifications and ongoing professional development and will be held accountable for all assigned responsibilities. There are a total of 10 professional development days in the GDOE School Calendar: Two (2) Full-Day professional days and eight (8) half-day professional days. All days are designated specifically to the state-wide initiatives. Since the Guam Early Intervention System (GEIS) is a part of the GDOE Division of Special Education, as much as possible, the designated professional development days are utilized to assist the early intervention service providers to improve outcomes for infants and toddlers and their families. Part C may utilize these days to continue with direct services. This is to ensure that services are not compromised, when participating in other training activities offered by other early childhood serving agencies. Guam Part C reports on a quarterly basis to the Guam's Early Learning Council (GELC) which presents all early childhood serving agencies. It is through this work and collaboration with Project Tinituhon: Guam Early Childhood Comprehensive System that professional development activities are discussed and agreements of cost sharing of the training are decided. Department of Public Health and Social Services (DPHSS) has been an excellent collaborator in supporting shared professional development activities. Such actives include but not limited to the Social Emotional Training of Trainers from the Center for Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL), the Strengthening Families/Protective Factors Framework, and the Help Me Grow Initiative. Other collaborative technical assistance and professional development was provided through partnership with the Kariñu: Guam’s Early Childhood System of Care and Guam LAUNCH and the Guam Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Project. The Guam Part C also conducts needs assessments to ensure that service providers meet the high quality standards with skills to effectively provide early intervention services that improve the results of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Based on the needs assessments, monthly meetings are conducted with the early interventionists to focus on typical child development, home 5/15/2017

Page 3 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) visiting and coaching strategies in working with the families and on compliance issues.

Additional professional development sessions include but not limited to the following: Training on the Routines Based Intervention, Early Childhood Practice Based Coaching, Early Childhood Outcome Rating Scale and the Child Outcomes Summary, that is integrated into Guam’s Part C Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSPs); Training to Part C service providers and families on assessments of infants and toddlers with hearing loss, to include strategies in working with infants and toddlers with hearing loss; and Training to Part C service providers and families on strategies and tools to use when working with infants and toddlers with vision loss and their families. Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Stakeholder Involvement:

apply this to all Part C results indicators

The mechanism for soliciting broad stakeholder input on targets in the SPP, including revisions to targets.

An invitation was sent to stakeholders to participate in stakeholder work sessions to attain input on the development of Guam’s FFY 2015 APR. This was given to all the Guam Interagency Coordinating Council (GICC) members, early childhood providers, and the DOE Education Policy Board. During the September 12, and December 28, 2016 GICC Quarterly meetings, a description of each Indicator and their measurements along with historical data and present performance for FFY 2015 was shared in order to discuss issues, successes, challenges of each of the performance indicators. The development of FFY 2015-2016 Part C SPP/APR, included stakeholder input sessions, involved the following: Quarterly Reviews: The Guam ICC and early intervention providers served as the primary stakeholder groups for the development of the SPP/ APR. The GICC members consist of parents, representatives of various agencies, and other programs identified by the ICC. GEIS reported on program progress and/or slippage of its performance during the GICC quarterly meetings. Quarterly reviews are also shared during the Guam Early Learning Council quarterly meetings. September 9, 2016: Special Meeting on APR and SSIP stakeholder were provided trend data for each indicator and if the Program met or did not meet the target for this reporting period. November 1, 2016: Early Learning Council Quarterly meeting: The Part C Unit Coordinator provided updates on program activities and Information on the SPP/APR to Council members. November 9, 2016: Special ICC APR meeting was held to review specific indicators that the Program did not meet and discussed in great detail reasons for the slippage. November 12, 2016: An APR Stakeholder Input session. January 9, 2016: A Special APR Meeting was held to review the final draft of the APR. Members were given an opportunity to provide feedback. January 2017: The final draft Part C SPP/PR was provided to the DOE Superintendent of Education and the Guam Education Board to review for input and recommendations. Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Reporting to the Public: How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY 2014 performance of each EIS Program or Provider located in the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its FFY 2014 APR, as required by 34 CFR §303.702(b)(1)(i)(A); and a description of where, on its Web site, a complete copy of the State’s SPP, including any revision if the State has revised the SPP that it submitted with its FFY 2014 APR in 2016, is available.

The Guam Part C will report annually to the public as soon as practicable , but no later than 120 days following the submission of the FFY 2015 APR. Guam Part C will also post the GRADS360 generated SPP/APR pdf version for pubic posting and OSEP’s Determination Letter and Response Table on the GDOE website at Guam Early Intervention System website at www.gdoe.net/geis and www.gdoe.net/special-education

5/15/2017

Page 4 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Attachments File Name

Uploaded By

Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Actions required in FFY 2014 response

5/15/2017

Page 5 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 1: Timely provision of services

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments Compliance indicator: 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)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target Data

98.00%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

98.00%

98.60%

98.49%

97.00%

83.30%

89.00%

86.00%

93.83%

90.63%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner

Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

158

162

90.63%

100%

98.15%

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances This number will be added to the "Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive their early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator.

1

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period). Data is collected July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

The actual data for 2015-2016, were compiled through the GEIS data system and a manual review of the service provider’s contact logs and intervention plans found in the child’s program folder. A data system report indicates new services recommended in the child’s IFSP, date service is to begin (within 30 days from consent by parent of IFSP), and date service was delivered by service provider. The data report also indicates a ‘flag” on new services that were not delivered within the required timeline. The Service Coordinator (SC) is responsible for submitting required documentation indicating the date service was provided to the data office. The SC is also responsible for submitting documentation of service not delivered by the required timeline. GEIS’ definition of “receipt of timely services” is determined by services on the IFSP provided within 30 days from the date of consent signed by the parent. Though services reported are to be delivered within 30 days of consent, IFSP services are initiated as soon as possible, depending on family circumstances. On the day that service is provided, the service provider has the family sign the form confirming delivery of initial services. The service provider submits documentation to the SC who then submits documentation to the data clerk for input on the date service was delivered. Should service not be delivered in a timely manner, the SC is required to submit documentation as to stating the reason(s) for delay. Monthly meetings are conducted individually with staff to discuss the status of cases. GEIS reported an overall 98.15% (159/162) compliance with this requirement representing a total of 159 infants and toddlers with initial, review, and annual IFSPs being provided timely delivery of new services out of a total of 162 infants and toddlers with IFSPs with new service for the reporting period. 5/15/2017

Page 6 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Included in the total of 159 infants and toddlers is one (1) (.63%) service delivered after the timeline required due to exceptional family circumstances. As stated in the Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) Part C Indicator Measurement Table (OMB NO: 1820-0578), Guam has chosen, as in past reporting, 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, to be included in the numerator and denominator.

Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)

Although Guam did not meet the 100% compliance for this indicator, GEIS acknowledges substantial compliance (98.15%) for this compliance indicator. For this reporting period, the GEIS showed improvement from 90.63% (FFY2014) to 98.15% (FFY 2015). The actual data for Measurement Period: July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016, 1.85% (3/162) represents infants and toddlers with IFSPs that include early intervention services delivered “untimely” due to program delays. Upon reviewing the child’s IFSP folder, the following are reasons for the untimely delays of early intervention services. The reasons for the untimely services are due to the following: One (1) Child - Assistive Technology was due to the Service Coordinator providing the equipment to the family late. The family received the equipment 1 month, 12 days after the IFSP. One (1) Child - Occupational Therapy (OT) scheduled intervention services late. OT services was provided 1 month, 1 day after the IFSP. One (1) Child - OT provider scheduled intervention services late. OT services was provided 1 month, 20 days after IFSP. As of June 2016, one occupational therapist resigned which resulted with only one occupational therapist serving Part B and Part C. Due to the number of children requiring OT services based on their IFSP and IEP, the OT's schedule was limited and timelines may not have been met. GEIS continues to face challenges with the shortage of professionals with speciality areas that provides services for young children birth to three years of age. The lack of available personnel on Guam with specific area of expertise in working with infants and toddlers continues to be a challenge for GEIS. However, the following strategies continue to be implemented as part of the program improvement plan to avoid reoccurrence of the above program delays: Payor of Last Resort procedures implemented. SC explains Payor of Last Resort procedures and assists family with assessing service. Procedural Safeguards also explained to family Active recruitment of certified personnel in all areas of related service through announcements via various media resources Announcement for Contractual or part time services

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response, not including correction of findings

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Identified

Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year

Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected

Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

15

15

0

0

FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements

Guam reports correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2014 demonstrating that GEIS: (1) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, (2) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement, based on updated data demonstrating 100% compliance through a review of monthly data from the data system. In FFY 2014, the Compliance Monitoring Office (CMO) issued one (1) finding of noncompliance in the area of Timely Services was issued through offsite monitoring. On April 3, 2015, the Superintendent of Education issued a memorandum stating that GEIS has corrected identified noncompliance for FFY 2014. 5/15/2017

Page 7 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The state-reported FFY 2014 APR Indicator 1 data was 90.63% (145/160), which reported 15 individual instances of noncompliance total for the reporting period. The one individual finding of noncompliance issued through the off-site data review was included in the fifteen total individual instances of oncompliance for the reporting period. The remaining fourteen individual instances of noncompliance reported in the FFY 2014 APR for Indicator 1 occurred after the CMO finding of noncompliance was issued and were monitored for verified correction of compliance with Indicator 1.

Verification of correction of FFY 2014 noncompliance was made through a review of monthly and quarterly data from the database. The compliance monitor office verified correction of noncompliance by verifying child specific noncompliance and reviewing the Part C reports dated April 1, 2015. Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected

As reported in the FFY 2014 APR, the individual instances of non-compliance reported as state-reported APR data, 9.38% (15/160), for Indicator 1, included the one finding of noncompliance issued by the review conducted by the CMO. The difference of individual instances of noncompliance was part of the subsequent data reviewed by the CMO for verified correction. All instances of noncompliance findings were verified corrected and the monthly review of subsequent data demonstrated 100% compliance with the Indicator 1 Timely Services requirement.

5/15/2017

Page 8 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 2: Services in Natural Environments

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments Results indicator: 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)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target ≥ Data

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Introducation Section: Stakeholder Involvement that describes the broad stakeholder input.

Prepopulated Data Source SY 2015-16 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups SY 2015-16 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups

Date

Description

Data

7/14/2016

Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings

187

7/14/2016

Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs

187

Overwrite Data

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings

Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

187

187

100%

100%

100%

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response

5/15/2017

Page 9 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 3: Early Childhood Outcomes

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Does your 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)?

Yes

Will your separate report be just the at-risk infants and toddlers or aggregated performance data on all of the infants and toddlers it serves under Part C? Just At Risk

Historical Data Baseline Year

FFY

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Target ≥ A1

91.30%

Data

B1

2013

100%

Data

Data

91.40%

91.40%

91.40%

58.82%

60.00%

84.00%

66.70%

62.20%

75.00%

58.82%

45.00%

100%

100%

100%

66.70%

100%

100%

82.60%

84.50%

80.70%

66.25%

68.00%

82.40%

83.53%

73.80%

57.10%

74.50%

66.25%

58.33%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87.50%

100%

100%

80.60%

80.70%

80.70%

80.70%

64.41%

65.50%

80.60%

74.24%

72.10%

55.80%

68.90%

64.41%

50.77%

100%

100%

50.00%

100%

66.70%

100%

100%

60.80%

61.00%

65.00%

68.00%

53.75%

55.00%

67.60%

69.00%

46.40%

63.70%

53.75%

48.96%

Target ≥

B1 AR

2006

B2

2013

Data Target ≥ Data

60.80%

Target ≥ 2006 Data

100%

Target ≥

100%

75.00%

100%

75.00%

100%

90.90%

76.90%

77.00%

78.00%

80.00%

58.62%

61.00%

78.57%

75.00%

65.10%

73.90%

58.62%

52.38%

2013 Data

76.90%

Target ≥ 2006 Data

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

74.50%

74.70%

78.00%

80.00%

60.00%

62.00%

74.50%

77.65%

73.80%

53.60%

66.70%

60.00%

56.25%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87.50%

100%

100%

Target ≥ 2013 Data C2 AR

91.30%

82.40%

Target ≥

C2

2014

Target ≥ 2006

C1 AR

2013

2013

A2 AR

C1

2012

2006

Data

B2 AR

2011

Target ≥

Target ≥ A2

2010

2013 Data

A1 AR

2009

Target ≥ 2006 Data Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target A1 ≥

62.50%

65.50%

68.00%

70.00%

Target A1 AR ≥

62.50%

65.50%

68.00%

70.00%

Target A2 ≥

70.00%

72.00%

74.00%

76.00%

Target A2 AR ≥

67.50%

72.00%

74.00%

76.00%

Target B1 ≥

67.50%

70.50%

73.00%

75.00%

Target B1 AR ≥

67.50%

70.50%

73.00%

75.00%

Target B2 ≥

57.50%

60.00%

62.00%

64.00%

Target B2 AR ≥

57.50%

60.00%

62.00%

64.00%

Target C1 ≥

63.50%

66.00%

68.00%

70.00%

Target C1 AR ≥

63.50%

66.00%

68.00%

70.00%

Target C2 ≥

64.00%

66.00%

68.00%

70.00%

Target C2 AR ≥

64.00%

66.00%

68.00%

70.00%

Key:

5/15/2017

Page 10 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Explanation of Changes Inserted missing data on Target A2 for FFY 2018.

