2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART C — New Mexico
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — New Mexico
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 Kathy Kunkel
Secre tary
New Mexico Department of Health
1190 South Saint Francis Drive, N4100
Santa Fe , New Mexico 87505
Dear Secretary Kunkel :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The Department has determined that New Mexico meets the requirements and purposes
of Part C of the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and
information, including the Fede ral 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 correct ion 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 th e 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
618 data that OSEP used to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix.
As noted above, the State’s 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 R DA
Determination 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 effect 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 di sabilities 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 i n 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 next year as we
continue our imp ortant 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 VanderPlo eg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Part C Coordinator
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART C — New Mexico
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part CState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part CforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunder theIndividuals with DisabiInstructionsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the StaIntro - OSEP ResponseStates were instructed to submit Phase III, Year Four, of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIPDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.13%96.75%97.84%97.76%96.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on thFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,9358,05696.55%100%96.52%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber of documented delays attributaWhat is the source of the data provided for this indicator?State databaseProvide the time period in which the data were 181800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR1 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone1 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.The data reported in this indicator shoulFFY20132014201520162017Target>=95.25%95.25%95.50%95.50%95.75%Data98.75%98.64%98.26%98.07%98.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target>=95.75%95.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico InteragencSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs6,332FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)2 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone2 - OSEP Response The Stf knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); andC. Use of appropriate behaDoes your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial develop66.00%66.50%67.00%67.50%68.0%A168.70%Data68.50%71.85%70.21%72.12%71.45%A1 ARTarget>=A1 ARDataA22008Target>=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.20%63.30%A262.60%Data65.14%68.83%67.87%64.19%63.46%A2 ARTarget>=A2 ARDataB12008Target>=70.50%70.50%70.50%71.00%72.00%B172.20%Data71.02%74.40%72.64%73.96%75.21%B1 ARTarget>=B1 ARDataB22008Target>=59.00%60.00%61.00%61.50%62.00%B262.30%Data66.21%69.46%68.31%62.88%65.15%B2 ARTarget>=B2 ARDataC12008Target>=72.00%72.0%72.00%72.20%72.40%C171.40%Data73.03%75.43%73.69%73.42%75.82%C1 ARTarget>=C1 ARDataC22008Target>=60.00%60.00%60.50%61.00%61.50%C261.50%Data66.34%70.41%69.10%64.93%64.50%C2 ARTarget>=C2 ARDataTargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=69.00%69.00%Target A1 AR >=70.00%70.00%Target A2 >=63.50%63.50%Target A2 AR >=64.00%64.00%Target B1 >=72.50%72.50%Target B1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target B2 >=62.50%62.50%Target B2 AR >=63.00%63.00%Target C1 >=72.60%72.60%Target C1 AR >=73.00%73.00%Target C2 >=62.00%62.00%Target C2 AR >=63.00%63.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed3,762Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills Percentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning391.13%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it78022.58%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,26936.73%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers67519.54%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of childrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers w0.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to samc. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3912.70%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers11637.79%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers10634.53%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who subProvide reasons for A2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiA2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome A by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning381.10%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it79523.01%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,47142.58%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers55416.03%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it3712.05%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers12741.37%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9831.92%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent wProvide reasons for B2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumeratorDenomiB2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in Outcome B by the time they turnea. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning431.24%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it80223.21%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers1,51943.97%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers47213.66%Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Totala. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning20.65%b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-agec. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it4414.33%d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers13142.67%e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers9229.97%Not including at-risk infants and toddlersNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome C, SlippageProvide reasons for C2 slippage, if applicable Just at-risk infants and toddlers/All infants and toddlersNumerat73.00%81.40%Met TargetNo SlippageC2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations inThe number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before Was sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COS) process? (yes/no)YESList the ins3 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped 2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.0%94.50%94.80%A84.50%Data97.22%99.67%98.76%98.70%98.99%B2006Target>=93.00%93.50%94.00%94.50%B88.40%Data98.88%100.00%98.96%99.27%99.72%C2006Target>=95.50%95.70%96.00%96.40%96.80%C89.50%Data99.36%100.00%99.70%99.84%99.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target A>=95.00%97.00%Target B>=95.00%97.00%Target C>=97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Coordinati3,355Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1,929A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faA2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights1B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faB2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communC1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the faC2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their childreFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know tB. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectC. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help tWas 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 enIf not, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representativ 4 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.4 - RequireFFY20132014201520162017Target >=2.50%2.50%2.50%2.60%2.60%Data3.47%3.57%3.73%3.97%3.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=2.60%2.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 123,668FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 1FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage95123,6683.65%2.60%4Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)5 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone5 - OSEP ResponseThe sta20053.58%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=4.90%4.90%4.90%5.00%5.00%Data6.21%6.39%6.76%7.43%7.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.00%5.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Using broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 Child Count/Educational Environment Data Groups07/10/2019Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 372,579FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IPopulation of infants and toddlers birth to 3FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage6,33272,5797.54%5.00Compare your results to the national dataNew Mexico served 8.72% of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs in FFY18.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP's response table for the prevFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.57%98.25%98.89%96.80%93.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assesFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,1154,63293.68%100%96.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumber ofProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)As indicated above 1361 children had documented reasons of101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncomplianceYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2017 APR7 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone7 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report dhood TransitionInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation, but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent diFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.09%99.67%97.48%97.69%97.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transitNumber of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilitieJuly 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019 (9 months)Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers wit16160FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance8A - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8A - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to report on this indicator. The State Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.32%97.48%98.79%97.98%97.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData include notification to both the SEA and LEAYESNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prioState monitoringDescribe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. All FIT Providers conducted a self audit101000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancIn FFY2017 ten (10) findings of noncompliance were identified within 1 agency. This agency experienced turnover and had 8B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8B - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must report on the stDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect thesFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data96.94%97.69%96.75%96.99%96.17%TargetsFFY20182019Target100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataData reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transitioNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at thProvide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection fr131300FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliancDescribe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was correctedFor all individual instances of 8C - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone8C - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it used data from a State database to reporNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable. YESProvide an explanation of why it is not applicable beloDescribe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.States are not required to establish baseSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1 Mediations held0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11/20192.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part C Dispute Resolution Survey;11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Targets: Description of Stakeholder InputUsing broad stakeholder input, including the New Mexico Interagency CoordinatinFFY20132014201520162017Target>=DataTargetsFFY20182019Target>=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediations heldFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 Taremic Improvement PlanThe State did not submit 508 compliant attachments. Non-compliant attachmeroExch.Document.DC ument.DC EMBED AcroExch.Document.DC Explanatory textOctober 2018 PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 1Instructions PAGE * MERGEFORMAT 5Part C
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80825 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