# Pennsylvania Part C FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table

+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| **Monitoring   | **Status**     | **OSEP Analysis/Next Steps**       |
| Priorities and |                |                                    |
| Indicators**   |                |                                    |
+================+================+====================================+
| 1.  Percent of | The State's    | As required by OSEP's March 10,    |
|     infants    | FFY 2005       | 2006, SPP response letter, the     |
|     and        | reported data  | State confirmed in the FFY 2005    |
|     toddlers   | for this       | APR that the IFSP development or   |
|     with IFSPs | indicator are  | meeting date is when a parent      |
|     who        | 78%. The State | consents to the provision of early |
|     receive    | did not meet   | intervention services under 34 CFR |
|     the early  | its FFY 2005   | §303.404(a)(2). OSEP's March 10,   |
|                | target of      | 2006 correspondence also required  |
|   intervention | 100%. While    | the State to include in the FFY    |
|     services   | the State's    | 2005 APR data that demonstrate     |
|     on their   | FFY 2005 data  | compliance with the requirements   |
|     IFSPs in a | appear to      | in 34 CFR §§303.340(c), 303.342(e) |
|     timely     | represent      | and 303.344(f)(1). In the FFY 2005 |
|     manner.    | slippage from  | APR, the State reported 78%        |
|                | the FFY 2004   | compliance with these              |
| > \[Compliance | data of 85%,   | requirements. The State also       |
| > Indicator\]  | the FFY 2005   | reported that prior noncompliance  |
|                | data are based | was partially corrected in a       |
|                | upon the       | timely manner. The State reported  |
|                | Statewide data | that 89% of noncompliance was      |
|                | collection     | corrected within one year of the   |
|                | system and the | date the State identified the      |
|                | FFY 2004 data  | noncompliance. The State did not   |
|                | reflect the    | report on whether the remaining    |
|                | results of the | findings have subsequently been    |
|                | State's annual | corrected. The State revised its   |
|                | monitoring     | SPP improvement activities for     |
|                | related to     | this indicator and OSEP accepts    |
|                | this           | those revisions.                   |
|                | indicator.     |                                    |
|                |                | The State must continue to review  |
|                | The State      | its improvement activities and     |
|                | submitted data | revise them, if appropriate, to    |
|                | beyond the FFY | ensure they will enable the State  |
|                | 2005 reporting | to include data in the FFY 2006    |
|                | period         | APR, due February 1, 2008 that     |
|                | indicating 83% | demonstrate compliance with the    |
|                | for the        | timely service provision           |
|                | period, July   | requirements in 34 CFR             |
|                | through        | §§303.340(c), 303.342(e) and       |
|                | September      | 303.344(f)(1), including data      |
|                | 2006.          | demonstrating correction of        |
|                |                | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                | The State      | 2005, and remaining uncorrected    |
|                | reported that  | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                | 89% of prior   | 2004.                              |
|                | noncompliance  |                                    |
|                | was corrected  |                                    |
|                | in a timely    |                                    |
|                | manner.        |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 2.  Percent of | The State's    | The State revised its SPP targets  |
|     infants    | FFY 2005       | and improvement activities for     |
|     and        | reported data  | this indicator and OSEP accepts    |
|     toddlers   | for this       | those revisions.                   |
|     with IFSPs | indicator are  |                                    |
|     who        | 99%. The State | The State met its target and OSEP  |
|     primarily  | met its FFY    | appreciates the State's efforts to |
|     receive    | 2005 target of | improve performance.               |
|     early      | 95% with 2% of |                                    |
|                | those infants  | The State also indicated that it   |
|   intervention | and toddlers   | is monitoring to ensure that IFSP  |
|     services   | receiving      | teams make individualized          |
|     in the     | services in    | decisions regarding the settings   |
|     home or    | community      | in which infants and toddlers      |
|     programs   | settings as    | receive early intervention         |
|     for        | determined by  | services, in accordance with Part  |
|     typically  | their IFSP     | C natural environment              |
|     developing | team.          | requirements. OSEP appreciates the |
|     children.  |                | State's efforts to ensure          |
|                |                | compliance. It is important that   |
| > \[Results    |                | the State continue to monitor to   |
