2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART C — Idaho
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Idaho
MS WORDView PDF
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
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.
U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION
O FFICE OF S PECIAL E DUCATION AND R EHABILITATIVE S ERVICES
June 23, 20 20
Honorable Dave Jeppesen
Dire ctor
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street, 10th Floor
Boise , Idaho 83720
Dear Director Jeppesen :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under sections 616 and 642 of the Indi viduals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Department has determined that Idaho meets the requirements and purposes of
Part C of the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and
information, including the Federal fisca l year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and other publicly available
information.
Your State’s 2020 determination is based on the data reflected in the State’s “ 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 Complia nce Score and the Results Score; and
(5) the State’s Determination.
The 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
in 2020 : P art C” (HTDMD).
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is continuing to use both results data and
compliance data in making the Department’s determinations in 2020 , as it did for Part C
determinations in 2015, 2016, 201 7 , 2018, and 201 9 . (The spec ifics 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 each State’s Child Outcomes data, whic h measure how children who receive Part C services
are improving functioning in three outcome areas that are critical to school readiness:
Page 2 — Lead Agency Director
• p ositive social - emotional skills;
• acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communicati on); 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 places:
(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.
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:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD document;
(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; and
(4) a document entitled “Dispute Resolution 201 8 - 20 1 9 ,” which includes the IDEA section
6 18 data that OSEP used to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix.
As noted above, the State’s 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RDA
Determi nation is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%, unless the
Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C
grant awards (for FFYs 201 7 , 201 8 , and 201 9 ), and those Speci fic Conditions are in ef fect at the
time of the 20 20 determination.
States were required to submit Phase III Year Four of the SSIP by April 1 , 20 20 . 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 and will provide additional feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, 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, 20 21 .
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 early intervention service ( EIS ) 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:
Page 3 — Lead Agency Director
(1) review EIS program performance against targets in the State’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 .
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities
and their families and looks forward to working with your State over the n ext year as we
continue our important work of improving the lives of children with disabilities and their
families. Please contact your OSEP State Lead if you have any questions, would like to discuss
this further, or want to request technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Part C Coordinator
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Idaho
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the Intro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SIf the State reported less than 100% compliance for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2018 SPP/APR, thFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.32%95.77%93.08%88.98%93.08%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,0472,59593.08%100%86.67%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for slippage, if applProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection2101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaActions taken if noncompliance not corrected1/2 regional EIS programs has not yet corrected their FFY 17 noncomplianc1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EarFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.30%95.50%95.70%95.90%Data98.52%99.17%99.90%99.89%99.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=96.00%96.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the nSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who priSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs2,Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-2 - Required ActionsIndicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Early Inted. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of iBaselineFFY2013201420152016217A12009Target>=60.40%60.60%61.00%61.50%63.00%A164.60%Data57.50%58.11%56.65%57.95%52.38%A22009Target>=55.50%55.70%56.00%56.50%57.00%A253.30%Data53.15%55.80%55.70%56.07%51.63%B12009Target>=64.00%64.20%64.80%65.20%65.60%B167.10%Data59.93%61.07%60.43%61.18%57.02%B22009Target>=50.20%50.40%50.80%51.20B250.40%Data48.85%47.56%47.95%46.23%42.54%C12009Target>=70.00%70.20%70.60%71.00%71.40%C170.20%Data65.15%65.65%65.75%65.86%64.3%C22009Target>=58.00%58.20%58.60%59.00%59.40%C258.20%Data56.25%57.39%58.28%56.54%55.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=65.00%65.00%Target A2>=57.50%57.50%Target B1>=67.20%67.20%Target B2>=52.00%52.00%Target C1>=71.80%71.80%Target C2>=59.80%59.80% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed1,461Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skia. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning80.55%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it15310.47%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers39527.04%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers39426.97%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 54.00%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide reasons for A1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructurea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning90.62%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it23816.29%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers47332.38%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers18712.80%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B1 slippage, if applicableDuring the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSIP, Idaho lea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.68%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it18412.59%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers55838.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers25417.39%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable During the data and infrastructure analysis phase of the SSThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the 3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.3 - RequiSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling 66.00%92.93%92.93%93.00%A92.93%Data68.80%97.10%92.93%92.11%94.67%B2015Target>=62.00%63.00%92.68%92.68%93.00%B92.68%Data66.18%95.65%92.68%92.98%94.33%C2015Target>=76.00%77.00%90.98%90.98%92.00%C90.98%Data79.59%94.20%90.98%92.98%95.33TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=94.00%95.00%Target B>=94.00%94.50%Target C>=93.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the need for staFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,92Number of respondent families participating in Part C 259A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C whA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their righB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively comC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their chilFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family knoB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family helWas sampling used? NOWas a collection tool used?YESIf yes, is it a new or revised collection tool? NOThe demographics of the families responding are representative of the demographics of infants, toddlers, and familiesInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the families responding are representative of 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets. 4 - ReFFY20132014201520162017Target >=1.64%1.66%1.68%1.70%1.73%Data1.76%1.51%1.66%1.36%1.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.76%1.76%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 122,348FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35122,3481.50%1.75 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 5 - RequiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.75%2.77%2.78%2.81%2.85%Data2.83%2.66%2.85%2.74%2.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.91%2.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Central Office Infant Toddler Program staff identified the neSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 368,567FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,08368,5672.92%2None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.10%96.59%97.68%93.61%94.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,4832,16094.45%100%91.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide rThe following includes a list of reasons for the IFSP 45-day slippage in FFY 18:Staff and contractor turnover 3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliaYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parentFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.14%97.14%98.10%92.38%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely tranNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabiliThe following processes describe how this indicator accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with Individual4400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%99.04%99.05%95.19%97.14%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 pDo you have a written opt-out policy? (yes/no)NOWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator? State dat3300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliIdaho demonstrated that it corrected all findings of non-compliance identified in FFY 17, consistent with the require8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on theDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect tFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.31%90.38%79.05%85.58%92.38%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and atProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection4301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedCorrection of each individual8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 201Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable bDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish bSY 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 Surv11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputN/A - Idaho has not received any mediation requests since the inception of tFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=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 emic Improvement Plan EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBSubmitted on: 04/27/20 4:23:18 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Preloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5 C
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80772 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 September 15, 2020