2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART C — Minnesota
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — Minnesota
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 Lisa Backer
Early Childhood Special Educattion Supervisor
Minnesota Department of Education, Early Learning Services
1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville , Minnesota 55113
Dear Supervisor Backer :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 20 20
determination under sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Department has determined that Minnesota meets the requirements and purposes of
Part C of the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of th e State’s data and
information, including the Federal 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 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 — Minnesota
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cauFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on tFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage217217100.00%100%100.00%Met TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributable to excData for this indicator has been collected through MDE's Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) w0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP Response1 - Required ActionsIndicator 2: Services in Natural EnvironmentsInstructions and MeasurementMonitorin200590.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%Data96.61%97.27%96.92%97.70%97.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targetsSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primaSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,17FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in theProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The SOutcomes:A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and3 - Indicator DataDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having 54.20%54.30%54.40%54.50%A150.35%Data54.13%51.17%50.87%49.15%50.85%A22018Target>=49.82%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.00%A248.37%Data49.82%47.51%48.84%50.18%48.23%B12018Target>=60.20%60.30%60.40%60.50%60.60%B155.80%Data60.20%57.16%57.32%58.78%55.83%B22018Target>=44.11%44.50%45.00%45.50%46.50%B241.67%Data44.11%41.67%43.28%44.41%41.95%C12018Target>=61.91%62.00%62.1%62.20%62.30%C157.74%Data61.91%59.60%58.28%58.02%59.36%C22018Target>=51.26%51.50%52.00%53.54.00%C249.99%Data51.26%49.83%50.14%50.83%49.62%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1>=54.60%50.50%Target A2>=54.00%48.50%Target B1>=60.70%55.90%Target B2>=47.50%41.80%Target C1>=62.40%57.80%Target C2>=55.00%50.10% FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,705Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)Number of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning100.27%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it58215.71%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers76820.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers1,02427.64%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 su48.37%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageOutcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/coa. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80221.65%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers91424.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers63017.00%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B,Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needsNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning150.40%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it62416.84%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,05528.48%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers79721.51%NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C,No SlippageProvide reasons for C1 slippage, if applicable Minnesota is making a transition to reporting of item-level dThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months beforeYes / NoWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the in3 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, and OSEP accepts thatSampling offamilies participating in Part Cis allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling me90.00%90.30%90.60%91.00%A89.22%Data89.22%87.40%88.98%89.91%89.24%B2013Target>=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%B92.58%Data92.58%90.96%91.31%92.72%91.96%C2013Target>=90.00%90.30%90.60%90.90%91.20%C89.80%Data89.80%87.88%89.56%89.91%89.51%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=91.50%92.00%Target B>=94.00%94.20%Target C>=91.50%91.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior3,938Number of respondent families participating in Part C 795A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rightsB1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively commuC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the fC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childrFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effecC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help Was sampling used? 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 families eIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representati 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequirFFY20132014201520162017Target >=0.98%1.00%1.05%1.10%1.15%Data0.97%1.06%0.95%1.03%1.05%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=1.20%1.21%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 168,566FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage64168,5661.05%1.20%Minnesota identified and served 0.93 percent of infants under age 1 on 12.1.2018 compared to the national rate of 1.25 Baseline20051.56%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.53%2.60%2.68%2.75%Data2.49%2.61%2.62%2.71%2.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.82%3.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input A workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary tarPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3210,197FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 withPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,179210,1972.84%2.None6 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts that target. 6 -Baseline200583.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.85%98.64%97.70%95.83%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and asseFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15518596.28%100%96.22%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of doCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompli9900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, tdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent dFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.19%99.08%100.00%100.0%92.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transiNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitiProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the sDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect theFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days priState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self0Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 AP8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP Response8B - Required Actionsdhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisionIndicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP'sFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%96.30%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitiNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at tDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All programs participate in both a self-review and a re121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedAll record review data from FFY8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018,Not ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. NOSelect yes to use target ranges. Target Range not usedSSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1 Number of resoluSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Complaints11/11/20193.1(a) Number resoluTargets: Description of Stakeholder InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior FFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage00N/AN/AProvide additional inf9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General SupervisSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 agre0SY 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 InputA workgroup was convened to review data and develop preliminary targets prior to our FFY 13 APR submission. That workgrFFY20132014201520162017Target>=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 c10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED Word.Document.12 s R AttachmeEmail: lisa.backer@state.mn.usPhone: 651-582-8473Submitted on: 04/28/20 5:58:11 PMED Attachments EMBED AcroExch.DocuPreloaded historical dataPrepopulated data from other sourcesCalculatedExplanatory textOctober 2018RGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part C
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80799 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