| > Indicator\]  |                | ensure compliance.                 |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 3.  Percent of | Entry data     | The State reported the required    |
|     infants    | provided.      | entry data and activities. The     |
|     and        |                | State must provide progress data   |
|     toddlers   |                | and improvement activities with    |
|     with IFSPs |                | the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,  |
|     who        |                | 2008.                              |
|                |                |                                    |
|    demonstrate |                |                                    |
|     improved:  |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|   A.  Positive |                |                                    |
|         so     |                |                                    |
| cial-emotional |                |                                    |
|         skills |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|     (including |                |                                    |
|         social |                |                                    |
|         r      |                |                                    |
| elationships); |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|     B          |                |                                    |
| .  Acquisition |                |                                    |
|         and    |                |                                    |
|         use of |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|      knowledge |                |                                    |
|         and    |                |                                    |
|         skills |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|     (including |                |                                    |
|         early  |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|      language/ |                |                                    |
|         c      |                |                                    |
| ommunication); |                |                                    |
|         and    |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|     C.  Use of |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|    appropriate |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
|      behaviors |                |                                    |
|         to     |                |                                    |
|         meet   |                |                                    |
|         their  |                |                                    |
|         needs. |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
| > \[Results    |                |                                    |
| > Indicator;   |                |                                    |
| > New\]        |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 4\. Percent of | The State's    | The State provided baseline data,  |
| families       | reported       | targets, and improvement           |
| participating  | baseline data  | activities and OSEP accepts the    |
| in Part C who  | (weighted      | SPP for this indicator.            |
| report that    | scores) for    |                                    |
| early          | this indicator | OSEP's March 10, 2006, SPP         |
| intervention   | are:           | response letter required the State |
| services have  |                | to include in the FFY 2005 APR a   |
| helped the     | 4A. 66%        | revised sampling methodology that  |
| family:        |                | describes how data were collected, |
|                | 4B. 62%        | or if the State chose to gather    |
| > A. Know      |                | census data, rather than sample,   |
| > their        | 4C. 77%        | to inform OSEP and revise the SPP  |
| > rights;      |                | accordingly. The State reported in |
| >              |                | the FFY 2005 APR that it gathered  |
| > B.           |                | census data for this indicator,    |
| > Effectively  |                | rather than sampling, and the      |
| > communicate  |                | State has revised the SPP to       |
| > their        |                | reflect this change.               |
| > children\'s  |                |                                    |
| > needs; and   |                | The State did not submit a copy of |
| >              |                | the survey used to gather data for |
| > C. Help      |                | this indicator that was required   |
| > their        |                | by the instructions for the        |
| > children     |                | SPP/APR. In its FFY 2006 APR due   |
| > develop and  |                | February 1, 2008, the State must   |
| > learn.       |                | include a copy of the survey or if |
| >              |                | the survey is posted on the        |
| > \[Results    |                | State's website, inform OSEP       |
| > Indicator;   |                | accordingly of where the document  |
| > New\]        |                | may be found.                      |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 5\. Percent of | The State's    | The State revised its SPP targets  |
| infants and    | FFY 2005       | for this indicator and OSEP        |
| toddlers birth | reported data  | accepts those revisions.           |
| to 1 with      | for this       |                                    |
| IFSPs compared | indicator      | The State met its target and OSEP  |
| to:            | under IDEA     | appreciates the State's efforts to |
|                | section 618    | improve performance.               |
| > A. Other     | are 1.6%. The  |                                    |
