FFY 2014 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual …6668,74,63,pdf... · No APR attachments found. FFY 2014 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Introduction to the State Performance Plan(SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

Attachments

Executive Summary:

The Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) is the lead agency responsible for administering Part C of IDEA,known in Mississippi as the MS First Steps Early Intervention Program (MSFSEIP). The MSDH has organized the State's82 counties into nine public health districts, each of which operates a District FSEIP responsible for ensure all eligibleinfants and toddlers and their families receive early intervention services. The MSFSEIP has further organizedthe nine District FSEIPs into three regions comprised of three District EIPs each. The MSFSEIP provides generalsupervision and technical assistance to each of the nine District FSEIPs as well as opportunities for professionaldevelopment for early interventionists across the state. Stakeholders are engaged in multiple workgroups providingfeedback on systemic improvement efforts as well as general advice on program administration. The MSFSEIP works withthe District FSEIPs to collect and report data in a timely manner.

FFY2014 was a year of transition for the MSFSEIP as the State experienced changes in leadership and District staff as wellas a new State accounting system. These changes presented several challenges over the year as the MSFSEIP and DistrictFSEIPs engaged in self-review and planned for systematic improvement efforts. The State experienced slippage inIndicators 1, 2, 3(A2), 3(B1), 3(B2), and 7. In addition, several District FSEIPs had findings of noncompliance that werenot corrected within one year. As a result, the MSFSEIP is instituting a more robust general supervision model withdifferentiated technical assistance supports to ensure improved compliance and improved outcomes for children andfamilies going forward.

File Name Uploaded By Uploaded Date Remove

ffy2014 apr sicc approval.pdf Stacy Callender

Remove

General Supervision System:

The systems that are in place to ensure that IDEA Part C requirements are met, e.g., monitoring systems, dispute resolution systems.

The MSFSEIP has implemented a general supervision system that includes universal, focused, and targeted monitoringapproaches to ensure each District FSEIP implements all Federal regualtions and State policies and procedures for Part Cof IDEA. The MSFSEIP monitors District FSEIPs using a combination of methods includingannual self-assessments, annual fiscal audits, triannual onsite visits, and data reviews (i.e., reviews of data in the ChildRegistry), desk audits (i.e, reviews of paper records), interviews, observations, and instances and findings from disputeresolutions as often as needed.

The MSFSEIP has reorganized staff roles to assign a staff member as the Monitoring Coordinator, assign additional Statestaff to assist with conducting monitoring reviews, and contracted with staff to assist with desk audits, interviews,observations, and onsite visits. In addition, each region has an assigned Quality Techincal Assistant who provides ongoing

FFY 2014 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)

2/24/2016 Page 1 of 64

Attachments

Attachments

technical assistance to address specific concerns identified in the District FSEIP (see TA Section below). These supportsare intended to assist District FSEIP staff with identifying the root cause(s) of noncomplinace within the FSEIP and ensuretimely correction of noncompliance. The MSFSEIP takes enforcement actions, as appropriate, against any DistrictFSEIP that fails to correct noncompliance in a timely manner.

The MSFSEIP is developing a more robust and responsive general supervision model to incorporate universal, focused, andtargeted TA with the State's general supervision efforts.

File Name Uploaded By Uploaded Date

No APR attachments found.

Technical Assistance System:

The mechanisms that the State has in place to ensure the timely delivery of high quality, evidenced based technical assistance and support toearly intervention service (EIS) programs.

The MSFSEIP provides ongoing techincal assistance by identifying District FSEIP needs and providing general, focused,and targeted TA to District FSEIP and service providers. The MSFSEIP identify District FSEIP training needs byconducting annual surveys of training needs, periodic data analyses, QTA reports, and specific requests for TA. GeneralTA is provided by MSFSEIP staff through monthly conference calls and quarterly district meetings. Focused and targetedTA are provided by MSFSEIP staff via phone and email or onsite visits and by regional QTAs using a variety of methods,as needed, including onsite visits, observation and feedback sessions, coaching, assisted preliminary desk audits, conferencecalls, and video-conferences. QTAs periodically accompany Service Coordinators and Providers on home visits to offerguidance and support during comprehensive evaluations, Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) meetings, and servicedelivery. QTAs periodically work with Service Coordinators to review paper records and data quality in the electronicChild Registry. In addition, the QTAs provide ongoing technical assistance to address specific concerns identified as aresult of monitoring the District FSEIPs. QTAs work with District and Service Coordinators to identify root cause(s) ofnoncompliance and to develop strategies and activities for any District-developed Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) andImprovement Plans (IPs). QTAs also support all District FSEIP staff in implementing CAPs and IPs with fidelityand documenting evidence of change.

The MSFSEIP has reorganized staff roles to assign a staff member as the Training Coordinator and is working with nationalexperts on implementing train-the-trainer models of TA service delivery. The MSFSEIP Training Coordinator and Part CCoordinator ensure QTAs receive quality professional development and offer supervision and guidance on EI bestpractices via bimonthly conferences and reviews of monthly reports. The QTAs have participated in national professionalconferences and in national TA opportunities the MSFSEIP has engaged. In addition, they engage in ongoing professionaldevelopment via webinars and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).

