Determinations

1. Determinations EI/ECSE SPR&I Training ODE Fall 2007

2. Federal law 34 CFR 300.600 • Requires ODE to determine each EI/ECSE program’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA on a yearly basis • Requires ODE to measure performance in priority areas established by OSEP in the State Performance Plan (SPP) • Does not require ODE to publicly report determinations

3. Procedural compliance indicators established by the SPP Valid, reliable and timely data Correction of any identified noncompliance Determinations: Based on ODE review of local data collection, analysis and reporting of:

4. Performance Determinations • Meets the requirements • Needs assistance meeting the requirements • Needs intervention meeting the requirements • Needs substantial intervention meeting the requirements

5. All procedural compliance indicators are ≥ to 95% All procedural noncompliance is corrected at ≥ 95% within at least one year All procedural compliance data is reported timely and accurately Meets the Requirements

6. Meets Requirements: What does that mean? • Continue meeting procedural compliance indicators at ≥ 95% • Correct ALL procedural non compliance ASAP (for individual children when possible and systemic correction) • Provide evidence of correction of non-compliance to ODE

7. Procedural compliance indicators are < 95% and > 50% All procedural noncompliance is corrected at < 95% and > 50% Procedural compliance data is not reported timely and accurately Needs Assistance

8. Needs Assistance: What does that mean? • Meet procedural compliance indicators at ≥ 95% • Correct ALL procedural non compliance ASAP (for individual children when possible and systemic correction) • Provide evidence of correction of non-compliance to ODE ASAP

9. Needs Intervention • Procedural compliance indicators are ≤ 50% • All procedural noncompliance is corrected at ≤50%

10. Needs Intervention: What does that mean? • Meet procedural compliance indicators at ≥ 95% • Correct ALL procedural non compliance ASAP (for individual children when possible and systemic correction) • Provide evidence of correction of non-compliance to ODE ASAP (work with ODE liaison to develop improvement strategies and schedule of reporting progress in correcting noncompliance)

11. Key Performance Indicators • Not used this year in the determination rubric • Will be used next year and in subsequent years

12. Review • Determinations Guidance Document • Determinations Status and Findings Notification • EI/ECSE Program Determinations Summary Reports • Program list of standards in compliance, second year noncompliance or new noncompliance

13. Correction of Noncompliance • Individual file corrections • Examples: • Obtaining consent for services; • Including the correct personnel at an IFSP meeting; • Evaluating a child eligible for EI services in all areas of development.

14. Correction of Noncompliance • Systemic correction • Example: • Providing prior written notice of evaluation that containing the correct content. File review showed systemic noncompliance. • Correction was development of a new form and staff training to use the new form. • Documentation of correction: File reviews following training with children entering the program.

15. Timelines for Correction of Noncompliance • Second Year Noncompliance: • Correct ASAP; • Show evidence of correction; • Set timeline for correction with county contact.

16. Example 1 • “If EI services not provided in the natural environment, a justification is provided” • File review data showed that 4/5 of the files reviewed did not have an appropriate justification statement. • Correction of individual child files (reconvene IFSP team and complete the IFSP justification statement); • Training with staff; • Conduct file reviews of “new” IFSPs completed after the training; • Submit the new data to ODE.

17. Example 2 • “A transition conference occurs at least 90 days prior to the child's third birthday” • File review showed that conferences occurred but not within the timeline (3/3). • Correction: Staff training and implementation of a computer “tickler system” to remind staff of upcoming timelines. • Conduct file reviews of “new” IFSPs completed after the corrections. • Submit the new file review data to ODE.

18. Example 3 • “Procedural safeguards made available to parents upon initial referral for evaluation” • File review showed no documentation that procedural safeguards were provided to parents upon initial referral for evaluation (8/8) • Ensure that all parents of children receiving services have a copy of procedural safeguards; • Review program procedures and process to find out why parents were not receiving procedural safeguards or if there was no documentation that procedural safeguards were provided. Correct procedure and process. • Conduct file reviews of children entering the program after the corrections; • Submit the new process and new data to ODE.

19. Example 4 • “A copy of the evaluation/eligibility report is given to the parents” • File review showed that of 10 files reviewed one did not indicate that the parents received a copy of the report. • Correction: A copy of the report sent to parents; • Additional file reviews indicate this was an anomaly; • Send evidence of individual file correction to ODE.

20. Second Guess Thursday • http://www.hallmark.com/ECardWeb/ECV.jsp?a=3214462553281M214189383Y&product_id=