| > States with  | State met its  |                                    |
| > similar      | FFY 2005       |                                    |
| > eligibility  | target of      |                                    |
| > definitions; | 1.47%.         |                                    |
| > and          |                |                                    |
| >              |                |                                    |
| > B. National  |                |                                    |
| > data.        |                |                                    |
| >              |                |                                    |
| > \[Results    |                |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 6\. Percent of | The State's    | The State reported progress and    |
| infants and    | FFY 2005       | OSEP looks forward to the State's  |
| toddlers birth | reported data  | data demonstrating improvement in  |
| to 3 with      | for this       | performance in the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| IFSPs compared | indicator      | due February 1, 2008.              |
| to:            | under IDEA     |                                    |
|                | section 618    |                                    |
| > A. Other     | are 3.3%. This |                                    |
| > States with  | represents     |                                    |
| > similar      | progress from  |                                    |
| > eligibility  | the FFY 2004   |                                    |
| > definitions; | data of 3.1%.  |                                    |
| > and          | The State did  |                                    |
| >              | not meet its   |                                    |
| > B. National  | FFY 2005       |                                    |
| > data.        | target of      |                                    |
| >              | 3.4%.          |                                    |
| > \[Results    |                |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 7\. Percent of | The State's    | OSEP's March 10, 2006, SPP         |
| eligible       | FFY 2005       | response letter required the State |
| infants and    | reported data  | to ensure the noncompliance is     |
| toddlers with  | for this       | corrected and include in the FFY   |
| IFSPs for whom | indicator are  | 2005 APR data that demonstrate     |
| an evaluation  | 92%. This      | compliance with the requirements   |
| and assessment | represents     | in 34 CFR §§303.321(e)(2),         |
| and an initial | progress from  | 303.322(e)(1) and 303.342(a). The  |
| IFSP meeting   | the FFY 2004   | data in the FFY 2005 APR represent |
| were conducted | data of 81%.   | progress toward achieving          |
| within Part    | The State did  | compliance.                        |
| C's 45-day     | not meet its   |                                    |
| timeline.      | FFY 2005       | In its March 10, 2006 letter, OSEP |
|                | target of      | also required the State to include |
| > \[Compliance | 100%.          | in the FFY 2005 APR an improvement |
| > Indicator\]  |                | activity to address barriers to    |
|                | The State      | compliance that were identified in |
|                | reported that  | the SPP and advised the State it   |
|                | 64% of prior   | should review and, if necessary,   |
|                | noncompliance  | revise its improvement strategies. |
|                | was corrected  | The State revised its SPP          |
|                | in a timely    | improvement activities for this    |
|                | manner.        | indicator and OSEP accepts those   |
|                |                | revisions.                         |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                | The State reported that prior      |
|                |                | noncompliance was partially        |
|                |                | corrected in a timely manner. The  |
|                |                | State reported that 64% of         |
|                |                | noncompliance was corrected within |
|                |                | one year of the date the State     |
|                |                | identified the noncompliance. The  |
|                |                | State did not report on whether    |
|                |                | the remaining findings have        |
|                |                | subsequently been corrected.       |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                | > The State must continue to       |
|                |                | > review its improvement           |
|                |                | > activities and revise them, if   |
|                |                | > appropriate, to ensure they will |
|                |                | > enable the State to include data |
|                |                | > in the FFY 2006 APR, due         |
|                |                | > February 1, 2008 that            |
|                |                | > demonstrate compliance with the  |
|                |                | > requirements in 34 CFR           |
|                |                | > §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1)   |
|                |                | > and 303.342(a), including data   |
|                |                | > demonstrating correction of      |
|                |                | > noncompliance identified in FFY  |
|                |                | > 2005, and remaining uncorrected  |
|                |                | > noncompliance identified in FFY  |
