![](media/image1.png){width="0.8888888888888888in"
height="0.8888888888888888in"}**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES**

September 14, 1999

Honorable Carol Olson

Executive Director

Department of Human Services

State Capitol

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0440

Honorable Wayne G. Sanstead

Superintendent

Department of Public Instruction

State Capitol

600 East Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0440

Dear Ms. Olson and Dr. Sanstead:

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in North Dakota during the weeks of August 3
and September 21, 1998 for the purpose of assessing compliance in the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and assisting your State in developing strategies to improve results for
children with disabilities. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 focus on "access
to services" as well as "improving results" for infants, toddlers,
children and youth with disabilities. In the same way, OSEP's Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process is designed to focus Federal, State and
local resources on improved results for children with disabilities and
their families through a working partnership among OSEP, the North
Dakota Department of Public Instruction (NDDPI), the North Dakota
Department of Human Services (NDDHS), and parents and advocates in North
Dakota.

In conducting its review of North Dakota, OSEP applied the standards set
forth in the IDEA 97 statute and in the Part C regulations (34 CFR Part
303) and Part B regulations (34 CFR Part 300), as they were in effect at
the time of the OSEP review. The Part C regulations in effect in
September 1998 were those published by the Department on July 30, 1993,
as revised by the Technical Amendments published on April 14, 1998. The
Part B regulations in effect in September 1998 were those published on
September 29, 1992. All citations to 34 CFR Parts 303 and 300 in this
report are to the regulations, as published on those dates. On March 12,
1999, the Department published new final Part B regulations and
conforming changes to the Part C regulations that take effect on May 11,
1999. In planning and implementing improvement strategies to address the
findings in this report, NDDPI should ensure that all improvement
strategies are consistent with the new final regulations.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration between Steering Committees of broad-based constituencies,
including representatives from NDDPI, NDDHS and OSEP. The Steering
Committees assessed the effectiveness of State systems in ensuring
improved results for children with disabilities and protection of
individual rights. In addition, the Steering Committees will be
designing and coordinating implementation of concrete steps for
improvement. Please see the Introduction to the report for a more
detailed description of this process in your State, including
representation on the Steering Committees.

OSEP's review placed a strong emphasis on those areas that are most
closely associated with positive results for children with disabilities.
In this review, OSEP clustered the Part B (services for children aged 3
through 21) requirements into four major areas: Parent Involvement, Free
Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment,
Secondary Transition and General Supervision. Part C (services for
children aged birth through 2) requirements were clustered into five
major areas: Child Find and Public Awareness, Family-Centered Systems of
Services, Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments, Early
Childhood Transition, and General Supervision. Components were
identified by OSEP for each major area as a basis to review the State's
performance through examination of State and local indicators.

The enclosed Report addresses strengths noted in the State, areas
needing corrective action because they represent noncomplaince with the
requirements of IDEA, and technical assistance on improvement for best
practice. Enclosed you will find an Executive Summary of the Report, an
Introduction including background information, and a description of
issues and findings.

NDDPI and NDDHS have indicated that this Report will be shared with
members of the Steering Committees, the State Interagency Coordinating
Council and the State Advisory Panel. OSEP will work with your Steering
Committees to develop corrective actions and improvement strategies to
ensure improved results for children with disabilities.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staffs
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Brenda Oas,
Robert Graham and Deborah Balsdon were responsive to OSEP's requests for
information, and provided access to necessary documentation that enabled
OSEP staff to work in partnership with the Steering Committees to better
understand the State's systems for implementing the IDEA. An
extraordinary effort was made by State staff to arrange the public input
process during the Validation Planning week and, as a result of their
efforts, OSEP obtained information from a large number of parents
(including underrepresented groups), advocates, service providers,
school and agency personnel, school and agency administrators, and
special education unit administrators.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
North Dakota. Since the enactment of the IDEA and its predecessor, the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, one of the basic goals of the
law, ensuring that children with disabilities are not excluded from
school, has largely been achieved. Today, families can have a positive
vision for their child's future.

While schools and agencies have made great progress, significant
challenges remain. Now that those children with disabilities are
receiving services, the critical issue is to place greater emphasis on
attaining better results. To that end, we look forward to working with
you in partnership to continue to improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities.

> Sincerely,
>
> Patricia J. Guard
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosures

cc: Robert Rutten

Deborah Balsdon

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

#### NORTH DAKOTA MONITORING 1998

The attached report contains the results of the first two steps
(Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection) in the Office of
Special Education Program's (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Parts B and C,
in the State of North Dakota during the weeks of August 3 and September
21, 1998. The process is designed to focus resources on improving
results for infants, toddlers and children with disabilities and their
families through enhanced partnerships between the State agencies, OSEP,
parents and advocates. The Validation Planning phase of the monitoring
process included the completion of a Self-Assessment by Part B and
analysis of both the Self-Assessment and the Part C Self-Study
(completed earlier), a series of public input meetings with guided
discussions around core areas of IDEA, and the organization of Steering
Committees that provided further comments on the information. As part of
the public input process, OSEP and the State made efforts to include
multi-cultural and underrepresented populations. The Validation Data
Collection phase included interviews with parents, agency
administrators, local program and school administrators, service
providers, teachers and service coordinators and reviews of children's
records. Information obtained from these data sources was shared in a
meeting attended by staff from the North Dakota Departments of Public
Instruction and Human Services (NDDPI and NDDHS), parents, advocates,
and members of the Steering Committees.

The report contains a detailed description of the process utilized to
collect data, and to determine strengths, areas of noncompliance with
IDEA, and suggestions for improvement in each of the core IDEA areas.

### Early Intervention Services for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities: Part C of IDEA

#### 

#### Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   A Statewide tracking system for at-risk children from birth through
    age five allows for the early recognition of a child who experiences
    a delay in any area of development;

-   A computerized data base, known as ASSIST, for Individualized Family
    Service Plans (IFSPs) allows the State to track service delivery for
    individual children as well as aggregated State-wide data; and

-   A parent-involvement subcommittee of the State Interagency
    Coordinating Council, composed solely of parents, provides input
    regarding parent involvement in the State's Part C program and a
    parent perspective on all aspects of the service delivery.

#### Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   NDDHS does not conduct comprehensive and effective monitoring to
    ensure consistent implementation of Part C requirements of IDEA;

-   NDDHS does not have a coordinated child find system;

-   NDDHS's procedures are not effective to ensure timely referral of
    children by primary referral sources;

-   NDDHS does not ensure that all Part C services needed by each
    individual child and their family are included on IFSPs and are
    provided;

-   The State does not ensure that services are provided in natural
    environments to the maximum extent appropriate;

-   Services that are needed by the child but not required by Part C,
    such as medical services, are not included on IFSPs;

-   Although the State does not have a system of payments by families,
    services are not always provided at no cost to families;

-   The State does not make individual determinations about the
    frequency and intensity of services needed by the child and family;

-   The Infant Development Program does not ensure the appointment of a
    single service coordinator for eligible infants and toddlers and
    their families;

-   A timely multidisciplinary evaluation in all developmental areas
    required by Part C is not completed for all referred infants and
    toddlers; and

-   Transition plans are missing from IFSPs, and most transition
    meetings are not conducted at least 90 days before a child's third
    birthday.

### Education of Children and Youth With Disabilities: Part B of IDEA

#### Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Efforts to involve children with disabilities in State- and
    district-wide assessment programs include State guidelines,
    district-level training and increased oversight of the
    decision-making process;

-   NDDPI has established an interagency task force to identify and
    provide a coordinated system of services to support the needs of
    children with disabilities across the State;

-   NDDPI uses public television to provide parent training regarding
    the implementation of IDEA;

-   Statewide Family Education Enhancement Teams (FEET) provide
    newsletters across the State and serve as a resource for information
    to families and services providers;

-   NDDPI requires paraprofessional orientation and training, including
    a focus on meeting the needs of families designed to enhance the
    quality of direct services to children and improve relationships
    with their families;

-   Through the cooperation of the Department of Vocational
    Rehabilitation, secondary transition coordinators are provided in
    several areas of the State;

-   A task force of representatives from NDDPI, Vocational
    Rehabilitation, Vocational Education, Institutions of Higher
    Education, and Developmental Disabilities meets regularly to
    identify and attempt to resolve issues around secondary transition;
    and

-   NDDPI is conducting a longitudinal follow-up study of students with
    disabilities who have exited school, to identify strategies to
    better prepare students for the transition from school to
    post-school activities.

#### 

#### Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of non-compliance:

-   NDDPI does not ensure an adequate supply of qualified personnel to
    implement IDEA requirements which results in a negative impact on
    the timely delivery of evaluations and services as well as the
    frequency and amount of available services;

-   Extended school year services are not made available to all children
    with disabilities who need such services to ensure the provision of
    a free appropriate public education;

-   There is insufficient support in regular education settings to
    ensure placement opportunities for children with disabilities in the
    least restrictive environment;

-   Students and agencies likely to be responsible for providing or
    paying for secondary transition services often are not invited to
    attend IEP meetings where transition will be considered;

-   IEP meeting notification provided to parents does not include
    information that a purpose of the meeting is the consideration of
    needed transition services, and that the student and other agency
    representatives, when appropriate, will be invited;

-   IEPs do not always reflect a statement of needed transition services
    beginning at age 16 (or younger, if appropriate); and

-   NDDPI monitoring activities do not ensure consistent implementation
    of Part B requirements.

# North Dakota Monitoring Report Table of Contents

Introduction [1](#introduction)

Administrative Structures and Children Served
[1](#administrative-structures-and-children-served)

Validation Planning and Data Collection.
[2](#validation-planning-and-data-collection.)