The MSFSEIP is developing a more robust technical assistance model to include universal, focused, and targeted TA thatbetter aligns with the State's general supervision efforts. The TA system will implement local experts to complement theexisiting assigned regional TA to provide ongoing support for implementation of evidence-based practices.




2/24/2016 Page 2 of 64

Attachments

Professional Development System:

The mechanisms the State has in place to ensure that service providers are effectively providing services that improve results for infantsand toddlers with disabilities and their families.

The MSFSEIP has provided annual training to District FSEIP staff and providers on Federal regulations and State policiesand procedures. In addition, the MSFSEIP has provided District and regional trainings on Transition in the Spring 2015 inpartnership with the Mississippi Department of Education's Office of Special Education (MDE-OSE) and on CareCoordination in May 2015 in partnership with MSDH Child & Adolsescent Health Programs.

As a part of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), the MSFSEIP is redeveloping its Comprehensive System ofPersonnel Development (CSPD), including the reconstitution of the CSPD Advisory Committee, revising personnelstandards, and implementing new orientation and credentialing procedures for early intervention personnel with supportfrom national experts, TA Centers, and other State Part C programs. Revisions to the CSPD will enable the MSFSEIP todisseminate critical content on and support the implementation of evidence-based practices. All training is being developedto include three levels of content and experiences: basic, intermediate, and advanced. Basic training will use online trainingmodules and self-study with integrated assessments to develop content knowledge. Intermediate training will use real-timeonline or face-to-face training with integrated application exercises to develop skills in applying content knowledge.Advanced training will consist of field-based observation and feedback to develop skills in real-world application. Theprogress of all MSFSEIP and District FSEIP staff and providers will be tracked through these levels of high-qualitylearning experiences. This new approach to professional development will ensure service providers have the knowledge andskills to provide services effectively to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.The MSFSEIP will be implementing these CSPD initiatives as part of the Phase III of the SSIP.



Stakeholder Involvement: apply this to all Part C results indicators

The mechanism for soliciting broad stakeholder input on targets in the SPP, including revisions to targets.

The MSFSEIP has multiple avenues to engage stakeholders in advising the program. The State Interagency CoordinatingCouncil (SICC) including SSIP Stakeholders meet quarterly for a public meeting and more frequently for workgroupactivities. The SICC is comprised of service providers, Head Start representatives, MDE-OSE representative, parents,Institute of Higher Learning (IHL) and University representatives, Medicaid representatives, parent advocacy groups, andother community leaders.

On November 14, 2014, the SICC assisted the MSFSEIP in setting the FFY2014 APR targets for Indicators 2, 3, and 4:

Indicator 2: Natural Environment target to set to remain at 95%.Indicator 3: Child Outcomes: Summary Statement 1 for Outcomes A - C targets were set to remain at 85%. TheSummary Statement 2 for Outcomes A - C targets were set at 63%.Indicator 4: Family Survey targets were set at 92%.

On February 13, 2015, the SICC assisted the MSFSEIP in setting the FFY2014 APR targets for Indicators 5 and 6:

Indicator 5: Child Find 0-1 target was set at 0.61%.Indicator 6: Child Find 0-3 target was set at 1.72%.

In both meetings, the SICC reviewed historical targets and performance data trends for Mississippi and national averages.


2/24/2016 Page 3 of 64

Attachments

Attachments

The Stakeholders discussed emerging issues in the MSFSEIP and assisted in setting "ambitious but realistic" targets forthe MSFSEIP for the next six-year grant cycle.



Reporting to the Public:

How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY 2012 performance of each EIS Program or Provider located in the State on thetargets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its FFY 2012 APR, as requiredby 34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i)(A); and a description of where, on its Web site, a complete copy of the State’s SPP, including any revision if theState has revised the SPP that it submitted with its FFY 2012 APR in 2014, is available.

The MSFSEIP shared the complete APR at its SICC/SSIP Stakeholder Meeting as well as a results summary page. TheMSFSEIP discussed the results by Indicator and answered all public questions posed. The performance of each DistrictFSEIP was disaggregated and shared at subsequent SICC meetings providing comparison relative to the MSFSEIP targets.The MSFSEIP also publishes seven years of APR data on the MSDH website (http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/static/41,0,74,63.html). The website also provides information (i.e., phone and email contact information) to submit commentsabout the SPP/APR.



Actions required in FFY 2013 response

None


2/24/2016 Page 4 of 64

Indicator 1: Timely provision of servicesHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005

Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

Compliance indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 76.00% 77.00% 76.00% 78.00% 76.00% 87.00% 95.00% 96.00% 94.19%

Key: Gray – Data Prior to Baseline Yellow – Baseline Blue – Data Update

FFY 2014 - FFY 2018 Targets

FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Key: Blue – Data Update


2/24/2016 Page 5 of 64

Indicator 1: Timely provision of servicesFFY 2014 Data



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


2/24/2016 Page 6 of 64

FFY 2014 SPP/APR Data

Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPswho receive the early intervention services

on their IFSPs in a timely manner

Total number of infants and toddlers withIFSPs

FFY 2013Data*

FFY 2014Target*

FFY 2014Data Status Slippage

1532 1961 94.19% 100% 90.67%Did Not Meet

TargetSlippage

* FFY 2013 Data and FFY 2014 Target are editable on the Historical Data and Targets page.

