Cyclical Compliance Monitoring. Introduction PRIMARY FOCUS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES Improving educational results and functional outcomes; Meeting

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring

2

Introduction

• PRIMARY FOCUS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIESImproving educational results and functional

outcomes;Meeting critical program requirements related

to improving results; andContinuous examination of performance for

compliance and results.

3

Introduction

• Comprehensive Monitoring System • Three Components

Compliance Indicator ReviewsOn-Site Reviews

• Data• Fiscal• Programming

Selective Targeted Reviews

4

Introduction

5


• Focus of the Cyclical Compliance Monitoring:Ensure continuous examination of ALL Local

Education Agencies’ (LEAs) practices in priority areas;

Identify noncompliance;Ensure correction in a timely manner; andEnsure consistency with the requirements

set forth in OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

6


• SELECTION CRITERIA:Each LEA in Mississippi is selected for on-site

compliance monitoring at least once every four years.

LEAs are randomly selected and assigned to a cycle year based on Enrollment Groups (district size by total student enrollment).

7


• ENROLLMENT GROUPSGroup One – 5,500 students and upGroup Two – 3,200 to 5,499 studentsGroup Three – 1,700 to 3,199 studentsGroup Four – 1,699 students and below

8


• CYCLICAL SCHEDULE: Thirty-five LEAs have been selected in year one (1) for on-site cyclical monitoring; Thirty-six LEAs selected in year two (2); Thirty-eight LEAs selected in year three (3);

and Thirty-seven in year four (4).

9


• PRIORITY AREAS:Child Find process;Delivery of services and alignment with IEPs;Least restrictive environment (LRE) decisions;Discipline; andFulfillment of IDEA Part B fiscal requirements.

10


• PRE-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIESDistrict Notification;OSE request for documentation prior to the

scheduled visit (Attachment A); andDocumentation to be made available to the

monitoring team upon their arrival (Attachment B).

11


• PRE-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIES (Attachment A)District Policies and Procedures;Pre-referral documentation;Current MSIS roster by school and teacher;Roster for each Language Speech Pathologist; Findings of district Self Review; andFiscal documentation.

12


• PRE-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIES (Attachment B)Suspension and expulsion records;List of students with completed FBAs and BIPs;List of students in residential placements;Continuum of placement options available;Documentation of Child Find activities; andList of related service personnel.

13


• PRE-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIES• District’s self-reviewAnalyze data in priority areas;Review a number of records utilizing

monitoring protocols;Reach valid conclusion based on data on

status of special education services; andDiscuss results of self-review/findings.

14


• District’s self-reviewAnalyze data in priority areas:Identification process – (Indicators 11, 12, 15,

20)Appropriate services and supports –

(Indicators 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 20)

15


• District’s self-reviewAnalyze data in priority areas:Appropriate student progress – (Indicators 3,

4, 5, 15, 20)

16


• Review records utilizing monitoring protocols• Enrollment Groups – # of student records:Group 1 – Twenty-five student records;Group 2 – Twenty student records;Group 3 – Fifteen student records; andGroup 4 – Thirteen student records

17


• Results of self-review/findingsReach valid conclusion based on data; andSummarize the district’s findings and analysis

of data relative to the priority area of focused monitoring.

18


• ON-SITE ACTIVITIES (DAY 1)Entrance meeting with Superintendent or

designee and Special Education Director;Review results of the district’s self-review;OSE team will conduct student record reviews

using the appropriate monitoring protocols; andUpon completion of Day 1 monitoring, the team

will review and consolidate the monitoring information.

19


• ON-SITE ACTIVITIES (DAY 2)The OSE team will conduct record reviews at the

Central Office on Day 2;The team leader will conduct additional interviews if

necessary to verify record review findings;The team will review and consolidate information;

andThe team will meet with the Director of Special

Education for an exit meeting. The preliminary list of findings will be discussed.