Improvement Planning [4](#improvement-planning)

I. Part C: General Supervision [5](#i.-part-c-general-supervision)

Area of Noncompliance [6](#area-of-noncompliance)

II\. Part C: Child Find/Public Awareness
[8](#ii.-part-c-child-findpublic-awareness)

A. Strength [9](#strength)

B. Area of Noncompliance [10](#area-of-noncompliance-1)

C. Suggestion for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their
Families
[11](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families)

III\. Part C: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments
[12](#iii.-part-c-early-intervention-services-in-natural-environments)

A. Strength [14](#a.-strength)

B. Areas of Noncompliance [14](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance)

C. Suggestion for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their
Families
[19](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families-1)

IV\. Part C: Family-Centered System of Services
[21](#iv.-part-c-family-centered-system-of-services)

A. Strength [23](#a.-strength-1)

B. Suggestions for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their
Families
[23](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families)

V. Part C: Early Childhood Transition
[24](#v.-part-c-early-childhood-transition)

Area of Noncompliance [25](#area-of-noncompliance-2)

VI\. Part B: Parent Involvement [27](#vi.-part-b-parent-involvement)

A. Strengths [28](#a.-strengths)

B. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children
[29](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children)

VII\. Part B: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
Environment
[31](#vii.-part-b-free-appropriate-public-education-in-the-least-restrictive-environment)

A. Strengths [35](#a.-strengths-1)

B. Areas of Noncompliance [35](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-1)

C. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children
[38](#c.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children)

VIII\. Part B: Secondary Transition
[39](#viii.-part-b-secondary-transition)

A. Strengths [41](#a.-strengths-2)

B. Areas of Noncompliance [41](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-2)

C. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children
[44](#c.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-1)

IX\. Part B: General Supervision [46](#ix.-part-b-general-supervision)

Area of Noncompliance [48](#area-of-noncompliance-3)

# Introduction[^1]

North Dakota has a relatively small population spread out over a large
area. Lloyd Omdahl, a former Lieutenant Governor and political science
professor, observed, "North Dakota is a small town spread out over
70,000 square miles." North Dakota is a State of declining population.
Thirty of the State's 53 counties are "natural-decrease" counties, as
there are not sufficient numbers of births each year to replace those
who have died. The net result is a shrinking population in many of these
mostly rural counties of the State. The North Dakota Department of
Public Instruction (NDDPI) anticipates that these decreases will
necessitate changes in the way many services are delivered to children
with disabilities.

Another factor relevant to the provision of services to children in
North Dakota is the strong support provided by parents and communities.
For example, it is a common observation that it is almost impossible to
drop out of school in the smaller communities in the State. This
powerful testament to the value placed on education and the small town
culture of the State that requires citizens to account to their
communities for their actions contributes to the low drop-out rate (2.5%
in 1996-97) and to the high rate of enrollment in post-secondary
education (68% of the 1994 graduates enrolled in post secondary
education).

Education personnel in North Dakota are developing State-level content
standards in curricular areas. Adoption of the standards will be
voluntary on the part of local districts and no funding has been
appropriated to provide training of educators. Work is progressing on
development of performance assessments in language arts and math through
outside grant funding.

#### 

## Administrative Structures and Children Served

The North Dakota Department of Human Services (NDDHS), Disabilities
Services Division, was appointed as the lead agency for the State's
implementation of Part C of IDEA, known in North Dakota as the Infant
Development Program. The NDDHS administers the program through
arrangements with eight regional Human Service Centers. Four of these
Human Service Centers implement the program through contracts with other
agencies. Four provide services directly. The Human Service Centers
range in size from one serving a three-county area with a population of
approximately 30,000 to one serving a six-county area with a population
of over 140,000. Each Human Service Center provides services to persons
with disabilities of all ages and also administers other State programs.

By State statute, local school districts are responsible for providing
special education services. In the majority of districts across the
State, special education administrative services are centralized in a
special education unit (educational service agency). There are currently
233 school districts in the State organized into 31 special education
administrative units. The units may offer some services on a cooperative
basis (e.g., school psychology services or physical therapy services). A
small number of special education units are single school districts. In
the majority of cases, these single district entities are the larger
school districts (e.g., Bismarck and Grand Forks).

In 1991, North Dakota provided services to 214 infants and toddlers
(0.79 percent) in the Infant Development Program. In 1997, this number
had increased to 326 infants and toddlers (1.34 percent). From July 1,
1997 through June 30, 1998, the average age for identification of
infants and toddlers with disabilities is 15 months. At the time of
exiting from the Infant Development Program, 79 percent of the infants
and toddlers transition to early childhood classes in the public
schools. The remainder enrolls in Head Start or integrated child care
programs or remain at home.

North Dakota's total count for children with disabilities, from three
through age 21, was 12,902 based on the December 1, 1997 child count.

Part B funds comprise approximately nine percent of the total special
education expenditures in the State, with State funds comprising
approximately 29 percent and local funds approximately 62 percent.

The Infant Development Program staff in NDDHS is comprised of two
individuals, with a combined full-time equivalent of .6. These
individuals are also responsible for the administration of other
Statewide programs, as well as Part C. In addition, .25
full-time-equivalent support staff are assigned to the program.

The North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (NDDPI) employs a
director of special education, 14 professional staff and 7 clerical and
administrative staff within the Special Education Unit and Early
Childhood Tracking System (this system provides Statewide computerized
tracking of children from birth through age 5 who are at risk of having
a disability). Lead responsibility for monitoring, complaint
investigation and review of local policies and procedures is shared by
the Special Education Director and seven program staff members within
the Special Education Unit.

## Validation Planning and Data Collection. 

In preparation for the Part C Validation Planning visit, OSEP reviewed
information about the State's Infant Development Program, such as
performance reports; correspondence from parents, advocates and other
interested parties; and NDDHS's application for Fiscal Year 1997 Part C
funds. As a result of the application review, OSEP identified issues
that the State is currently working to resolve in the 1997 application.
OSEP did not receive NDDHS'1998 application until August 3, 1999 and
OSEP has not yet approved the application.

The Infant Development Program completed a Self-Study in the fall of
1997. Activities included analysis of the results of parent and service
provider surveys that indicated areas of accomplishment and areas of
concern related to program development and implementation. In
preparation for the OSEP Validation Planning visit, the State organized
a Steering Committee, which reviewed the results of the Self-Study. The
Part C Steering Committee was comprised of 10 individuals representing
parents, service providers, Developmental Disabilities Advisory Council,
advocacy organizations (Pathfinder Parent Training and Information
Center, Protection and Advocacy, and the Association for Retarded
Citizens), university personnel, and representatives of NDDHS and NDDPI.
Four of these individuals are also members of the State Interagency
Coordinating Council.

In preparation for the Part B Validation Planning visit, OSEP reviewed a
number of documents, including complaint logs; correspondence from
parents, advocates and other interested parties; and the 1994 OSEP Part
B monitoring report. That report identified deficiencies in several
areas including general supervision in monitoring and complaint
management, content of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs),
appointment of surrogate parents, and placement of children in the least
restrictive environment.

The NDDPI developed a Self-Assessment and presented it to a Statewide
Steering Committee. The Self-Assessment included data analysis and
improvement strategies that would create positive results for children
with disabilities. The Part B Steering Committee was comprised of NDDPI
staff, a local special education unit administrator, a local school
district administrator and the chair of the IDEA Advisory Committee, a
parent, a Protection and Advocacy representative, a representative from
Pathfinder Parent Training and Information Center, a representative of
institutions of higher education, and a representative from NDDHS,
representing Part C. The Steering Committee reviewed the Self-Assessment
information and provided input and feedback to NDDPI prior to
transmitting the final document to OSEP.

During the week of August 3, 1998, OSEP and the Steering Committees
conducted 17 public meetings for Parts C and B across the State to
identify issues and concerns about service delivery under IDEA. Meetings
consisted of 6-30 participants from the following areas: Williston,
Fargo, Grand Forks, Ft. Berthold Reservation, Standing Rock Reservation,
Spirit Lake Reservation, Devil's Lake, Bismarck, Dickinson, Minot and
Jamestown. Discussions addressed, for Part C, child find and public
awareness, family-centered systems of services, early intervention
services in natural environments, transition from Part C to other
appropriate services, and general supervision of Part C by NDDHS. For
Part B, discussion centered on parent involvement in special education
decision making, free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment to children with disabilities from ages 3-21,
secondary transition for youth with disabilities from school to
post-school activities, and general supervision of special education by
NDDPI. At the end of the week, information from the public focus groups,
along with information from the Self-Assessment and Self-Study, were
discussed with the Steering Committees to identify specific issues that
could be investigated by OSEP. Recommendations for strategies and sites
that would be visited were discussed and, on Friday, NDDHS, NDDPI and
OSEP developed a tentative agenda for the Validation Data Collection
visit.

OSEP visited the State during the week of September 21, 1998, for the
purpose of collecting data to validate information provided through the
planning process, including new requirements under the IDEA Amendments
of 1997 and the Government Performance Results Act. OSEP visited the
following sites for Part C: Grand Forks, Cavalier, Bismarck, Standing
Rock Reservation, Hazen, Minot, Ft. Berthold Reservation, Rolla, and
Turtle Mountain Reservation. Part C sites included four of the eight
Human Service Centers. Part B sites included: Grand Forks, Cavalier,
Bottineau, Parshall, Solen, Bismarck, and Mandan. OSEP visited seven
secondary schools because of significant issues identified related to
secondary transition, and suspension and expulsion. Preliminary results
were presented to the Steering Committees on Friday and next steps were
discussed that would begin the improvement planning process.