Explanation of Slippage

In FFY 2014, MSFSEIP had multiple contributing factors that lead to the slippage of Timely Provision of Services;however, chiefly, the implementation of the new State accounting system which delayed payments to providers for overfour months resulted in the loss of many Service Providers across the state. The loss of providers created a cascade ofevents in three District FSEIPs resulting in significant decreases in the provision of timely services in these areas. Inaddition, the State moved the majority of children receiving early intervention services into the new Managed Care System.This shift meant all providers who were enrolled as Medicaid providers had to re-enroll as new Managed Care providers.These overlapping external system changes compounded the MSFSEIP existing challenges in recruiting and retainingService Providers to serve rural and highly-mobile populations.

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances (this number will be added to the Number of infants andtoddlers with IFSPs who receive their early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner)

246

What is the source of the data provided for this indicator?

State monitoring

State database

Describe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring.

Provide the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selectionfrom the full reporting period).

July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015

Describe how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.

Data accurately reflects the data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs in the reporting period from July 1, 2014 - June 30,2015.

Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)


2/24/2016 Page 7 of 64

Indicator 1: Timely provision of servicesRequired Actions from FFY 2013



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


Responses to actions required in FFY 2013 response, not including correction of findings


2/24/2016 Page 8 of 64

Indicator 1: Timely provision of servicesCorrection of Previous Findings of Noncompliance



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2013

Findings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Verified

as Corrected Within One YearFindings of Noncompliance

Subsequently CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

9 4 0 5

FFY 2013 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected

Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements

The MSFSEIP verified correction of non-compliance through reviews of Correction Action Plans/Improvement Plans andrecord reviews. The MSFSEIP reviewed each District FSEIP's Corrective Action or Improvment Plan for completion ofactivities and conducted a record audit of 10% or at a minimum 10 (which ever is greater) records from each District FSEIPto verify compliance of Timely Provision of Services.

Based on these reviews, the following District FSEIPs were found in compliance with correctly implementing the 30-daytimeline for Timely Provision of Services: District 2, 4, 6, and 8. In addition, the following District FSEIPs were not foundto be in compliance with Prong II by correctly implementing the 30-day timeline for Timely Provision of Services:District 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9.

Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected

The MSFSEIP verified that each District FSEIP corrected each individual case of noncompliance (although services werelate) by reviewing and ensuring that a "start date of service" was entered in the Child Registry and that services werestarted by reviewing proper documentation of each individual paper record of initial start date of services, provider's nameand contact information, and documentation of progress notes (if available).

FFY 2013 Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

Actions taken if noncompliance not corrected

The District FSEIPs that did not provide evidence of correction of Prong II of noncompliance for the Timely Provisions ofServices received a state-issued individualized Corrective Action Plans (CAP) to address systemic issues leadingto noncompliance. In addition, targeted TA is being provided to each District FSEIP to address specific concerns identified.

Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2013

Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY

2013 APRFindings of Noncompliance

Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as

Corrected

None


2/24/2016 Page 9 of 64

Indicator 2: Services in NaturalEnvironmentsHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005


Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target ≥ 94.00% 95.00% 96.00% 97.00% 98.00% 98.00% 95.00% 95.00%

Data 97.00% 97.00% 97.00% 91.00% 97.00% 97.00% 95.00% 94.00% 94.34%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≥ 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00%


Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input

The EIP met with its SICC members on November 14, 2014 and set targets for the Natural Environment. Targets were setat 95% for the next 5 years. These targets are based on historical data and the State's capacity to serve children in theNatural Environment.


2/24/2016 Page 10 of 64

Indicator 2: Services in NaturalEnvironmentsFFY 2014 Data



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Prepopulated Data

Source Date Description Data Overwrite Data

SY 2014-15 ChildCount/Educational Environment

Data Groups7/2/2015

Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive earlyintervention services in the home or community-based settings

1,816


Data Groups7/2/2015 Total number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs 1,948


Number of infants and toddlers withIFSPs who primarily receive early

intervention services in the home orcommunity-based settings

Total number of infants andtoddlers with IFSPs

FFY 2013Data*

FFY 2014Target*


1,816 1,948 94.34% 95.00% 93.22% Did Not Meet Target Slippage



In FFY 2014, MSFSEIP saw a decrease in infants and toddlers being served in the Natural Environment. District FSEIPshave reported a shortage of providers who are wiling to serve infants and toddlers in the in the home/community.



