2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART C — Maine
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Maine
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 Pender Makin
Commi ssioner of Education
Maine Department of Education
23 State House Station
Augusta , Maine 04333
Dear Commissioner Makin :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under sections 616 and 642 of the Indiv iduals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Department has determined that Maine needs assistance in meeting the
requirements of Part C of the IDEA . This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data
and information, including the Feder al fiscal 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 Indicato rs 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 Compliance 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 : Part 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 the Part C
determinations in 2015, 201 6 , 201 7, 2018, and 2019 . (The specifics of the determination
procedures and criteria are set forth in the HTDMD and reflected in the RDA Matrix for your
State.) For 2020 , the Department’s IDEA Part C determinations continue to include consideration
Page 2 — Lead Agency Director
of each State’s Child Outcomes data, which measure how children who receive Part C services
are imp roving functioning in three outcome areas that are critical to school readiness:
• p ositive social - emotional skills;
• acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication);
and
• use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs .
Specifically, the Department considered the data quality and the child performance levels in each
State’s Child Outcomes FFY 2018 data .
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/APR and other relevant data
by accessing the EMAPS S PP/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 Re sponse” and/or “Required Actions” sections.
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments to the Progress
Page:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(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 - 1 9 ,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix.
As noted above, the State’s 2020 determination is Needs Assistance. A State’s 2020 RDA
Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. A
State would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or above, but
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 2019 ), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the
time of the 20 20 determination.
The State’s determination for 2019 was also Needs Assistance. In accordance with section
616(e) (1) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. § 303.704(a), if a State is determined to need assistance for
two consecutive years, the Secretary must take one or more of the following actions:
Page 3 — Lead Agency Director
(1) advise the State of available sources of technical assistance that may help the State
address the areas in which the State needs assistance and require the State to work with
appropriate entities; and/or
(2) identify the State as a high - risk grantee and impose Special Conditions on the State’s
IDEA Part C grant award.
Pursuant to these requirements, the Secretary is advising the State of available sources of
technical assistance, including OSEP - funded technical assistance centers and resources at the
following website: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/highlighted - resources , and requiring the
State to work with appropriate en tities. In addition, the State should consider accessing technical
assistance from other Department - funded centers such as the Comprehensive Centers with
resources at the following link: https://compcenternetwork.org/states . The Secretary directs the
State to determine the results elements and/or compliance indicators, and improvement
strategies, on which it will focus its use of available technical assistance, in order to impr ove its
performance. We strongly encourage the State to access technical assistance related to those
results elements and compliance indicators for which the State received a score of zero. Your
State must report with its FFY 2019 SPP/APR submission, due F ebruary 1 , 2 021 , on:
(1) the technical assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and
(2) the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance.
As required by IDEA section 616(e)(7) and 34 C . F . R . § 303.706, your State must notify the
public that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement action, including, at a
minimum, by posting a public notice on its website and distributing the notice to the media and
to early intervention service ( EIS ) programs.
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 hav e 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 EIS program located in the State on the targets in
the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days a fter the State’s submission of its
FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(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 inte rvention,” 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.
Page 4 — Lead Agency Director
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 a re a ccessible 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 next 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 requ est technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Part C Coordinator
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Maine
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 ResponseThe State has not publicly reported on the FFY 2017 performance of each EIS program or providerIf 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%Data99.58%99.17%99.03%93.26%93.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage74276293.17%100%97.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributabData accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period since a full reportin4400FFY 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 1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,2 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200589.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data99.40%99.89%98.79%98.40%99.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 IFSPs93Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.2 - Required ActionsIndicac. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach itHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%A151.50%Data44.70%55.40%59.52%64.03%64.24%A22008Target>=41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%A239.70%Data54.87%60.13%44.03%41.67%39.B12008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%B159.10%Data54.05%67.73%71.69%73.59%67.99%B22008Target>=27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%B225.60%Data33.33%35.56%27.35%29.94%31.13%C12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%C151.50%Data61.11%67.24%67.97%68.34%70.54%C22008Target>=38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%C237.20%Data58.28%63.09%45.91%41.36%39.81%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.00%54.00%Target A2>=42.00%42.00%Target B1>=61.00%61.00%Target B2>=28.00%28.00%Target C1>=54.00%54.00%Target C2>=39.00%39.00% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed745Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. I10.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable toc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it26535.57%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers14319.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers11915.97%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 35.17%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning30.40%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 it34245.91%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers15320.54%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers496.58%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in the percenta. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.27%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 it29439.46%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers17323.22%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers8010.74%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in theThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoWas 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 91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%A76.0%Data96.41%97.74%96.74%96.55%94.05%B2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%B85.00%Data95.96%98.19%97.65%96.55%97.62%C2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%C88.00%Data95.07%97.29%99.06%96.55%96.43TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.00%Target B>=92.00%92.00%Target C>=92.00%92.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICCThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,025Number of respondent families participating in Part C 142A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theA2. 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 ofIndicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Instructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision FFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%Data0.63%0.65%0.62%0.74%0.61%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.83%0.83%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 112,409FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7512,4090.61%0.835 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.5 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%Data2.17%2.30%2.34%2.43%2.39%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.90%2.90%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 337,968FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage93537,9682.39%2.9None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200594.