As part of the data collection process, OSEP reviewed children's
records, including Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) and IEPs,
and State and local policies and procedures. OSEP conducted interviews
with personnel responsible for the implementation of both Part C and
Part B of IDEA, including local service providers, service coordinators,
teachers, and administrators. OSEP interviewed regular education
teachers who serve children with disabilities in their classrooms, and
special education teachers responsible for developing and/or
implementing IEPs. OSEP also interviewed parents, advocates and
personnel from State and Bureau of Indian Affairs agencies involved in
the provision of services to infants, toddlers, children and youth with
disabilities. The individuals interviewed were selected by OSEP, in
cooperation and consultation with State and local officials.

#### 

## Improvement Planning

#### In response to this report, NDDPI and NDDHS will develop an action plan addressing areas requiring improvement as identified in the report. Approximately 60 days after the issuance of this report, OSEP will work with NDDPI to finalize the Part B improvement plan and may visit North Dakota to work with NDDHS to finalize the Part C improvement plan. This visit will include providing assistance to the Steering Committee in the identification of strategies for implementation, sources of technical assistance, time lines for completing strategies, and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of the improvement plan.  

# I. Part C: General Supervision

The State lead agency, NDDHS, is responsible for developing and
maintaining a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary,
interagency early intervention system. Administration, supervision and
monitoring of the early intervention system are essential to ensure that
each eligible child and family receives the services needed to enhance
the development of infants and toddlers with disabilities and to
minimize their potential for developmental delay. Early intervention
services are provided by a wide variety of public and private entities.
Through supervision and monitoring, the State ensures that all agencies
and individuals providing early intervention services meet the
requirements of IDEA, whether or not they receive funds under Part C.

While each State must meet its general supervision and administration
responsibilities, the State may determine [how]{.underline} that will be
accomplished. Mechanisms such as interagency agreements and/or contracts
with other State-level or private agencies can serve as the vehicle for
the lead agency's implementation of its monitoring responsibilities. The
State's role in supervision and monitoring includes:

(1) identifying areas in which implementation does not comply with
    Federal requirements;

(2) providing assistance in correcting identified problems; and

(3) as needed, using enforcing mechanisms to ensure correction of
    identified problems.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

The North Dakota Self-Study identified several concerns related to the
State's oversight of the provision of early intervention services. The
sections of the Self-Study related to interagency collaboration,
resolution of interagency conflicts, coordination of services at the
State level, family-centered philosophy, the IFSP process, and
procedural safeguards revealed concerns associated with the State's
administration and supervision.

The concerns identified included: inconsistency in policy
interpretation; lack of a system to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of early intervention services; limited State staff, which
inhibits coordination at the State level; inflexibility in State
guidelines, preventing decisions from being made on an individual child
basis; lack of dissemination of State policy regarding family focused
intervention, as well as lack of implementation of procedural safeguards
across all agencies. The Self-Study document contained some recommended
actions related to these concerns, including the exploration and
development of appropriate procedures for monitoring procedural
safeguards and the development of processes that will minimize
duplication of services.

At each of the public input meetings that OSEP conducted during the
Validation Planning visit, the following question was asked: "Does the
State exercise effective general supervision of the implementation of
IDEA through the development and utilization of tools, mechanisms and
activities that result in all eligible infants and toddlers and their
families having available early intervention services in the natural
environments that are appropriate for the child?" In response, concerns
related to the State's general supervision of early intervention
services emerged in public input and Steering Committee meetings
conducted during the Validation Planning visit. These concerns included
the need to establish a mediation system; to examine the Quality
Enhancement Reviews and the licensure process; and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the State's system for tracking at-risk children.
Parents and service providers stated that they were unaware of the
methods the State utilizes to supervise the provision of early
intervention services. In addition, OSEP heard that, in general, parents
and providers did not know whether mediation was available as an option
for conflict resolution. Another concern expressed by local agency
personnel was that the State has not monitored the provision of services
to eligible children.

During the Validation Planning week, NDDHS indicated it does not have
methods of monitoring the effectiveness of its tracking system for
identifying all children in need of early intervention services. This
information was confirmed by members of the Steering Committee.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, reviewed monitoring
reports and interviewed State personnel, local program directors,
service coordinators, Developmental Disabilities case managers and
parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following area of
noncompliance.

## Area of Noncompliance

### Lack of Monitoring to Ensure Consistent Implementation of Part C Requirements

34 CFR §303.501 requires that all programs and activities used to
implement the Statewide early intervention system are consistent with
Part C of IDEA, regardless of whether the entity receives Part C funds.
Each State is required to adopt and use proper methods of administering
the program, including: monitoring agencies, institutions and
organizations used by the State to provide early intervention services;
enforcing the Part C obligations imposed on those entities; providing
technical assistance, if necessary; and correcting deficiencies that are
identified through monitoring. In addition to the responsibility for
general administration, the lead agency must ensure that all policies
(e.g., State statutes, regulations, Governor's orders, directives, and
other written documents that represent the State's position on this
program - see 34 CFR §303.19) related to the implementation of Part C
are consistent with 34 CFR Part 303.

As discussed below, NDDHS has not fulfilled its obligation for the
general supervision, administration, and monitoring of all programs and
activities used by the State, whether or not they receive assistance
under Part C, to implement the statewide system of early intervention
services. The only activities used by the State as general supervisory
mechanisms are State licensure and accreditation by a private national
organization (the Accreditation Council) of the Human Service Centers.
Neither process is designed to completely identify instances of
noncompliance with the provisions of Part C of IDEA or to ensure
corrective actions of the limited findings made.

The State's Part C application for Fiscal Year 1997 funds describes the
activities of the Accreditation Council (Council) to accredit the Human
Service Centers' provision of early intervention services. *A Consumer's
Guide to Outcomes in Early Childhood Intervention*, a document utilized
by the Council, was provided by NDDHS as documentation of the State's
monitoring procedures. This document states "This Consumer's Guide is
designed to provide a tool to assist families in evaluating the quality
of early intervention services they receive." The Council examines a
variety of issues to evaluate the quality of early intervention
services, and provides options for training, technical assistance and
consultation. Outcome measures for families and children relate to
choice, goals, rights, respect, health and safety, relationships,
security, and satisfaction. The Council monitors for issues related to
matters such as health and safety, staff licensure and freedom from
child abuse, but does not monitor for issues related to IFSP content,
delivery of services or the provision of qualified providers under Part
C. NDDHS identified no other procedures for monitoring compliance. In
addition, the Council accredits only the Human Service Centers and does
not accredit other public and private agencies that provide early
intervention services to eligible infants and toddlers. OSEP reviewed
the most recent Council reports (dated during 1996 and 1997) from each
of the Human Services Centers visited and found that the Council had not
identified any violations of IDEA that OSEP identified in those Centers
and discussed in other sections of this report.

The State has failed to utilize appropriate sanctions to ensure that
noncompliance identified by the Council has been addressed. While the
Council's report identifies weaknesses, which may or may not be related
to Part C, NDDHS did not follow up with the Centers to determine if
violations of Part C exist. One local program director stated that the
State did not discuss the results of a Council visit with the program
director. The director further stated that the State did not provide any
information to the director on violations or changes the program must
make with the director.

Based on this information, OSEP concludes that NDDHS has not fulfilled
its general supervisory responsibility to effectively monitor the
provision of early intervention services by all agencies within the
State that provide Part C services, including those that do not receive
financial assistance under Part C.

# II. Part C: Child Find/Public Awareness

The needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
are generally met through a variety of agencies. However, prior to the
enactment of Part C of IDEA, there was little coordination or
collaboration for service provision, and many families had difficulty
locating and obtaining needed services. Searching for resources placed a
great strain on families.

With the passage of Part C in 1986, Congress sought to ensure that all
children needing services would be identified, evaluated, and served,
especially those children who are typically underrepresented, (e.g.,
minority, low-income, inner-city, American Indian and rural populations)
through an interagency, coordinated, multidisciplinary system of early
intervention services.

Each State's early intervention system must include child find and
public awareness activities that are coordinated and collaborated with
all other child find efforts in the State. Part C recognizes the need
for early referral and short timelines for evaluation because
development occurs at a more rapid rate during the first three years of
life than at any other age. Research in early brain development has
demonstrated what early interventionists have known for years: that
children begin to learn and develop from the moment of birth. Therefore,
the facilitation of early learning and the provision of timely early
intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities are
critical.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

The Part C Self-Study identified several accomplishments related to the
State's efforts to locate and identify infants and toddlers with
disabilities: conducting group screenings, regional Family Information
Fairs, personnel for tracking children on American Indian reservations,
and a central directory of services. Concerns included: duplication of
child-find efforts; lack of coordination of service providers and
agencies; need to identify how families become aware of service
availability; lack of knowledge of the central directory; lack of
"buy-in" by medical community; physicians' attitudes toward early
intervention; and the need to be aware of the difference between
adequate outreach services and intrusiveness.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Are all infants and toddlers with developmental delays or disabilities
identified, evaluated and referred for services?" Participants indicated
that many children are not identified, including American Indian
children living on reservations; that many children are not identified
until 30 months of age; and many physicians are reluctant to refer,
instead telling parents that their children will eventually begin to
develop appropriately. Respondents also indicated that there are many
factors that may prevent parents from responding or providing all the
appropriate information to the tracking program's questionnaires, which
may cause some children not to be referred for services.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information
obtained through the Self-Study and public input process, the Steering
Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following concerns/issues:

(1) physician's and other medical personnel's levels of awareness and
    involvement in the early intervention system;

(2) late age of referral for most children;

(3) effectiveness of the tracking system, especially on American Indian
    reservations;

(4) lack of child find activities in some areas and for some
    populations;

(5) lack of knowledge regarding the single point of entry into the early
    intervention system;

(6) lack of strategies to identify children who are not participating in
    the Tracking System;

(7) effectiveness of alternative strategies to locate children; and

(8) scope of the child find study.