|                |                | > 2004.                            |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 8A. Percent of | The State's    | OSEP identified noncompliance      |
| all children   | FFY 2005       | regarding transition steps in the  |
| exiting Part C | reported data  | IFSP in its February 2002          |
| who received   | for this       | Monitoring Report. In a letter     |
| timely         | indicator are  | dated March 19, 2003, OSEP         |
| transition     | 81%. This      | accepted the State's plan to       |
| planning to    | represents     | correct the noncompliance.         |
| support the    | progress from  |                                    |
| child's        | the FFY 2004   | OSEP's March 10, 2006, SPP         |
| transition to  | data of 76%.   | response letter required the State |
| preschool and  | The State did  | to include in the FFY 2005 APR     |
| other          | not meet its   | data that demonstrate compliance   |
| appropriate    | FFY 2005       | with the requirements in 34 CFR    |
| community      | target of      | §§303.148(b)(4) and 303.344(h).    |
| services by    | 100%.          | The data in the FFY 2005 APR       |
| their third    |                | represent progress toward          |
| birthday       | The State      | achieving compliance.              |
| including:     | reported that  |                                    |
|                | 62% of prior   | OSEP's March 10, 2006 letter also  |
| A.  IFSPs with | noncompliance  | indicated that the State should    |
|     transition | was corrected  | review and, if necessary, revise   |
|     steps and  | in a timely    | its improvement strategies.. The   |
|     services;  | manner.        | State has revised its SPP          |
|                | However, as    | improvement activities for this    |
| > \[Compliance | explained in   | indicator and OSEP accepts these   |
| > Indicator\]  | the next       | revisions.                         |
|                | column, it is  |                                    |
|                | unclear to     | The State also reported that prior |
|                | OSEP whether   | noncompliance was partially        |
|                | the correction | corrected in a timely manner. The  |
|                | data provided  | State reported that 62% of         |
|                | by the State   | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                | are associated | 2004 related to Indicator 8 was    |
|                | with Indicator | corrected within one year of the   |
|                | 8A.            | date the State identified the      |
|                |                | noncompliance. It is unclear to    |
|                |                | OSEP whether the correction data   |
|                |                | provided by the State are          |
|                |                | associated with Indicator 8A       |
|                |                | and/or 8C. The State did not       |
|                |                | report on whether the remaining    |
|                |                | findings have subsequently been    |
|                |                | corrected..                        |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                | The State must continue to review  |
|                |                | its improvement activities and     |
|                |                | revise them, if appropriate, to    |
|                |                | ensure they will enable the State  |
|                |                | to include data in the FFY 2006    |
|                |                | APR, due February 1, 2008 that     |
|                |                | demonstrate compliance with the    |
|                |                | requirements in 34 CFR             |
|                |                | §§303.148(b)(4) and 303.344(h),    |
|                |                | including data demonstrating       |
|                |                | correction of noncompliance        |
|                |                | identified in FFY 2005, and the    |
|                |                | remaining uncorrected              |
|                |                | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                |                | 2004. The State must submit its    |
|                |                | information in a manner that       |
|                |                | clearly identifies the correction  |
|                |                | data for this indicator.           |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 8B. Percent of | The State's    | The State has revised its SPP      |
| all children   | FFY 2005       | improvement activities and OSEP    |
| exiting Part C | reported data  | accepts those revisions.           |
| who received   | for this       |                                    |
| timely         | indicator are  | OSEP appreciates the State's       |
| transition     | 97%. The State | efforts and looks forward to       |
| planning to    | did not meet   | reviewing data in the FFY 2006     |
| support the    | its FFY 2005   | APR, due February 1, 2008 that     |
| child's        | target of      | demonstrate compliance with the    |
| transition to  | 100%. The      | requirements in 34 CFR             |
| preschool and  | State's FFY    | §303.148(b)(1), including          |
| other          | 2004 data were | correction of noncompliance        |
| appropriate    | 100%. The FFY  | identified in FFY 2005.            |
| community      | 2005 data are  |                                    |
| services by    | based upon the |                                    |
| their third    | Statewide data |                                    |