20


• POST-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIES Upon completion of the visit, a summary report is developed to

summarize the findings from each area of the on-site review; Report identifies findings of individual and systemic

noncompliance with IDEA and State Board Policy 7219; OSE will review the final report before submitting the report to

the district; Report is sent to the district’s Superintendent with copies to the

Special Education Director; and The report will address findings of noncompliance, required

corrective actions, and recommendations for improvement.

21


• POST-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIES• Correction of noncompliance:The MDE/OSE issues the report of findings to the

district within 30 days of the visit;The OSE provides technical assistance and

training in identified areas of noncompliance; and All noncompliance must be corrected as soon as

possible, but no later than 12 months from the date of identification.

22


• POST-SITE VISIT ACTIVITIESThe district must submit an Improvement Plan;The OSE conducts a follow-up visit (usually within 3 –

4 months of the initial visit) to ensure correction of all noncompliance in accordance with 09-02 Memorandum;

The OSE issues a follow-up report; andAdditional follow-up and technical assistance are

provided until district corrects all identified noncompliance.


• MONITORING PROTOCOLS

Appropriate Identification Process;Appropriate Services and Supports; andAppropriate Student Progress.

23

24


Appropriate Identification Process: Overarching Analysis Question:

Does the district implement appropriate identification procedures and practices to ensure that ALL students suspected of having a disability receive a special education evaluation and services, if appropriate?

25


Appropriate Student Progress: Overarching Analysis Question:

Are students with disabilities making appropriate progress with the general curriculum as compared to grade-level standards and expectations?

26


Appropriate Services and Supports: Overarching Analysis Question:

Are appropriate procedures in place to ensure that students with disabilities receive FAPE in the LRE to access the general curriculum?

27


Fulfillment of IDEA Part B fiscal requirements: Overarching Analysis Question:

How does the district align fiscal funds to appropriately meet needs?

28

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring2014 – 2015

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARD 17.4

ON-SITE MONITORING RECORD REVIEW FORM CHILD FIND

CHIL

D F

IND

Record Review

Item

Regulation 34 CFR or SBP 7219

Record Review Question

Compliant Evidence Potential Source(s) of

Documentation

CF-1 300.111(a) 300.111(c) 300.131(a)

Does the public agency have Child Find (CF) policies and procedures in effect, including those addressing special populations, and that specifically State requests for an evaluation may not be limited by the number per year or time of year a request is received? Special populations include: Homeless children, Wards of the State, Private school

children, Children advancing

from grade to grade, and

Highly mobile and/or migrant children.

YES

CF policies and procedures CF policies are consistent with

State Board Policy 7219 and IDEA.

CF procedures provide sufficient guidance to implement CF policies.

CF procedures are in effect to address each of the special populations.

CF activities addressed in policies and procedures are not limited by a total number per year.

CF activities addressed in policies and procedures address handling CF at times when school is not in session.

CF procedures occur appropriately as written.

CF policies (e.g., policy manual)

CF procedures (e.g., procedures manual)

Any forms for implementing CF procedures

NO

CF policies or procedures are non-existent, insufficient, or inconsistent with SBP 7219/IDEA.

CF procedures do not sufficiently address the following special populations:

Homeless children Wards of the State Private school children Children advancing from grade to

grade

29




CH

ILD

FIN

D

C

Record Review Item




Documentation

CF-3 300.307 and State Board Policy 4300 (Tiered Instructional Model)

Does the district provide scientific research-based interventions to resolve concerns for any school-age child who is performing below grade-level standards?

*Initial Evaluation Only

YES

The record shows evidence of scientific research-based intervention data and provides a summary of the interventions that have been implemented prior to referral or during the evaluation process.

* Teacher Support Team Documentation

* Data from interventions,

* Evaluation Team

Report

* Referral Form,

* Prior Written Notice. NO

The student record contains no evidence that interventions were provided to the child.

NA

Evaluation is not an initial evaluation or

transfer from previous LEA.

CF-4 300.301- 300.304

Did the district proceed with a referral for a comprehensive evaluation for a child with a suspected disability without delaying referral because the child has not participated in an RtI process?

*Initial Evaluation Only

YES

The record shows that the Teacher Support Team did not require the child to participate in the RtI process when the child was suspected of having a disability under 34 CFR 300.8.

