View 2022 Part C State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Sections 616(D) and 642 of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2022: Part C

Revised 6/23/2022

View 2022 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2021: Freely Associated States, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education — Part B

Revised 6/23/2022

View 2022 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2022: Part B

Revised 06/23/2022

June 24, 2022

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued its 2022 determinations for States on their implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C. The IDEA requires the Department to issue an annual determination, based on State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR), which evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

In the APR, each State reports annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The IDEA determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million infants, toddlers and children with disabilities.

OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and State Lead Agencies and early intervention service programs and providers for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

• Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

Since 2005 through 2022, States have submitted three SPPs as follows. States submitted SPPs initially in December 2005 under Part B and under Part C (one year after the 2004 IDEA amendments). The original SPP that each State submitted in 2005 covered a period of six years for Federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2005 through 2010 and was made up of quantifiable indicators (20 under Part B and 14 under Part C). These indicators measured either compliance with specific IDEA requirements (compliance indicators) or results and outcomes for children with disabilities and their families (results indicators). The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. In 2015, States submitted a second SPP that covered the six-year period for FFYs 2013 through 2018 and included a new results qualitative indicator under Part B and Part C, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). The second SPP was extended for one year for FFY 2019. On February 1, 2022, States submitted their third SPP, which includes compliance and results indicators (including the SSIP). With the 2022 determinations, OSEP is providing States with its response to their SPPs.

The Department issued its first annual IDEA determinations in 2007 for Parts B and C based on compliance data. Since 2014 for Part B States (and 2018 for Part B entities) and 2015 for all Part C States and entities, the Department made IDEA determinations using both compliance and results data. In 2022, the Department is continuing using both compliance and results data to issue its determinations. For its 2021 and 2022 determinations, the Department did not issue a determination of “Needs Intervention” to any State because States’ SPP/APR data collections for FFY 2019 and FFY 2020 were impacted by COVID-19. For the Department’s 2023 determinations, OSEP is considering, but has not yet determined, whether and how to consider a State’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR data collection that was affected by COVID-19.

Additionally, for the Department’s 2023 determinations, the Department is reviewing and considering whether and how to use existing indicators and/or other available data in making its determinations as part of its continuing effort to prioritize equity and improve results for infants, toddlers and children with disabilities. In April 2022, the Department released an equity action plan as part of its efforts to advance racial equity and support underserved communities. Examples of existing indicators that could be considered and/or weighted differently include indicators on child find (for Part C) and/or significant discrepancy and disproportionate representation (for Part B). We will offer opportunities for input from the public, including parents, agencies that implement IDEA and other stakeholders, to provide feedback in the coming months starting with the OSEP Leadership Conference in July 2022.

IDEA identifies technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a State “needs assistance” for two or more consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-B-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention" id="Part-B-Needs-Intervention" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

None

[/bs_citem]

[/bs_collapse]

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_2bed-bf75"]
[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-C-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Intervention-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

None[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020–2021 — Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2020-2021—Issued June 23, 2022)
How the department made determinations

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2019. The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include Indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

The IDEA also requires each State to report annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million children with disabilities.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

• Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

For the first time in 2014, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 the Department made Part B determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2015 and again in 2016, 2017 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 the Department made Part C determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2018, and again in 2019, 2020, and 2021 the Department made Part B determinations for the outlying areas, freely associated States, and the Bureau of Indian Education using both compliance and results data, with a 60% weight and 40% weight respectively. OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and Lead Agencies and early intervention service programs for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a State “needs assistance” for two consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State “needs intervention” for three consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_0368-3a4e"]
[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-B-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention" id="Part-B-Needs-Intervention" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

N/A

[/bs_citem]

[/bs_collapse]

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_2bed-bf75"]
[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-C-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Intervention-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

N/A

[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

View 2021 Part C State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Sections 616(D) and 642 of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2021: Part C

Revised 6/24/2021

(Grant Year 2019–2020 — Issued June 24, 2021)
How the department made determinations

View 2021 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2021: Part B

Revised 06/24/2021

View 2021 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports (Entities)

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Freely Associated States, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education — Part B

Revised 6/24/2021

View PDF

View 2020 Part C State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Sections 616(D) and 642 of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Part C

Revised 6/23/2020

[bs_collapse id="collapse_bc0a-4c79"]
[bs_citem title="Introduction" id="Introduction" parent="collapse_bc0a-4c79"]

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each State under sections 616(d) and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for each State’s early intervention program under Part C of the IDEA. We considered the totality of the information we have about a State, including information related to the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR), Indicator C3 Child Outcomes data (Outcomes data) and other data reported in each State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR; information from monitoring and other publicly available information, such as Specific Conditions on the State’s grant award under Part C; and other issues related to a State’s compliance with the IDEA.