| birthday       | collection     |                                    |
| including:     | system and the |                                    |
|                | FFY 2004 data  |                                    |
| B.             | reflect the    |                                    |
|   Notification | results of the |                                    |
|     to LEA, if | State's annual |                                    |
|     child      | monitoring     |                                    |
|                | related to     |                                    |
|    potentially | this           |                                    |
|     eligible   | indicator.     |                                    |
|     for Part   |                |                                    |
|     B; and     |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
| > \[Compliance |                |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 8C. Percent of | As noted in    | The State revised its improvement  |
| all children   | the analysis   | activities for this indicator and  |
| exiting Part C | column, OSEP   | OSEP accepts those revisions.      |
| who received   | recalculated   |                                    |
| timely         | the State's    | The State reported its FFY 2005    |
| transition     | data, and      | data for this indicator as 91%.    |
| planning to    | found the      | However, the State took into       |
| support the    | actual target  | consideration "exceptional systems |
| child's        | data for this  | issues with the Part B preschool   |
| transition to  | indicator to   | programs." OSEP recalculated the   |
| preschool and  | be 83.5%. The  | State's FFY 2005 data, and found   |
| other          | State did not  | the actual target data for this    |
| appropriate    | meet its FFY   | indicator to be 83.5%. In the FFY  |
| community      | 2005 target of | 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008,    |
| services by    | 100%. OSEP     | the State must report data that do |
| their third    | cannot         | not include "exceptional systems   |
| birthday       | determine      | issues with Part B preschool       |
| including:     | whether there  | programs" as being timely.         |
|                | was progress   |                                    |
| C.  Transition | or slippage.   | OSEP's March 10, 2006, SPP         |
|                |                | response letter indicated that the |
|    conference, | The State      | State must include in the FFY 2005 |
|     if child   | reported that  | APR data that demonstrate          |
|                | 62% of prior   | compliance with the requirements   |
|    potentially | noncompliance  | in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(2)(i), as    |
|     eligible   | was corrected  | modified by IDEA section           |
|     for Part   | in a timely    | 637(a)(9). The data in the FFY     |
|     B.         | manner.        | 2005 APR indicate 83.5%            |
|                | However, as    | compliance.                        |
| > \[Compliance | explained in   |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  | the next       | The State reported that prior      |
|                | column, it is  | noncompliance was partially        |
|                | unclear to     | corrected in a timely manner. The  |
|                | OSEP whether   | State reported that 62% of         |
|                | the correction | noncompliance was corrected within |
|                | data provided  | one year of the date the State     |
|                | by the State   | identified the noncompliance.      |
|                | are associated | However, it is unclear to OSEP     |
|                | with Indicator | whether the correction data        |
|                | 8C.            | provided by the State are          |
|                |                | associated with Indicator 8A       |
|                |                | and/or 8C. The State did not       |
|                |                | report on whether the remaining    |
|                |                | findings have subsequently been    |
|                |                | corrected.                         |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                | The State must continue to review  |
|                |                | its improvement activities and     |
|                |                | revise them, if appropriate, to    |
|                |                | ensure they will enable the State  |
|                |                | to include data in the FFY 2006    |
|                |                | APR, due February 1, 2008 that     |
|                |                | demonstrate compliance with the    |
|                |                | requirements in 34 CFR             |
|                |                | §303.148(b)(2)(i) as modified by   |
|                |                | IDEA section 637(a)(9), including  |
|                |                | data demonstrating correction of   |
|                |                | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                |                | 2005, and remaining uncorrected    |
|                |                | noncompliance identified in FFY    |
|                |                | 2004. The State must submit its    |
|                |                | information in a manner that       |
|                |                | clearly identifies the correction  |
|                |                | data for this indicator.           |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| > 9\. General  | The State's    | The State revised its FFY 2004     |