* Teacher Support Team Documentation

* Evaluation Team Report

* Referral Form

NO The student record contains information indicating that the LEA required the child to participate in the RtI process.

NA The Teacher Support Team did not suspect the child of having an obvious disability.

30




CH

ILD

FIN

D

Record Review Item




Documentation

CF-5 300.301(b)(1) Does the public agency have a process for receiving and documenting verbal and written requests for a comprehensive evaluation from (a) parents, (b) public agencies, and (c) Teacher Support Teams (TST)? Is there evidence that the public agency consistently follows this process?

YES

CF procedures are followed consistently for receiving and documenting written and verbal requests for a comprehensive evaluation from (a) parents, (b) public agencies, and (c) TSTs.

CF procedures (e.g., procedures manual)

CF referral forms

NO

CF procedures for documenting a written or verbal request are non-existent, insufficient, or inconsistent with SBP 7219.

CF procedures for documenting a written or verbal request are not followed resulting in a failure to document requests received and/or responding to requests in a timely manner.

CF-6 300.301(b)(1)(i) 300.301(b)(1)(ii) 300.301(b)(1)(iii) 300.131(e) 300.306(a)(1) 300.308 300.309(a) Special Education Eligibility Determination Guidelines

Does the public agency invite parents and others with knowledge of the child to participate in a Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MET) meeting to determine the need for comprehensive evaluations and hold MET meetings with

YES

MET meetings occur within 14 calendar days of receiving requests for comprehensive evaluations.

A decision is made about whether or not to proceed with a comprehensive evaluation for every MET meeting held.

All of the appropriate members, including parents and others knowledgeable of the child, are invited to participate in the MET meetings using available methods.

Documentation of TST Referrals with dates

Documentation of other CF referrals with dates

Documentation of invitations to MET meetings

Records of MET meetings with dates

of the meetings and lists of participants

31




CH

ILD

FIN

D

Record Review Item



Compliant Evidence Potential Source(s) of Documentation

CF-6 (cont.)

300.301(b)(1)(i) 300.301(b)(1)(ii) 300.301(b)(1)(iii) 300.131(e) 300.306(a)(1) 300.308 300.309(a) Special Education Eligibility Determination Guidelines

the participation of appropriate members within 14 calendar days of receiving requests? The MET consists of a team of qualified professionals including: 1. The child’s

parent; 2. Qualified

professionals MET members may participate by: 1. Being present

for the meeting; 2. Using an

alternate technology (e.g., phone conference); or

3. Submitting written information and opinions.

All appropriate members participate in the MET meetings using available methods.

Documentation of MET members signing eligibility report to demonstrate participation in MET.

NO

The public agency fails to invite appropriate members to participate in the MET meeting: Parents Qualified professionals:

special education teachers regular education teachers school

psychologists/psychometrists speech-language

pathologists/therapists school health nurses

32

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring2014 – 2015 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARD 17.4 ON-SITE MONITORING RECORD REVIEW FORM

DELIVERY OF SERVICES

DE

LIV

ER

Y O

F S

ER

VIC

ES

Record Review

Item




Documentation

DS-1 300.645

Did the student have an IEP in place on the most recent December child count?

YES The child had an IEP in effect on December 1.

Current or prior IEP that had effective dates encompassing December 1. IEP includes IEP team signatures and no evidence in file that parent revoked consent prior to December 1.

NO The child did not have an IEP in effect on December 1.

DS-2 300.320(b) 300.324(c)

If the student is 14 or older, provides appropriate transition services YES

The transition planning elements of the IEP are compliant with criteria established on the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) Indicator 13 Checklist (See addendum.).

IEP Indicator 13 Checklist

NO

Transition planning on the IEP is noncompliant with one or more of the 8 required Federal elements outlined on the checklist (See addendum).

NA The child is not 14 or above, or the IEP reported in MSIS is the current IEP.