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Introducation Section: Stakeholder Involvement that describes the broad stakeholder input.

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed

110.00

Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships) Number of Children

Not including at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

25.00

Percentage of Children

27.47%

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

8.00

8.79%

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

14.00

15.38%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

44.00

48.35%

Number of Children

Percentage of Children

Just at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

0.00

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

0.00

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

1.00

10.00%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

9.00

90.00%

Number of Children

Percentage of Children

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

A1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

22.00

47.00

45.00%

62.50%

46.81%

A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

58.00

91.00

58.33%

70.00%

63.74%

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

A1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

1.00

1.00

100%

62.50%

100%

A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

10.00

10.00

100%

67.50%

100%

Not including at-risk infants and toddlers

Just at-risk infants and toddlers

Outcome B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication) Not including at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

26.00

28.57%

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

16.00

17.58%

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

14.00

15.38%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

35.00

38.46%

Number of Children

Percentage of Children

Just at-risk infants and toddlers

5/15/2017

Page 11 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Number of Children

Just at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

0.00

Percentage of Children

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

0.00

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

2.00

20.00%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

8.00

80.00%

Number of Children

Percentage of Children

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

B1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

30.00

56.00

50.77%

67.50%

53.57%

B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

49.00

91.00

48.96%

57.50%

53.85%

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

B1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

2.00

2.00

100%

67.50%

100%

B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

10.00

10.00

90.90%

57.50%

100%

Not including at-risk infants and toddlers

Just at-risk infants and toddlers

Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs Not including at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

24.00

26.37%

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

8.00

8.79%

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

17.00

18.68%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

42.00

46.15%

Number of Children

Percentage of Children

Just at-risk infants and toddlers a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning

0.00

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers

0.00

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it

0.00

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers

2.00

20.00%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

8.00

80.00%

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

C1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

25.00

49.00

52.38%

63.50%

51.02%

C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

59.00

91.00

56.25%

64.00%

64.84%

Numerator

Denominator

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

C1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

2.00

2.00

100%

63.50%

100%

C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome C by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

10.00

10.00

100%

64.00%

100%

Not including at-risk infants and toddlers

Just at-risk infants and toddlers

Explanation of C1 Slippage (Not including at-risk infants and toddlers)

Guam did not meet the target of 63.05% for Outcome C1 with a performance of 51.02%. This is a slippage of 1.36% with a performance of 52.38% for FFY 2014. Of the 91 infants and toddlers that exited this reporting period, 24 or 26.37% in progress category “b showed that they had improved in their functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to function comparable to same age peers in the use of 5/15/2017

Page 12 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) appropriate behaviors to meet their need. Eight or 8.79% were in progress category “c” that showed that they had improved to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it. The remaining infants and toddlers (59) reached or maintained functioning compared to their same aged peers. There were no infants or toddlers that did not improve functioning.

Stakeholders focused on the children in Category “b” because these are the children who improved functioning but not sufficient to their same age peers. A thorough data analysis was conducted on the length of service, age at entry, and eligibility criteria data to determine possible reasons for the slippage. Length of Service: Eleven (11) out of the 24 or 45.83% of infants and toddlers had received less than 1 year of early intervention services and 7 out the 24 or 29.16% of the children had less than 2 years of early intervention services. There were 6 out the 24 or 25% in the b progress category that had up to 3 years of early intervention services. Age at Entry: Eight (8) out of the 24 or 33.33% of the toddlers were at the ages of 1 to 11 months, 6 of the 24 or 25% had 12 to 24 months of early intervention services. Ten (10) out of the 24 or 41.66% were between the ages of 25 to 36 months when they first received early intervention services. Eligibility Criteria: Thirteen (13) of the 24 or 54.16% of the children in progress category “b” were eligible as developmental delay and 10 or 41.66% were established condition and 1 or 4.16% were eligible as biological risk. Stakeholders also discussed the decrease of rating at exit of 14 out of the 24 infants and toddlers in category b. There were 5 children whose rating went down by 1 (for example entry was at a “4” and exit was at a “3”. Six (6) children whose rating went down by two One child by 3 ratings Two children whose rating went down by 4 Based on the analysis, there was no significance in the eligibility criteria for those children in category “b” , however, all the children identified in this category received multiple early interventions services. In addition, there are 7 out of the 24 or 29.16% are referred for further assessment in the area of autism spectrum disorder. Stakeholder also discussed the possible reason for the slippage may be attributed to the short time children 45.83% or 11 out of the 24 had less than 1 year of early intervention services. One of the possible reason GEIS did not meet the target may be due to the high number of infants that performed in category “b” had a short time in the program. Research indicates that the earlier the better and therefore given more time to provide early intervention services support, these infants and families may have had a greater impact and an increase of performance of children with improved functioning at a level nearer or reach a level comparable to same-aged peers. GEIS continues to work with the Interagency Coordinating Council and the Guam Early Learning Council in supporting the implementation of three critically important early childhood initiatives. One is Guam’s Island-wide Developmental and Behavior Screening System (iDBSS). The purpose of the iDBSS is to enable child care providers, early childhood programs and medical clinics to screen all children birth through five years to ensure the child’s development is on track. The iDBSS is currently being implemented in all early childhood programs throughout the island. The Program continues to participate on the collective impact process for the iDBSS and partner with the other programs to support the sustainability of this initiative. The second initiative is on integrating the Learn the Signs. Act Early (LTSAE) strategies in all early childhood programs that serve young children. The purpose is to support parents and providers to monitor and ensure children are on track with their development and if not, that referrals are made to the early intervention program. The third initiative is on Guam’s Help Me Grow (HMG) pilot project. The HMG is a system that connects at-risk children with the services they need. It is a system for improving access to existing resources and services for children birth to eight years old. The ICC requested the GEIS Program to facilitate a series of the work group meetings to plan, develop and begin the implementation of the HMG process in partnership with other early childhood agencies. In a recent ICC meeting, the members approved the pilot of the HMG initiative. The focus of these initiatives is to support families to monitor their child's development and ensure their child is on track and to support the early identification of young children that may need early intervention services.

