2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART C — Delaware
OSEP Response to SPP/APR (revised determination as of November 24, 2020)
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Delaware
MS WORDView PDF
OSEP Response to SPP/APR (revised determination as of November 24, 2020)
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON DC 20202-2600
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
O
FFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
November 24, 2020
Honorable
Molly Magarik
Cabinet Secretary
Delaware Department of Health and Social Services
1901 North Du Pont Highway
New Castle, Delaware 19720
Dear Cabinet Secretary Magarik:
I am writing to advise you of the U. S. Department of Education's (Department) 2020 revised
determination for Delaware under sections 616 and 642 of Part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Department has revised Delaware’s determination from
“needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part C of the IDEA” to “needs
assistance to meet the requirements and purposes of Part C of the IDEA.” This revised
determination letter replaces the Department’s June 23, 2020 letter and is based on the totality of
the State’s data and information, including the original and subsequent submissions provided by
the State after the Department’s June 23, 2020 determination letter. Specifically, the original
submission included the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State -reported data, and other publicly available
information as of June 23, 2020. Subsequent submissions include documents and information
provided by the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) on July 10, 2020,
and August 11, 2020, as well as information provided during a video teleconference conducted
on September 25, 2020.
The Department’s revised determi nation is based on acceptance of the State’s FFY 2018
SPP/APR data for Indicators 1, 7, 8A, and 8C, which were initially determined as not valid and
reliable and thus the primary factors contributing to the Department’s “needs intervention” IDEA
Part C determination for Delaware. The Department’s Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) had identified a number of issues during the SPP/APR clarification process as well as
OSEP’s December 2019 monitoring visit as to how DHSS collected and reported its data for
these compliance indicators. Ultimately, through the appeal process, DHSS provided
documentation to confirm that its data were valid and reliable. During the APR clarification
process, DHSS explained how it had revised its data collection to address s ome concerns raised
during the 2019 monitoring visit, but had not provided sufficient explanation during clarification
and prior to the June 2020 determination to address all the concerns related to the validity of the
data.
Page 2 – Lead Agency Director
At the outset of the SPP/APR clarification process, OSEP’s pre
-clarification response informed
DHSS that the reported data for Indicators 1, 7, 8A , 8B, and 8C were not valid and reliable
because the State had reported to OSEP that “it has been [DHSS] practice, when noncompliance
is id entified through monitoring, [that early intervention service or] EIS programs are given the
opportunity to correct the noncompliance prior to the State finalizing the data that is calculated
and reported as the State’s indicator data in the SPP/APR. ” OSEP indicated that it could not
determine whether “Correction of Noncompliance Identified in 2017” as reported under
Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C was consistent with OSEP Memo 09- 02, because the State had
reported “ that it has been [DHSS] practice to not issue findings of noncompliance to its EIS
programs.”
During the SPP/APR clarification period, DHSS acknowledged under Indicators 1, 7, 8A, and
8C that the State’s practice regarding identified noncompliance did not adhere to the
requirements articulated in OSEP Memo 09- 02. The State indicated that it was working with
technical assistance advisors to “develop appropriate corrective action measures to ensure future
data is valid and reliable.” The State’s changes to those indicators made during the clarification
period did not refute OSEP’s assertion that the FFY 2018 data were valid and reliable . However,
the State did make changes to Indicator 8B addressing the Department’s pre -clarification
response, further explaining how data was collected and why the data was in fact reliable. In
issuing its initial June 23, 2020 determination, the Department accepted the State’s clarification
regarding Indicator 8B and accepted the data for that Indicator as valid and reliable. For
Indicators 1, 7, 8A, and 8C, given that the State had acknowledged failures regarding correction
of identified non- compliance, asserted that corrective action would be taken to ensure future data
are valid and reliable, and had not clarified why the data reported under these indicators should
be considered valid and reliable, OSEP maintained its pre -clarification interpretation that the data
were not valid and reliable for these indicators and the Department issued a determination of
Needs Intervention.
In its July 10, 2020, letter requesting that the Department reconsider its determination, the State
contended that its FFY 2018 data reported under Indicators 1, 7, 8A , and 8C were valid and
reliable. The State submitted additional documentation related to its process for colle cting its
SPP/APR data on August 11, and October 2, 2020. Additionally, during a video conference on
September 25, 2020, the State acknowledged that its data collection reflected input from OSEP’s
December 2019 monitoring visit to address two areas of nonc ompliance that had been identified
by OSEP regarding not permitting EIS provider pre -finding correction to affect whether the data
reported reflected the level of compliance. Specifically, the State confirmed in September 2020
that its FFY 2018 data (which were submitted in February 2020) distinguished between
documented exceptional family circumstances and noncompliance with relevant timeline
requirements. DHSS representatives also acknowledged during the September 2020 hearing the
need for DHSS to continue to improve its data collection going forward in order to capture
accurate, valid and reliable data for its compliance indicators and to address other areas of
general supervision and monitoring, which OSEP will address separately in its response to the
D ecember 2019 monitoring visit.
The Department reviewed the State’s arguments and supporting documentation related to
SPP/APR I ndicators 1, 7, 8A , and 8C specific to the validity and reliability of its FFY 2018 data.