33

Cyclical Compliance MonitoringD

EL

IVE

RY

OF

SE

RV

ICE

S

Record Review

Item




Documentation

DS-3 300.320(a)(1) 300.324(a)(1)

Does the IEP include Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) that address the needs of the student?

YES

School-age (PLAAFP) PLAAFP must include the following information as it relates to each goal: Summary of current daily

academic/behavior and/or functional performance (strengths and needs);

Baseline data provided for developing a measurable goal. (e.g. ATR results, if current; formative, curriculum-based, transition, functional behavior assessments).

Preschool IEP describes how the disability affects the child’s participation in appropriate activities to access, participate, and progress in the general curriculum and/or participation in developmentally appropriate activities. Additional for Preschool PLAAFP relate to the child’s developmental domains, functional performance and pre-academic skills. Functional skills are: integration of cognitive, language, and motor skills for the child to demonstrate positive social-emotional skills, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills; and to take care of personal needs (self-help).

IEP (Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance)

34



ON-SITE MONITORING RECORD REVIEW FORM DELIVERY OF SERVICES

DE

LIV

ER

Y O

F S

ER

VIC

ES

Record Review

Item




Documentation

DS-3 (cont.)

300.320(a)(1)

NO

Present levels of performance do not provide detailed and targeted summary of current daily academic/behavior and/or functional performance related to the development of measurable goals.

DS-4 300.320(a)(2)(i)(A) 300.324(b)(1)

Do annual goals address the child’s academic area(s) of need? YES

There is alignment between the academic needs identified in the IEP and the annual goals or evidence in the IEP that the IEP Committee, based on the severity of needs, decided to prioritize addressing the needs.

IEP Annual Goals

NO Annual goals fail to address the child’s academic needs identified in the IEP.

NA Academic needs were not identified at this time.

DS-5 300.320(a)(2)(i)(A)

300.324(b)

Do annual goals address the child’s functional area(s) of need?

YES

There is alignment between the functional needs identified in the IEP and the annual goals. Functional means nonacademic, as in “routine activities of everyday living.”

Annual Goals

NO

The annual goals fail to reasonably address functional area(s) of need identified in the IEP.

NA Functional needs were not identified at this time.

35

Cyclical Compliance MonitoringD

EL

IVE

RY

OF

SE

RV

ICE

S

Record Review

Item




Documentation

DS-7 300.320(a)(4)

300.39(b)(3)

Does the IEP contain a statement of specially-designed instruction that addresses the needs of the child and supports annual goals to enable the child –

i. To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

ii. To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum.

YES

The IEP specifically identifies the provision of specially-designed instruction and describes the nature of the instruction that aligns with the needs of the child and supports the achievement of annual goals.

Definition 300.39 (b)(3) Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction or the child is receiving related services that the IEP Committee has determined is specially-designed instruction; i.e. only related services listed on the IEP.

Instruction in organization skills to include use of daily checklists and academic subject organizers.

IEP Description(s) of Specially-Designed Instruction

NO

The IEP does not specifically identify the provision of specially-designed instruction and does not describe the nature of the instruction that aligns with the needs of the child and supports the achievement of annual goals.

36



DISCIPLINE

DIS

CII

PL

INE

Record Review

Item




DIS-1

300.530(e)(1) 300.536

If necessary, did the district conduct a manifestation determination to determine the relationship of the child’s behavior of concern to the child’s disability?

YES A Manifestation Determination Review Form was completed by the team.

* Manifestation Determination Review Form

NO A Manifestation Determination Review Form was not completed by the team.

DIS-2 300.530(e)(1) 300.530(g) 300.536

Was the manifestation determination conducted within 10 school days of the district’s decision to change the placement of a child with a disability? (Change of placement is disciplinary removal of a child for violation of student code of conduct and removal if for more than ten consecutive school days or series of removals constitute a pattern.)

YES

The date of the manifestation determination review is not more than 10 school days from the date of the decision to change the placement of a child with a disability through a school suspension or expulsion.

* Student discipline record documenting cumulative days of out-of-school suspension or expulsion, from which the manifestation determination review timeline can be calculated.