In examining each State’s Outcomes data, we specifically considered the following results elements:

1. Data quality by examining—
   1. the completeness of the State’s data, and
   2. how the State’s FFY 2018 data compared to four years of historic data to identify data anomalies; and
2. Child performance by examining—
   1. how each State’s FFY 2018 data compared with all other States’ FFY 2018 data, and
   2. how each State’s FFY 2018 data compared with its own FFY 2017 data.

Below is a detailed description of how the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) evaluated States’ data using the Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix. The RDA Matrix is individualized for each State and consists of:

1. a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on SPP/APR 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 Compliance Score and the Results Score; and
5. the State’s 2020 Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2020 Part C RDA Matrix and Results Score
2. 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix and Compliance Score; and
3. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="A. 2020 Part C RDA Matrix and Results Score" id="A" parent="collapse_bc0a-4c79"]

In making each State’s 2020 determination, the Department used the FFY 2018 early childhood outcomes data reported by each State under SPP/APR Indicator C3 by considering the following results elements:

1. Data Quality

   1. Data Completeness:

      • Data completeness was calculated using the total number of Part C children who were included in each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data and the total number of children the State reported exiting during FFY 2018 in its FFY 2018 IDEA Section 618 Exiting data; and

   2. Data Anomalies:

      • Data anomalies were calculated by examining how the State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data compared to four years of historic data.

2. Child Performance

   1. Data Comparison:

      • How each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data compared with all other States’ FFY 2018 Outcomes data; and

   2. Performance Change Over Time:

      • How each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data compared with its own FFY 2017 Outcomes data.

Calculation of each of these results elements and scoring is further described below:

1. Data Quality

   1. Data Completeness:

      • The data completeness score was calculated using the total number of Part C children who were included in your State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data and the total number of children your State reported exiting during FFY 2018 in its FFY 2018 IDEA Section 618 Exiting data. Each State received a percentage, which was computed by dividing the number of children reported in the State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data by the number of children the State reported exited during FFY 2018 in the State’s FFY 2018 IDEA Section 618 Exiting Data. This yielded a percentage such that each State received a data completeness score of ‘2’ if the percentage was at least 65%¹; a data completeness score of ‘1’ if the percentage was between 34% and 64%; and a data completeness score of ‘0’ if the percentage were less than 34%. For the two States with approved sampling plans, the State received a ‘2’. (Data Sources: FFY 2018 APR Indicator C3 data and EDFacts School Year (SY) 2018-2019; data extracted 5/27/2020.)

   2. Data Anomalies:

      • The data anomalies score for each State represents a summary of the data anomalies in each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data. Publicly available data for the preceding four years reported by and across all States for each of 15 progress categories under Indicator 3 (in the FFY 2014 – FFY 2017 APRs) were used to determine an expected range of responses for each progress category under Outcomes A, B, and C². For each of the 15 progress categories, a mean was calculated using this publicly available data. A lower and upper scoring percentage was set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for category a and two standard deviations above or below the mean for categories b through e. In any case where the low scoring percentage set from one or two standard deviations below the mean resulted in a negative number, the low scoring percentage is equal to 0.
      • If your State's FFY 2018 Outcomes data reported in a progress category fell below the calculated "low percentage" or above the "high percentage" for that progress category for all States, the data in that particular category are statistically improbable outliers and considered an anomaly for that progress category. If your State’s data in a particular progress category was identified as an anomaly, the State received a ‘0’ for that category. A percentage that is equal to or between the low percentage and high percentage for each progress category received 1 point. A State could receive a total number of points between 0 and 15. Thus, a point total of 0 indicates that all 15 progress categories contained data anomalies and a point total of 15 indicates that there were no data anomalies in all 15 progress categories in the State's data. An overall data anomalies score of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ is based on the total points awarded. Each State received a data anomalies score of ‘2’ if the total points received in all progress categories were 13 through 15; a data anomalies score of ‘1’ for 10 through 12 points; and a data anomalies score of ‘0’ for zero through nine points. (Data Sources: States’ FFY 2014 through FFY 2017 SPP/APR Indicator C3 data and each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data)

