Part C National Program Data
Section 618 Data
Section 618 of IDEA requires states to submit data about infants and toddlers who receive early intervention services under Part C (number and percentage of children served by race, gender, and ethnicity; settings for services; numbers of and reasons for children exiting services; disability categories, and more).
Child and Family Outcomes Data
States report outcomes data for children and families receiving Part C services on their Annual Performance Reports (APRs). National child and family outcomes data for Part C can be found in the annual Part C APR Indicator Analyses reports (see Indicators C3 and C4). Highlights from the most recent APR data analyses are also available on the Outcomes section of our website.
Part C Infant and Toddler Program Federal Appropriations and National Child Count 1987-2019
|FFY1||Dollars (Millions)2||Children Served3||Dollars Per Child||% of Population Served4|
- 1 For example, in FFY 1991, 194,000 children were reported to be receiving services as of December 1, 1990.
- 2 Dollars (Millions) appropriated for distribution to states. Source: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html
- 3 Children with Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) in the Fall of each federal fiscal year, U.S. & Outlying Areas. Source: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html
- 4 Percentage of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under Part C (and Chapter 1 for 1987-1994 only) as of December 1 of the Federal fiscal year. For example, for fiscal year 2011, 2.82% of infants and toddlers were reported to be receiving services as of December 1, 2010. Percentage is calculated by dividing the total number of children served by the total population. For some years, it is calculated using the population of the US and outlying areas (all states, DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands); for other years it is calculated using the population of all states, DC and PR. The difference between the two is negligible. Source: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html
- 5 A combination of factors appears to account for the apparent decline in these child counts:
- early inaccuracies, including duplicated counts in state data collection systems;
- inclusion in earlier years of children who only received some services and who did not necessarily have IFSPs; and
- in the count for 1993, the decline in the reported number of children served in several large states masked the reports from 39 other jursdictions of increases in the number of children served.
- 6 Includes $34 million to offset the elimination of funding for the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program.
- 7 FFY 2005 was level funded from 2004 but there was a .80% recission.
- 8 FFY 2006 was level funded from 2005 but there was a 1% recission.
- 9 FFY 2011 was level funded from 2010, but there was a .20% across-the-board recission.
- 10 FFY 2012 was initially funded at 443.5 million, but there was a .189% across-the-board recission.
- 11 FFY 2013 was initially funded at 442.7 million. The 5.208% reduction is the effect of the sequester and an across-the-board cut in the final appropriation.