Family, Infant and Toddler Project of Chittenden County

The Family, Infant & Toddler Project is Vermont's Part C of IDEA.
Parent to Parent is the Host Agency for the Chittenden County Family Infant & Toddler Project.

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP)
The federal monitoring of Vermont's implementation of IDEA has begun! This time, however, rather than being directed by The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the monitoring is shareholder driven and has a new title: the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP). CIMP is composed of two major phases: self-assessment and improvement. Self-assessment is now drawing to a close, while the design and funding for improvement planning are being finalized.
From April to July 2002, a Steering Committee of about 50 individuals joined Vermont's Planning Team for the self-assessment phase. The Steering Committee identified strengths as well as areas in need of improvement regarding the provision of early intervention and special education services in Vermont. Resource people were available for technical assistance and a wealth of data was presented for review. The Steering Committee used records of Public Forums and summaries of parent surveys to verify their findings. The Planning Team, led by Dennis Kane, Director of Student Support Services, and Helen Keith, Director of Part C of IDEA, will now report the Self-Assessment results to OSEP and launch the improvement phase of the process.
A Participant's Perspective:
By Ann Dillenbeck, Family Resource Coordinator
"Monitoring" is not a word that usually signifies enthusiasm, commitment, or high investment. However, with each meeting of the CIMP Steering Committee, these were just the characteristics that I associated with the process.
Here are some ways this monitoring process differed from my expectations:

• Our committee was not made up of people in business suits conducting an external audit. First day introductions revealed we were parents, administrators, early interventionists, teachers, leaders of community agencies, and counselors. Steering Committee members had first hand information about receiving and delivering special education services, transitioning from one program to another and exiting the system, supervising personnel, and advocating for change. Although the Committee's decisions were data based, our personal experiences helped us identify data sources and interpret the many charts and reports in our binders.
• Part C and Part B of IDEA were both monitored by the same committees. The Planning Team and the Steering Committee addressed early intervention and special education services as a continuous system from birth to adulthood. I welcomed this collaboration as many of the Steering Committee members have experience with both Parts of IDEA and it diminished an artificial discontinuity in a child's life at age three.
• We worked in sub-committees, called cluster groups, and then "reported out" to the entire group. My focus area was Early Intervention Services in the Natural Environment, but through the reporting out process, I learned about and responded to data and conclusions in all the other cluster groups as well.
• Our decisions were made by consensus. Whether we were in our cluster groups or working in the Steering Committee as a whole, we continued the discussion until we came to an agreement. Periodically, our facilitators would check with us to see if we endorsed the current conclusion, could live with it, or if we were planning to block it. Blocked or vetoed, conclusions were passed on to the Planning Team for further discussion. In this way, we did not have to resort to a "majority rules" decision making  process.
• Our conclusions were surprising. We did not leave with a list of wrong-doings needing correction; instead we walked away knowing we had several promising and best practices, some areas which needed improvement, and quite a few "no conclusions" due to lack of data. After each session, my personal resolve to find and develop data sources increased. Possibilities include analysis of six-month and annual Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) reviews, the types of services listed on the IFSP's, as well as surveys and interviews with families and providers. We need to document our work, and outcomes met by children, youth, and families, so that reports to OSEP will reflect our successes and accurately highlight our challenges.
• We had fun and returned with gifts! To keep us cheerful, members of the Planning Team put on skits and sang songs about the joys of interpreting data and monitoring our own system. On the final day, one cluster group appeared in  T-shirts labeled "Data Chicks" and we were each given a lovely geranium plant. It was clear to me that the Planning Team appreciated our time and efforts!

More information on FITP

From Our Director
Volunteer-Cathy Bergeron
Family Faculty
Family Support
Family Infant Toddler Project
Family Voices in Vermont
Books & Beyond
Family Stories: Daniels | Demeritt
Our Calendar | News & Note