2. Child Performance

   1. Data Comparison:

      • The data comparison overall performance score represents how your State's FFY 2018 Outcomes data compares to other States' FFY 2018 Outcomes data. Each State received a score for the distribution of the 6 Summary Statements (SS) for that State compared to the distribution of the 6 Summary Statements in all other States³. The 10th and 90th percentile for each of the 6 Summary Statements was identified and used to assign points to performance outcome data for each Summary Statement. Each Summary Statement outcome was assigned ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ points.
      • If a State’s Summary Statement value fell at or below the 10th percentile, that Summary Statement was assigned a score of ‘0’. If a State’s Summary Statement value fell between the 10th and 90th percentile, the Summary Statement was assigned ‘1’ point, and if a State’s Summary Statement value fell at or above the 90th percentile, the Summary Statement was assigned ‘2’ points. The points were added across the 6 Summary Statements. A State can receive total points between 0 and 12, with the total points of ‘0’ indicating all 6 Summary Statement values were below the 10th percentile and a total points of 12 indicating all 6 Summary Statements were above the 90th percentile. An overall comparison Summary Statement score of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ was based on the total points awarded.
      • The data comparison Overall Performance Score for this results element of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ for each State is based on the total points awarded. Each State received an Overall Performance Score of: ‘2’ if the total points across SS1 and SS2 were nine through 12 points; score of ‘1’ for five through eight points; and score of ‘0’ for zero through four points. (Data Sources: All States’ SPP/APR Indicator C3 data from FFY 2018 and each State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR Indicator C3 data.)

   2. Performance Change Over Time:

      • The Overall Performance Change Score represents how each State’s FFY 2018 Outcomes data compared with its FFY 2017 Outcomes data and whether the State’s data demonstrated progress. The data in each Outcome Area is assigned a value of 0 if there was a statistically significant decrease from one year to the next, a value of 1 if there was no significant change, and a value of 2 if there was a statistically significant increase. The specific steps for each State are described in the State’s RDA Matrix. The scores from all 6 Outcome Areas were totaled, resulting in total points ranging from 0 – 12. The Overall Performance Change Score for this results element of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ for each State is based on the total points awarded. Each State received an Overall Performance Change Score of: ‘2’ if the total points were eight or above; a score of ‘1’ for four through seven points; and score of ‘0’ for below three points. Where OSEP has approved a State’s reestablishment of its Indicator C3 Outcome Area baseline data as its data for FFY 2018, because the State has changed its methodology for collecting this outcome data, the State received a score of ‘N/A’ for this element since determining performance change based on the percentages across these two years of data would not be a valid comparison. The points are not included in either the numerator or denominator in the overall calculation of the results score. (Data Source: SPP/APR Indicator C3 data from FFY 2017 and 2018)

Footnotes

¹ In determining the data completeness score, the Department will round up from 64.5% (but no lower) to 65%. Similarly, the Department will round up from 33.5% (but no lower) to 34%.

² The three Child Outcome areas are: Outcome A (Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); Outcome B (Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication)); and Outcome C (Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their need). The five Progress Categories under SPP/APR Indicator C3 are the following:

1. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning
2. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
3. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
4. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
5. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

Outcomes A, B, and C under SPP/APR Indicator C- each contain these five progress categories for a total of 15 progress categories

³ Each of the three Child Outcome Areas (A, B, and C) are measured by the following two Summary Statements:

1. Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="B. 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix and Compliance Score " id="B" parent="collapse_bc0a-4c79"]

In making each State’s 2020 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following compliance data:

1. The State’s FFY 2018 data for Part C Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C (including whether the State reported valid and reliable data for each indicator); and whether the State demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance it had identified in FFY 2017 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under sections 616, 618, and 642 of the IDEA;
3. The State’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions;
4. Longstanding Noncompliance:
   • The Department considered:
     1. Whether the Department imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part C grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination, and the number of years for which the State’s Part C grant award has been subject to Specific or Special Conditions; and
     2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2016 or earlier by either the Department or the State that the State has not yet corrected.

The Compliance Matrix indicates a score of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ for each of the compliance indicators in item one above and for each of the additional factors listed in items two through four above. Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the State received in its scoring under these factors, the Compliance Matrix reflects a Compliance Score, which is combined with the Results Score to calculate the State’s RDA percentage and determination.

1. Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C

In the 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each of Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C⁴:

• Two points, if either:
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95%⁵ compliance; or
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 90% compliance; and the State identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for the indicator. Such full correction is indicated in the matrix with a “Yes” in the “Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017” column.⁶
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 75% compliance, and the State did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstances:
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance; or
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;⁷ or
  • The State did not report FFY 2018 data for the indicator.⁸

2. Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data⁹:

• Two points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects less than 75% compliance.

3. Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

In the 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearings, as reported by the State under section 618 of the IDEA:

• Two points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect less than 75% compliance. • Not Applicable (N/A), if the State’s data reflect less than 100% compliance, and there were fewer than ten State complaint decisions or ten due process hearing decisions.

4. Scoring of the Matrix for Long-Standing Noncompliance (Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the 2020 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Long-Standing Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the State has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified by OSEP or the State; in FFY 2016 or earlier, and
  • No Specific Conditions on its FFY 2019 grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance, identified by OSEP or the State, in FFY 2016, FFY 2015, and/or FFY 2014, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the FFY 2018 OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2019 Part C grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in FFY 2013 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Specific or Special Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019) IDEA Part C grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.

Footnotes

⁴ A notation of “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in the “Performance” column for an indicator denotes that the indicator is not applicable to that particular State. The points for that indicator are not included in the denominator for the matrix.

⁵ In determining whether a State has met the 95% compliance criterion for these indicators (1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C), the Department will round up from 94.5% (but no lower) to 95%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 90% compliance criterion discussed below, the Department will round up from 89.5% (but no lower) to 90%. In addition, in determining whether a State has met the 75% compliance criterion discussed below, the Department will round up from 74.5% (but no lower) to 75%. The Department will also apply the rounding rules to the compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for:

1. the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under sections 616, 618, and 642 of the IDEA;
2. the State’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.

⁶ A “No” in that column denotes that the State has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator.

⁷ If a State’s FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator are not valid and reliable, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of “0.” The explanation of why the State’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

⁸ If a State reported no FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

⁹ OSEP used the Part C Timely and Accurate Data Rubric to award points to states based on the timeliness and accuracy of their 616 and 618 data. A copy of the rubric is contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On the first page of the rubric, entitled “Part C Timely and Accurate Data-SPP/APR Data” states are given one point for each indicator with valid and reliable data and five points for SPP/APRs that were submitted timely. The total points for valid and reliable SPP/APR data and timely submission are added together to form the APR Grand Total. On page two of the rubric, the State’s 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on 618 data timeliness, completeness and edit checks from EDFacts. The percentage of Timely and Accurately Reported Data is calculated by adding the 618 Data Grand Total to the APR Grand Total and dividing this sum by the total number of points available for the entire rubric. This percentage is inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="C. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination " id="C" parent="collapse_bc0a-4c79"]

Each State’s 2020 RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 50% of the State’s Results Score and 50% of the State’s Compliance Score. The State’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

1. Meets Requirements

   • A State’s 2020 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,¹⁰ unless the Department has imposed Specific or Special Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C grant awards (for FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.

2. Needs Assistance

   • A State’s 2020 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. A State would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or above, but the Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C grant awards (for FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.

3. Needs Intervention

   • A State’s 2020 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%.

4. Needs Substantial Intervention

   • The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State in 2020.

Footnotes

¹⁰ In determining whether a State has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.
[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

View PDF

View 2020 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Freely Associated States, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education - Part B

Revised 6/25/2020

[bs_collapse id="collapse_e21e-adea"]
[bs_citem title="Introduction" id="Introduction" parent="collapse_e21e-adea"]

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each freely associated State, outlying area, and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) (Entities) under section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We considered the totality of the information we have about an Entity, including information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments; exiting data on CWD who dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma¹; the Entity’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Department-imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s grant award under Part B; and other issues related to the Entity’s compliance with the IDEA. Below is a detailed description of how the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) evaluated the Entities’ data using the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix.

The RDA Matrix consists of:

1. a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on SPP/APR Compliance Indicators and other compliance factors;
2. a Results Matrix that includes scoring on Results Elements;
3. a Compliance Score and a Results Score;
4. an RDA Percentage based on the Compliance Score and the Results Score; and
5. the Entity’s Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2020 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination

Footnote

¹ When providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, Entities are required to report on the number of students with disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma. These students meet the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As explained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma, except that a regular high school diploma shall not be aligned to the alternate academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA. A regular high school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential.”

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="A. 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix" id="A" parent="collapse_e21e-adea"]

In making each Entity’s 2020 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The Entity’s FFY 2018 data for applicable Part B Compliance Indicators² 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (including whether the Entity reported valid and reliable data for each indicator); and whether the Entity demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance it had identified in FFY 2017 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA;
3. The Entity’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions;
4. Longstanding Noncompliance:
   • The Department considered:
     1. Whether the Department imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination, and the number of years for which the Entity’s Part B grant award has been subject to Special or Specific Conditions; and
     2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2016 or earlier by either the Department or the Entity that the Entity has not yet corrected.

Scoring of the Compliance Matrix

The Compliance Matrix indicates a score of 0, 1, or 2, for each of the compliance indicators in item one above and for each of the additional factors listed in items two through four above. Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the Entity received in its scoring under these factors, the Compliance Matrix reflects a Compliance Score, which is combined with the Results Score to calculate the Entity’s RDA Percentage and Determination.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached Entity-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13³:

• Two points, if either:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95%⁴ compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 5% compliance)⁵; or
  • The Entity’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 90% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 10% compliance); and the Entity identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for the indicator. Such full correction is indicated in the matrix with a “Yes”) in the “Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017” column.⁶
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 25% compliance), and the Entity did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstances:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The Entity’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;⁷ or
  • The Entity did not report FFY 2018 data for the indicator.⁸

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate Entity-Reported Data

In the attached Entity-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for Timely and Accurate Entity-Reported Data⁹:

• Two points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects less than 75% compliance.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

In the attached Entity-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearing decisions, as reported by the Entity under section 618 of the IDEA:

• Two points, if the Entity’s FFY 2018 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2018 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the Entity’s FFY 2018 data reflect less than 75% compliance.
• Not Applicable (N/A), if the Entity’s data reflect less than 100% compliance, and there were fewer than ten State complaint decisions or ten due process hearing decisions.

Scoring of the Matrix for Longstanding Noncompliance (Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached Entity-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Long-Standing Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the Entity has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity, in FFY 2016 or earlier; and
  • No Specific Conditions on its FFY 2019 grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity, in FFY 2016, FFY 2015, and/or FFY 2014, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool; for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2019 Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity, in FFY 2013 or earlier, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.

Footnotes

² The U.S. Virgin Islands report data for Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands report data for Indicators 11, 12, and 13. The Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the BIE report data on Indicators 11 and 13.

³ A notation of “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in the “Performance” column for an indicator denotes that the indicator is not applicable to that particular Entity. The points for that indicator are not included in the denominator for the matrix.

⁴ In determining whether an Entity has met the 95% compliance criterion for Indicators 11, 12, and 13, the Department will round up from 94.5% (but no lower) to 95%. In determining whether an Entity has met the 90% compliance criterion for these indictors, the Department will round up from 89.5% (but no lower) to 90%. In addition, in determining whether an Entity has met the 75% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round up from 74.5% (but no lower) to 75%. Similarly, in determining whether an Entity has met the 5% compliance criterion for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, the Department will round down from 5.49% (but no higher) to 5%. In determining whether an Entity has met the 10% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round down from 10.49% (but no higher) to 10%. In addition, in determining whether an Entity has met the 25% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round down from 25.49% (but no higher) to 25%. The Department will also apply the rounding rules to the compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for: (1.) the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and (2.) the Entity’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.

⁵ For Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, a very high level of compliance is generally at or below 5%.

⁶ A “No” in that column denotes that the Entity has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the Entity did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator.

⁷ If an Entity’s FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator are not valid and reliable, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0. The explanation of why the Entity’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

⁸ If an Entity reported no FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the Entity), the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

⁹ OSEP used the Part B Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data Rubric to award points to Entities based on the timeliness and accuracy of their sections 616 and 618 data. A copy of the rubric is contained in the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On page two of the rubric, entitled “APR and 618-Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data,” Entities are given one point for each indicator with valid and reliable data and five points for SPP/APRs that were submitted timely. The total points for valid and reliable SPP/APR data and timely SPP/APR submission are added together to form the APR Grand Total. On page three of the rubric, the Entity’s section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and edit checks from EDFacts. The percentage of Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data is calculated by adding the 618 Data Grand Total to the APR Grand Total and dividing this sum by the total number of points available for the entire rubric. This percentage is inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="B. 2020 Part B Results Matrix" id="B" parent="collapse_e21e-adea"]

In making each Entity’s 2020 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the following data:

1. The percentage of CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments across all available grade levels (3 through 8);
2. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
3. The percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma.