The Steering Committee suggested that OSEP make contact with primary
referral sources and visit rural areas of the State during the
Validation Data Collection visit.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program directors, service coordinators,
Developmental Disabilities case managers and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength, area of noncompliance, and suggestions for improved results
for infants and toddlers and their families.

## Strength

### Tracking At-Risk Children

The efforts of the State to establish a mechanism for tracking at-risk
children are commendable. The North Dakota Early Childhood Tracking
System provides parents who register, beginning at their child's birth,
a monthly questionnaire on which parents provide information about their
child's behaviors in different developmental areas. The questionnaires
are reviewed by child development specialists to determine if the
behavior in each developmental domain is within norms for the child's
chronological age. When the behaviors indicate developmental levels that
are not commensurate with the child's chronological age, the information
is reviewed by an interagency team to determine whether the child needs
an in-depth evaluation in any area and, if so, which agency would be the
most appropriate as the primary contact for the family. The Tracking
System is currently following several thousand children, ages birth
through five, across the State. In order to ensure that American Indian
families are able to participate in a meaningful way, each reservation
has staff to assist the families. At the local level, the Tracking
System's monthly interagency meetings provide naturally occurring events
for the discussion of local systemic issues and barriers to effective
service delivery for children and their families. One State
administrator described these meetings as one of the best aspects of the
Tracking System.

######### 

## Area of Noncompliance

### 1. Development of a Coordinated Statewide Child Find System

34 CFR §303.321 requires NDDHS, with assistance from the State
Interagency Coordinating Council, to develop a comprehensive child find
system. NDDHS must implement effective procedures to ensure compliance
with the State's policies and procedures by all participating public and
private programs in carrying out child find activities. The NDDHS must
ensure that the child find system is coordinated with all other major
efforts (administered by relevant education, health and social services
programs) to locate and identify children and will not duplicate efforts
unnecessarily.

NDDHS\'s procedures for child find do not meet the requirement that its
child find efforts are coordinated with all other major child find
efforts to ensure infants and toddlers are referred by all primary
referral sources. Reports from parents, service providers and
administrators throughout the State illustrate the ineffective
implementation of procedures to ensure coordination of public agencies
in child find activities. Effective coordination of agencies around
child find activities would lead to timely identification of eligible
children and prompt delivery of early intervention services to infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

#### Except for a cooperative effort with NDDPI in implementing the tracking program, OSEP found no evidence of coordination of child find activities with other agencies who have similar child find responsibilities (i.e., Maternal and Child Health; Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment; Supplemental Security Income) within the State as required in 34 CFR §303.321(c). Further, State agency administrators acknowledged that there is no systematic coordination between NDDHS and other public agencies in the State regarding child find. State agency administrators did not identify any other public agencies that were coordinating child find activities with the early intervention programs. The only example of coordination of activities identified by service providers and local agency directors was the monthly interagency meetings of the Tracking System participants, which are held to review information about children who had been referred to the tracking system.

### 2 Referral Procedures for Primary Referral Sources

34 CFR §303.321 requires a State's early intervention system to include
policies and procedures to ensure that all infants and toddlers who are
eligible for services are identified, located and evaluated. The
procedures must provide for an effective method for primary referral
sources to make referrals and to ensure that referrals are made no more
than two working days after a child has been identified.

OSEP found that NDDHS's policies and procedures are not effective to
ensure that all eligible children are identified and that primary
referral sources make referrals in a timely manner.

Parents, service coordinators and service providers in all sites visited
reported that doctors did not recognize and identify delays early, and
if they did, they did not refer the child to the Infant Development
Program. Parents in two of four areas of the State stated that
physicians are slow to refer infants and toddlers for services, often
instructing parents to "go home and live your life, treating this child
like your other child." A local director further confirmed that they did
not receive referrals from physicians. Service providers also stated
that the State had made little or no effort to ensure that private
agencies and local education agencies complied with State policies for
referral of children who may be eligible for services. One local
provider described the State's effort as "hit or miss, at best."

In addition, OSEP was told that many primary referral sources did not
understand the appropriate referral procedures when referring a child
suspected of needing the provision of early intervention services. A
concern was expressed by parents, service coordinators and service
providers that many primary referral sources did not understand that
children who have not been participating in the North Dakota Early
Childhood Tracking System should be referred directly to the Infant
Development Program rather than to the Tracking System. One informant
stated that the State's Tracking system was better known than the Infant
Development Program. Therefore, many primary referral sources referred
parents of children not participating in the Tracking system to that
program instead of to the Infant Development Program. According to this
informant, when this occurs, the process used by the Tracking system
could delay the child's evaluation and the development of an initial
IFSP beyond the 45-day time limit required by Part C.

## C. Suggestion for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their Families

OSEP made the following observation about improving child find and
public awareness activities.

### Provision of Literature in "Family-Friendly" Language, Locations and Formats

Parents, service providers and service coordinators stated that they did
not believe that the literature published by the State contained
"family-friendly" language and, as a result, parents did not respond by
contacting the Infant Development Program for assistance. These same
individuals noted that publications may not be available in as many
languages as are represented in the State or in a variety of formats.
Therefore, some families may not have information in a language or
format that ensures they understand how to refer their child. The State
should review published literature to ensure that it is easily
understandable by the public and that it is available in languages
represented in the State and in a variety of formats and locations which
encourages public access.

#  

# III. Part C: Early Intervention Services In Natural Environments

In creating the Part C legislation, Congress recognized the urgent need
to ensure that all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families receive early intervention services according to their
individual needs. Three of the principles on which Part C was enacted
include:

(1) enhancing the child's developmental potential,

(2) enhancing the capacity of families to meet the needs of their infant
    or toddler with disabilities, and

(3) improving and expanding existing early intervention services being
    provided to children with disabilities and their families.

To assist families in this process, Congress also requires that each
family be provided with a service coordinator, to act as a single point
of contact for the family. The service coordinator ensures the rights of
children and families are provided, arranges for assessments and IFSP
meetings, and facilitates the provision of needed services. The service
coordinator coordinates required early intervention services, as well as
medical and other services the child and the child's family may need.
With a single point of contact, families are relieved of the burden of
searching for essential services, negotiating with multiple agencies and
trying to coordinate their own service needs.

Part C requires the development and implementation of an IFSP for each
eligible child. The evaluation, assessment, and IFSP process is designed
to ensure that appropriate evaluation and assessments of the unique
needs of the child and of the family, related to the enhancing the
development of their child, are conducted in a timely manner. Parents
are active members of the IFSP multidisciplinary team. The team must
take into consideration all the information gleaned from the evaluation
and child and family assessments, in determining the appropriate
services to meet the child's needs.

The IFSP must also include a statement of the natural environments in
which early intervention services will be provided for the child.
Children with disabilities should receive services in community settings
and places where normally-developing children would be found, so that
they will not be denied opportunities that all children have - to be
included in all aspects of our society. Since 1991, IDEA has required
that infants and toddlers with disabilities receive early intervention
services in natural environments. This requirement was further
reinforced by the addition of a new requirement in 1997 that early
intervention can occur in a setting other than a natural environment
only when early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily for the
infant or toddler in a natural environment. In the event that early
intervention cannot be satisfactorily achieved in a natural environment,
the IFSP must include a justification of the extent, if any, to which
the services will not be provided in a natural environment.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

The Self-Study identified several accomplishments and concerns related
to the provision of early intervention services in natural environments.
Specific survey questions in the Self-Study related to child and family
evaluation and assessment practices and IFSPs. The survey results
identified accomplishments in the areas of evaluation/assessments and
IFSPs through the development of policies and procedures, in-home
evaluations, and use of clinical judgment to determine eligibility for
services. Those accomplishments include modifying individual program
plans used by other lead agency programs to meet the requirements of
IFSPs, and creating a consistent IFSP process across the State. In
addition, the results indicated that training is provided for parents in
both the evaluation and IFSP process. Concerns about evaluation and
assessment focused on the need to increase parent involvement in the
process, the State's eligibility criteria, time lines for development of
the initial IFSP, lack of staff, and lack of consistency. Concerns
related to IFSPs included the need for one integrated service plan to
reflect the needs of all programs providing services to the child, the
failure to reflect parent concerns in the IFSP, and the perception that
funding determines services included on IFSPs.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Do all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
receive early intervention services in natural environments appropriate
for the child?" Parents, service coordinators, Developmental Disability
case managers and service providers indicated that the 45-day time line
between referral and development of the initial IFSP may elapse before
the evaluation and assessment occurs. These respondents also indicated
that services may not be provided in a timely manner or with appropriate
frequency due to critical shortages of qualified personnel to provide
services (e.g., occupational and physical therapists, vision personnel
and assistive technology specialists). Parents also indicated that
Developmental Disability case managers are not aware of all available
services to meet the needs of the child and the child's family.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information
obtained through the Self-Study and public input process, the Steering
Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following concerns/issues:

(1) the impact of the therapist's travel time on the amount and
    frequency of early intervention services provided;

(2) linkages of services to the availability of providers;

(3) use of community environments; and

(4) lack of qualified providers.

The Steering Committee made a specific recommendation that OSEP visit
Human Service Centers administered by private and public agencies in
rural and metropolitan areas during Validation Data Collection to ensure
consistent implementation of early intervention services in natural
environments.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP reviewed the records of 27 children receiving early
intervention services at the time of OSEP's visit, examined State and
local policies and procedures, and conducted interviews of State
personnel, local program directors, service coordinators, Developmental
Disability case managers and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength, areas of noncompliance, and a suggestion for improved results
for infants and toddlers and their families.