2/24/2016 Page 11 of 64

Indicator 2: Services in NaturalEnvironmentsRequired Actions from FFY 2013



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


Responses to actions required in FFY 2013 response


2/24/2016 Page 12 of 64

Indicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesHistorical Data and Targets


Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:

Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);A.Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication); andB.Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Does your State's Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”)under IDEA section 632(5)(B)(i)? No

Historical Data

Baseline

YearFFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

A1 2013Target ≥ 76.00% 78.00% 78.00% 78.00% 84.69%

Data 76.00% 87.00% 90.00% 83.00% 88.00% 84.69%

A2 2013Target ≥ 66.00% 68.00% 68.00% 68.00% 64.46%

Data 66.00% 70.00% 64.00% 65.00% 64.00% 64.46%

B1 2013Target ≥ 82.00% 84.00% 84.00% 84.00% 84.18%

Data 82.00% 86.00% 88.00% 82.00% 86.00% 84.18%

B2 2013Target ≥ 68.00% 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% 62.25%

Data 68.00% 69.00% 63.00% 66.00% 64.00% 62.65%

C1 2013Target ≥ 84.00% 86.00% 86.00% 86.00% 84.25%

Data 84.00% 88.00% 89.00% 82.00% 86.00% 84.25%

C2 2013Target ≥ 73.00% 75.00% 75.00% 75.00% 61.36%

Data 73.00% 72.00% 69.00% 65.00% 63.00% 61.36%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target A1 ≥ 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00%

Target A2 ≥ 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00%

Target B1 ≥ 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00%

Target B2 ≥ 63.00% 63.00% 64.00% 64.50% 65.00%

Target C1 ≥ 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% 85.00%

Target C2 ≥ 63.00% 63.00% 63.50% 64.00% 64.00%


Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input - Please see the Stakeholder Involvement section of the introduction.

Enter additional information about stakeholder involvement


2/24/2016 Page 13 of 64


2/24/2016 Page 14 of 64

Indicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesFFY 2014 Data




(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


Number of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed 1231.00

Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

Number ofChildren

Percentage ofChildren

a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning 17.00 1.38%

b. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers 131.00 10.64%

c. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it 311.00 25.26%

d. Infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers 451.00 36.64%

e. Infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers 321.00 26.08%

Numerator DenominatorFFY 2013

Data*FFY 2014Target*


A1. Of those children who entered or exited theprogram below age expectations in Outcome A, the

percent who substantially increased their rate of growthby the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the

program (c+d)/(a+b+c+d).

762.00 910.00 84.69% 85.00% 83.74%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage

A2. The percent of infants and toddlers who werefunctioning within age expectations in Outcome A by

the time they turned 3 years of age or exited theprogram (d+e)/(a+b+c+d+e).

772.00 1231.00 64.46% 65.00% 62.71%Did Not Meet

TargetSlippage


Explanation of A2 Slippage

Over the past several years the MSFSEIP has focused on improving data quality. Initially, high variability wasnoticed among the PHDs with results that may have underestimated as well as overestimated childperformance. Subsequently, providers have received trainings focusing on understanding typical childdevelopment and the use of the decision tree process for providing ratings for children. As service providershave increased their knowledge of the rating process, the quality of the data has improved and becomemore stable; however due to the wider variability of ratings collected at entry, up to three years prior,compared to the more realistic and stable ratings collected at exit, the ability to accurately interpret theslippage/no slippage on results indicators is hampered.

Outcome B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication)

Number ofChildren




2/24/2016 Page 15 of 64

Number ofChildren









B1. Of those children who entered or exited theprogram below age expectations in Outcome B, the



686.00 849.00 84.18% 85.00% 80.80%Did Not Meet

TargetSlippage

B2. The percent of infants and toddlers who werefunctioning within age expectations in Outcome B by


757.00 1231.00 62.65% 63.00% 61.49%Did Not Meet

TargetSlippage


Explanation of B1 Slippage

Over the past several years the MSFSEIP has focused on improving data quality. Initially, high variability was noticedamong the District FSEIPs with results that may have underestimated as well as overestimated child performance.Subsequently, providers have received trainings focusing on understanding typical child development and the use of thedecision tree process for providing ratings for children. As service providers have increased their knowledge of the ratingprocess, the quality of the data has improved and become more stable; however, due to the wider variability of ratingscollected at entry, up to three years prior, compared to the more realistic and stable ratings collected at exit, the ability toaccurately interpret the slippage/no slippage on results indicators is hampered.

Explanation of B2 Slippage

Over the past several years the MSFSEIP has focused on improving data quality. Initially, high variability was noticedamong the District FSEIPs with results that may have underestimated as well as overestimated child performance.Subsequently, providers have received trainings focusing on understanding typical child development and the use of thedecision tree process for providing ratings for children. As service providers have increased their knowledge of the ratingprocess, the quality of the data has improved and become more stable; however, due to the wider variability of ratingscollected at entry, up to three years prior, compared to the more realistic and stable ratings collected at exit, the ability toaccurately interpret the slippage/no slippage on results indicators is hampered.

Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

Number ofChildren










C1. Of those children who entered or exited theprogram below age expectations in Outcome C, the

771.00 918.00 84.25% 85.00% 83.99%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage


2/24/2016 Page 16 of 64



FFY 2014Data

Status Slippage



C2. The percent of infants and toddlers who werefunctioning within age expectations in Outcome C by


785.00 1231.00 61.36% 63.00% 63.77% Met Target No Slippage


Was sampling used? No

Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF)? Yes



2/24/2016 Page 17 of 64

Indicator 3: Early Childhood OutcomesRequired Actions from FFY 2013




(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


None


2/24/2016 Page 18 of 64

Indicator 4: Family InvolvementHistorical Data and Targets


Results indicator: Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family:

Know their rights;A.Effectively communicate their children's needs; andB.Help their children develop and learn.C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)

Historical Data

Baseline

YearFFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

A 2006Target ≥ 89.00% 92.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 92.00%

Data 84.00% 84.00% 81.00% 83.00% 85.00% 92.00% 93.00% 88.25%

B 2006Target ≥ 89.00% 92.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 92.00%

Data 87.00% 87.00% 84.00% 86.00% 88.00% 92.00% 96.00% 89.72%

C 2006Target ≥ 90.00% 92.00% 95.00% 95.00% 95.00% 92.00%

Data 88.00% 88.00% 85.00% 89.00% 85.00% 89.00% 94.00% 88.25%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target A ≥ 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00%

Target B ≥ 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00%

Target C ≥ 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00% 92.00%



The MS First Steps EIP met with its SICC members on November 14, 2014 and targets were set for Family Involvement.Targets were set at 92% over the next 5 years based on historical performance and an understanding of the changeimplemented in how this indicator was rated. Targets were adjusted to account for improved parental understandingof their family rights and procedural safeguards, allowing families to understand and to provide ratings with increasedaccuracy on the family survey. In addition, the targets reflect the new methodology used to calculate these ratings. (Formore information on the methodology use, see the comments under the FFY 2013 data.) The MS First Steps EIP alsochanged the process for calculating each of the indicators based on guidance from the ECO Center. Previous results used arepresentative item for each outcome; the FFY2013 data are based upon an average across all items loading on eachoutcome. This change formula caused percentages to be slightly higher than expected. The State is now utilizing the correctmethodolgy to calculate the results and expect more accurate ratings on the family survey.


2/24/2016 Page 19 of 64

Indicator 4: Family InvolvementFFY 2014 Data




(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


Number of respondent families participating in Part C 1655.00

A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights 585.00

A2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family know their rights 645.00

B1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicatetheir children's needs

599.00

B2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children's needs 645.00

C1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children developand learn

576.00

C2. Number of responses to the question of whether early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn 645.00


FFY 2013Data*

FFY 2014Target*


A. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services havehelped the family know their rights

88.25% 92.00% 90.70%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage

B. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services havehelped the family effectively communicate their children's needs

89.72% 92.00% 92.87% Met Target No Slippage

C. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services havehelped the family help their children develop and learn

88.25% 92.00% 89.30%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage


Describe how the State has ensured that any response data are valid and reliable, including how the data represent thedemographics of the State.

Surveys are hand-delivered to all families who participate in the MSFSEIP with a return envelope with pre-paid postage.The survey has an accompanying letter with contact information for assistance in completing the survey, including thestate parent resource center, translation services, and tribal contacts. Three months after the distribution of the familysurveys, Service Coordinators make follow-up contacts with families to encourage them to return their survey. The stateoffice monitors the response rate and reports to District Coordinators if their district is underrepresented in the responsesgathered. Surveys are collected over a six-month time frame to ensure ample time for participation.

In FFY2014, a total of 645 responses were collected yielding a response rate of 39% of families in the MSFSEIP. Analyseswere conducted to determine the representativeness of the responses. When disaggregated by race, the respondent groupswere not statistically different from the population of families in the MSFSEIP. (see Table 1). When disaggregated bygeographic location according to the public health districts (PHD), the respondent groups were not statistically differentfrom the population of families for District FSEIPs 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. District FSEIPs 4 and 5 were underrepresented and 1and 7 were overrepresented in the responses received (see Table 2).


2/24/2016 Page 20 of 64

Table 1: Response Disaggregated by Race

Race

# of EIFamiliesthatReturnedSurvey byRace

# of EIFamiliesby Race

% of EIFamilieswhoReturnedSurvey byRace

% of TotalResponseby Race

% of EIPopulationby Race

MississippiPopulation

by Race*

American Indian orAlaskan

3 7 42.9% .46% .42% .486%

Asian 4 13 30.8% .62% .79% .997%

Black or AfricanAmerican

294 770 38.2% 45.58% 46.53% 37.196%

Hawaii or Islander 1 2 50.0% .16% .12% .036%

Hispanic or Latino 29 56 51.8% 4.50% 3.38% 2.970%

Two or More Races 6 22 27.3% .93% 1.33% 1.060%

White 308 785 39.2% 47.75% 47.43% 57.255%

Total 645 1655 39.0% 100% 100% 100%

* Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Release date: June, 2015

Rate in grey are generated based on events less than 20 thus not stable.