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data82.52%74.48%81.36%98.45%91.20%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 DataStatusSlippage1,3521,40991.20%100%95.95%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumberProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in F6600FFY 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%Data99.81%100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%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 disabiliData were collected from the State database (CINC) for all children for the reporting period of July 1, 2018 through Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP Response8A - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days pState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data83.46%83.85%80.24%90.45%97.45%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, selection4400FFY 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 correctedThe CDS State IEU verified th8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide the reasons for delay, as required by States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this inSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC)FFY20132014201520162017Target>=6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DThe State reported fewer than ten resolution sessions held in FFY 2018. The State is not required to provide targets Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 ag0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) to solicit broad stakeholder input on thFFY20132014201520162017Target>=85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%Data100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 emic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attaSubmitted on: 04/28/20 6:23:31 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 ResponseThe State has not publicly reported on the FFY 2017 performance of each EIS program or providerIf 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%Data99.58%99.17%99.03%93.26%93.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage74276293.17%100%97.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributabData accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period since a full reportin4400FFY 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 1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,2 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200589.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data99.40%99.89%98.79%98.40%99.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 IFSPs93Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.2 - Required ActionsIndicac. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach itHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%A151.50%Data44.70%55.40%59.52%64.03%64.24%A22008Target>=41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%A239.70%Data54.87%60.13%44.03%41.67%39.B12008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%B159.10%Data54.05%67.73%71.69%73.59%67.99%B22008Target>=27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%B225.60%Data33.33%35.56%27.35%29.94%31.13%C12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%C151.50%Data61.11%67.24%67.97%68.34%70.54%C22008Target>=38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%C237.20%Data58.28%63.09%45.91%41.36%39.81%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.00%54.00%Target A2>=42.00%42.00%Target B1>=61.00%61.00%Target B2>=28.00%28.00%Target C1>=54.00%54.00%Target C2>=39.00%39.00% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed745Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. I10.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable toc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it26535.57%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers14319.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers11915.97%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 35.17%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning30.40%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 it34245.91%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers15320.54%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers496.58%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in the percenta. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.27%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 it29439.46%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers17323.22%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers8010.74%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in theThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoWas 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 91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%A76.0%Data96.41%97.74%96.74%96.55%94.05%B2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%B85.00%Data95.96%98.19%97.65%96.55%97.62%C2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%C88.00%Data95.07%97.29%99.06%96.55%96.43TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.00%Target B>=92.00%92.00%Target C>=92.00%92.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICCThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,025Number of respondent families participating in Part C 142A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theA2. 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 ofIndicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Instructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision FFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%Data0.63%0.65%0.62%0.74%0.61%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.83%0.83%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 112,409FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7512,4090.61%0.835 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.5 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%Data2.17%2.30%2.34%2.43%2.39%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.90%2.90%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 337,968FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage93537,9682.39%2.9None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200594.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data82.52%74.48%81.36%98.45%91.20%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 DataStatusSlippage1,3521,40991.20%100%95.95%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumberProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in F6600FFY 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%Data99.81%100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%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 disabiliData were collected from the State database (CINC) for all children for the reporting period of July 1, 2018 through Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP Response8A - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days pState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data83.46%83.85%80.24%90.45%97.45%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, selection4400FFY 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 correctedThe CDS State IEU verified th8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide the reasons for delay, as required by States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this inSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC)FFY20132014201520162017Target>=6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DThe State reported fewer than ten resolution sessions held in FFY 2018. The State is not required to provide targets Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 ag0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) to solicit broad stakeholder input on thFFY20132014201520162017Target>=85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%Data100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 emic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attaSubmitted on: 04/28/20 6:23:31 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 ResponseThe State has not publicly reported on the FFY 2017 performance of each EIS program or providerIf 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%Data99.58%99.17%99.03%93.26%93.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage74276293.17%100%97.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributabData accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period since a full reportin4400FFY 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 1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,2 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200589.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data99.40%99.89%98.79%98.40%99.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 IFSPs93Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.2 - Required ActionsIndicac. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach itHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%A151.50%Data44.70%55.40%59.52%64.03%64.24%A22008Target>=41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%A239.70%Data54.87%60.13%44.03%41.67%39.B12008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%B159.10%Data54.05%67.73%71.69%73.59%67.99%B22008Target>=27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%B225.60%Data33.33%35.56%27.35%29.94%31.13%C12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%C151.50%Data61.11%67.24%67.97%68.34%70.54%C22008Target>=38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%C237.20%Data58.28%63.09%45.91%41.36%39.81%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.00%54.00%Target A2>=42.00%42.00%Target B1>=61.00%61.00%Target B2>=28.00%28.00%Target C1>=54.00%54.00%Target C2>=39.00%39.00% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed745Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. I10.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable toc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it26535.57%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers14319.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers11915.97%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 35.17%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning30.40%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 it34245.91%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers15320.54%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers496.58%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in the percenta. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.27%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 it29439.46%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers17323.22%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers8010.74%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in theThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoWas 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 91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%A76.0%Data96.41%97.74%96.74%96.55%94.05%B2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%B85.00%Data95.96%98.19%97.65%96.55%97.62%C2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%C88.00%Data95.07%97.29%99.06%96.55%96.43TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.00%Target B>=92.00%92.00%Target C>=92.00%92.