## A. Strength

### Computerized Database to Collect Individual and Aggregated IFSP Information

The computerized database**,** known as ASSIST, allows the State to
capture information related to the provision of early intervention
services across the State. The elements of each child's IFSP are entered
into the database. The IFSP's outcomes are identified and associated
with services and supports to assist in meeting those outcomes.
Objectives, methods and activities, frequency and amount of service,
providers, location, start and end dates, and funding sources are
included in the database. The database information provides the State
with valuable information related to the program, such as case manager
caseloads, and amounts of developmental services provided. The State can
also review the IFSP of a specific child to determine compliance with
program standards or to investigate a complaint. In addition to tracking
all services received and services authorized/funded by NDDHS, the
database also identifies child and family needs beyond those required by
the early intervention system and tracks referrals to access those
supports allowing the State to project unmet needs of children and
families.

##### 

## B. Areas of Noncompliance

### 1. Identification and Provision of all Needed Services

As discussed below, the State is failing to include all needed services
on IFSPs, as well as to individualize services. State policies and
procedures limit the provision of services through the Infant
Development Program by limiting the type of identified and needed
services the Infant Development Program will provide to a child by
limiting the settings where services will be provided. Parents, service
coordinators, and agency administrators reported that these limitations
result in delays and/or denials of evaluation and services for infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families. In addition to the
State policies limiting the provision of services, the lack of qualified
personnel to conduct evaluations in a timely manner or for service
provision was cited as a reason for delays or denials of services.
Therefore, as the State moves to correct the noncompliance areas
discussed below, the State must ensure adequate personnel are available
to provide evaluations and individually determined services with the
frequency and intensity needed.

**a. [All Needed Services Not Included on IFSPs]{.underline}**

> 34 CFR §303.344(d) requires that IFSPs include a statement of the
> specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique
> needs of the child and the family to achieve the outcomes identified
> in the IFSP, including the payment arrangements if any. 34 CFR 303.12
> (d) lists as types of services included under "early intervention
> services": assistive technology devices and services; audiology;
> family training, counseling, and home visits; health services; medical
> services only for diagnostic or evaluation purposes; nursing services;
> nutrition services; occupational therapy; physical therapy;
> psychological services; service coordination; social work services;
> special instruction; transportation and related costs; and vision
> services.
>
> Page 1 of the Infant Development Program Manual, contained in NDDHS's
> 1997 application for Part C funds, states: "Early intervention
> services, other than parent training provided through Infant
> Development Programs, may be included in the IFSP and the service
> coordinator identified in the IFSP may assist the family in
> coordinating these services (medical follow-up, direct therapies,
> etc.) even though they are services not provided by Infant Development
> Programs." Further, the Manual (page 11) includes the following: "At
> times, children receiving Infant Development Services and their
> families may need services from professionals such as audiologists,
> Family Therapists, Nurses, Nutritionists, Occupational Therapists,
> Orientation and Mobility specialists, Pediatricians and other
> physicians, Physical Therapists, Psychologists, Social Workers,
> Special Educators, and Speech pathologists. The services should be
> accessed from other agencies/professionals without cost to Infant
> Development Programs."
>
> When OSEP inquired as to how the policies in the manual were
> implemented, parents, service coordinators appointed by Part C, NDDHS
> case managers and local directors across the State told OSEP that the
> only direct services provided by the early intervention system were
> parent training or "home visits," and that the Infant Development
> Program did not provide any therapies (e.g., speech, occupational
> therapy, physical therapy). According to parents, service coordinators
> and case managers, the responsibility for services other than
> "developmental services" belongs to the family. Parents and service
> providers reported that information about service providers or how to
> obtain services was frequently provided by Infant Development Program
> staff to the family, but the Infant Development Program did not
> provide, obtain or coordinate the provision of those services. In 5 of
> 27 records reviewed, OSEP found indications of services received that
> were not included on IFSPs.
>
> Therefore, the State's policies, as applied, violate the requirement
> that IFSPs include the specific early intervention services necessary
> to meet the unique needs of the child and the family. In addition,
> given the State's policy and practice, some children with IFSPs may
> not be receiving certain needed services at all.

**b.** **[Failure to Individualize Services.]{.underline}**

> 34 CFR §303.344(d) states that the IFSP must include a statement of
> specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique
> needs of the child and the family to achieve the outcomes listed in
> the IFSP including "the frequency, intensity and method of delivering
> the service." Frequency and intensity are defined as the number of
> days or sessions that a service will be provided, the length of time
> the service will be provided, and whether the service is provided on
> an individual or group basis. See 34 CFR §303.344(d)(2)(i). These
> decisions, about frequency, intensity and duration, are to be made by
> the IFSP team on an individual basis to meet the child's unique needs.
>
> The Infant Development Program manual (page 7) states that children
> "enrolled in full time Infant Development Services will receive one
> parent training home visit per week for one hour. Children receiving
> half time Infant Development Services will receive one home visit for
> one hour every other week."
>
> Parents, service coordinators, developmental disabilities case
> managers, and local program directors reported that almost all infants
> and toddlers eligible under Part C receive one parent training home
> visit per week through the Infant Development Program, regardless of
> the severity of their disability and/or identified needs. Service
> coordinators in one area stated that, although most children receive
> parent training service one time per week, some children receive
> services only once or twice a month. Additionally, they said that,
> regardless of need, no children received home visits more that one
> time per week unless they were part of a specially funded pilot
> project. A review of records determined that, for the most part,
> regardless of factors such as severity of the child's delay,
> identified need, and age, parent training services were identical in
> frequency and intensity across children and records.

### 2. Natural Environments

34 CFR §303.344(d)(1)(ii) requires that the content of an IFSP include
the natural environments in which early intervention services will be
provided. 34 CFR §303.12(b)(2) defines natural environments as settings
that are natural or normal for the child's age peers who have no
disability.

As discussed below, the services provided to infants and toddlers with
disabilities are limited by State policy including the type of service
provided, the frequencies and intensities of services provided and the
settings in which services may be provided.

Parents, service coordinators and local directors in all sites visited
told OSEP that the home was the only choice considered by the IFSP team
for early intervention services. Child care settings and other community
settings in which infants and toddlers without disabilities participate
are not considered locations for services. Reviews of records indicate
that even when children are enrolled in child care, no services or
supports are provided to the child in that setting. By State policy,
parents of children enrolled in Infant Development Programs receive
parent training "home visits," and services and locations are not
individualized to the needs of each child and family. The State is
therefore failing to provide services in natural environments as
required by law.

### 3. Inclusion of Identified and Non-Required Services on IFSPs

34 CFR §303.344(e) requires that, to the extent appropriate, medical and
other services, needed by the child and child's family, but not required
under Part C, are identified on the IFSP, including a listing by the
State of the funding sources to be used in paying for those services and
the steps that will be taken to secure those services through public or
private sources.

As discussed below, OSEP found that medical and other services needed by
eligible infants and toddlers and being provided by public or private
programs other than the Infant Development Program, or paid for by the
parents, were not identified on 12 of 27 IFSPs reviewed.

Local directors and service coordinators in all four areas visited
stated that they were unaware that the IFSP must contain all the
services needed by a child and family. In three areas, service
coordinators reported that they were told to remove any reference to
services not funded by the North Dakota Infant Development Program. In
addition, representatives from Head Start, Maternal and Child Health,
other health care organizations, social service representatives,
American Indian reservation programs and others could not identify any
area of coordination among agencies except the Tracking System. Parents
reported that they were not linked with other services provided in the
State (e.g., Medicaid). One parent reported that as a result of not
being provided information by the early intervention system or helped to
apply for medical assistance under Medicaid, her family suffered severe
financial problems paying for services for their child that would have
been covered through Medicaid. One local director reported the Infant
Development Program typically did not list on the IFSP all the services
a child was receiving unless the service was being funded through the
Disabilities Services Division.

### 4. Services Provided at No Cost to the Family

34 CFR §303.520 requires that the State establish policies related to
how services to children and their families will be paid for under the
State's program. The State's policy, as stated in the Fiscal Year 1997
application for Part C funds, assures OSEP that fees "are not charged
for services the child is entitled to receive at no cost to parents; and
that the inability of parents to pay for services will not result in
denial of services to the child and family. The North Dakota Department
of Human Services does not currently charge a fee for early intervention
services."

In addition to the policy statement above, the State's application
includes a January 28, 1998 memorandum wherein the Disability Services
Division addressed participation in Medicaid for Developmental
Disability services. The memorandum states, that "General funds will be
authorized as the funding source for Infant Development when the child
is not eligible for Medicaid or there is a recipient liability. Private
pay in any form, including application of recipient liability or
parental participation is [not]{.underline} an option as Part H \[now
Part C\] of IDEA guarantees the child a free and appropriate education."

Because the State has no system of payments, [all]{.underline} early
intervention services are required to be at no cost to parents. As
discussed below, the State has not met that requirement.

OSEP was told repeatedly by local directors, service coordinators, and
parents in all sites visited, that when the needed early intervention
services (e.g., occupational therapy, physical therapy) were not
available through a public program, parents had to locate and pay for
these early intervention services. In some cases, families and lead
agency staff reported that families were reimbursed by the State,
through a Family Subsidy program, for early intervention services the
family purchased for their child. Service coordinators and parents told
OSEP that if a family was ineligible for Medicaid or other public
programs, did not have insurance, or was unable to pay for the service,
the child would not receive the service even though the need was
documented in the evaluation. These services were not included on IFSPs.