Table 2: Response Disaggregated by Geographic Location (according to Public Health Districts (PHD))

PHD

# ofFamiliesthatReturnedSurvey byPHD

# of EIFamilies byPHD

% ReturnedSurvey byPHD

ProportionRepresentativeof Reponses byPHD

% of EIPopulation byPHD

MississippiPopulation

by PHD*

PHD 1 142 218 65.1% 22.0% 13.2% 10.8%

PHD 2 89 205 43.4% 13.8% 12.4% 12.3%

PHD 3 60 149 40.3% 9.3% 9.0% 7.1%


2/24/2016 Page 21 of 64

PHD 4 54 202 26.7% 8.4% 12.2% 8.2%

PHD 5 38 233 16.3% 5.9% 14.1% 21.4%

PHD 6 53 114 46.5% 8.2% 6.9% 8.1%

PHD 7 80 143 55.9% 12.4% 8.6% 5.8%

PHD 8 53 157 33.8% 8.2% 9.5% 10.3%

PHD 9 76 234 32.5% 11.8% 14.1% 16.0%

Total 645 1655 39.0% 100% 100% 100%

*Data source: MSDH Vital Statistics

Was sampling used? No

Was a collection tool used? YesIs it a new or revised collection tool? No

Yes, the data accurately represent the demographics of the State

No, the data does not accurately represent the demographics of the State



2/24/2016 Page 22 of 64

Indicator 4: Family InvolvementRequired Actions from FFY 2013




(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)


In the FFY 2014 APR, the State must report whether its FFY 2014 data are from a group representative of the population, and, if not, the actions the State is taking to address thisissue.


The MSFSEIP will be implementing new methods for distributing Family Surveys in District FSEIPs that have shown underrepresentation in the previous APR. In addition, theMSFSEIP will report return rates for each District FSEIP during the monthly TA call which improved return rates during the latest year.


2/24/2016 Page 23 of 64

Indicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Historical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find

Results indicator: Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs compared to national data.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target ≥ 0.55% 0.60% 0.65% 0.70% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.60%

Data 0.53% 0.50% 0.49% 0.66% 0.74% 0.86% 0.57% 0.53% 0.64%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≥ 0.61% 0.62% 0.63% 0.64% 0.65%



Indicator 5 data was not available to present to stakeholders during the November 14th meeting; therefore, State staffadjusted targets to reflect the change made to the eligibility criteria in 2011 (i.e., changed from 25% delay in one or morearea to a 33% delay in one area and 25% delay in two or more areas). These targets were presented to the SICC atthe meeting held on February 13, 2015. Based on the input provided by the stakeholders, these targets were accepted.


2/24/2016 Page 24 of 64

Indicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)FFY 2014 Data



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Prepopulated Data



Data Groups7/2/2015 Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs 234 null

U.S. Census Annual StateResident Population Estimates

April 1, 2010 to July 1, 20134/3/2014 Population of infants and toddlers birth to 1 37,872 null


Number of infants and toddlers birth to 1with IFSPs

Population of infants andtoddlers birth to 1

FFY 2013Data*

FFY 2014Target*


234 37,872 0.64% 0.61% 0.62% Met Target No Slippage




2/24/2016 Page 25 of 64

Indicator 5: Child Find (Birth to One)Required Actions from FFY 2013



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)



N/A


2/24/2016 Page 26 of 64

Indicator 6: Child Find (Birth to Three)Historical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target ≥ 1.53% 1.68% 1.78% 1.88% 1.98% 1.98% 1.98% 1.70%

Data 1.36% 1.21% 1.34% 1.56% 1.66% 1.88% 1.74% 1.65% 1.73%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target ≥ 1.72% 1.74% 1.76% 1.78% 1.80%



Indicator 6 data were not available to present to stakeholders during the November 14th meeting; therefore, State staffadjusted targets to reflect the change made to the eligibility criteria in 2011 (i.e., changed from 25% delay in one or morearea to a 33% delay in one area and 25% delay in two or more areas). These targets were presented to the SICC atthe meeting held on February 13, 2015. Based on the input provided by the stakeholders, these targets were accepted.


2/24/2016 Page 27 of 64

Indicator 6: Child Find (Birth to Three)FFY 2014 Data



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Prepopulated Data



Data Groups7/2/2015 Number of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs 1,948

U.S. Census Annual StateResident Population Estimates

April 1, 2010 to July 1, 20137/2/2015 Population of infants and toddlers birth to 3 115,101

FFY 2014 SPP/APR DataNumber of infants and toddlers birth

to 3 with IFSPsPopulation of infants and toddlers

birth to 3FFY 2013



1,948 115,101 1.73% 1.72% 1.69% Did Not Meet Target No Slippage




2/24/2016 Page 28 of 64

Indicator 6: Child Find (Birth to Three)Required Actions from FFY 2013



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)




2/24/2016 Page 29 of 64

Indicator 7: 45-day timelineHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005


Compliance indicator: Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting wereconducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 88.00% 88.00% 93.00% 87.00% 92.00% 94.00% 96.00% 97.00% 96.81%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



2/24/2016 Page 30 of 64

Indicator 7: 45-day timelineFFY 2014 Data



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)