Was sampling used? No

Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)? Yes

5/15/2017

Page 13 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

5/15/2017

Page 14 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 4: Family Involvement

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments Results indicator: 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)

Historical Data Baseline Year

FFY

2004

2005

2006

2007

91.00%

96.80%

95.00%

84.00%

94.70%

90.00%

79.00%

92.60%

98.00%

Target ≥ A

Target ≥

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

91.00%

92.00%

95.00%

95.00%

95.00%

95.00%

95.00%

95.00%

95.40%

90.70%

92.50%

98.17%

97.56%

96.23%

85.00%

87.00%

90.00%

92.00%

95.00%

90.00%

90.00%

96.00%

95.40%

94.70%

92.50%

93.58%

95.12%

92.45%

85.00%

87.00%

90.00%

90.00%

92.00%

93.00%

94.00%

96.00%

100%

97.30%

97.10%

97.25%

98.78%

98.11%

2005 Data Target ≥

C

2009

2005 Data

B

2008

2005 Data

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets 2015

2016

2017

2018

Target A ≥

FFY

95.50%

95.70%

96.00%

96.50%

Target B ≥

90.50%

91.00%

92.00%

94.00%

Target C ≥

95.00%

96.00%

97.00%

97.00%

Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Introducation Section: Stakeholder Involvement that describes the broad stakeholder input.

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of respondent families participating in Part C

76.00

A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights

73.00

A2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights

76.00

B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs

72.00

B2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs

76.00

C1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn

76.00

C2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn

76.00

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

A. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights

96.23%

95.50%

96.05%

B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs

92.45%

90.50%

94.74%

C. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn

98.11%

95.00%

100%

Describe how the State has ensured that any response data are valid and reliable, including how the data represent the demographics of the State. 5/15/2017

Page 15 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Survey Instrument: Through support from the University of Guam Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (Guam CEDDERS), the 2014-2015 survey included 22 items identical to the survey disseminated within the last two years. Dissemination: The surveys were disseminated to parents of all infants and toddlers receiving services for a minimum of six months. Surveys were disseminated to the parents via Service Coordinators who either met with parents or conducted home visits. Surveys were disseminated the last week of April 2015. Due to the constant follow up from the GEIS Coordinator, surveys were received for a period of 2 months. Between April and June 2015, collection efforts included retrieving the surveys via mail, email, and the GEIS Office. Return Rate: Results for the 2015-2016 Family Feedback Survey for families receiving services from GEIS were completed with a return rate of 70% (76/108). This is a 17% decrease from the 2014-2015 year return rate of 87%. Guam conducted an analysis of the demographics to determine whether the FFY 2015 survey response group was representative of the population served. A review by ethnicity revealed that the respondents were generally representative of the majority of the ethnic groups of the population of families that received the survey when examining breakdown by ethnicity. The population demographic indicated that 12% of the families reported two or more ethnic groups. However, none of the survey respondents selected “two or more” under the question related to ethnicity. Rather than selecting the “two or more” category of ethnicity, 15.8% selected two of the individual ethnic category which resulted in an “invalid” response. One survey respondent did not select an ethnic category. The majority of the respondents were of Chamorro descent. A review by geographic location also indicated that the respondents were representative of a majority of the villages where the majority of infants and toddlers served reside. There were 9.2% or seven survey respondents that did not respond to the question of “village of residence” and 1.3% or one whose response was “invalid.” The majority of the respondents were from the northern part of the island. Reliability of Results: Based on the 618 Ethnicity groups, the results of returned surveys indicated that the responses were representative of the population of which the majority is Pacific Islanders of Guam. At least one-third (1/3) of the respondents of the Part C family outcomes survey were families of children who fell within the two-year bracket with the next largest group being families of children who were one-year-old. Less than 4% of the respondents were families of children less than one-year-old and three-year-old. Over 80% or 61 respondents reported receiving services at home while 2.6% or two respondents reported daycare as the location for services. Five or 6.6% of the respondents did not respond to this question and seven or 9.2% responses were invalid.

Was sampling used? No Was a collection tool used? Yes Is it a new or revised collection tool? No Yes, the data accurately represent the demographics of the State No, the data does not accurately represent the demographics of the State

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response

5/15/2017

Page 16 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs compared to national data. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target ≥ Data

1.13%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1.25%

1.50%

1.50%

1.75%

1.75%

1.75%

1.75%

1.30%

1.30%

1.33%

1.22%

1.50%

0.93%

1.78%

1.22%

1.05%

1.30%

1.61%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥

2015

2016

2017

2018

1.35%

1.40%

1.50%

1.55%

Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Introducation Section: Stakeholder Involvement that describes the broad stakeholder input.

Prepopulated Data Source

Date

SY 2015-16 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups

7/14/2016

U.S. Census Annual State Resident Population Estimates April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015

6/30/2016

Description

Data

Overwrite Data

Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs

48

48

Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1

null

2,917

Explanation of Alternate Data

This data is taken from Guam's 618 Child Count Data Table 1 reported for December 1, 2015. For the report period of 2015-2016, the number of children birth to one year of age was 48, which represented 1.65% of 2,917 total population from the 2010 US Census for Guam. GEIS performance of 1.65% has met the projected target and is above the national performance data of 1.20%. Source: 2010 US Census for Guam and U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS): "IDEA Part C Childcount and Settings Survey, 2015. Data extracted as of July 14, 2016.

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs

Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

48

2,917

1.61%

1.35%

1.65%

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

5/15/2017

Page 17 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response

5/15/2017

Page 18 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 6: Child Find (Birth to Three)

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs compared to national data. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target ≥ Data

1.56%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

1.80%

2.00%

2.20%

2.30%

2.40%

2.40%

2.40%

1.85%

1.85%

1.52%

1.46%

1.63%

1.57%

1.67%

1.60%

1.81%

1.85%

1.85%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target ≥

2015

2016

2017

2018

1.90%

1.95%

2.00%

2.03%

Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Introducation Section: Stakeholder Involvement that describes the broad stakeholder input.

Prepopulated Data Source

Date

SY 2015-16 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups

Description

Data

7/14/2016

Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs

187

U.S. Census Annual State Resident Population Estimates April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015

6/30/2016

Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3

null

Overwrite Data

8690

Explanation of Alternate Data

The baseline data is taken from Guam’s 618 Child Count Data Table reported for December 1, 2015. For reporting period FFY 2015-2016, the number of children birth through two years of age is 187, which represented 2.15% of the 8,690 total population. Guam has met its projected target of 1.90% for this reporting year. GEIS is reporting that 2.15% of infants and toddlers ages birth through 2, including at risk children that were served on December 1, 2015, is below the national data of 3.00%. While GEIS performance of 2.15% is below the National performance data of 3.00%, GEIS continues to show progress for this Indicator and is reporting the highest percentage for the last several years of infants and toddlers served. Source: 2010 US Census for Guam and U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS): IDEA Part C Childcount and Settings Survey, 2015. Data extracted as of July 14, 2016.