The Results Elements for participation in regular Statewide assessments are scored separately for reading and math. When combined with the exiting data, there are a total of four Results Elements for the Entities. The Results Elements are defined as follows:

Percentage of CWD Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

This is the percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments in School Year (SY) 2018- 2019 with and without accommodations by averaging the assessment participation percentages across all available grade levels (3 through 8) where a regular assessment was administered, for reading and math separately. The numerator for calculating the participation percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments with and without accommodations for each grade level with available data is the number of CWD participating with and without accommodations in regular Statewide assessments in SY 2018- 2019, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and non-participants in regular and alternate Statewide assessments in SY 2018- 2019, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). The numerator for calculating the percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments in SY 2018- 2019 with and without accommodations is the sum of the participation percentages for each grade level in SY 2018- 2019, and the denominator is the number of grade levels with available data. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). (Data source: EDFacts SY 2018- 2019; data extracted 4/8/20)

Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Dropping Out

This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21, who exited school by dropping out. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the exit reason category dropped out for SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 20152016, by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) for SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016, then multiplying the result by 100¹⁰. (Data source: EDFacts SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016; data extracted 5/29/19, 5/30/18, 5/31/17)

Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a Regular High School Diploma

This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21, who exited school by graduating with a regular high school diploma. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the exit reason category graduated with a regular high school diploma for SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016, by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died), exiting school in SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017,and 2015-2016, then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016; data extracted 5/29/19, 5/30/18, 5/31/17)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached Entity-specific 2020 Part B Results Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• An Entity’s participation rates on regular Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘2’, ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States and entities. The participation rates for the Entities were calculated based on an average of participation rates across all available grade levels (3 through 8) in which the assessment was administered. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). A score of ‘2’ was assigned if at least 90% of CWD in the Entity participated in the regular Statewide assessment; a score of ‘1’ if the participation rate for CWD was 80% to 89%; and a score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 80%.
• Each State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered and the top, middle, and bottom thirds determined using tertiles¹¹. The exiting percentages for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out in SYs 20172018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that fell in the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the highest percentage) received a ‘0’.
• Each State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by graduating with a regular high school diploma were rank-ordered and the top, middle, and bottom thirds determined using tertiles. The exiting percentages for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma in SYs 2017-2018, 2016-2017, and 2015-2016, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States (i.e., those with the highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that fell in the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a ‘0’.

The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:

Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the Entity received in its scoring under the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the Entity’s RDA Percentage and Determination.

Footnotes

¹⁰ The Department will make these calculations using unsuppressed data. However, due to privacy concerns the Department has chosen to suppress calculations made with small cell counts in the public document.

¹¹ The tertiles of a data set divide it into three equal parts.

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="C. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination" id="C" parent="collapse_e21e-adea"]

The Entity’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 40% of the Entity’s Results Score and 60% of the Entity’s Compliance Score. The Entity’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Footnote

¹² In determining whether an Entity has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether an Entity has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

[/bs_citem]

[/bs_collapse]

View PDF

View 2020 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Part B

Revised 06/25/2020

[bs_collapse id="collapse_8163-aa6e"]

[bs_citem title="Introduction" id="Introduction" parent="collapse_8163-aa6e"]

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each State under section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We considered the totality of the information we have about a State, including information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments; the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently-administered (school year (SY) 2018–2019) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); exiting data on CWD who dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma¹; the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Department-imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s grant award under Part B; and other issues related to State compliance with the IDEA. Below is a detailed description of how the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) evaluated States’ data using the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix.

The RDA Matrix consists of:

1. a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on SPP/APR Compliance Indicators and other compliance factors;
2. a Results Matrix that includes scoring on Results Elements;
3. a Compliance Score and a Results Score;
4. an RDA Percentage based on the Compliance Score and the Results Score; and
5. the State’s Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2020 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination

Footnote

¹ When providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to report on the number of students with disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma These students meet the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As explained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma, except that a regular high school diploma shall not be aligned to the alternate academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA. A regular high school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential.”

[/bs_citem]

[bs_citem title="A. 2020 Part  Compliance Matrix" id="A" parent="collapse_8163-aa6e"]

In making each State’s 2020 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The State’s FFY 2018 data for Part B Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (including whether the State reported valid and reliable data for each indicator); and whether the State
   demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance it had identified in FFY 2017 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA;
3. The State’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions;
4. Longstanding Noncompliance:

The Department considered:

1. Whether the Department imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2019 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination, and the number of years for which the State’s Part B grant award has been subject to Specific or Special Conditions; and
2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2016 or earlier by either the Department or the State that the State has not yet corrected.