| > supervision  | FFY 2005       | baseline and analysis of that data |
| > system       | reported data  | for this indicator in its SPP. The |
| > (including   | for this       | State also revised the improvement |
| > monitoring,  | indicator are  | activities for this indicator.     |
| > complaints,  | 74%. The State | OSEP accepts those revisions.      |
| > hearings,    | did not meet   |                                    |
| > etc.)        | its FFY 2005   | OSEP's March 10, 2006, SPP         |
| > identifies   | target of      | response letter required the State |
| > and corrects | 100%. This     | to include in the FFY 2005 APR     |
| >              | represents     | data that demonstrate compliance   |
|  noncompliance | slippage from  | with the requirements in IDEA      |
| > as soon as   | the State's    | sections 616(a), 642, and          |
| > possible but | recalculated   | 635(a)(10) and 34 CFR §303.501(b). |
| > in no case   | FFY 2004       | The FFY 2005 data indicate 74%     |
| > later than   | baseline data  | compliance.                        |
| > one year     | of 77%.        |                                    |
| > from         |                | > The State reported that all      |
| > i            |                | > prior noncompliance was not      |
| dentification. |                | > corrected in a timely manner.    |
|                |                | > The State must provide data in   |
| \[Compliance   |                | > the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
| Indicator\]    |                | > 1, 2008 that demonstrate         |
|                |                | > compliance with the requirements |
|                |                | > in IDEA sections 616(a), 642,    |
|                |                | > and 635(a)(10) and 34 CFR        |
|                |                | > §303.501(b), including           |
|                |                | > correction of any uncorrected    |
|                |                | > findings from FFY 2004.          |
|                |                | >                                  |
|                |                | > In its response to Indicator 9   |
|                |                | > in the FFY 2006 APR due February |
|                |                | > 1, 2008, the State must          |
|                |                | > disaggregate by APR indicator    |
|                |                | > the status of timely correction  |
|                |                | > of the noncompliance findings    |
|                |                | > identified by the State during   |
|                |                | > FFY 2005. In addition, the State |
|                |                | > must, in responding to           |
|                |                | > Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C, |
|                |                | > specifically identify and        |
|                |                | > address the noncompliance        |
|                |                | > identified in this table under   |
|                |                | > those indicators.                |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 10\. Percent   | The State's    | OSEP appreciates the State's       |
| of signed      | FFY 2005       | efforts in achieving compliance    |
| written        | reported data  | and looks forward to reviewing     |
| complaints     | for this       | data in the FFY 2006 APR, due      |
| with reports   | indicator are  | February 1, 2008 that continue to  |
| issued that    | 100%, based on | demonstrate compliance with the    |
| were resolved  | the timely     | requirements in 34 CFR §303.512.   |
| within 60-day  | resolution of  |                                    |
| timeline or a  | nine           |                                    |
| timeline       | complaints     |                                    |
| extended for   | filed. The     |                                    |
| exceptional    | State met its  |                                    |
| circumstances  | FFY 2005       |                                    |
| with respect   | target of      |                                    |
| to a           | 100%.          |                                    |
| particular     |                |                                    |
| complaint.     |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
| > \[Compliance |                |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 11\. Percent   | The State's    | The State revised the improvement  |
| of fully       | FFY 2005       | activities for this indicator and  |
| adjudicated    | reported data  | OSEP accepts those revisions.      |
| due process    | for this       |                                    |
| hearing        | indicator are  | There were two due process         |
| requests that  | 50%. The State | hearings that were fully           |
| were fully     | did not meet   | adjudicated during the FFY 2005    |
| adjudicated    | its FFY 2005   | reporting period. One of the two   |
| within the     | target of      | hearings was fully adjudicated     |
| applicable     | 100%. OSEP     | within the 30-day timeline. OSEP   |
| timeline.      | cannot         | could not determine whether the    |
|                | determine      | State made progress because in its |
| > \[Compliance | progress.      | FFY 2004 baseline data, the State  |
| > Indicator\]  |                | included as meeting the applicable |
|                | The State      | timelines, hearings adjudicated    |
|                | submitted data | beyond the 30-day timeline if the  |
|                | beyond the FFY | hearing timeline was extended at   |