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICCThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,025Number of respondent families participating in Part C 142A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theA2. 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 ofIndicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Instructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision FFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%Data0.63%0.65%0.62%0.74%0.61%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.83%0.83%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 112,409FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7512,4090.61%0.835 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.5 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%Data2.17%2.30%2.34%2.43%2.39%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.90%2.90%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 337,968FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage93537,9682.39%2.9None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200594.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data82.52%74.48%81.36%98.45%91.20%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 DataStatusSlippage1,3521,40991.20%100%95.95%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumberProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in F6600FFY 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%Data99.81%100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%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 disabiliData were collected from the State database (CINC) for all children for the reporting period of July 1, 2018 through Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP Response8A - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days pState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data83.46%83.85%80.24%90.45%97.45%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, selection4400FFY 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 correctedThe CDS State IEU verified th8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide the reasons for delay, as required by States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this inSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC)FFY20132014201520162017Target>=6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DThe State reported fewer than ten resolution sessions held in FFY 2018. The State is not required to provide targets Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 ag0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) to solicit broad stakeholder input on thFFY20132014201520162017Target>=85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%Data100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 emic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attaSubmitted on: 04/28/20 6:23:31 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 ResponseThe State has not publicly reported on the FFY 2017 performance of each EIS program or providerIf 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%Data99.58%99.17%99.03%93.26%93.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services onFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage74276293.17%100%97.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributabData accurately reflects data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period since a full reportin4400FFY 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 1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,2 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200589.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data99.40%99.89%98.79%98.40%99.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 IFSPs93Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-The State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.2 - Required ActionsIndicac. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach itHistorical DataBaselineFFY20132014201520162017A12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%A151.50%Data44.70%55.40%59.52%64.03%64.24%A22008Target>=41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%41.00%A239.70%Data54.87%60.13%44.03%41.67%39.B12008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%60.00%B159.10%Data54.05%67.73%71.69%73.59%67.99%B22008Target>=27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%27.00%B225.60%Data33.33%35.56%27.35%29.94%31.13%C12008Target>=53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%53.00%C151.50%Data61.11%67.24%67.97%68.34%70.54%C22008Target>=38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%38.00%C237.20%Data58.28%63.09%45.91%41.36%39.81%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.00%54.00%Target A2>=42.00%42.00%Target B1>=61.00%61.00%Target B2>=28.00%28.00%Target C1>=54.00%54.00%Target C2>=39.00%39.00% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed745Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. I10.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable toc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it26535.57%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers14319.19%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers11915.97%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 35.17%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning30.40%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 it34245.91%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers15320.54%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers496.58%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome Provide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in the percenta. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.27%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 it29439.46%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers17323.22%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers8010.74%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Several factors have likely contributed to the slippage in theThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months befoWas 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 91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%A76.0%Data96.41%97.74%96.74%96.55%94.05%B2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%B85.00%Data95.96%98.19%97.65%96.55%97.62%C2006Target>=91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%91.00%C88.00%Data95.07%97.29%99.06%96.55%96.43TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=92.00%92.00%Target B>=92.00%92.00%Target C>=92.00%92.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICCThe number of families to whom surveys were distributed1,025Number of respondent families participating in Part C 142A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped theA2. 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 ofIndicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Instructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision FFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%0.82%Data0.63%0.65%0.62%0.74%0.61%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.83%0.83%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 112,409FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7512,4090.61%0.835 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.5 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%2.81%Data2.17%2.30%2.34%2.43%2.39%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.90%2.90%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating CouPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 337,968FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 witPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage93537,9682.39%2.9None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target.6 - ReBaseline200594.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data82.52%74.48%81.36%98.45%91.20%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 DataStatusSlippage1,3521,40991.20%100%95.95%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumberProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in F6600FFY 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%Data99.81%100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%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 disabiliData were collected from the State database (CINC) for all children for the reporting period of July 1, 2018 through Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP Response8A - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days pState databaseProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisiIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEPFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data83.46%83.85%80.24%90.45%97.45%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, selection4400FFY 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 correctedThe CDS State IEU verified th8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State did not provide the reasons for delay, as required by States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this inSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC)FFY20132014201520162017Target>=6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%6.00%DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DThe State reported fewer than ten resolution sessions held in FFY 2018. The State is not required to provide targets Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 ag0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputThe CDS State IEU utilizes the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) to solicit broad stakeholder input on thFFY20132014201520162017Target>=85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%85.00%Data100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 emic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attaSubmitted on: 04/28/20 6:23:31 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-80786 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