Number of eligible infants and toddlerswith IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation

and assessment and an initial IFSP meetingwas conducted within Part C’s 45-day

timeline

Number of eligible infants and toddlersevaluated and assessed for whom an initial

IFSP meeting was required to beconducted

FFY 2013Data*

FFY 2014Target*


1,327 1,907 96.81% 100% 95.65%Did Not Meet

TargetSlippage


Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances (this number will be added to the Number of eligible infants andtoddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting was conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline)

497


In FFY 2014, MSFSEIP had multiple contributing factors that lead to the slippage of 45-Day Timeline; however, chiefly, the implementation of the new State accounting systemand enrollment of the majority of children receiving early intervention services into the new Managed Care System (see Timely Services) which delayed payments to providersfor over four months resulted in the loss of many Service Providers across the state. The loss of providers created a cascade of events in three District FSEIPs resultingin significant decreases in meeting the 45-day Timeline for evaluation and IFSP development. These overlapping external system changes compounded the MSFSEIP existingchallenges in recruiting and retaining evaluators.


State monitoring

State database



July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015


Data accurately reflects the data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs in the reporting period from July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015.



2/24/2016 Page 31 of 64


2/24/2016 Page 32 of 64

Indicator 7: 45-day timelineRequired Actions from FFY 2013



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)




2/24/2016 Page 33 of 64

Indicator 7: 45-day timelineCorrection of Previous Findings of Noncompliance



(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)





6 4 0 2



The MSFSEIP verified correction of non-compliance through reviews of Correction Action Plans/Improvement Plans andrecord reviews. The MSFSEIP reviewed each District FSEIP's Corrective Action or Improvement Plan for completion ofactivities and conducted a record audit of 10% or at a minimum 10 (whichever is greater) records from each District FSEIPto verify compliance of the 45-Day Timeline.

Based on these reviews, the following District FSEIPs were found in compliance with correctly implementing the 45-dayTimeline: District 2, 4, 5, and 6. In addition, the following District FSEIPs were not found to be in compliance with ProngII by correctly implementing the 45-day Timeline: Districts 8 and 9.


The MSFSEIP verified that each District FSEIP corrected each individual case of noncompliance (although late) byreviewing and ensuring that an IFSP was developed and entered in the Child Registry. The District FSEIPprovided documentation of each individual paper record of evaluation and IFSP development.



The District FSEIPs that did not provide evidence of correction of Prong II of noncompliance for 45-Day Timeline received a state-issued individualized Corrective Action Plans(CAP) to address systemic issues leading to noncompliance. In addition, targeted TA is being provided to each District FSEIP to address specific concerns identified.





Corrected

None


2/24/2016 Page 34 of 64

Indicator 8: Early Childhood TransitionFFY 2014 Data: All Indicator 8 Sections

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

Compliance indicator: The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has:

Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’sthird birthday;

A.

Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s thirdbirthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and

B.

Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months,prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services.

C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)


Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C 1,191

Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B 1,191



2/24/2016 Page 35 of 64

Indicator 8A: Early Childhood TransitionHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 83.00% 90.00% 100% 87.00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.20%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


2/24/2016 Page 36 of 64

Indicator 8A: Early Childhood TransitionFFY 2014 Data




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)


Source Date Description DataOverwrite

Data

Indicator 8 12/7/2015 Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C 1,191 null

Indicator 8 12/7/2015 Number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B 1,191 null

Data include only those toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agencyhas developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not morethan nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday.

Yes

No

Number of children exiting Part C whohave an IFSP with transition steps and

servicesNumber of toddlers with disabilities exiting

Part CFFY 2013



1,104 1,191 98.20% 100% 98.49%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage


Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances (this number will be added to the Number of children exitingPart C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services)

69


State monitoring

State database


July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2014


Data accurately reflects the data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs in the reporting period from July 1, 2014 -June 30, 2015.


2/24/2016 Page 37 of 64



2/24/2016 Page 38 of 64

Indicator 8A: Early Childhood TransitionRequired Actions from FFY 2013




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)



N/A


2/24/2016 Page 39 of 64

Indicator 8A: Early Childhood TransitionCorrection of Previous Findings of Noncompliance




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)





6 4 0 2



The MSFSEIP verified correction of non-compliance through reviews of Correction Action Plans/Improvement Plans andrecord reviews. The MSFSEIP reviewed each District FSEIP's Corrective Action or Improvment Plan for completion ofactivities and conducted a record audit of 10% or at a minimum 10 (which ever is greater) records from each District FSEIPto verify compliance of Transition Steps and Services.

Based on these reviews, the following District FSEIPs were found in compliance with correctly implementing TransitionSteps and Services: District 1, 2, 4, and 5. In addition, the following District FSEIPs were not found to be in compliancewith Prong II by correctly implementing the Transition Steps and Services: District 8 and 9.


The MSFSEIP verified that each District FSEIP corrected each individual case of noncompliance or the child was no longerenrolled in the MSFSEIP. Documentation in the IFSP and Child Registry were reviewed.



The District FSEIPs that did not provide evidence of correction of Prong II of noncompliance for Transition Steps andServices received a state-issued individualized Corrective Action Plans (CAP) to address systemic issues leadingto noncompliance. In addition, targeted TA is being provided to each District FSEIP to address specific concerns identified.