### 5. Appointment of a Single Service Coordinator

34 CFR §303.23(a) and §303.321(e) require that each State ensure that
one service coordinator is available for each eligible child and the
child's family upon referral to the public agency and throughout the
child's eligibility for services. The service coordinator is responsible
for coordinating all services across agency lines and serves as the
family's single point of contact. The service coordinator assists the
family in obtaining needed early intervention services, facilitates the
timely delivery of available services, links the family to other
available resources, and continuously reviews appropriate services to
benefit the development of each child.

As discussed below, OSEP found that the State does not ensure the
appointment of a single service coordinator who is responsible for the
activities specified in Federal regulations. State procedures contain
provisions for both a service coordinator and a Developmental Disability
case manager, to be appointed for each eligible child and his/her
family, and these two share the responsibilities specified in Part C.

Parents in three of the four Human Service Centers visited reported that
the service coordinator and the Developmental Disability case manager
together complete the service coordination activities outlined in IDEA.
In all three centers, parents reported that they were not familiar with
the term "service coordinator," and they were unable to identify their
service coordinator. They also reported that they did not know whom they
should call if they had a problem. Further, parents stated that the only
services coordinated were services provided through the Developmental
Disability Center. Parents said they may be provided information about
other services, but had to arrange those services themselves. One parent
stated that "no one coordinates services. I coordinate my own."

Service coordinators and Developmental Disability case managers in two
of the four Human Service Centers visited confirmed that the functions
of a service coordinator are divided between them and that neither was
individually responsible for all the functions required by IDEA; even
working together, all the functions required by IDEA were not being
implemented. In addition, local agency directors reported that there is
duplication of effort between the service coordinator and the
Developmental Disability case manager and that the functions were
divided between the two. One local director stated that service
coordinators were assigned the completion of the majority of
responsibilities in this area but shared responsibilities with the
Developmental Disability case manager. When OSEP questioned service
coordinators and Developmental Disability case managers about who was
responsible for specific duties required in federal regulations,
generally they were certain which of them should be completing certain
functions. However, for a few of the specified duties, they were not
clear about which should/would do the task creating an uncertainty that
the activity may not be completed for the child and child's family.

Interagency linkages at both the state and local levels related to
service coordination appear to be non-existent. OSEP found no evidence,
through interviews or record review, that early intervention service
coordinators were working with service coordinators or case managers
from other agencies from which a child may be also receiving services,
such as Medicaid (Title XIX) or Maternal and Child Health (Title V).
There also appears to be no mechanism for a service coordinator already
working with a child and his/her family, but employed by another public
agency, to also serve as the child's early intervention service
coordinator under Part C.

Therefore, NDDHS does not ensure that a service coordinator is assigned
as the single point of contact for eligible children and their families.

### 6. Completion of a Multidisciplinary Evaluation in All Developmental Areas 

34 CFR §303.322 requires the lead agency to ensure that each referred
child receive a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of the
child's level of functioning in each of the following developmental
areas: cognitive development; physical development, including vision and
hearing; communication development; social or emotional development; and
adaptive development. For eligible children, the lead agency must
conduct an assessment that identifies the child's unique strengths and
needs and the appropriate services needed. In addition, the family has
the option of a family-directed assessment designed to determine the
resources, priorities and concerns of the family related to enhancing
the child's development.

As discussed below, OSEP found that the State has not effectively
ensured that each child referred for early intervention services
receives a timely multidisciplinary evaluation in all of the
developmental areas.

In two of the four areas visited, review of early intervention records
along with interviews with parents, service coordinators, and service
providers revealed that infants and toddlers were not evaluated in all
required developmental areas. One local director stated that assessments
are driven by parent's concerns and that the Infant Development Program
would do additional evaluations if the parent expressed a concern about
other developmental areas. Service coordinators told OSEP that the early
intervention system "doesn't have to assess in all areas if they are not
a concern of the parents." They stated that they often had to encourage
the parent to express a concern about one of the developmental areas in
order to obtain an evaluation of that domain. If the service coordinator
was not successful in getting the parent to express a concern about the
developmental area, the child would not be evaluated in that area.
Parents identified specific developmental areas in which evaluations did
not occur (e.g., speech).

## C. Suggestion for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their Families

OSEP made the following observation about improving results for infants,
toddlers and their families.

### Collection of Information in a Single, Comprehensive, Child Record

OSEP recommends that the State take steps to ensure that each child's
early intervention information is easily accessible to parents and
others, as appropriate. At this time, all four regions visited retain
information relating to the referral, evaluation and development of the
child's IFSP in several records or in different locations, rather than
in a single record or location. The Developmental Disability case
manager's record, containing information about referral and quarterly
reviews, is housed at the Human Service Center office, while other
records may be housed in the Infant Development Program office. The
early intervention record does not contain the Developmental Disability
information. It was unclear which record(s) would be provided if a
parent requested their child's early intervention record. For program
monitoring purposes, it makes it difficult to track a child through the
early intervention system beginning at referral. It also could be
beneficial to the State in its monitoring efforts.

#####  

# IV. Part C: Family-Centered System of Services

Research has shown that improved outcomes for young children are most
likely to occur when services are based on the premise that parents or
primary caregivers are the most important factors influencing a child's
development. Family-centered practices are those in which families are
involved in all aspects of the decision-making, families' culture and
values are respected, and families are provided with accurate and
sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions. A
family-centered approach keeps the focus on the developmental needs of
the child, while including family concerns and needs in the
decision-making process. Family-centered practices include establishing
trust and rapport with families, and helping families develop skills to
best meet their child's needs.

Parents and other family members are recognized as the linchpins of Part
C. As such, States must include parents as an integral part of
decision-making and service provision, from assessments through
development of the IFSP, to transition activities before their child
turns three. Parents bring a wealth of knowledge about their own child's
and family's abilities and dreams for their future, as well as an
understanding of the community in which they live.

In 1986, Part C of the IDEA was recognized as the first piece of Federal
legislation to specifically focus attention on the needs of the family
related to enhancing the development of children with disabilities. In
enacting Part C, Congress acknowledged the need to support families and
enhance their capacity to meet the needs of their infants and toddlers
with disabilities. On the cutting edge of education legislation, Part C
challenged systems of care to focus on the family as the unit of
services, rather than the child. Viewing the child in the context of
her/his family and the family in the context of their community,
Congress created certain challenges for States as they designed and
implemented a family-centered system of services.

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

Several sections of the Part C Self-Study provided information relative
to the family's satisfaction with their involvement in the early
intervention system. Over one-third of the parents surveyed for the
Self-Study indicated "satisfied" and over 50 percent of others indicated
"somewhat satisfied" in relation to parents' involvement in development
and implementation of early intervention policies. Similar numbers of
parents indicated their level of satisfaction with the coordination of
services at the State (34 percent satisfied and 50.1 percent somewhat
satisfied) and local (28.5 percent satisfied and 57.3 percent somewhat
satisfied) levels. Somewhat greater numbers of parents indicated they
were satisfied (51.0 percent) or somewhat satisfied (43.8 percent) with
the State or local policies related to family-focused philosophy.
Twenty-nine percent of the parents indicated they were satisfied and
55.3 percent indicated they were somewhat satisfied with outreach to
families.

The Self-Study identified some satisfaction with progress made in the
area of outreach to families. However, issues were identified relating
to family-centered systems of services, including the lack of parent
involvement in outreach planning; confusing information provided to
parents; lack of awareness of the line between adequate outreach and
intrusion; lack of family-centeredness; differences in agencies'
philosophy related to family-centered vs. child-centered services; and
the need to increase American Indian involvement.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Are family and child outcomes enhanced by family-centered supports and
systems of services?" Responses indicated some concern about
family-directed assessment components. Parents reported the need for
materials in languages and formats that would be understandable to them
and that would be disseminated in community sites. Parents and providers
reported a need to ensure that physicians and other service personnel
are trained to be aware of the needs of families. Parents commented on
the need for increased, community-based family support systems including
a need for training of parents regarding options of services through the
early intervention system. Parents also expressed need for the State to
work more closely with child care providers to increase the availability
of programs which can meet the needs of children with disabilities.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information
obtained through Self-Study and public input process, the Steering
Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following concerns/issues:

(1) identification of family needs;

(2) use of family-friendly language in all documents;

(3) parents' need for training on service options;

(4) the provision of family-to-family services;

(5) need for training in collaboration;

(6) needs assessments and staff training to enable staff to be more
    sensitive to family needs; and

(7) interactions with child care programs to create more opportunities
    to meet the needs of children with developmental delays.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program directors, service coordinators,
Developmental Disability case managers and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength and suggestions for improved results for infants, toddlers, and
their families.

## A. Strength

### Parent Involvement Subcommittee of the State Interagency Coordinating Council

The State Interagency Coordinating Council includes a parent involvement
subcommittee that has been active in advising the State on several
components of the system. The Committee is composed of families with
children of varying ages and, therefore, provides the Council with
information related to early intervention services, early childhood
transition and services to preschool-age children. This information is
assisting the Council and the State in designing and implementing new
initiatives to lead to improvements of the early intervention system.

## B. Suggestions for Improved Results for Infants, Toddlers and Their Families

OSEP made the following observations about improving the
family-centeredness of the systems of services.

### 1. Enhancement of Family-Centeredness in Early Intervention Services

During the public input process, parents reported that they did not
understand the content of published materials or information provided
verbally. American Indians reported that service provision, as well as
verbal or printed information, is not sensitive to cultural differences.
Information is not readily accessible to families with young children.
OSEP recommends that the State examine aspects of the early intervention
system to determine if improvements would enhance the family-centered
aspects of the system. The language of all publications about the early
intervention system of services should be examined to ensure that
family-centered language is culturally appropriate and has been used
throughout. In addition, the distribution plan of materials should be
reviewed to ascertain if all community sites that would typically
include families of young children are included.