|                | 2005 reporting | the family's request.              |
|                | period         |                                    |
|                | indicating     | OSEP's August 14, 2006             |
|                | 100% for the   | verification visit response letter |
|                | first quarter  | required the State to include in   |
|                | of the         | the FFY 2005 APR data that         |
|                | 2006-2007      | demonstrate compliance with the    |
|                | reporting      | due process hearing procedures in  |
|                | period.        | 34 CFR §303.423(b). The State      |
|                |                | provided data for the first        |
|                |                | quarter of the 2006-2007 reporting |
|                |                | period that indicates two hearings |
|                |                | were requested during this time    |
|                |                | frame and both resulted in fully   |
|                |                | adjudicated hearings within the    |
|                |                | 30-day timeline.                   |
|                |                |                                    |
|                |                | OSEP appreciates the State's       |
|                |                | efforts to ensure this             |
|                |                | noncompliance was corrected        |
|                |                | without delay and looks forward to |
|                |                | reviewing data in the FFY 2006     |
|                |                | APR, due February 1, 2008, that    |
|                |                | demonstrate compliance with the    |
|                |                | requirements in 34 CFR             |
|                |                | §303.423(b).                       |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 12\. Percent   | > Not          | > The State revised its SPP to     |
| of hearing     | > applicable.  | > reflect that this indicator is   |
| requests that  |                | > not applicable because the State |
| went to        |                | > implements Part C due process    |
| resolution     |                | > procedures. OSEP accepts this    |
| sessions that  |                | > revision to the SPP.             |
| were resolved  |                |                                    |
| through        |                |                                    |
| resolution     |                |                                    |
| session        |                |                                    |
| settlement     |                |                                    |
| agreements     |                |                                    |
| (applicable if |                |                                    |
| Part B due     |                |                                    |
| process        |                |                                    |
| procedures are |                |                                    |
| adopted).      |                |                                    |
|                |                |                                    |
| > \[Results    |                |                                    |
| > Indicator;   |                |                                    |
| > New\]        |                |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 13\. Percent   | The State      | > The State is not required to     |
| of mediations  | reported that  | > provide targets or improvement   |
| held that      | it received    | > activities until any FFY in      |
| resulted in    | two requests   | > which 10 or more mediations were |
| mediation      | for mediation, | > conducted.                       |
| agreements.    | both of which  |                                    |
|                | resulted in    |                                    |
| > \[Results    | mediation      |                                    |
| > Indicator\]  | agreements.    |                                    |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+
| 14\. State     | The State's    | The State's FFY 2005 reported data |
| reported data  | reported data  | for this indicator are 100%.       |
| (618 and State | for this       | However, OSEP cannot determine     |
| Performance    | indicator are  | whether the State met its FFY 2005 |
| Plan and       | 100%. However, | target of 100% because the State   |
| Annual         | OSEP cannot    | addressed the timeliness, but not  |
| Performance    | determine      | accuracy, of its data.             |
| Report) are    | whether the    |                                    |
| timely and     | State met its  | > The State must review its        |
| accurate.      | FFY 2005       | > improvement activities and       |
|                | target of 100% | > revise them, if appropriate, to  |
| > \[Compliance | because the    | > ensure they will enable the      |
| > Indicator\]  | State          | > State to include data in the FFY |
|                | addressed the  | > 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008   |
|                | timeliness,    | > that demonstrate compliance with |
|                | but not        | > the requirements in IDEA         |
|                | accuracy, of   | > sections 616, 618 and 642, and   |
|                | its data.      | > 34 CFR §§303.176 and 303.540. In |
|                |                | > its FFY 2006 APR, the State must |
|                |                | > address whether its data are     |
|                |                | > both timely and accurate.        |
+----------------+----------------+------------------------------------+