After careful consideration of the infor mation submitted by Delaware, the Department accepts
the FFY 2018 data reported under these indicators as valid and reliable. As a result, the
Page 3 – Lead Agency Director
Department is
revising the State’s 2020 Determination from Needs Intervention to Needs
Assistance. Your State’s 2 020 revised determination is based on the data reflected in the State’s
revised “2020 Part C Results -Driven Accountability Matrix” (RDA Matrix). The RDA Matrix is
individualized for each State and consists of:
(1) a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on Compliance Indicators and other
compliance factors;
(2) Results Components and Appendices that include scoring on Results Elements;
(3) a Compliance Score and a Results Score;
(4) an RDA Percentage based on both the Compl iance Score and the Results Score; and
(5) the State’s Determination.
The revised RDA Matrix is further explained in a document entitled “How the Department Made
Determinations under Sections 616(d) and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
i n 2020: Part C” (HTDMD). While the HTDMD is attached to this letter for your convenience,
the document is unchanged from the version dated, June 23, 2020. The Department’s revised
determination is based on a review of newly available information presented by the State and
does not reflect a change in the rationale used by the Department to make determinations.
OSEP is continuing to use both results data and compliance data in making the Department’s
determinations in 2020, as it did for the Part C determina tions in 2015 through 2019. (The
specifics of the determination procedures and criteria are set forth in the HTDMD and reflected
in the RDA Matrix for your State .) For 2020, the Department’s IDEA Part C determinations
continue to include consideration of e ach State’s Child Outcomes data, which measure how
children who receive Part C services are improving functioning in three outcome areas that are
critical to school readiness:
• positive social -emotional skills;
• acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication);
and
• use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Specifically, the Department considered the data quality and the child performance levels in each
State’s Child Outcomes FFY 2018 data.
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/APR and other relevant data
by accessing the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool using your State -specific log -on information at
https://emaps .ed.gov/suite/
. When you access your State’s SPP/APR on the site, you will find, in
Indicators 1 through 10, the OSEP Response to the indicator and any actions that the State is
required to take. The actions that the State is required to take are in two pl aces:
(1) actions related to the correction of findings of noncompliance are in the “OSEP
Response” section of the indicator; and
(2) any other actions that the State is required to take are in the “Required Actions” section of
the indicator.
Page 4 – Lead Agency Director
It is important for
you to review the Introduction to the SPP/APR, which may also include
language in the “OSEP Response” and/or “Required Actions” sections.
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments to the Progress
Page: (1) the State’s RDA Matrix (revised);
(2) the HTDMD document (unchanged) ;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “2020 Data Rubric Part C,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
State’s “Timely and Accurate State- Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix
( revised ); and
(4) a document entitle d “Dispute Resolution 2018- 19,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix (unchanged).
As noted above, the State’s 2020 determination is Needs Assistance. A State’s 2020 RDA
Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. A
State would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or ab ove, but
the Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C
grant awards (for FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the
time of the 2020 determination.
As shown in the enclos ed HTDMD and revised RDA Matrix for Delaware, this revision results
in Delaware receiving an RDA percentage of 6 6.07. As noted above, the State’s revised 2020
determination is N eeds Assistance.
The State’s determination for 2019 was also Needs Assistance. In accordance with section
616(e)(1) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. § 303.704(a), if a State is determined to need assistance for
two consecutive years, the Secretary must take one or more of the following actions:
(1) advise the State of available sources of technical assistance that may help the State
address the areas in which the State needs assistance and require the State to work with
appropriate entities; and/or
(2) identify the State as a high -risk grantee and impose Special Conditions on the State’s
IDEA Part C grant award.
Pursuant to these requirements, the Secretary is advising the State of available sources of
technical assistance, including OSEP -funded technical assistance centers and resources at the
following website: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/highlighted- resources
, and requiring the
State to work with appropriate entities. In addition, the State should consider accessing technical
assistance from other Department-funded centers such as the Comprehensive Centers with
resources at the following link:
https://compcenternetwork.org/st ates . The Secretary directs the
State to determine the results elements and/or compliance indicators, and improvement
strategies, on which it will focus its use of available technical assistance, in order to improve its
performance. We strongly encourage t he State to access technical assistance related to those
results elements and compliance indicators for which the State received a score of zero. Your
State must report with its FFY 2019 SPP/APR submission, due February 1, 2021, on:
Page 5 – Lead Agency Director
(1)
the technical assistan ce sources from which the State received assistance; and
(2) the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance.
As required by IDEA section 616(e)(7) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.706, your State must notify the
public that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement action, including, at a
minimum, by posting a public notice on its website and distributing the notice to the media and
to EIS programs.
States were required to submit Phase III , Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement P lan
( SSIP) by April 1, 2020. OSEP appreciates the State’s ongoing work on its SSIP and its efforts to
improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. We have carefully
reviewed and responded to your submission. OSEP will continue to work with your State as it
implements the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP, which is due on April 1, 2021.
As a reminder, your State must report annually to the public, by posting on the State lead
agency’s website, on the performance of each E IS program located in the State on the targets in
the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days after the State’s submission of its
FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) review EIS program performance against targets in the Stat e’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each EIS program “meets the requirements” of Part C, or “needs assistance,”
“needs intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing Part C of the
IDEA;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and
(4) inform each EIS program of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting it on the State lead
agency’s website. Within the upcoming weeks, OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that: (1) includes the State’s determination letter and SPP/APR, OSEP attachments, and all State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; and
(2) will be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
Page 6 – Lead Agency Director
We are committed to supporting Delaware’s efforts to improve results for infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their f
amilies and look forward to working with DHSS over the next year. If
you have any questions or you wish to request technical assista nce, please contact Jennifer
Miley , the OSEP Contact for Delaware, at 202- 245-6049.
Sincerely,
/s/
Mark Schultz
Commissioner, Rehabilitative Services
Administration.
Delegated the authority to perform the functions
and duties of the Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services .
cc: State Part C Coordinator
APR and 618 -Timely and Accurate State Reported Data
DATE: February 20 20 Submission
Please see below the definitions for the terms used in this worksheet.
SPP/APR Data
1) Valid and Reliable Data – Data provided are from the correct time period, are consistent with 618 (when
appropriate) and the measurement, and are consistent with previous indicator data (unless explained).
Part C
618 Data
1) Timely – A State will receive one point if it submits counts/ responses for an entire EMAPS survey
associated with the IDEA Section 618 data collection to ED by the initial due date for that collection (as
described the table below).
618 Data Collection EMAPS Survey Due Date
Part C Child Count and Setting Part C Child Count and Settings in
EMAPS 1st Wednesday in April
Part C Exiting Part C Exiting Collection in EMAPS 1st Wednesday in November
Part C Dispute Resolution Part C Dispute Resolution Survey in
EMAPS 1st Wednesday in November
2) Complete Data – A State will receive one point if it submits data for all data elements, subtotals, totals as
well as responses to all questions a ssociated with a specific data collection by the initial due date. No data is
reported as missing. No placeholder data is submitted. State -level data include data from all districts or
agencies.
) Passed Edit Check – A State will receive one point if it submits data that meets all the edit checks related
to the specific data collection by the initial due date. The counts included in 618 data submissions are internally
consistent within a data collection. See the EMAPS User Guide for each of the Part C 61 8 Data Collections for
a list of edit checks (available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html ).
APR and 618 -Timely and Accurate State Reported Data Page 1 of 3
FFY 2018 APR
Part
C Timely and Accurate Data -
SPP/APR Data
APR Indicator Valid and Reliable Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8a
8b
8c
9
10
11
Subtotal
APR Score Calculation
Timely Submission Points – If the
FFY 2018 SPP/APR was submitted
on -time, place the number 5 in the
cell on the right.
Grand Total – (Sum of subtotal and
Timely Submission Points) =
APR and 618 -Timely and Accurate State Reported Data Page 2 of 3
618 Data
Table Timely Complete Data Passed Edit
Check Total
Child Count/Settings
Due Date: 4/3/19
Exiting
Due Date: 11/6/19
Dispute Resolution
Due Date: 11/6/19
Subtotal
618 Score Calculation
Grand Total
(Subtotal X 2) =
Indicator Calculation
A. 618 Grand Total
B. APR Grand Total
C.618 Grand Total ( A) + APR Grand Total (B) =
Total NA in 618 Total NA Points Subtracted
in
618
Total NA Points Subtracted in
APR
Denominator
D.
Subtotal (C divided by Denominator) =
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal D x 100) =
*Note any cell marked as N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2 for 618 .
APR and 618 -Timely and Accurate State Reported Data Page 3 of 3
II. Results Component — Child Performance
Delaware
2020 Part C Results-Driven Accountability Matrix
Results‐ Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination 1
Percentage (%) Determination
66.07
Needs Assistance
Results and Compliance Overall Scoring
Total Points Available Points Earned Score (%)
75
Results
8 6
Compliance 14 8 57.14
I.Results Component — Data Quality
Data Quality Total Score (completeness + anomalies) 4
(a) Data Completeness: The percent of children included in your State’s 2018 Outcomes Data (Indicator C3)
Number of Children Reported in Indicator C3 (i.e. outcome data) 829
1057
78.43
2
Number of Children Reported Exiting in 618 Data (i.e. 618 exiting data)
Percentage of Children Exiting who are Included in Outcome Data (%)
Data Completeness Score 2
(b) Data Anomalies: Anomalies in your State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes Data
Data Anomalies Score 3 2
Child Performance
Tota
l
Score
(state comparison + year to year comparison) 2
(a) Comparing your State’s 2018 Out
comes Data to other State’s 2018 Outcomes Data
Data Comparison Score 4 1
(b) Comparing your State’s FFY 2018 data to your State’s FFY 2017 data
Performance Change Score 5 1
1 For a detailed explanation of how the Compliance Score, Results Score, and the Results‐ Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination were calculated, review
"How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Part C."
2 Please see Appendix A for a detailed description of this calculation. 3 Please see Appendix B for a detailed description of this calculation. 4 Please see Appendix C for a detailed description of this calculation. 5 Please see Appendix D for a detailed description of this calculation.