Corrected

None


2/24/2016 Page 40 of 64

Indicator 8B: Early Childhood TransitionHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 66.00% 91.00% 98.00% 96.00% 98.00% 100% 100% 100% 99.83%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


2/24/2016 Page 41 of 64

Indicator 8B: Early Childhood TransitionFFY 2014 Data




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)



Data


Data include notification to both the SEA and LEA

Yes

No

Number of toddlers with disabilities exitingPart C where notification to the SEA and

LEA occurred at least 90 days prior to theirthird birthday for toddlers potentiallyeligible for Part B preschool services

Number of toddlers with disabilities exitingPart C who were potentially eligible for Part

BFFY 2013



1,183 1,191 99.83% 100% 99.33%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage


Number of parents who opted out (this number will be subtracted from the number of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who werepotentially eligible for Part B when calculating the FFY 2014 Data)

null

Describe the method used to collect these data

Data was collected in the State's Child Registry. The State's Data Manager analyzed the data entered by the ServiceCoordinators.

Do you have a written opt-out policy? No


State monitoring

State database



2/24/2016 Page 42 of 64

July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015





2/24/2016 Page 43 of 64

Indicator 8B: Early Childhood TransitionRequired Actions from FFY 2013




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)



N/A


2/24/2016 Page 44 of 64

Indicator 8B: Early Childhood TransitionCorrection of Previous Findings of Noncompliance




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)





3 2 0 1



The MSFSEIP verified correction of non-compliance through reviews of Correction Action Plans/Improvement Plans andrecord reviews. The MSFSEIP reviewed each District FSEIP's Corrective Action or Improvement Plan for completion ofactivities and conducted a record audit of 10% or at a minimum 10 (whichever is greater) records from each District FSEIPto verify compliance of Notification of the SEA/LEA.

Based on these reviews, the following District FSEIPs were found in compliance with correctly notifying the SEA andLEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddlers's third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible forPart B preschool services: District 5 and 6. In addition, the following District FSEIP was not found to be in compliancewith Prong II by correctly notifying the SEA and LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddlers'sthird birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services: District 9.


The MSFSEIP verified that each District FSEIP corrected each individual case of noncompliance or the child was no longerenrolled in the MSFSEIP. Documentation in the IFSP and Child Registry were reviewed.



The District FSEIP that did not provide evidence of correction of Prong II of noncompliance for correctly notifying theSEA and LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddlers's third birthday for toddlers potentiallyeligible for Part B preschool services received a state-issued individualized Corrective Action Plans (CAP) to addresssystemic issues leading to noncompliance. In addition, targeted TA is being provided to the District FSEIP to addressspecific concerns identified.





Corrected

None


2/24/2016 Page 45 of 64


2/24/2016 Page 46 of 64

Indicator 8C: Early Childhood TransitionHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data: 2005




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Data 45.00% 79.00% 68.00% 73.00% 79.00% 98.00% 100% 99.00% 94.42%



FFY 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


2/24/2016 Page 47 of 64

Indicator 8C: Early Childhood TransitionFFY 2014 Data




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)



Data


Data reflect only those toddlers for whom the Lead Agency has conducted the transition conference held with the approvalof the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s thirdbirthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services

Yes

No

Please explain

Number of toddlers with disabilities exitingPart C where the transition conference

occurred at least 90 days, and at thediscretion of all parties at least ninemonths prior to the toddler’s third

birthday for toddlers potentially eligible forPart B

Number of toddlers with disabilities exitingPart C who were potentially eligible for Part

BFFY 2013



1,003 1,191 94.42% 100% 96.14%Did Not Meet

TargetNo Slippage


Number of toddlers for whom the parent did not provide approval for the transition conference (this number will be subtracted from the numberof toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B when calculating the FFY 2014 Data)

null

Number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances (this number will be added to the Number of toddlers withdisabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties at least nine monthsprior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B)

142


State monitoring

State database



2/24/2016 Page 48 of 64


July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015





2/24/2016 Page 49 of 64

Indicator 8C: Early Childhood TransitionRequired Actions from FFY 2013




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)




2/24/2016 Page 50 of 64

Indicator 8C: Early Childhood TransitionCorrection of Previous Findings of Noncompliance




A.


B.


C.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)





8 0 0 8



The District FSEIPs that did not provide evidence of correction of Prong II of noncompliance for the TransitionConference received a state-issued individualized Corrective Action Plans (CAP) to address systemic issues leadingto noncompliance. In addition, targeted TA is being provided to each District FSEIP to address specific concerns identified.





Corrected

None


2/24/2016 Page 51 of 64

Indicator 9: Resolution SessionsHistorical Data and Targets

Baseline Data:

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision

Results indicator: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable ifPart B due process procedures are adopted).

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Historical Data

FFY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Target ≥

Data

Key: Gray – Da

Documents

FFY 2014 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual …6668,74,63,pdf... · No APR attachments found. FFY 2014 Part C State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR)