When reporting on the correction of
noncompliance, the State must report, in its
The State reported on the status of correction of noncompliance for this indicator under the appropriate headings of the Indicator 11 FFY 2011 APR. The State reported that all but one LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 70.92 80 92.52 97.36 99.03 99.09 99.59
Indicator 11 - % of SWD who were evaluated within 60 days
Target
FFY 2011 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site
monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02). In the FFY 2011 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.
jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. The State described the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. The State also reported on the actions being taken to ensure correction of noncompliance for the LEA that has not yet demonstrated
compliance.
If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2011 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance.
The State reviewed its improvement activities and will continue with the current activities due to its continued progress towards meeting the target.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2012:
Part B State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012)
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 12 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for
Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination.
b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.
c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied.
e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.
Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100.
FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target
2011 (2011-2012)
Mississippi will increase the number of eligible children transitioning from Part C to Part B, receiving services at age 3 to 100%.
Actual Target Data for FFY 2011:
97.59%
Data for Indicator 12 were obtained from the State database, MSIS. Data was collected and analyzed for the period from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. OSE continuously works with the Lead Agency for Part C, Mississippi Department of Health (MDH) to coordinate the electronic
data systems in order to collect accurate information relative to this Indicator. Monthly files were submitted from MDH that allowed OSE to load the files into MSIS and run a matching procedure to determine how many students being served under Part C were now being served under Part B. The OSE was able to provide data to LEAs that included a listing of eligible students receiving services at age 3 and those children currently being served by Part C who were referred to Part B. The LEAs in turn reported to OSE the status of each student in the reports. Once all the data was reported, OSE ran a process to pull data to indicate if all the students had IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
Steps for data collection, determination of noncompliance, and issuance of findings:
Step 1: Gather data from the State database after the end of the 2011-2012 school year. All
records are reviewed.
Step 2: Identify LEAs who appear noncompliant and give them the opportunity to clarify their
data and/or provide allowable exceptions.
Step 3: Review the responses and identify noncompliance (missed timelines that did not meet
one of the allowable exceptions).
Step 4: Determine if LEAs with identified noncompliance have met both prongs of verification
of correction of noncompliance, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.
Step 4a: Determine if the LEA has corrected original cases of noncompliance by
developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. (Prong 1)
Step 4b: Gather data from the State database for the 2012-2013 school year to
determine if LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements and has achieved 100% compliance based on the review of this updated data. (Prong 2)
Step 5: Issue findings to those LEAs who were identified with noncompliance for the 2011-
2012 school year and who did not meet both prongs of verification of correction of noncompliance prior to the findings being issued.
Number of LEAs who appeared noncompliant in database (Step 2) 67 Number of LEAs who provided allowable exceptions to the timeline (Step 3) 57 Number of LEAs with identified noncompliance (Step 3) 10 Number of LEAs whose noncompliance was corrected (both prongs) prior to
the issuance of findings (Step 4) 5
Number of LEAs who were issued findings of noncompliance (Step 5) 5
After an initial review of data, LEAs who appeared noncompliant were given an opportunity to clarify their data. The State database does not allow LEAs to indicate whether or not a missed timeline was due to one of the allowable exceptions under IDEA 34 CFR §300.301(d). The opportunity to provide this information was conducted by sending the affected LEAs a letter which required their response and any necessary documentation of the allowable exceptions. Upon review of the LEA responses, it was determined that 19 individual children who were referred by Part C and found eligible for Part B, did not have IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
The 19 cases of missed timelines belonged to 10 separate LEAs. At the time of the data review, all 10 LEAs had corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by
developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. One of the LEAs was on an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010, and has since
demonstrated correction of the noncompliance. One LEA was on an Improvement Plan for noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 and has corrected the original cases of noncompliance, but has not demonstrated correction based on reviews of updated data. That LEA has since entered into a Compliance Agreement with MDE to address several outstanding areas of noncompliance. For the other eight LEAs, the OSE reviewed updated data from the 2012-2013 school year to determine if the LEAs were correctly implementing the specific regulatory
requirements and had achieved 100% compliance. It was determined that three LEAs satisfied the 2-pronged approach of verified correction of noncompliance in accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02 prior to the OSE’s issuance of written notifications of findings. Therefore, those three LEAs were not issued findings.
The remaining five LEAs were issued findings of noncompliance for Indicator 12. LEAs were issued a single finding regardless of the number of student records that were found out of compliance in each LEA. All five LEAs have corrected the individual cases of identified noncompliance by developing and implementing the IEP, although after the third birthday. However, these five LEAs could not demonstrate 100% compliance based upon a review of SY 2012-2013 data prior to the issuance of findings. All five LEAs have submitted an Improvement Plan with activities to ensure the correction of noncompliance and future adherence to the timeline. A monthly data review is also required for each LEA who was issued a finding. LEAs will be monitored to ensure that correction takes place as soon as possible, but no later than 12 months from the date of the written notification of the finding.
In summation, of the 10 LEAs with identified noncompliance for FFY 2011:
One LEA has outstanding noncompliance from FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance is being addressed through a Compliance Agreement;
One LEA was previously on Improvement Plans for FFY 2010 and the FFY 2011 noncompliance was addressed and corrected while under those Improvement Plans; Three LEAs were able to demonstrate correction of noncompliance based on reviews of
updated data prior to the issuance of findings; and
Five LEAs were issued findings of noncompliance for FFY 2011 noncompliance.
Actual State Data (Numbers)
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred
to Part B for Part B eligibility determination 1,074 b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and
whose eligibility was determined prior to third birthday 216 c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and
d. # for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied
41
e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays
112
# in a but not in b, c, d, or e 17
Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays
Percent = [(c) / (a-b-d-e)] * 100
97.59%
Children included in (a) but not in (b), (c), (d), or (e):
Nineteen children were included in (a) but not in (b), (c), (d), or (e). All of the 19 children have been evaluated, determined eligible, and had IEPs developed and implemented, although after their third birthdays.
The range of days beyond the third birthday ranged from 2 to 135 days. Reasons for the delays included staff or scheduling issues, medical delays, lack of parent availability for IEP meetings, and lack of communication with service coordinators for Part C.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed for FFY 2011 (SY 2011-2012):
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
MDE and the Lead Agency for Part C, MDH will coordinate electronic data systems in order to collect accurate information relative to this Indicator. The MDE will provide data to LEAs that include the percentage of eligible students receiving services at age 3. MDE will provide professional materials and training activities to LEAs on
effective service delivery options for serving children ages 3-5.
A monthly file from MDH system was established to load the file into MSIS. LEAs check reports in MSIS at the beginning of each month for a listing of any students that will turn 30 months during that month. This timeframe will allow LEAs six months to prepare and test these students moving from Part C to Part B.
The MDE and the MDH will continue to collect and analyze data relative to Part C and Part B outcomes and to
collaborate on the implementation of a
A monthly file from MDH and system was established to load the file into MSIS for LEAs to use.
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
statewide Child Find campaign to identify, locate, and evaluate children with disabilities ages birth through 21. The MDE and the MDH will establish an
Interagency Agreement which
addresses responsibility between the two lead agencies for Part C and B respectively in the areas of Child Find and Transition.
The Interagency Agreement between MDE and MDH remained in place
during SY 2011-2012.
MDE staff will continue to annually review the Interagency Agreement in an effort to determine current compliance status of the Agreement between MDE and MDH. If problems are identified, a report specifying problems, solutions, and timelines for implementation will be developed cooperatively with agency personnel.
The Interagency Agreement was implemented in SY 2011-2012. The review did not reveal any problems with the compliance of the Agreement.
MDE personnel will provide technical assistance as needed to help resolve any problems noted through the annual review of the Interagency Agreement.
OSE personnel worked with MDH to provide technical assistance in pulling the data needed by OSE. A secure site was created to allow MDH to deposit the file each month.
The MDE will support the training activities provided by the MDH, lead agency for Part C, and to work
collaboratively with the Part C service providers to ensure a smooth transition from Part C to Part B.
The MDE worked collaboratively with the MDH to support training efforts of the MDH as the lead agency for Part C. The MDE also supported training
efforts of the MDH related to transition requirements from Part C to B.
The MDE will be responsible for the Statewide coordination of the planning and implementation of the Child Find identification, location, and evaluation effort.
Child Find is conducted annually and reports are submitted to the Office of Program Management for verification.
The MDE will evaluate the implementation of policies and procedures that promote a smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B, most specifically, the requirement that children eligible for Part C services who also are found to be eligible for
The OSE has developed training for LEA personnel who are responsible for the oversight and provision of IDEA Part B services to preschool children with IEPs. This training was developed and implemented by the former Director of Part C, who was employed by the MDE. This training was implemented
State Performance Plan 2005-2012
Improvement Activities
Improvement Activities FFY 2011
(SY 2011-2012)
Part B services, have a transition planning conference no later than 33 months of age.
during the SY 2011-2012, and focused entirely on Early Childhood Transition: Part C (Early Intervention) to Part B (Special Education).
The MDE will provide funding for teachers of children with disabilities birth through two years of age to LEAs that voluntarily choose to provide educational services to this age group.
Permissive State legislation allows MDE to provide teacher units annually for those LEAs that provide services to SWD from birth to two.
The MDE will provide Parent
Awareness Trainings collaboratively with various State agencies,
specifically, the MDH and the Mississippi Department of Mental Health (MDMH), utilizing staff from these two offices to address
requirements of these agencies as they relate to and impact the transition from Part C to Part B.
Parent Conference was provided on March 5-6, 2012.
The OSE has developed training for LEA personnel who are responsible for the oversight and provision of IDEA Part B services to preschool children with IEPs. This training was developed and implemented by the 619 Coordinator employed by the MDE. This training was
implemented during the SY 2011-2012 and focused entirely on Early Childhood Transition: Part C (Early Intervention) to Part B (Special Education). It has been well received by the participants as a much needed technical assistance activity.
Key members of the MDE/OSE staff were involved in the training, including Technical Assistance/Training staff and Policy staff.
The OSE continued providing training on Early Childhood Transition: Part C to B during the 2011-2012 school year. This year the training was extended to include not only Part C service personnel, Part B district personnel, and regular education teachers, but also Head Start directors and child care center directors to promote collaborative practice to ensure smooth and effective transitions from Part C to Part B programs for young children with disabilities. Trainings were provided in the following locations on the dates noted below:
Gulfport, MS – November 18, 2011 DeSoto, MS – December 13, 2011 Starkville, MS – January 18, 2012 Jackson, MS – January 25, 2012 Jackson, MS – February 13, 2012 Hattiesburg, MS – March 7, 2012
During the SY 2010-2011, the OSE began to revise the Part C to B training to implement in the SY 2011-2012. The revisions address the collaboration, roles, and responsibilities of Part B and Part C personnel.
OSE staff monitored LEA data in the State database throughout the SY 2011-2012 and alerted LEAs to approaching deadlines when necessary.
OSE continues to utilize the SPED Directors’ Listserv to provide important information and updates regarding Indicator 12. The SPED Directors’ Listserv is a closed list, limited to district SPED Directors and staff the District SPED Director has chosen to add. The list’s function is to allow MDE to disseminate important information in a timely manner.
OSE staff participated on the State Interagency Coordinating Council with representatives from Part C and Part B programs, parent groups, university programs, Head Start, and other
disability programs to support joint early childhood transition responsibilities.
The State 619 Coordinator met with staff from the Head Start Collaboration office to identify opportunities to support smooth and effective transitions from Part C to Part B programs for young children with disabilities.
A State team attended the Mega Leadership Conference and pre-conference sessions focused high-quality service provision in early intervention and early childhood special education. In addition OSE staff attended the Southeast Regional Resource Center Conference focused on planning and development of improvement activities in special education. This information will be incorporated into training, guidance documents, and other interagency efforts at promoting joint early childhood transition responsibilities.
Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance (if State reported less than 100% compliance)
Level of compliance (actual target data) State reported for FFY 2010 for this Indicator: 93.94%
1. Number of findings of noncompliance the State made during FFY 2010 (the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011)
12
2. Number of FFY 2010 findings the State verified as timely corrected (corrected within one year from the date of notification to the LEA of the finding)
11
3.Number of FFY 2010 findings not verified as corrected within one year [(1) minus (2)]
Correction of FFY 2010 Findings of Noncompliance Not Timely Corrected (corrected more than one year from identification of the noncompliance):
4.Number of FFY 2010 findings not timely corrected (same as the number from (3) above)
1
5.Number of FFY 2010 findings the State has verified as corrected beyond the one-year timeline (“subsequent correction”)
0
6.Number of FFY 2010 findings not yet verified as corrected [(4) minus (5)]
1
Verification of Correction of FFY 2010 noncompliance (either timely or subsequent):
The OSE has verified that all but one LEA with noncompliance in FFY 2010: (Prong 1) has developed and implemented the IEP, although late, for any child for whom implementation of the IEP was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA; and (Prong 2) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.124(b) (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data collected through the State data system, MSIS, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008.
The OSE required each LEA that was issued a finding of noncompliance in FFY 2010 to
develop and implement an Improvement Plan which included activities to ensure that timelines were met. All original cases of noncompliance have been corrected. The IEPs have been developed and implemented, although late. The LEAs were required to submit to OSE a monthly data review of current referrals to ensure that timelines were being monitored. Upon a review of SY 2011-2012 data in the State database approximately 6 months after the issuance of the findings, all but one LEA demonstrated 100% compliance at that time. Thus, the
correction of noncompliance from FFY 2010 was verified for 11 LEAs within 12 months in accordance with OSEP Memo 09-02.
The remaining district has not yet shown 100% compliance due to continued missed timelines. The MDE OSE is working closely with the LEA to correct this noncompliance. The LEA has also not demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2010 in areas related to