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs

Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

187

8,690

1.85%

1.90%

2.15%

Actions required in FFY 2014 response 5/15/2017

Page 19 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response

5/15/2017

Page 20 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 7: 45-day timeline

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find Compliance indicator: 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)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target Data

70.00%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

92.00%

96.33%

98.00%

99.00%

98.00%

100%

99.00%

98.20%

95.97%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline

Number of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

73

112

95.97%

100%

98.21%

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances This number will be added to the "Number of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline" field above to calculate the numerator for this indicator.

37

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period). Data is collected from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

Of the 112 infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted, 73 were held within the 45-day timeline, 37 had documented delays attributed to exceptional family circumstances, and 2 eligible infants had their IFSP conducted after the 45-day timeline. Although Guam did not meet the 100% compliance for this indicator, GEIS, Part C Program, acknowledges substantial compliance of 98.21% (110/112) for this compliance indicator. For this reporting period, GEIS showed improvement from 95.97% (FFY 2014) to 98.21% (FFY 2015). The actual data for July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 performance, two (2) eligible infants had their initial IFSP conducted after the 45 day timeline due to the following reasons: one (1) eligible infant had their initial IFSP conducted after the 45 day timeline due to required completion of the full diagnostic audiology evaluation needed to determine eligibility for possible early intervention. At the time the child was referred, there were no audiologist on island who were available to conduct full audiology evaluations for infants and toddlers age birth through 2 years of age. one (1) eligible infant had their initial IFSP conducted after the 45 day timeline due to service coordinator scheduling the eligibility and Initial IFSP late. The initial IFSP was initiated 78 days from the time of referral to completion of evaluation and initiation of IFSP. The Program Coordinator met with the service coordinator and developed an improvement plan to ensure the service coordinator achieves required timelines. Since July 2016, the service coordinator continues to meet required timelines in completing timely referrals to IFSP. 5/15/2017

Page 21 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) To verify continued progress, additional progress data was collected for July 2016 to August 2016. During this specific time period, there were 20 eligible infants who had their initial IFSP conducted within the 45 day timeline with a performance of 100%.

GEIS continues to face challenges with the shortage of an audiologist that provides services for young children birth to three years of age. The lack of available personnel on Guam with specific area of expertise in working with infants and toddlers continues to be a challenge for GEIS. However, the following strategies continue to be implemented as part of the program improvement plan to avoid reoccurrence of the above program delays: Payor of Last Resort procedures implemented. SC explains Payor of Last Resort procedures and assists family with assessing service. Procedural Safeguards also explained to family. Active recruitment of certified personnel in all areas of related service through announcements via various media resources. Announcement for Contractual or part time services. No audiologist on island conducting full audiology evaluations for infants and toddlers age birth through 2 years of age. GEIS Program Coordinator and several GEIS staff are members of the Guam Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (Guam EHDI) Advisory Committee. In August 2015, the Guam EHDI Advisory implemented the Model For Improvement (MFI) process and discussed in great detail the need to develop Quality Improvement (QI) teams for Diagnostic Audiological Evaluation (DAE). The QI DAE team have created Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles to address the lack of timely DAE services and to implement and monitor improvement strategies. On November 2015, an audologist agreed to provide full audiology services for three children once a month until such time an audiologist can be hired via contract or required via Payor of Last Resort procedures. All GEIS Service Coordinators continue to meet monthly with the Program Coordinator to discuss the status of cases. Printouts of cases, which indicate the 45-day “flag” date, is provided to service coordinators monthly so that SCs are alerted to the timeline requirement. Service Coordinators and service providers are required to submit all contact logs of cases to the data office at the end of the month to prevent loss of documentation as occurred previously. Strategies and action plans are discussed with staff to ensure families are contacted as early as possible so that evaluations and IFSPs can be conducted within the required timeline. The Program Coordinator reviews reports monthly and verifies data via monthly staffing and, when necessary, file review. This is useful in tracking progress or slippage. Results assist the program with program improvement strategies for this requirement and identifying where technical assistance is needed. Results are also reviewed during GEIS staff meetings to discuss strategies and action plans to ensure the program meets compliance.

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response, not including correction of findings

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Identified

Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year

Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected

Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

5

5

0

0

FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements

Guam reports correction of findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2014 demonstrating that GEIS: (1) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, (2) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement, based on updated data demonstrating 100% compliance through a review of monthly data from the data system. On July 17, 2014, the CMO conducted file reviews to examine compliance with 45 day timeline requirement. The Compliance Monitoring Office (CMO) issued one finding of noncompliance with the 45 day timeline. GEIS was able to demonstrate correct implementation of the 45 day timeline requirement by demonstrating 100% compliance through a review of monthly data from November 2014 to February 2015. The state-reported FFY 2014 APR Indicator 7 data was 95.97% (119/124), which reported five (5) individual instances of noncompliance for the reporting period. The one individual finding of noncompliance issued through File Reviews was included in the five total 5/15/2017

Page 22 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) individual instances of noncompliance for the reporting period. The remaining four (4) individual instances of noncompliance reported in the FFY 2014 APR for Indicator 7 occurred after the July 17, 2014 finding of noncompliance issued and were monitored for verified correction of compliance with Indicator 7. All individual findings of noncompliance were verified corrected and that subsequent data, were verified corrected.

Verification of correction of FFY 2014 noncompliance was made through a review of monthly and quarterly data from database. The CMO verified correction of noncompliance by reviewing the Part C reports dated November 4, 2014, December 2, 2014, January 2, 2015, and February 2, 2015. Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected

As reported in the FFY 2014 APR, the individual instances of non-compliance reported as state-reported APR data, 4.03% (5/124), for Indicator 7 included the findings of noncompliance issued by the File review conducted by the Compliance Monitoring Office. All instances of noncompliance findings were verified corrected and the monthly review of subsequent data demonstrated 100% compliance with Indicator 7, 45 day timeline requirement.

5/15/2017

Page 23 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 8A: Early Childhood Transition

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition Compliance indicator: The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has: A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday; B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target Data

89.00%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

2012

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

95.80%

98.81%

100%

Yellow – Baseline

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data

Data include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has 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. Yes No

Number of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services

Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

66

67

100%

100%

100%

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances This number will be added to the "Number of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services" field to calculate the numerator for this indicator.