NO

The date of the manifestation determination review is more than 10 school days from the date of the decision to change the placement of the child with a disability through a suspension or expulsion. Special Circumstances: School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than forty-five (45) school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability for possession of a weapon, possesses or

37



DISCIPLINE

DIS

CIP

LIN

E

Record Review

Item




DIS-2 (cont.)

uses illegal drugs, or inflicts serious bodily injury.

DIS-3

300.530(b)(2)

If required, did the district continue to provide services to a student after he or she has been removed from his or her current placement for 10 school days in the same school year, during any subsequent days of removal?

YES

There is evidence regarding the provision of educational services following the tenth day of removals.

There is evidence regarding the offer to provide educational services following the tenth day of removal, but the child did not participate in the services.

* Attendance Records * Service Provider

Logs * Revisions to IEP to

discuss change in placement

NO

There is no evidence documenting the provision of educational services following the tenth day of removals. The child did not receive educational services.

* Student discipline records documenting cumulative days of out-of-school suspension or expulsion from which the manifestation determination review timeline can be calculated.

DIS-4

300.530(c) 300.530(d) 300.530(f)(1)

(i)(ii)

300.530(g)

YES

An FBA is included in the student’s file. The FBA meets the requirements of SBP 300.530(d).

* Functional Behavioral Assessment

An FBA is not included in the student’s file.

38



DISCIPLINE

DIS

CIP

LIN

E

Record Review

Item




DIS-4 (cont.)

300.530(c) 300.530(d) 300.530(f)(1)

(i)(ii)

300.530(g)

Did the district conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) after the manifestation determination? (Unless the district conducted the FBA before the behavior that resulted in the change in placement.)

NO

Disciplinary change of placement that would exceed ten school days is determined not to be a manifestation of the child’s disability. Disciplinary change of placement for a violation of a code of conduct to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than forty-five school days for weapons, drugs or serious bodily injury. The FBA was conducted, but it does not meet the requirements of SBP 300.530(d).

NA The team determined that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability.

DIS-5

300.530(d) 300.530(f)(1) (i)(ii)

Did the district develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for the child as a result of the FBA?

OR If the BIP had already been developed, did the district review the BIP after the manifestation determination and modify it as necessary to address the child’s behavior?

YES

A BIP is included in the student’s file. The BIP meets the requirements of SBP 300.530(d).

* Behavioral Intervention Plan

NO

A BIP is not included in the student’s file. The BIP is included, but it does not meet the requirements of SBP 300.530(d).

NA

The team determined that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability.

39



LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

LE

AS

T R

ES

TR

ICT

IVE

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

(L

RE

)

Record Review

Item




Documentation

LRE-1 300.114(a)(1) Does the public agency have in effect policies and procedures to ensure LRE requirements are met?

YES

The public agency has policies and procedures for LRE that ensure:

(1) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and

(2) Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the general education environment occurs only if the nature of the severity of the disability is such that education in general education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

IEP – Special Education and Related Services Section

Description of

Specially-Designed Services

Special

Considerations Section

Placement

Consideration and LRE Determinations

NO

LRE policies or procedures are non-existent, insufficient, or inconsistent with SBP 7219/IDEA. Students with disabilities have been suspended or expelled for more than 10 days and do not have access to the general education curriculum. No accommodations or modifications are listed for the general education classroom.

40



ON-SITE MONITORING RECORD REVIEW FORM LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

LE

AS

T R

ES

TR

ICT

IVE

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

(L

RE

)

Record Review

Item




Documentation

LRE-2 300.115(a)(b) Does the public agency ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services?

YES

The public agency has a documented Continuum of Alternative Placements including instruction in:

General Education Special Classes Special Schools Child’s home Hospitals or institutions

Make provisions for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with general education class placement. Provide access to general State-wide and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary.


Description of

Specially-Designed Services

Special

Considerations Section

Placement


NO

The public agency does not provide a Continuum of Alternative Placements to meet the needs of children with disabilities. No provision for supplementary services to be provided in conjunction with general education placement.