Scoring of the Compliance Matrix

The Compliance Matrix indicates a score of 0, 1, or 2, for each of the compliance indicators in item one above and for each of the additional factors listed in items two through four above. Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the State received in its scoring under these factors, the Compliance Matrix reflects a Compliance Score, which is combined with the Results Score to calculate the State’s RDA Percentage and Determination.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each of Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13²:

• Two points, if either:
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95%³ compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 5% compliance)⁴ ; or
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 90% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 10% compliance); and the State identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for the indicator. Such full correction is indicated in the matrix with a “Yes” in the “Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017” column.⁵
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 25% compliance), and the State did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstances:
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The State’s FFY 2018 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable⁶; or
  • The State did not report FFY 2018 data for the indicator.⁷

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data⁸:

• Two points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects less than 75% compliance.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearing decisions, as reported by the State under section 618 of the IDEA:

• Two points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect less than 75% compliance.
• Not Applicable (N/A), if the State’s data reflect less than 100% compliance, and there were fewer than ten State complaint decisions or ten due process hearing decisions.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data⁸:

• Two points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the OSEP-calculated percentage reflects less than 75% compliance.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearing decisions, as reported by the State under section 618 of the IDEA:

• Two points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2018 data reflect less than 75% compliance.
• Not Applicable (N/A), if the State’s data reflect less than 100% compliance, and there were fewer than ten State complaint decisions or ten due process hearing decisions.

Scoring of the Matrix for Longstanding Noncompliance (Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the State has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in FFY 2016 or earlier; and
  • No Specific Conditions on its FFY 2019 grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in FFY 2016, FFY 2015, and/or FFY 2014, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2019 Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in FFY 2013 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2020 determination.

Footnotes

² A notation of “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in the “Performance” column for an indicator denotes that the indicator is not applicable to that particular State. The points for that indicator are not included in the denominator for the matrix.

³ In determining whether a State has met the 95% compliance criterion for Indicators 11, 12, and 13, the Department will round up from 94.5% (but no lower) to 95%. In determining whether a State has met the 90% compliance criterion for these indictors, the Department will round up from 89.5% (but no lower) to 90%. In addition, in determining whether a State has met the 75% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round up from 74.5% (but no lower) to 75%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 5% compliance criterion for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, the Department will round down from 5.49% (but no higher) to 5%. In determining whether a State has met the 10% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round down from 10.49% (but no higher) to 10%. In addition, in determining whether a State has met the 25% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round down from 25.49% (but no higher) to 25%. The Department will also apply the rounding rules to the compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for: (1) the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and (2) the State’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.

⁴ For Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, a very high level of compliance is generally at or below 5%.

⁵ A “No” in that column denotes that the State has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2017 for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2017 for the indicator.

⁶ If a State’s FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator are not valid and reliable, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0. The explanation of why the State’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

⁷ If a State reported no FFY 2018 data for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the State), the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

⁸ OSEP used the Part B Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data Rubric to award points to States based on the timeliness and accuracy of their sections 616 and 618 data. A copy of the rubric is contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2018 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On page two of the rubric, entitled “APR and 618-Timely and Accurate State Reported Data,” States are given one point for each indicator with valid and reliable data and five points for SPP/APRs that were submitted timely. The total points for valid and reliable SPP/APR data and timely SPP/APR submission are added together to form the APR Grand Total. On page three of the rubric, the State’s section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and edit checks from EDFacts. The percentage of Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data is calculated by adding the 618 Data Grand Total to the APR Grand Total and dividing this sum by the total number of points available for the entire rubric. This percentage is inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="B. 2020 Part B Results Matrix" id="B" parent="collapse_8163-aa6e"]

In making each State’s 2020 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the following data:

1. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments;
2. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments;
3. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD scoring at basic⁹ or above on the NAEP;
4. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
5. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;
6. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
7. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
8. The percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma.