1

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period). Data collected from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

Data for Indicator 8, reports the percent of children “who received services and exited at the transition planning age” with timely planning to support child's transition to preschool and other appropriate community service by their 3rd birthday. For the reporting period, 125 children exited the Part C Program; of which, 78 of those children were of the transition planning age of 30 months and forty-seven (47) cases were not of transition planning age of 30 months. Of the seventy-eight (78) children, sixty-seven (67) with an IFSP exited with transition plans and services at least 90 days prior to their third birthday, seven (7) had their initial IFSP and transition plan at age older than 33 months of age, and four (4) exited the program with no transition plan developed due to exceptional circumstances. 5/15/2017

Page 24 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) The Guam Early Intervention System (GEIS), the Part C Program, met its target at 100% with IDEA 20 USC 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442.

Data compiled included verification of data for the reporting period and not submitted 618 data. Based on the data report obtained from documentation submitted by the service coordinators, 100% (67/67) of the children had written documentation of completion of a 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.

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response, not including correction of findings

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Identified

Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year

Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected

Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

0

null

null

0

5/15/2017

Page 25 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 8B: Early Childhood Transition

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition Compliance indicator: The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has: A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday; B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

Target Data

100%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

100%

98.28%

100%

Yellow – Baseline

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data

Data include notification to both the SEA and LEA Yes No

Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prior to their third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services

Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

54

55

100%

100%

98.18%

Number of parents who opted out This number will be subtracted from the "Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B" field to calculate the denominator for this indicator.

0

Explanation of Slippage

The Guam Early Intervention System (GEIS), the Part C Program, acknowledges substantial compliance of 98.18% (54/55) with IDEA 20 USC 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442. However, GEIS is committed to ensuring that the notification to the Local Education Agency (LEA), Part B Program, data for this indicator was verified via review of data report and documentation in child folder submitted by the Service Coordinator (SC). For the reporting period, 125 children exited the Part C Program; of which, 78 children were of the transition planning age of 30 months. Of the 78 children, notification to the Local Education Agency (LEA), the Part B Program, was done for sixty-two (62) children. Fifty-four (54) notifications were provided within the required timeline, seven (7) notifications were sent to Part B past the required timeline due to child’s Initial IFSP occurring after the child’s age of 33 months and one (1) was sent late due to the SC submitting LEA past the required timeline. The Program Coordinator met with the Service Coordinator and continues to provide TA with the Service Coordinator to ensure timelines are achieved. To verify continued progress, additional progress data was collected for July 2016 to August 2016. There were nine (9) infants and 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 90 days prior to their 3rd birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B Preschool Services. This is performance of 100% for July 1, 2016 through August 30, 2016. 5/15/2017

Page 26 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Describe the method used to collect these data

The Department of Education (DOE) is the State Education Agency, and Lead Education Agency responsible for administration of Part C of this act also referred to as GEIS. There was evidence that the LEA representative through the Part B Preschool Program was notified of the potential Part B eligibility for all children who received Part C services and were referred to Part B for potential eligibility. A referral is submitted to Part B to notify the program of a child who may be potentially eligible for Part B services. The Part C Service Coordinator is responsible for submitting the referral and written documentation to the data clerk indicating the date of notification to the Part B program. A report is then generated monthly indicating dates of notification. The Program Coordinator reviews reports monthly and verifies data via monthly staffing and, when necessary, file review. This is useful in tracking progress or slippage. Results assist the program with program improvement strategies for this requirement and identifying where technical assistance is needed. Results are also reviewed during GEIS staff meetings to discuss strategies and action plans to ensure the program meets compliance.

Do you have a written opt-out policy? No

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period). Data collected from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

The LEA representative through the Part B Preschool Program was notified of toddlers receiving services under the GEIS program for 98.18% (54/55) of the children who received Part C services and were referred to Part B for potential Part B eligibility. The GEIS does not have an opt-out option for families. For the reporting period, 125 children exited the Part C Program; of which, 78 children were of the transition planning age of 30 months. Of the 78 children, notification to the LEA, the Part B Program, was done for sixty-two (62) children. Fifty-four (54) notifications were provided within the required timeline, seven (7) notifications were sent to Part B past the required timeline due to child’s Initial IFSP occurring after the child’s age of 33 months and one (1) was sent late due to SC submitting LEA past the required timeline . The Program Coordinator reviews reports monthly and verifies data via monthly staffing and, when necessary, file review. This is useful in tracking progress or slippage. Results assist the program with program improvement strategies for this requirement and identifying where technical assistance is needed. Results are also reviewed during GEIS staff meetings to discuss strategies and action plans to ensure the program meets compliance.

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response, not including correction of findings

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2014 Findings of Noncompliance Identified

Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year

Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected

Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

0

null

null

0

5/15/2017

Page 27 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 8C: Early Childhood Transition

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition Compliance indicator: The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has: A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday; B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

2006

70.00%

Target Data

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

82.00%

94.00%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

2012

2013

2014

100%

100%

100%

97.90%

96.36%

100%

Yellow – Baseline

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2015

2016

2017

2018

100%

100%

100%

100%

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data

Data reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has 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 toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services Yes No

Number 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

Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

46

55

100%

100%

98.11%

Number of toddlers for whom the parent did not provide approval for the transition conference This number will be subtracted from the "Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B" field to calculate the denominator for this indicator.

2

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances This number will be added to the "Number 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" field to calculate the numerator for this indicator.

6

Explanation of Slippage

The Guam Early Intervention System (GEIS), the Part C Program, acknowledges substantial compliance of 98.11% (52/53) with IDEA 20 USC 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442. However, GEIS is committed to ensuring that the transition conference data for this indicator was verified via review of data report and documentation in child folder submitted by the Service Coordinator (SC). Based on data for this reporting period, there were fifty-three (53) that “exited” at the transition planning age with a referral to Part B and had a transition conference prior to their third birthday. Based on data, forty-six (46) had their transition conference at least 90 days prior to their third birthday, six (6) had their transition conference late due to exceptional circumstances, and one (1) had their transition conference at 34 months 28 days of age, which was past the 90 day required timeline, due to SC scheduling the transition conference late. As stated in Indicator 8B, 125 children exited the Part C Program; of which, 78 children were of the transition planning age of 30 months. Of the 78 children, notification to the Local Education Agency (LEA), the Part B Program, was done for sixty-two (62) children. For indicator 8C, sixty-two (62) LEA's notifications were sent to Part B, seven (7) of the 62 transition conferences were conducted past the 5/15/2017

Page 28 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) required timeline due to child’s Initial IFSP occurring after the child’s age of 33 months and two (2) of the 62 cases did not have a transition conference conducted due to exceptional circumstances and therefore are not counted in Indicator 8C data. Therefore, fifty-three (53) of the sixty-two (62) are reported in the data for indicator 8C.