41



ON-SITE MONITORING RECORD REVIEW FORM LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)

LE

AS

T R

ES

TR

ICT

IVE

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

(L

RE

)

Record Review

Item




Documentation

LRE-4

(cont.)

300.116(b) these regulations. The child’s placement -

Is determined at least annually;

Is based on the child’s IEP;

Is a close as possible to the child’s home; and

Is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled, unless IEP requires another arrangement.

Is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled, unless IEP requires another arrangement.

Special Consideration Section

Placement


NO

Placement decisions are not made in conformity with LRE provisions and the child’s placement

Is not determined at least annually;

Is not based on the child’s IEP; Is not as close as possible to the

child’s home; and Is not educated in the school that

he or she would attend if nondisabled.

LRE-5 300.324(a)(2)(v) Does the IEP identify assistive technology to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum? Definition(s) 300.5 Assistive Technology Device: any device item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the

YES The IEP includes identified assistive technology services the child needs.


Description of

Specially-Designed Services-Assistive Technology

NO

Assistive technology services were identified by the IEP Committee, but not included on the IEP or the frequency of the assistive technology services was listed as: “as needed”, “at the discretion of the teacher”, or “as requested by student”.

42


Timeline:First Semester: Early November 2014Second Semester: January-April 2015

43

Data and Fiscal Management

44

On-Site Activities• Conduct an Entrance meeting• Discuss the district’s fiscal process/procedures• Review documents• Conduct a random inventory review• Conduct an Exit briefing

45

Top Ten Findings1. Time sheets/Semi-Annual Certification forms not

available and/or not signed by employee and/or supervisor

2. Equipment not on the Asset List3. Equipment not tagged and funding source not indicated4. Purchasing of equipment not approved or deleted from

Project Application5. Invalid or no contracts for contractual services

46

Top Ten Findings6. Asset Listing does not indicate description of item, serial

number or location7. Equipment not properly hand receipted8. Equipment not being used for its intended purpose9. Unauthorized use of IDEA funds10. Equipment purchased with IDEA funds used in general

education classroom

47

FISCAL PROCESS• Selected LEAs will be required to provide:

• Fiscal Policy and Procedures• Fixed Asset Listing by location• History Transaction Listing• Employee Payroll Listing• Purchase orders• Semi-Annual Certification forms• Personnel Activity Report (PAR)

48

FISCAL AIDS• In preparation for the visit the following will be

posted to the webpage:• Fiscal Monitoring Instrument • Top Ten (10) findings• Tips to prepare for the visit

49

Monitoring InstrumentDistrict Name: District Code #:

Date of Site Visit:

Team Member: Policy, Regs, Law Document Source: Comments: Findings:

Documentation Review:

IDEA Part B and Preschool General Questions 1

Obtain and review the grant award/application to identify activities approved, this includes approved amendments. IDEA grant funds are to pay for the excess cost of students with disabilities on a cost reimbursement basis. Monies drawn down should be for reimbursement of allowable items listed in the approved application.

34 CFR § 300.20034 CFR § 300.20134 CFR § 300.22034 CFR § 300.22834 CFR § 300.705Circular A-87

2 Does the LEA program budget reflect the approved IDEA application? Have initial award budgets been amended?

34 CFR § 300.20034 CFR § 300.201

3 What is the process for determining that expenditures are allowable and to be charged to the IDEA grant?

34 CFR § 300.202EDGAR § 80.22

4Were IDEA funds used for private school students with disabilities? Are the number of private school students submitted for state funding documented?

34 CFR § 300.133

5 Were IDEA funds used to reimburse expenses prior to the release of funds? EDGAR, § 76.708

6 Does the LEA anticipate that funds awarded will be expended prior to the end of the award period?

EDGAR, § 76.709EDGAR, § 76.710

7

Is there a published method for public & employee reporting of fraud, waste and abuse? Are there existing procedures for investigating/substantiating suspected/reported instances?