### 2. Training for Families and Service Providers

Providers told OSEP that training designed to assist them to be
sensitive to, and meet needs of, families, was not available.
Additionally, parents stated that training for them regarding service
options was unavailable. Provision of this training could contribute to
the development of a more family-centered system.

# V. Part C: Early Childhood Transition

Congress included provisions to ensure that preschool or other
appropriate services would be provided to eligible children leaving
early intervention at age three. Transition is a multifaceted process to
prepare the child and the child's family to leave early intervention
services. Congress recognized the importance of coordination and
cooperation between the educational agency and the early intervention
system by requiring that a specific set of activities occur as part of a
transition plan. Transition activities typically include:

(1) identification of steps to be taken to prepare the child for changes
    in service delivery and to help the child adjust to a new setting,

(2) preparation of the family (i.e., discussions, training,
    visitations), and

(3) determination of other programs and services for which a child might
    be eligible.

Transition planning for children who may be eligible for Part B
preschool services must include scheduling a meeting, with approval of
the family, among the lead agency, the educational agency and the
family, at least 90 days (with parental permission up to six months)
prior to the child's third birthday. Transition of children who are not
eligible for special education also includes convening a meeting to
assist families in obtaining other appropriate community-based services.
For all Part C children, States must review the child's program options
for the period from the child's third birthday through the remainder of
the school year and must establish a transition plan.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

The Self-Study survey results show some satisfaction regarding the
transition of children from Part C to Part B services. The Self-Study
respondents found that the process used by the early intervention and
preschool programs is efficient, including a formal plan and a
multidisciplinary approach to assessment. There had been major progress
in information sharing, staff involvement, and the timeliness of
beginning the transition process. Concerns identified included: the
timeliness of the overall process; consistency from program to program;
differences in the regulations between the early intervention and the
education systems; provision of services during the summer months;
issues related to migrant families; and the need to educate staff and
families about the transition process. The Self-Study also included some
recommended actions to be taken by the State including reexamining the
State's transition policies, conducting a descriptive study of
transition practices, sponsoring statewide multi-agency training on
transition and developing a transition manual to be used by both NDDHS
and NDDPI.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Are appropriate supports and services available to a child, and to the
child's family, by the child's third birthday?" Responses indicated that
transition planning varies across the State. The parents and service
providers who participated in a focus group on an American Indian
reservation reported difficulty in obtaining assessments for American
Indian children and developing Individualized Education Programs by the
third birthday. Across the State, it was reported to OSEP that even in
school districts where transition was relatively smooth for most
children, transition is especially difficult for children whose third
birthday is in the late spring or during the summer. Concern was
expressed across the State that the Infant Development Program did not
always share information about children exiting Part C with the local
educational agency in a timely manner.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information
obtained through the Self-Study and public input process, the Steering
Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following concerns/issues:

(1) changes in frequency of services at age three,

(2) parents not being made aware of how their child's program would
    change upon exit from early intervention,

(3) the practice of repeating current evaluations by school personnel to
    determine eligibility for special education,

(4) timeliness in providing records to the local education agency, and

(5) the contents of interagency agreements.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program directors, service coordinators,
developmental disabilities case managers and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following area of
noncompliance.

##### 

## Area of Noncompliance

### Transition Plans Missing from Content of IFSPs and Transition Meetings Not Held 90 Days Before the Third Birthday

The Part C regulations require that public agencies develop IFSP
transition plans that meet the requirements in 34 CFR §303.344(h) and
that transition planning meetings be held at least 90 days before the
child's third birthday to develop the transition plan, in accordance
with 34 CFR §303.148, for children who may be eligible for Part B
services. NDDHS must ensure a smooth transition for children
participating in early intervention into Part B or other appropriate
services. This includes notifying, with parent permission, the
appropriate local education agency and, for children who may be eligible
for Part B, convening, with the approval of the family, a conference
among the early intervention system, the family, and the local
educational agency at least 90 days before the child's third birthday.
The purpose of the conference is to review the child's program options
for the period from the child's third birthday through the remainder of
the school year and establish a transition plan. 34 CFR §303.344(h)
requires that the IFSP include the steps to be taken to support the
transition of the child to

(1) preschool services under Part B of IDEA, to the extent that those
    services are appropriate; or

(2) other services that may be available, if appropriate.

As discussed below, OSEP found that NDDHS did not ensure that transition
requirements are included in IFSPs and did not ensure that transition
planning meetings were held at least 90 days before a child's third
birthday for children who may be eligible for Part B or make reasonable
efforts to convene a transition conference for children who are not Part
B eligible.

OSEP reviewed children's records, including IFSPs, and interviewed
parents, service providers, service coordinators, and Developmental
Disability case managers from the four areas of the State visited. OSEP
found that, except for one excellent plan developed for a two-year-old
child, transition plans were not included in the IFSP. Generally, notes
in children's records indicated that information about transition had
been discussed with the parent and the parents who were interviewed
appeared to have information related to appropriate services for their
child after exiting Part C. Interviews with parents and service
coordinators indicated that meetings to develop transition plans were
conducted just before the third birthday, rather than the 90 days
required by Federal regulations, for children who may be eligible for
Part B. One parent, whose child's birthday is in October, reported that
the transition meeting was scheduled for the end of September.

# VI. Part B: Parent Involvement

A purpose of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is to expand and promote
opportunities for parents and school personnel to work in new
partnerships at the State and local levels. Parents must now have an
opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child,
and the provision of a free appropriate public education to their child.
Parental involvement has long been recognized as an important indicator
of a school's success and parent involvement has positive effects on
children's attitudes and social behavior. Partnerships positively impact
achievement, improve parents' attitudes toward the school, and benefit
school personnel as well.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

### Monitoring: 

OSEP's 1994 monitoring report did not identify any findings of
noncompliance in this area and commended NDDPI on efforts related to
parent involvement and training for staff and parents.

### Self-Assessment: 

Section 6 of the North Dakota Part B Self-Assessment addressed "Family
Involvement." It discusses several documents that outline procedures for
parent participation. In addition, the Self-Assessment summarizes local
school district monitoring data from 1992-1997 relative to parent
participation. Data reviewed for the most recent monitoring cycle
(1996-97) indicates that 91 percent of parents in seven agencies
participated in IEP meetings, 91 percent of files included consent for
initial evaluation and 93 percent of files included consent for initial
placement in special education.

NDDPI solicited concerns from the Pathfinder Parent Center and
Protection and Advocacy based on information received from parents.
Included in these concerns were the parent's role and responsibility in
the IEP process, decisions about the provision of extended school year
services, and appropriate behavioral services and interventions.

While the Self-Assessment reported high rates of parent attendance at
IEP meetings, results of efforts to obtain parent consent for
evaluations, and results of efforts to obtain parent consent for initial
placement in special education, the Steering Committee expressed
concerns that parents, including those on American Indian Reservations,
are not actively involved in the special education decision-making
process. Members of the committee stated that a major factor could be a
lack of training and information dissemination to parents.

### Public Input Process: 

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Is the provision of a free appropriate public education facilitated
through parent partnerships?" Responses indicated that there is great
variation from special education unit to special education unit.
Participants in the western regions of the State reported a generally
high level of involvement and participation. Participants in other areas
of the State reported less involvement and participation. Many parents
reported a lack of availability of training opportunities. Several
parents indicated that the Special Education Unit Boards, largely made
up of local school district superintendents, discouraged parent
involvement. Parents reported they are not represented on these boards
in most areas and in some areas meetings are scheduled during the day
(unlike local school district board of education meetings) when parents
are working and that they have no avenue through which to raise issues
with the Boards.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information
obtained through the Self-Assessment and public input process, the
Steering Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following
concerns/issues: reports that

(1) parents of children with disabilities are not listened to or
    respected in the local school districts;

(2) parents of children with disabilities must "fight" for what their
    children need;

(3) "draft" or "pre-organized" IEPs are seen as finished documents that
    parents are expected to "rubber stamp;"

(4) parents do not receive training; and

(5) parents of children on American Indian reservations do not
    participate in educational planning or special education
    decision-making.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths and suggested areas for improvement.

##### 

## A. Strengths

### 1. Parent Training Using Public Television

NDDPI created three videos to be aired on public television in October
1998. NDDPI sent flyers through the schools to parents and staff. Topics
are:

(1) *Individualized Education Program*: A tool for success in education
    and beyond;

(2) *Discipline Provisions*: Positive behavioral supports and beyond;
    and

(3) *Assessment*: Bridging the gap between teaching and learning for all
    students.

### 2. Family Educator Enhancement Teams (FEET)

The Family Educator Enhancement Team (FEET) provides frequent
newsletters to schools and parents. Included in the newsletter are
available training opportunities offered by schools, universities and
other agencies throughout North Dakota.

###### 

### 3. Paraprofessional Training

As noted in OSEP's 1994 monitoring report, NDDPI helps to ensure quality
services by requiring paraprofessionals to receive orientation and
training, or demonstrate competencies, in five areas, including parent
involvement.

###### 

## B. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children 

OSEP made the following observations, which could lead, to improving
parent involvement.

### 1. Parent Partnerships in Special Education

Many parents believe that they are not equal partners in the special
education decision-making process. Parents believe they are not viewed
as knowledgeable about their child's educational needs by the local
school districts and feel intimidated by the numbers of professionals
whom they must confront at each meeting. Parents believe that school
personnel, especially administrators, do not have the appropriate skills
to mediate disputes.

No recent training was reported in any of the seven districts visited
regarding parents' rights or procedural safeguards for either parents or
staff. No consistent, coordinated training is provided for regular
education staff in any of the seven districts visited relative to
special education decision-making and parent involvement. Special and
regular educators are not trained together.