The Program Coordinator met with the Service Coordinator and continues to provide TA with the Service Coordinator to ensure timelines are achieved. To verify continued progress, additional progress data was collected for July 2016 to August 2016 indicating that eight (8) infant or toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties not more than 9 months, prior to the toddlers 3rd birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B. Based on data, nine (9) LEA notifications were sent to Part B; however, one (1) of the nine did not have transition conference prior to child’s third birthday due to exceptional circumstances. For the time period between July 1 through August 30, 2016, GEIS performance for this indicator was at 100%. The Department of Education (DOE) is the State Education Agency, and Lead Education Agency responsible for administration of Part C of this act also referred to as GEIS. There was evidence that the LEA representative through the Part B Preschool Program was notified of the potential Part B eligibility for all children who received Part C services and were referred to Part B for potential eligibility. A referral is submitted to Part B to notify the program of a child who may be potentially eligible for Part B services. The Part C Service Coordinator is responsible for submitting the referral and written documentation to the data clerk indicating the date of notification to the Part B program. A report is then generated monthly indicating dates of notification. The Program Coordinator reviews reports monthly and verifies data via monthly staffing and, when necessary, file review. This is useful in tracking progress or slippage. Results assist the program with program improvement strategies for this requirement and identifying where technical assistance is needed. Results are also reviewed during GEIS staff meetings to discuss strategies and action plans to ensure the program meets compliance.

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State monitoring State database

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period). Data collected from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

As stated in Indicator 8B, 125 children exited the Part C Program; of which, 78 children were of the transition planning age of 30 months. Of the 78 children, notification to the Local Education Agency (LEA), the Part B Program, was done for sixty-two (62) children. For indicator 8C, sixty-two (62) LEA's notifications were sent to Part B, seven (7) of the 62 transition conferences were conducted past the required timeline due to child’s Initial IFSP occurring after the child’s age of 33 months and two (2) of the 62 cases did not have a transition conference conducted due to exceptional circumstances and therefore are not counted in Indicator 8C data. Therefore, fifty-three (53) of the sixty-two (62) are reported in the data for indicator 8C. Based on data for this reporting period, there were fifty-three (53) that “exited” at the transition planning age with a referral to Part B and had a transition conference prior to their third birthday. Based on data, forty-six (46) had their transition conference at least 90 days prior to their third birthday, six (6) had their transition conference late due to exceptional circumstances, and one (1) had their transition conference at 34 months 28 days of age, which was past the 90 day required timeline, due to SC scheduling the transition conference late. The Program Coordinator reviews reports monthly and verifies data via monthly staffing and, when necessary, file review. This is useful in tracking progress or slippage. Results assist the program with program improvement strategies for this requirement and identifying where technical assistance is needed. Results are also reviewed during GEIS staff meetings to discuss strategies and action plans to ensure the program meets compliance.

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

Responses to actions required in FFY 2014 response, not including correction of findings

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2014 5/15/2017

Page 29 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Findings of Noncompliance Identified

Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year

Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected

Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

0

null

null

0

5/15/2017

Page 30 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 9: Resolution Sessions

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision Results indicator: 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)

Historical Data Baseline Data: FFY

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Target ≥ Data Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target ≥ Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

No requests for resolution sessions were filed during this reporting period 2015-2016 As per OSEP's instructions, States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of the resolution sessions is less than 10. In previous SPP/APR submissions, Guam's data for Indicator 9 has not been 10 or greater. Guam Part C therefore has not established a baseline or determined targets for Indicator 9.

Prepopulated Data Source

Date

SY 2015-16 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints

11/2/2016

SY 2015-16 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints

11/2/2016

Description

Data

Overwrite Data

3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements

n

null

3.1 Number of resolution sessions

n

null

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data 3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements

3.1 Number of resolution sessions

0

0

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

5/15/2017

Page 31 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 10: Mediation

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision Results indicator: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data Baseline Data: 2005 FFY

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Target ≥ Data Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2015 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target ≥ Key:

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

No requests for mediations were filed during the reporting period of 2015-2016 As per OSEP's instructions, States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of the resolution sessions is less than 10. In previous SPP/APR submissions, Guam's data for Indicator 10 has not been 10 or greater. Guam Part C therefore has not established a baseline or determined targets for Indicator 10.

Prepopulated Data Source

Date

SY 2015-16 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests

11/2/2016

SY 2015-16 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests SY 2015-16 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests

Description

Data

Overwrite Data

2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints

n

null

11/2/2016

2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints

n

null

11/2/2016

2.1 Mediations held

n

null

FFY 2015 SPP/APR Data 2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints

2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints

2.1 Mediations held

0

0

0

FFY 2014 Data*

FFY 2015 Target*

FFY 2015 Data

Actions required in FFY 2014 response none

5/15/2017

Page 32 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Indicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan

Monitoring Priority: General Supervision Results indicator: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.

Reported Data Baseline Data: 2013 FFY

2013

Target Data

64.40% Key:

Gray – Data Prior to Baseline

2014

2015

65.50%

67.50%

50.77%

53.57%

Yellow – Baseline

Blue – Data Update

FFY 2016 - FFY 2018 Targets FFY Target

2016 70.50%

2017

2018

73.00%

75.00%

Key:

Description of Measure The measure used in the collection of data for this indicator is the COSF (Child Outcome Summary Form). Entry data is collected on all children four months of age or older and exit data is collected upon exiting the system if the child has been in the program for 6 months or longer. Data under Summary Statement 1 Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy) outcome area (those infants and toddlers making substantial progress towards functioning as same age peers) will be used to measure progress. The baseline was established from the last fiscal year's level (64.4%) and targets were set by incrementally increasing to 75.0% over the five year period. In order to put in place state wide evidence based strategies that impact Acquisition and use of Knowledge and Skills (including early language/communication and early literacy), smaller increments of improvement were selected for the first three years with higher targets set for the remaining years.

Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

Refer to the Guam Part C SSIP Phase II: Introducation Section on pages 1 and 2.

Overview

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 Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families, 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.

Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase I: Component 1 - Data Analysis

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 and their families. 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.

Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase I: Component 2 - Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity

5/15/2017

Page 33 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families A statement of the result(s) the State intends to achieve through the implementation of the SSIP. The State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families must be aligned to an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR indicator. The State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families must be clearly based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses and must be a child- or family-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)). Statement

Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase I: Component 3 - State-identified Measurable Results for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families

Description

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 Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families. 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 evidence-based practices to improve the State-identified result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. 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 Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families.

Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase I: Component 4 - Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies

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 Measurable Result(s) for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and their Families.