Whistle Blower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007

8 How does the entity ensure that a vendor has not been

excluded or disqualified from covered transactions? EDGAR, § 85

50

Monitoring Instrument Maintenance of Effort 9

Does the LEA meet the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement, and is there documentation to substantiate? What procedures does the LEA perform to periodically monitor compliance with the MOE requirement? MOE must be maintained, supplement not supplant applies. If MOE is not maintained is there documented release from the requirement by the SEA on file?

34 CFR § 300.20334 CFR § 300.20434 CFR § 300.205

10

Does the LEA have on file the calculations for excess costs to demonstrate that the LEA has spent at least the minimum average for education of children with disabilities before Part B funds are used?

Appendix A to Part 30034 CFR 300.16

Cash Request

11 Review the most recent cash requests and compare to accounting records to verify that grant expenditures reconcile to the request and the receipt of payment is recorded as IDEA funds received.

Circular A-133;CMIA; EDGAR, § 80.20(b)(7); EDGAR, § 74.21; EDGAR, § 74.22; EDGAR, § 80.20; EDGAR, § 80.21

12 Who is responsible for approving requests for cash? Are

requests for cash made on a reimbursement basis and not based on anticipated costs?

CMIA , 1990 (Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990); EDGAR, § 74.22(a); EDGAR, § 80.21(b)

13Is the selected cash request drawn based on reimbursement of expenditures and meets the 72 hour disbursement requirements?

EDGAR, § 74.22(a); EDGAR, § 80.21(b)

14 Did the LEA earn interest on funds drawn for actual

expenditures? EDGAR, § 80.21(h)(i)

51

Personnel 15

Where employees are funded 100% from the award does LEA have on file documentation that the employee worked solely on the program for the period covered?

Circular A-87 Attachment B(8)1-3

16 Are there employees paid partially from IDEA funds? Circular A-87 17 Does the LEA keep personnel activity logs to track employees

funded from different sources? Circular A-87 18 Do time sheets reflect both IDEA and non-IDEA hours

worked? Circular A-87 19

If salaries are not funded at 100% IDEA, benefits must be prorated based on the funding ratio. Verify that benefits are charged to the appropriate funding source for those salaries paid with multiple funding sources.

Circular A-87 Attachment B(8) 4-6

20 Do all job titles have an MSIS code? Review documentation

to confirm job titles have appropriate codes. For those personnel selected for review, are salaries reasonable?

MS Public School Asset Management Manual

21 Review any substitute pay funded with IDEA funds to verify

that it is used to fund special education teachers and assistant teachers. Substitute pay is only allowed for special education teachers to attend approved professional development training, workshops and conferences.

34 CFR § 300.201; 34 CFR § 300.202

Contractual Services – Including Procurement

22 Were IDEA funds used for contractual services? If yes, describe the types of services. 34 CFR § 300.201;

34 CFR § 300.202(a); EDGAR, § 80.36(b)(2)

23Were services procured competitively? Examine a contractual services procurement file for documentation to support MDE/State regulations were followed.

EDGAR, § 80.36

24 Do contractual services contracts include appropriate IDEA terms and conditions? EDGAR, § 80.36(i)

25Were Instructional Services provided by an outside entity for any students? Are approved contracts on file? How are these services being monitored? EDGAR, § 80.36

52

Equipment or Construction if an Intended Use – Including Procurement

26

Were IDEA funds used by the LEA for construction activities? Did the LEA receive approval from MDE prior to obligating federal funds? Is this activity included in the award budget?

34 CFR § 300.718

27 If yes, how were these procured - via open competitive or

EPL? Examine documentation for a selected procurement to verify MDE policy was followed.

EDGAR, § 80.36

28 If IDEA funds were used for construction, does the contract

include required IDEA terms? 34 CFR § 300.718, 41 CFR Appendix A, subpart 101-19.6; 28 CFR, Part 36

29 Does the construction contract meet the thresholds to invoke the Davis Bacon Act?

Davis-Bacon Act

30 Verify that the "product" of any completed construction is recorded as a fixed asset.

EDGAR, § 80.32;

31 Were IDEA funds used by the LEA to purchase equipment? Were these purchases included in the award budget?

Davis-Bacon Act, Circular A-87 Attachment B(15)

32

How was the equipment procured, via open competitive or EPL? Examine documentation for a selected procurement to verify MDE policy was followed.