The Results Elements for participation in regular Statewide assessments and participation and performance on the NAEP are scored separately for reading and math. When combined with the exiting data, there are a total of fourteen Results Elements. The Results Elements are defined as follows:

Percentage of CWD Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

This is the percentage of CWD, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading), who took regular Statewide assessments in SY 2018–2019 with and without accommodations. The numerator for this calculation is the number of CWD participating with and without accommodations on regular Statewide assessments in SY 2018–2019, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and nonparticipants on regular and alternate Statewide assessments in SY 2018–2019, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading). (Data source: EDFacts SY 2018–2019; data extracted 4/8/20)

Percentage of CWD Scoring at Basic or Above on the NAEP

This is the percentage of CWD, not including students with a Section 504 plan, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading), who scored at or above basic on the NAEP in SY 2018–2019. (Data Source: Main NAEP Data Explorer; data extracted 10/31/19)

Percentage of CWD Included in NAEP Testing

This is the reported percentage of identified CWD, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading), who were included in the NAEP testing in SY 2018–2019. (Data Source: Nation’s Report Card, 2019):

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade reading (see page 11):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/supportive_files/2019_technical_appendix_reading.pdf

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade math (see page 11):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2019_technical_appendix_math.pdf

Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Dropping Out

This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21, who exited school by dropping out. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the exit reason category dropped out by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died), then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SY 2017–2018; data extracted 5/29/19)

Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a Regular High School Diploma

This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21, who exited school by graduating with a regular high school diploma. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the exit reason category graduated with a regular high school diploma by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six exit-from-both-special education-and-school categories (graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died), then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SY 2017– 2018; data extracted 5/29/19)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached State-specific 2020 Part B Results Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• A State’s participation rates on regular Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘2’, ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States. A score of ‘2’ was assigned if at least 90% of CWD in a State participated in the regular Statewide assessment; a score of ‘1’ if the participation rate for CWD was 80% to 89%; and a score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 80%.
• A State’s NAEP scores (Basic and above) were rank-ordered; the top tertile¹⁰ of States received a ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile of States received a ‘0’.
• A State’s NAEP inclusion rate was assigned a score of either ‘0’ or ‘1’ based on whether the State’s NAEP inclusion rate for CWD was “higher than or not significantly different from the National Assessment Governing Board [NAGB] goal of 85 percent.” “Standard error estimates” were reported with the inclusion rates of CWD and taken into account in determining if a State’s inclusion rate was higher than or not significantly different from the NAGB goal of 85 percent.
• A State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered; the top tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the highest percentage) received a ‘0’.
• A State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by graduating with a regular high school diploma were rank-ordered; the top tertile of States (i.e., those with the highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a ‘0’.

The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:

Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the State received in its scoring under the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the State’s RDA Percentage and Determination.

Footnotes

⁹ While the goal is to ensure that all CWD demonstrate proficient or advanced mastery of challenging subject matter, we recognize that States may need to take intermediate steps to reach this benchmark. Therefore, we assessed the performance of CWD using the Basic achievement level on the NAEP, which also provided OSEP with the broader range of data needed to identify variations in student performance across States. Generally, the Basic achievement level on the NAEP means that students have demonstrated partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.
¹⁰ The tertiles of a data set divide it into three equal parts.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="C. 2020 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination" id="C" parent="collapse_8163-aa6e"]

The State’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 50% of the State’s Results Score and 50% of the State’s Compliance Score. The State’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Footnote

¹¹ In determining whether a State has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

Revised November 25, 2020

2020 IDEA Determinations Fact Sheet (PDF)

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2018. The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include Indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

The IDEA also requires each State to report annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million children with disabilities.
IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

• Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

For the first time in 2014, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the Department made Part B determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2015 and again in 2016, 2017 2018, 2019, and 2020, the Department made Part C determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2018, and again in 2019 and 2020, the Department made Part B determinations for the outlying areas, freely associated States, and the Bureau of Indian Education using both compliance and results data, with a 60% weight and 40% weight respectively. OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and Lead Agencies and early intervention service programs for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a State “needs assistance” for two consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State “needs intervention” for three consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_0368-3a4e"]
[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-B-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years)" id="Part-B-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (one year)" id="Part-B-Needs-Intervention-1" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (three years)" id="Palau" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (nine consecutive years)" id="Part-B-Needs-Intervention-9" parent="collapse_0368-3a4e"]

[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

[bs_collapse id="collapse_2bed-bf75"]
[bs_citem title="Meets Requirements" id="Part-C-Meets-Requirements" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Assistance (two or more consecutive years" id="Part-C-Needs-Assistance-2-plus" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title="Needs Intervention (one year)" id="Part-C-Needs-Intervention-1" parent="collapse_2bed-bf75"]

[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determination (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 23, 2020)
How the department made determinations