Submitted Theory of Action: No Theory of Action Submitted

Provide a description of the provided graphic illustration (optional) Description of Illustration

Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase I: Component 5 - Theory of Action

Infrastructure Development (a) Specify improvements that will be made to the State infrastructure to better support EIS programs and providers to implement and scale up EBPs to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. (b) Identify the steps the State will take to further align and leverage current improvement plans and other early learning initiatives and programs in the State, including Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, Home Visiting Program, Early Head Start and others which impact infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. (c) Identify who will be in charge of implementing the changes to infrastructure, resources needed, expected outcomes, and timelines for completing improvement efforts. (d) Specify how the State will involve multiple offices within the State Lead Agency, as well as other State agencies and stakeholders in the improvement of its infrastructure. Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase II: Component 1 - Infrastructure Development

Support for EIS programs and providers Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices (a) Specify how the State will support EIS providers in implementing the evidence-based practices that will result in changes in Lead Agency, EIS program, and EIS provider practices to achieve the SIMR(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. (b) 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; and timelines for completion. (c) Specify how the State will involve multiple offices within the Lead Agency (and other State agencies such as the SEA) to support EIS providers in scaling up and sustaining the implementation of the evidence-based practices once they have been implemented with fidelity. Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase II: Component 2 - Support for EIS Program and Provider Implementation of Evidenced-Based Practices

Evaluation 5/15/2017

Page 34 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

(a) Specify how the evaluation is aligned to the theory of action and other components of the SSIP and the extent to which it includes short-term and long-term objectives to measure implementation of the SSIP and its impact on achieving measurable improvement in SIMR(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. (b) Specify how the evaluation includes stakeholders and how information from the evaluation will be disseminated to stakeholders. (c) Specify the methods that the State will use to collect and analyze data to evaluate implementation and outcomes of the SSIP and the progress toward achieving intended improvements in the SIMR(s). (d) Specify how the State will use the evaluation data to examine the effectiveness of the implementation; assess the State’s progress toward achieving intended improvements; and to make modifications to the SSIP as necessary. Please see Guam Part C SSIP Phase II: Component 3 - Evaluation Plan

Technical Assistance and Support Describe the support the State needs to develop and implement an effective SSIP. Areas to consider include: Infrastructure development; Support for EIS programs and providers implementation of EBP; Evaluation; and Stakeholder involvement in Phase II. Please see Guam Part C Phase II

Phase III submissions should include: • Data-based justifications for any changes in implementation activities. • Data to support that the State is on the right path, if no adjustments are being proposed. • Descriptions of how stakeholders have been involved, including in decision-making.

A. Summary of Phase 3 1. Theory of action or logic model for the SSIP, including the SiMR. 2. The coherent improvement strategies or principle activities employed during the year, including infrastructure improvement strategies. 3. The specific evidence-based practices that have been implemented to date. 4. Brief overview of the year’s evaluation activities, measures, and outcomes. 5. Highlights of changes to implementation and improvement strategies. Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. A: Summary of Phase III

B. Progress in Implementing the SSIP 1. Description of the State’s SSIP implementation progress: (a) Description of extent to which the State has carried out its planned activities with fidelity—what has been accomplished, what milestones have been met, and whether the intended timeline has been followed and (b) Intended outputs that have been accomplished as a result of the implementation activities. 2. Stakeholder involvement in SSIP implementation: (a) How stakeholders have been informed of the ongoing implementation of the SSIP and (b) How stakeholders have had a voice and been involved in decision-making regarding the ongoing implementation of the SSIP. Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. B: Progress in Implementing the SSIP

C. Data on Implementation and Outcomes 1. How the State monitored and measured outputs to assess the effectiveness of the implementation plan: (a) How evaluation measures align with the theory of action, (b) Data sources for each key measure, (c) Description of baseline data for key measures, (d) Data collection procedures and associated timelines, (e) [If applicable] Sampling procedures, (f) [If appropriate] Planned data comparisons, and (g) How data management and data analysis procedures allow for assessment of progress toward achieving intended improvements 2. How the State has demonstrated progress and made modifications to the SSIP as necessary: (a) How the State has reviewed key data that provide evidence regarding progress toward achieving intended improvements to infrastructure and the SiMR, (b) Evidence of change to baseline data for key measures, (c) How data support changes that have been made to implementation and improvement strategies, (d) How data are informing next steps in the SSIP implementation, and (e) How data support planned modifications to intended outcomes (including the SIMR)—rationale or justification for the changes or how data support that the SSIP is on the right path 3. Stakeholder involvement in the SSIP evaluation: (a) How stakeholders have been informed of the ongoing evaluation of the SSIP and (b) How stakeholders have had a voice and been involved in decision-making regarding the ongoing evaluation of the SSIP Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. C: Data on Implementation and Outcomes

D. Data Quality Issues: Data limitations that affected reports of progress in implementing the SSIP and achieving the SIMR 1. Concern or limitations related to the quality or quantity of the data used to report progress or results 2. Implications for assessing progress or results 3. Plans for improving data quality Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. D- Data Qualit Issues: Data limitations that affected reports of progress in implementing the SSIP and achieving the SiMR.

E. Progress Toward Achieving Intended Improvements 1. Infrastructure changes that support SSIP initiatives, including how system changes support achievement of the SiMR, sustainability, and scale-up 2. Evidence that SSIP’s evidence-based practices are being carried out with fidelity and having the desired effects 3. Outcomes regarding progress toward short-term and long-term objectives that are necessary steps toward achieving the SIMR 4. Measurable improvements in the SIMR in relation to targets Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. E: Progress Toward Achieving Intended Improvements

F. Plans for Next Year 1. Additional activities to be implemented next year, with timeline 2. Planned evaluation activities including data collection, measures, and expected outcomes 3. Anticipated barriers and steps to address those barriers 4. The State describes any needs for additional support and/or technical assistance

5/15/2017

Page 35 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Please see attached Guam SSIP Phase III Report for Sec. F: Plans for Next Year

5/15/2017

Page 36 of 37

FFY 2015 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Introduction Certify and Submit your SPP/APR Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 I certify that I am the Director of the State's Lead Agency under Part C of the IDEA, or his or her designee, and that the State's submission of its IDEA Part C State Performance Indicator Plan/Annual4Performance Report is accurate. Indicator 5 Selected: 6 Designated by the Lead Agency Director to certify Indicator Indicator 7 Name and title of the individual certifying the accuracy of the State's submission of its IDEA Part C State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report. Indicator 8 Name: Yolanda Indicator 8AS. Gabriel Indicator 8B Superintendent Title: Assistant Indicator 8C Email: [email protected] Indicator 9 Phone: 671-300-1322 Indicator 10 Indicator 11

5/15/2017

Page 37 of 37