EDGAR, § 80.32, Circular A-87 Attachment B(15)

33 Verify that the equipment is recorded as a fixed asset and

includes a property identification tag which includes funding source.

EDGAR, § 80.32(d)(1-2);MS Public School Asset Management Manual EDGAR, § 80.32 Circular A-87

53

Other Expenditures 34

Review expenditure transaction detail for disbursements within the designated IDEA funds for purposes other than those expenditure types reviewed in steps above. Are these consistent with the award budget/intended use and are they reasonable and allowable?

EDGAR, § 80.21; 34 CFR § 300.201; 34 CFR § 300.202

35 Are there legal fees paid from IDEA funds? Only Legal

expenses required in the administration of the Federal programs are allowable.

34 CFR § 300.517(b), Circular A-87 Attachment B(10)

36 Any funds used for adjustment of local effort, School-wide

Programs, or Coordinating Early Intervening Services (CEIS)? If so, were they used only as allowed and records kept?

34 CFR § 300.20634 CFR § 300.226

37 Is the LEA required to set aside 15% of its IDEA award for

CEIS? If so, is there documentation to show that the funds were used for allowable cost?

34 CFR § 300.206; 34 CFR § 300.226

38 Is documentation on file to detail the proportionate amount

of funds must be reserved for providing services to private school students with disabilities? Is there documentation on file to substantiate the number of private school students submitted to the State for funding purposes?

34 CFR § 300.133 Appendix B to Part 300

39 If indirect costs are charged to the IDEA grant, are these

charges at the statewide MDE calculated rate?EDGAR, §§ 76.560-76.579, Circular A-87 Attachment A(F)

54

Tips to Prepare for the Visit 1. Prepare your staff2. Assemble the players3. Set the tone4. Organize documentation 5. Be prepared to address identified noncompliance6. Select a meeting/work place7. Use the Fiscal Protocol to prepare

55

NON-CYCLIC AUDITS• A financial review will be conducted of each LEA

• Purpose is to determine the level of financial risk

• Financial Risk Assessment reviews four areas• General Assessment• Monitoring/Audit Assessment• Fiscal Assessment• Financial Stability

• Each area has a total point value assigned • Questions within each area have a point value

• 100 total points

56

RISK ASSESSMENT FACTORS

• General Assessment (25 points)• Is the Special Education Director new to

operating or managing IDEA funds?• Has the LEA been untimely in submission of

reports?• Have any other entities alerted us of potential

risk areas?

57


• Monitoring/Audit Assessment (10 points)• Has the LEA had a single audit exception?

• Fiscal Assessment (35 points)• Has the LEA returned any unspent funds or been

untimely in the request of funds?• Does the LEA have a large amount of budget carryover?• Does the LEA have any variation between expenditures

and the approved budget?

58


• Financial Stability Assessment (30 points)• Has the State placed the LEA in a special financial

status?• Has the State placed special financial conditions on the

LEA’s award?• Has the LEA met Maintenance of Effort?

59

RISK ASSESSMENT SCORING

• Risk assessment scores are determined by the number of points received.

• LEAs are assigned a risk level based on their scores.• Three levels of risks

• High Risk – 60 points or more• Medium Risk – 30 points to 59 points• Low Risk – 29 points and below

60

CONTACT INFORMATION

• Tanya Bradley• Bureau Director, Program Evaluation and Technical Assistance

• [email protected]

• Velva Haynes• Office Director, Program Evaluation


• Martha April Rice• Division Director, Program Evaluation


mailto:[email protected]



61

CONTACT INFORMATION

– Audrey Shaifer– Office Director, Fiscal Management

– [email protected]

• Mary Bobbitt– Division Director, Program Management


– Barbara Quarles– Division Director, Educable Child


– Louis King – Program Coordinator, Special Education






Documents

Cyclical Compliance Monitoring. Introduction PRIMARY FOCUS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES Improving educational results and functional outcomes; Meeting