1 | Page
Summary
Statement
Performance Outcome
A:
Positive Social
Relationships SS1 (%) Outcome
A:
Positive Social
Relationships SS2 (%) Outcome
B:
Knowledge and Skills
SS1 (%) Outcome
B:
Knowledge and Skills
SS2 (%) Outcome
C:
Actions to
Meet Needs
SS1 (%) Outcome
C:
Actions to
Meet Needs
SS2 (%)
FFY 2018
63.74 38 69.25 34.62 67.05 41.25
FFY 2017 63.79 41.46 67.68 36.15 65.28 42.61
2020 Part C Compliance Matrix
Part C Compliance Indicator 1
Performance
(%) Full
Correction of
Findings of
Noncompliance Identified in
FFY 2017 Score
Indicator 1: Timely service provision
55.33 No 0
Indicator 7: 45‐ day timeline 92.67 No 1
Indicator 8A: Timely transition plan 100 No 2
Indicator 8B: Transition notification 100 N/A 2
Indicator 8C: Timely transition conference 93.33 No 1
Timely and Accurate State‐Reported Data 100 1
Timely State Complaint Decisions N/A N/A
Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions N/A N/A
Longstanding Noncompliance 1
Special Conditions None
Uncorrected identified
noncompliance Yes, 2 to 4 years
1 The complete language for each indicator is located in the Part C SPP/APR Indicator Measurement Table at:
https://osep.grads360.org/#co mmunities/pdc/documents/18306
2 | Page
Appendix A
I. (a) Data Completeness:
The Percent of Children Included in your State's 2018 Outcomes Data (Indicator C3)
Data completeness was calculated using the total number of Part C children who were included in your State’s FFY 2018
Outcomes Data (C3) and the total number of children your State reported in its FFY 2018 IDEA Section 618 data. A
percentage for your State was computed by dividing the number of children reported in your State’s Indicator C3 data
by the number of children your State reported exited during FFY 2018 in the State’s FFY 2018 IDEA Section 618 Exit Data.
Data Completeness Score Percent of Part C Children included in Outcomes Data (C3) and 618 Data
0 Lower than 34%
1 34% through 64%
2 65% and above
3 | Page
Appendix B
I.(b) Data Quality:
Anomalies in Your State's FFY 2017 Outcomes Data
This score represents a summary of the data anomalies in the FFY 2018 Indicator 3 Outcomes Data reported by your State. Publicly
available data for the preceding four years reported by and across all States for each of 15 progress categories under Indicator 3 (in
the FFY 2014 – FFY 2017 APRs) were used to determine an expected range of responses for each progress category under Outcomes
A, B, and C. For each of the 15 progress categories, a mean was calculated using the publicly available data and a lower and upper
scoring percentage was set 1 standard deviation above and below the mean for category a and 2 standard deviations above and
below the mean for categories b through e
12. In any case where the low scoring percentage set from 1 or 2 standard deviations
below the mean resulted in a negative number, the low scoring percentage is equal to 0.
If your State's FFY 2018 data reported in a progress category fell below the calculated "low percentage" or above the "high
percentage" for that progress category for all States, the data in that particular category are statistically improbable outliers and
considered an anomaly for that progress category. If your State’s data in a particular progress category was identified as an anomaly,
the State received a 0 for that category. A percentage that is equal to or between the low percentage and high percentage for each
progress category received 1 point. A State could receive a total number of points between 0 and 15. Thus, a point total of 0
indicates that all 15 progress categories contained data anomalies and a point total of 15 indicates that there were no data
anomalies in all 15 progress categories in the State's data. An overall data anomalies score of 0, 1, or 2 is based on the total points
awarded.
Outcome A Positive Social Relationships
Outcome B Knowledge and Skills
Outcome C Actions to Meet Needs
Category a Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning
Category b Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning
comparable to same ‐aged peers
Category c Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same ‐aged peers but did not
reach it
Category d Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same ‐aged peers
Category e Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same ‐aged peers
OutcomeCategory Mean StDev ‐1SD +1SD
Outcome ACategory a
2.24 4.9 ‐2.66 7.13
Outcome BCategory a
1.85 4.73 ‐2.89 6.58
Outcome CCategory a
1.91 5.2 ‐3.29 7.11
1 Numbers shown as rounded for display purposes. 2 Values based on data for States with summary statement denominator greater than 199 exiters.
4 | Page
OutcomeCategory Mean StDev ‐2SD +2SD
Outcome A Category b 21.28 8.29 4.7 37.87
Outcome A Category c 18.94 11.52 ‐4.1 41.98
Outcome A Category d 28.16 8.87 10.42 45.9
Outcome A Category e 29.38 15.02 ‐0.65 59.41
Outcome B Category b 22.74 9.21 4.31 41.16
Outcome B Category c 27.04 11.17 4.7 49.38
Outcome B Category d 33.69 8.08 17.54 49.84
Outcome B Category e 14.69 9.63 ‐4.58 33.95
Outcome C Category b 18.75 7.69 3.37 34.14
Outcome C Category c 21.58 11.78 ‐1.99 45.15
Outcome C Category d 35.37 8.62 18.13 52.61
Outcome C Category e 22.39 14.36 ‐6.32 51.1
Data Anomalies Score Total Points Received in All Progress Areas
0 0 through 9 points
1 10 through 12 points
2 13 through 15 points
5 | Page
Data Quality: Anomalies in Your State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes Data
Number of Infants and Toddlers with IFSP’s
Assessed in your State 829
Outcome A —
Positive Social
Relationships Category a Category b Category c Category d Category e
State
Performance 5
251 258 192 123
Performance
(%) 0.6
30.28 31.12 23.16 14.84
Scores 1 1 1 1 1
Outcome B —
Knowledge and
Skills Category a Category b Category c Category d Category e
State
Performance 5
229 308 219 68
Performance
(%) 0.6
27.62 37.15 26.42 8.2
Scores 1 1 1 1 1
Outcome C —
Actions to Meet
Needs Category a Category b Category c Category d Category e
State
Performance 5
255 227 302 40
Performance
(%) 0.6
30.76 27.38 36.43 4.83
Scores 1 1 1 1 1
Total Score
Outcome A
5
Outcome B
5
Outcome C
5
Outcomes A‐C
15
Data Anomalies Score 2
6 | Page
Appendix C
II.(a) Comparing Your State’s 2018 Outcomes Data to Other States’ 2018 Outcome Data
This score represents how your State's FFY 2018 Outcomes data compares to other States' FFY 2018 Outcomes Data. Yo u r State received a score for the
distribution of the 6 Summary Statements for your State compared to the distribution of the 6 Summary Statements in all other States. The 10th and
90th percentile for each of the 6 Summary Statements was identified and used to assign points to performance outcome data for each Summary
Statement
1. Each Summary Statement outcome was assigned 0, 1, or 2 points. If your State's Summary Statement value fell at or below the 10th
percentile, that Summary Statement was assigned 0 points. If your State's Summary Statement value fell between the 10th and 90th percentile, the
Summary Statement was assigned 1 point, and if your State's Summary Statement value fell at or above the 90th percentile the Summary Statement
was assigned 2 points. The points were added up across the 6 Summary Statements. A State can receive a total number of points between 0 and 12,
with 0 points indicating all 6 Summary Statement values were at or below the 10th percentile and 12 points indicating all 6 Summary Statements were
at or above the 90th percentile. An overall comparison Summary Statement score of 0, 1, or 2 was based on the total points awarded.
Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the
percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned
3 years of age or exited the program.
Scoring Percentages for the 10th and 90th Percentile for
Each Outcome and Summary Statement, FFY 2018
Percentiles Outcome
A
SS1 Outcome
A
SS2 Outcome
B
SS1 Outcome
B
SS2 Outcome
C
SS1 Outcome
C
SS2
10 46.61% 39% 55.87% 32.49% 57.81% 39.04%
90 84.65% 70.31% 85.24% 57.59% 87.33% 79.89%
Data Comparison Score Total Points Received Across SS1 and SS2
0 0 through 4 points
1 5 through 8 points
2 9 through 12 points
Your State’s Summary Statement Performance FFY 2018
Summary
Statement (SS) Outcome
A:
Positive Social
Relationships SS1 Outcome
A:
Positive Social
Relationships SS2 Outcome
B:
Knowledge
and Skills SS1 Outcome
B:
Knowledge
and Skills SS2 Outcome
C:
Actions to
meet needs
SS1 Outcome
C:
Actions to
meet needs
SS2
Performance
(%) 63.74
38 69.25 34.62 67.05 41.25
Points 1 0 1 1 1 1
Total Points Across SS1 and
SS2(*) 5
Your State’s Data Comparison Score 1
1 Values based on data for States with summary statement denominator greater than 199 exiters.
7 | Page
Appendix D
II.(b) Comparing your State’s FFY 2018 data to your State’s FFY 2017 data
The Summary Statement percentages in each Outcomes Area from the previous year’s reporting (FFY 2017) is compared to the current year (FFY
2018) using the test of proportional difference to determine whether there is a statistically significant (or meaningful) growth or decline in child
achievement based upon a significance level of p
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Delaware
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseOSEP conducted a Differentiated Monitoring and Support visit to the State on December 2 - 4, 2019,1 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200581.28%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data84.33%76.08%79.00%79.75%64.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage14330064.54%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applicable PrPrior to December 2019, at which time Delaware hosted OSEP representatives for an onsite visit, the State of Delaware's222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, alFFY16 data showed that the State did not issue a finding of non compliance because within the first 60 days from annual85.12%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=90.00%90.01%90.02%90.03%90.04%Data93.76%95.38%94.72%96.21%96.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=90.05%95.41%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Delaware's statewide Inclusion Conference offers a strand specifiSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs1,06Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-ba2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Intervd. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=48.00%48.10%48.20%48.30%48.40%A146.63%Data52.49%63.28%61.15%64.89%63.79%A2208Target>=40.00%40.10%40.20%40.30%40.40%A248.73%Data54.22%49.80%50.41%53.63%41.46%B12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.2%50.30%50.40%B148.39%Data61.46%75.94%74.22%70.44%67.68%B22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.45.40%B241.53%Data48.34%48.58%50.41%49.79%36.15%C12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.20%50.30%50.40%C150.54%Data57.49%65.71%71.23%65.30%65.28%C22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.30%45.40%C247.46%Data47.06%53.85%55.31%50.62%42.61TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=48.50%48.60%Target A2>=40.50%49.24%Target B1>=50.50%50.60%Target B2>=45.50%45.60%Target C1>=50.40%51.06%Target C2>=45.50%47.98% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed829Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it25831.12%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers19223.16%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers12314.84%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who su38.00%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eliga. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it30837.15%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers21926.42%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers688.20%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on establishea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it22727.38%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers30236.43%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers404.83%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on esThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - Required ActionsIndSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.40%90.80%91.20%91.60%A46.30%Data91.21%91.95%92.12%89.18%93.75%B2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%B49.00%Data96.13%95.34%96.27%97.39%97.37%C2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%C55.90%Data95.60%97.88%97.10%94.78%97.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.40%Target B>=95.00%95.40%Target C>=95.00%95.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Birth to Three shared copies of the Family Survey at the January 28, 2020 ICC846Number of respondent families participating in Part C 283A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The Child DevelopmeIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families eInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of tFor the FFY18 SPP/APR, the State is reporting that the response data are representative of the demographics of infants Baseline20050.98%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.00%1.01%1.02%1.02%1.04%Data1.10%1.15%1.33%1.14%1.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.05%1.06%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) met on January 22, 2019 Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 110,645FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8810,6451.03%1.05%05 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.70%2.71%2.72%2.73%2.74%Data2.91%2.91%3.20%3.31%3.31%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.75%2.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 332,663FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,06832,6633.31%2.7None6 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReqBaseline200589.90%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.76%91.87%93.50%89.67%82.11%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage19930082.11%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancActions taken if noncompliance not correctedN/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, although its FFY 2016 data refleAccount for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.InstructionsIndicators FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%91.56%91.36%88.57%94.85%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)N/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, a8A - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide valid and reliable data for this indicator. The State acknowledged that thIndicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarte0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.71%86.39%86.25%88.41%81.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. Both regions, Child Development Watch Northern Health S222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFFY16 data showed that the Stat8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, aIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's 618 data, explain.States are not required to repMeasurementPercent = ((2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling from the State's 618 data SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Historical DataBaseline 00.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC MBED AcroExch.Document.DC 302-255-9138Submitted on: 04/28/20 6:48:53 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.DocumentPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseOSEP conducted a Differentiated Monitoring and Support visit to the State on December 2 - 4, 2019,1 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200581.28%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data84.33%76.08%79.00%79.75%64.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage14330064.54%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applicable PrPrior to December 2019, at which time Delaware hosted OSEP representatives for an onsite visit, the State of Delaware's222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, alFFY16 data showed that the State did not issue a finding of non compliance because within the first 60 days from annual85.12%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=90.00%90.01%90.02%90.03%90.04%Data93.76%95.38%94.72%96.21%96.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=90.05%95.41%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Delaware's statewide Inclusion Conference offers a strand specifiSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs1,06Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-ba2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Intervd. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=48.00%48.10%48.20%48.30%48.40%A146.63%Data52.49%63.28%61.15%64.89%63.79%A2208Target>=40.00%40.10%40.20%40.30%40.40%A248.73%Data54.22%49.80%50.41%53.63%41.46%B12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.2%50.30%50.40%B148.39%Data61.46%75.94%74.22%70.44%67.68%B22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.45.40%B241.53%Data48.34%48.58%50.41%49.79%36.15%C12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.20%50.30%50.40%C150.54%Data57.49%65.71%71.23%65.30%65.28%C22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.30%45.40%C247.46%Data47.06%53.85%55.31%50.62%42.61TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=48.50%48.60%Target A2>=40.50%49.24%Target B1>=50.50%50.60%Target B2>=45.50%45.60%Target C1>=50.40%51.06%Target C2>=45.50%47.98% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed829Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it25831.12%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers19223.16%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers12314.84%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who su38.00%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eliga. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it30837.15%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers21926.42%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers688.20%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on establishea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it22727.38%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers30236.43%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers404.83%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on esThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - Required ActionsIndSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.40%90.80%91.20%91.60%A46.30%Data91.21%91.95%92.12%89.18%93.75%B2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%B49.00%Data96.13%95.34%96.27%97.39%97.37%C2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%C55.90%Data95.60%97.88%97.10%94.78%97.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.40%Target B>=95.00%95.40%Target C>=95.00%95.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Birth to Three shared copies of the Family Survey at the January 28, 2020 ICC846Number of respondent families participating in Part C 283A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The Child DevelopmeIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families eInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of tFor the FFY18 SPP/APR, the State is reporting that the response data are representative of the demographics of infants Baseline20050.98%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.00%1.01%1.02%1.02%1.04%Data1.10%1.15%1.33%1.14%1.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.05%1.06%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) met on January 22, 2019 Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 110,645FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8810,6451.03%1.05%05 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.70%2.71%2.72%2.73%2.74%Data2.91%2.91%3.20%3.31%3.31%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.75%2.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 332,663FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,06832,6633.31%2.7None6 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReqBaseline200589.90%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.76%91.87%93.50%89.67%82.11%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage19930082.11%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancActions taken if noncompliance not correctedN/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, although its FFY 2016 data refleAccount for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.InstructionsIndicators FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%91.56%91.36%88.57%94.85%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)N/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, a8A - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide valid and reliable data for this indicator. The State acknowledged that thIndicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarte0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.71%86.39%86.25%88.41%81.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. Both regions, Child Development Watch Northern Health S222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFFY16 data showed that the Stat8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, aIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's 618 data, explain.States are not required to repMeasurementPercent = ((2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling from the State's 618 data SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Historical DataBaseline 00.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC MBED AcroExch.Document.DC 302-255-9138Submitted on: 04/28/20 6:48:53 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.DocumentPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseOSEP conducted a Differentiated Monitoring and Support visit to the State on December 2 - 4, 2019,1 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200581.28%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data84.33%76.08%79.00%79.75%64.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage14330064.54%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applicable PrPrior to December 2019, at which time Delaware hosted OSEP representatives for an onsite visit, the State of Delaware's222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, alFFY16 data showed that the State did not issue a finding of non compliance because within the first 60 days from annual85.12%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=90.00%90.01%90.02%90.03%90.04%Data93.76%95.38%94.72%96.21%96.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=90.05%95.41%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Delaware's statewide Inclusion Conference offers a strand specifiSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs1,06Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-ba2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Intervd. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=48.00%48.10%48.20%48.30%48.40%A146.63%Data52.49%63.28%61.15%64.89%63.79%A2208Target>=40.00%40.10%40.20%40.30%40.40%A248.73%Data54.22%49.80%50.41%53.63%41.46%B12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.2%50.30%50.40%B148.39%Data61.46%75.94%74.22%70.44%67.68%B22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.45.40%B241.53%Data48.34%48.58%50.41%49.79%36.15%C12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.20%50.30%50.40%C150.54%Data57.49%65.71%71.23%65.30%65.28%C22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.30%45.40%C247.46%Data47.06%53.85%55.31%50.62%42.61TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=48.50%48.60%Target A2>=40.50%49.24%Target B1>=50.50%50.60%Target B2>=45.50%45.60%Target C1>=50.40%51.06%Target C2>=45.50%47.98% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed829Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it25831.12%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers19223.16%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers12314.84%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who su38.00%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eliga. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it30837.15%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers21926.42%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers688.20%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on establishea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it22727.38%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers30236.43%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers404.83%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on esThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - Required ActionsIndSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.40%90.80%91.20%91.60%A46.30%Data91.21%91.95%92.12%89.18%93.75%B2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%B49.00%Data96.13%95.34%96.27%97.39%97.37%C2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%C55.90%Data95.60%97.88%97.10%94.78%97.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.40%Target B>=95.00%95.40%Target C>=95.00%95.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Birth to Three shared copies of the Family Survey at the January 28, 2020 ICC846Number of respondent families participating in Part C 283A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The Child DevelopmeIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families eInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of tFor the FFY18 SPP/APR, the State is reporting that the response data are representative of the demographics of infants Baseline20050.98%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.00%1.01%1.02%1.02%1.04%Data1.10%1.15%1.33%1.14%1.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.05%1.06%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) met on January 22, 2019 Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 110,645FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8810,6451.03%1.05%05 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.70%2.71%2.72%2.73%2.74%Data2.91%2.91%3.20%3.31%3.31%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.75%2.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 332,663FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,06832,6633.31%2.7None6 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReqBaseline200589.90%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.76%91.87%93.50%89.67%82.11%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage19930082.11%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancActions taken if noncompliance not correctedN/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, although its FFY 2016 data refleAccount for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.InstructionsIndicators FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%91.56%91.36%88.57%94.85%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)N/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, a8A - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide valid and reliable data for this indicator. The State acknowledged that thIndicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarte0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.71%86.39%86.25%88.41%81.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. Both regions, Child Development Watch Northern Health S222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFFY16 data showed that the Stat8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, aIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's 618 data, explain.States are not required to repMeasurementPercent = ((2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling from the State's 618 data SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Historical DataBaseline 00.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC MBED AcroExch.Document.DC 302-255-9138Submitted on: 04/28/20 6:48:53 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.DocumentPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseOSEP conducted a Differentiated Monitoring and Support visit to the State on December 2 - 4, 2019,1 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200581.28%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data84.33%76.08%79.00%79.75%64.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage14330064.54%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applicable PrPrior to December 2019, at which time Delaware hosted OSEP representatives for an onsite visit, the State of Delaware's222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, alFFY16 data showed that the State did not issue a finding of non compliance because within the first 60 days from annual85.12%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=90.00%90.01%90.02%90.03%90.04%Data93.76%95.38%94.72%96.21%96.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=90.05%95.41%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Delaware's statewide Inclusion Conference offers a strand specifiSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs1,06Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-ba2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Intervd. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=48.00%48.10%48.20%48.30%48.40%A146.63%Data52.49%63.28%61.15%64.89%63.79%A2208Target>=40.00%40.10%40.20%40.30%40.40%A248.73%Data54.22%49.80%50.41%53.63%41.46%B12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.2%50.30%50.40%B148.39%Data61.46%75.94%74.22%70.44%67.68%B22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.45.40%B241.53%Data48.34%48.58%50.41%49.79%36.15%C12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.20%50.30%50.40%C150.54%Data57.49%65.71%71.23%65.30%65.28%C22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.30%45.40%C247.46%Data47.06%53.85%55.31%50.62%42.61TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=48.50%48.60%Target A2>=40.50%49.24%Target B1>=50.50%50.60%Target B2>=45.50%45.60%Target C1>=50.40%51.06%Target C2>=45.50%47.98% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed829Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it25831.12%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers19223.16%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers12314.84%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who su38.00%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eliga. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it30837.15%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers21926.42%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers688.20%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on establishea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it22727.38%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers30236.43%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers404.83%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on esThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - Required ActionsIndSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.40%90.80%91.20%91.60%A46.30%Data91.21%91.95%92.12%89.18%93.75%B2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%B49.00%Data96.13%95.34%96.27%97.39%97.37%C2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%C55.90%Data95.60%97.88%97.10%94.78%97.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.40%Target B>=95.00%95.40%Target C>=95.00%95.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Birth to Three shared copies of the Family Survey at the January 28, 2020 ICC846Number of respondent families participating in Part C 283A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The Child DevelopmeIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families eInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of tFor the FFY18 SPP/APR, the State is reporting that the response data are representative of the demographics of infants Baseline20050.98%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.00%1.01%1.02%1.02%1.04%Data1.10%1.15%1.33%1.14%1.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.05%1.06%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) met on January 22, 2019 Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 110,645FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8810,6451.03%1.05%05 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.70%2.71%2.72%2.73%2.74%Data2.91%2.91%3.20%3.31%3.31%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.75%2.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 332,663FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,06832,6633.31%2.7None6 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReqBaseline200589.90%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.76%91.87%93.50%89.67%82.11%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage19930082.11%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancActions taken if noncompliance not correctedN/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, although its FFY 2016 data refleAccount for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.InstructionsIndicators FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%91.56%91.36%88.57%94.85%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)N/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, a8A - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide valid and reliable data for this indicator. The State acknowledged that thIndicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarte0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.71%86.39%86.25%88.41%81.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. Both regions, Child Development Watch Northern Health S222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFFY16 data showed that the Stat8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, aIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's 618 data, explain.States are not required to repMeasurementPercent = ((2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling from the State's 618 data SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Historical DataBaseline 00.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC MBED AcroExch.Document.DC 302-255-9138Submitted on: 04/28/20 6:48:53 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.DocumentPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseOSEP conducted a Differentiated Monitoring and Support visit to the State on December 2 - 4, 2019,1 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200581.28%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data84.33%76.08%79.00%79.75%64.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage14330064.54%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applicable PrPrior to December 2019, at which time Delaware hosted OSEP representatives for an onsite visit, the State of Delaware's222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, alFFY16 data showed that the State did not issue a finding of non compliance because within the first 60 days from annual85.12%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=90.00%90.01%90.02%90.03%90.04%Data93.76%95.38%94.72%96.21%96.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=90.05%95.41%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Delaware's statewide Inclusion Conference offers a strand specifiSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs1,06Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-ba2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Intervd. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=48.00%48.10%48.20%48.30%48.40%A146.63%Data52.49%63.28%61.15%64.89%63.79%A2208Target>=40.00%40.10%40.20%40.30%40.40%A248.73%Data54.22%49.80%50.41%53.63%41.46%B12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.2%50.30%50.40%B148.39%Data61.46%75.94%74.22%70.44%67.68%B22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.45.40%B241.53%Data48.34%48.58%50.41%49.79%36.15%C12008Target>=50.00%50.10%50.20%50.30%50.40%C150.54%Data57.49%65.71%71.23%65.30%65.28%C22008Target>=45.00%45.10%45.20%45.30%45.40%C247.46%Data47.06%53.85%55.31%50.62%42.61TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=48.50%48.60%Target A2>=40.50%49.24%Target B1>=50.50%50.60%Target B2>=45.50%45.60%Target C1>=50.40%51.06%Target C2>=45.50%47.98% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed829Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it25831.12%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers19223.16%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers12314.84%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who su38.00%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eliga. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it30837.15%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers21926.42%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers688.20%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on establishea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning50.60%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it22727.38%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers30236.43%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers404.83%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable FFY 18 saw an increase in reported eligibility being based on esThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - Required ActionsIndSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.40%90.80%91.20%91.60%A46.30%Data91.21%91.95%92.12%89.18%93.75%B2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%B49.00%Data96.13%95.34%96.27%97.39%97.37%C2006Target>=93.00%93.40%93.80%94.20%94.60%C55.90%Data95.60%97.88%97.10%94.78%97.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.40%Target B>=95.00%95.40%Target C>=95.00%95.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Birth to Three shared copies of the Family Survey at the January 28, 2020 ICC846Number of respondent families participating in Part C 283A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed? NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The Child DevelopmeIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and families eInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of tFor the FFY18 SPP/APR, the State is reporting that the response data are representative of the demographics of infants Baseline20050.98%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.00%1.01%1.02%1.02%1.04%Data1.10%1.15%1.33%1.14%1.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.05%1.06%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) met on January 22, 2019 Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 110,645FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8810,6451.03%1.05%05 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.70%2.71%2.72%2.73%2.74%Data2.91%2.91%3.20%3.31%3.31%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.75%2.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 332,663FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,06832,6633.31%2.7None6 - OSEP Response The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReqBaseline200589.90%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.76%91.87%93.50%89.67%82.11%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage19930082.11%100%NVRDid Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancActions taken if noncompliance not correctedN/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, although its FFY 2016 data refleAccount for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.InstructionsIndicators FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%91.56%91.36%88.57%94.85%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)N/aCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, a8A - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide valid and reliable data for this indicator. The State acknowledged that thIndicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarte0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.71%86.39%86.25%88.41%81.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. Both regions, Child Development Watch Northern Health S222-2FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFFY16 data showed that the Stat8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsThe State did not report that it identified any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2016, aIf the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's 618 data, explain.States are not required to repMeasurementPercent = ((2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling from the State's 618 data SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Historical DataBaseline 00.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC MBED AcroExch.Document.DC 302-255-9138Submitted on: 04/28/20 6:48:53 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.DocumentPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part C
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80751 wp-custom-logo wp-embed-responsive with-font-selector no-anchor-scroll footer-on-bottom animate-body-popup social-brand-colors hide-focus-outline link-style-standard has-sidebar content-title-style-normal content-width-normal content-style-boxed content-vertical-padding-show non-transparent-header mobile-non-transparent-header kadence-elementor-colors elementor-default elementor-kit-82278
Last modified on December 10, 2020