### 2. Training and Enhancing the Involvement of American Indian Parents

Administrators and teachers on two American Indian reservations reported
that significant efforts have been made to involve American Indian
parents but that these efforts have not been successful. Attendance at
meetings related to special education decision-making is extremely low.
Training opportunities do not produce participation or results.

### 3. Use of "Draft" IEPs

Parents and local school district personnel have very different
understandings of the purpose and use of "draft" or ""pre-organized"
IEPs. Communication between parents and local education agencies
utilizing "pre-organized" IEPs needs improvement. Local school districts
perceive the use of a "draft" document as a time saver and a means to
provide information to the parent about what the school is thinking, in
advance of the IEP meeting, so that the parent is better prepared to
participate in the IEP meeting and to express their opinions/concerns
about the school's proposals. Parents view this document as a finished
product in which they have no input and which does not represent their
concerns, ideas, and needs for their child.

The response to question #32 in Appendix A of the Part B regulations
states that school districts must make it clear to parents at the outset
of the meeting that the services proposed by the district are only
recommendations for review and discussion with the parents. Parents have
the right to bring questions, concerns and recommendations to an IEP
meeting as part of a full discussion of the child's needs and the
services to be provided to meet those needs before the IEP is finalized.
The school district must ensure that, if personnel bring drafts of some
or all of the IEP content to the IEP meeting, there is a full discussion
with the child's parents, before the child's IEP is finalized, regarding
drafted content and the child's needs and the services to be provided to
meet those needs.

# VII. Part B: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

The provision of a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment is the foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the
statute and regulations (evaluation, IEP, parent and student
involvement, transition, participation in large-scale assessment,
eligibility and placement decisions, service provision, etc.) exist to
achieve this single purpose. It means that children with disabilities
receive educational services at no cost to their parents, and that the
services provided meet their unique learning needs. These services are
provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who do not
have disabilities and, unless their IEP requires some other arrangement,
in the school they would attend if they did not have a disability. Any
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary
aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Labor and Human
Resources has pointed out that too many students with disabilities are
failing courses and dropping out of school. Almost twice as many
children with disabilities drop out as compared to children without
disabilities. There is a further concern about the continued
inappropriate placement of children from minority backgrounds and
children with limited English proficiency in special education.
Therefore, the Committee stated its intention that "once a child has
been identified as being eligible for special education, the connection
between special education and related services and the child's
opportunity to experience and benefit from the general education
curriculum should be strengthened. The majority of children identified
as eligible for special education and related services are capable of
participating in the general education curriculum to varying degrees
with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to
ensure that children's special education and related services are in
addition to and are affected by the general education curriculum, not
separate from it."

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

### Monitoring: 

As reflected in its 1994 monitoring report, OSEP found that NDDPI did
not meet its responsibility to ensure that:

(1) children with disabilities were educated with nondisabled children
    to the maximum extent appropriate;

(2) various alternative placements were available to the extent
    necessary to implement each child's IEP;

(3) unless a child's IEP required some other arrangement, the child was
    educated in the school that he or she would attend if she or he did
    not have a disability;

(4) each child with a disability participates with children who did not
    have disabilities in nonacademic and extracurricular services and
    activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that
    child; and

(5) the person assigned as a surrogate met the requirements that protect
    a child's right to a free appropriate public education.

### Self-Assessment: 

Sections 4 and 5 of the North Dakota Part B Self-Assessment addressed
"Appropriate Education" and "Least Restrictive Environment." NDDPI
monitoring data for the 1996-97 school year indicated that all seven
units monitored failed to comply with IEP meeting attendance
requirements. The following requirements were not met in more than 70
per cent of cases reviewed: IEP reviews within one year, justification
for placement determinations, and the nature of physical education
services to be received by the child.

The Self-Assessment indicated that, in response to a survey during the
1995-96 school year, only 11 of 218 districts that responded excluded
most children with disabilities from Statewide assessments. Results of
the 1997-98 California Test of Basic Skills testing were unavailable, as
well as the number of children with disabilities participating when the
Self-Assessment was developed.

NDDPI publishes trend data every two years as a follow-up to OSEP's 1994
findings. The comparisons highlight two aspects of least restrictive
environment:

(1) the extent to which services to children with disabilities are
    provided in the school the child would attend if he or she did not
    have a disability and

(2) the extent to which those services are provided in a general
    education setting versus more restrictive settings.

Comparisons indicate that in 1993, 14.2 percent of children with
disabilities were placed in schools other than their neighborhood
schools and 10.5 percent in 1997. Changes were also noted in the degree
to which children in some disability categories receive their services
in separate classroom settings (defined as those children placed in
these settings for 60 percent or more of the school day) versus less
restrictive options.

+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| **[Disability Category/Setting]{.smallcaps}**  | *        | *        |
|                                                | *[1992-9 | *[1996-9 |
|                                                | 3]{.smal | 7]{.smal |
|                                                | lcaps}** | lcaps}** |
+================================================+==========+==========+
| #                                              | ###      | ###      |
| ## Children with "Educable Mental Retardation" |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Regular Class                                  | 24%      | 38%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Resource Room                                  | 33%      | 45%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Separate Class                                 | 41%      | 16%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Other                                          | 2%       | 1%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| ##                                             | ###      | ###      |
| # Children with "Trainable Mental Retardation" |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Regular Class                                  | 9%       | 11%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Resource Room                                  | 13%      | 32%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Separate Class                                 | 67%      | 48%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Other                                          | 11%      | 9%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| ### Children with Emotional Disturbance        | ###      | ###      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Regular Class                                  | 47%      | 53%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Resource Room                                  | 27%      | 30%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Separate Class                                 | 18%      | 9%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Other                                          | 9%       | 8%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
|                                                |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| ### All Other Categories                       | ###      | ###      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Regular Class                                  | 84%      | 84%      |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Resource Room                                  | 9%       | 9%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Separate Class                                 | 5%       | 4%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| Other                                          | 2%       | 3%       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

The NDDPI Self-Assessment identified categorical certification as a
major issue in implementing least restrictive environment provisions
under IDEA. A joint meeting of the IDEA Advisory Committee and the CSPD
Committee is planned for March 1999 to examine this issue.

### Public Input Process: 

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Do students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment that promotes a high
quality education and prepares them for employment and independent
living after they exit school?" Responses indicated lack of knowledge
about extended school year services. Many parents indicated their
children attend summer school and that they pay tuition. Parents also
indicated difficulty in identifying and obtaining appropriate assistive
technology devices and services. Parents reported that it was easier
than in the past to get their children into neighborhood schools;
however, many parents expressed frustration at having to "fight for
services." Parents of children with behavioral issues were unfamiliar
with the terms "functional behavior assessment" and indicated their
children did not have behavior management plans. Administrators across
the State indicated difficulty in transitioning children from Part C, by
their third birthday, to Part B services. They indicated two very
different issues:

(1) children were receiving a great deal of service under Part C and
    very little Part B service was being recommended at transition
    planning meetings; and

(2) children were receiving very little service under Part C and
    significant amounts of Part B services were being recommended at
    transition planning meetings.

These administrators indicated that records were not provided to the
Part B provider in sufficient time for them to become familiar with the
child and his/her needs and that, therefore, appropriate services may
not be offered. Parents indicated difficulty in obtaining Part B
services for their preschool children.

The Steering Committee, as noted in the Self-Assessment, reported
general improvement in the provision of a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment; however, in a meeting
with OSEP at the end of the Validation Planning week, they expressed
concerns very similar to those expressed by parents and administrators.
The Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following
concerns/issues:

(1) whether a lack of qualified evaluators and providers exists,
    especially for low incidence populations, and contributes to delays
    in evaluations and reevaluations, as well as to the delivery of
    services, in accordance with appropriate IEPs, in the least
    restrictive environment;

(2) whether children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public
    education, including, when appropriate, functional behavior
    assessments and behavior management plans, when suspended more than
    ten days cumulative in a school year, or expelled;

(3) whether assistive technology devices and services are provided, when
    appropriate, to children with disabilities, at no cost to the
    parent;

(4) whether extended school year services are considered and, when
    determined necessary, provided in accordance with an appropriate
    IEP;

(5) whether children with emotional disturbance receive their services
    in the least restrictive environment; and

(6) whether services for children transitioning from Part C to Part B
    services are appropriately determined and documented in the child's
    IFSP/IEP.

Section 615(k)(1)(B) of the Act sets forth specific requirements
regarding functional behavioral assessments and behavioral intervention
plans, when a student with a disability is suspended for more than 10
days, or expelled. Five of the seven school districts that OSEP visited
in North Dakota have policies that prohibit suspensions for more than
ten days or expulsion of students with disabilities. Therefore, OSEP was
unable to collect sufficient data to determine whether there was
systemic noncompliance regarding the requirements of this section.

Another issue raised in public comment and by the Steering Committee
concerned the provision of assistive technology devices and services.
OSEP found that one of the districts visited was not ensuring that
students with disabilities received needed assistive technology devices
and services as part of a free appropriate public education. NDDPI
agreed to work with that district to ensure that it comes into
compliance with IDEA requirements regarding assistive technology devices
and services. Because OSEP did not find such noncompliance in any of the
other districts that it visited, it has not included a finding of
systemic noncompliance in this report. NDDPI has created an assistive
technology project with a State-wide focus and continues to provide
technical assistance and training to districts across the State to
assist them in complying with these requirements.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths, areas of noncompliance, and suggestions for improved results
for children.

## A. Strengths

### 1. Increased Involvement in State- and District-Wide Assessment Programs

NDDPI is taking proactive steps to increase the involvement of children
with disabilities in State- and District-wide assessment programs,
including the creation of a broad-based Task Force to identify barriers
and develop alternate methods of assessment for children who are unable
to participate in Statewide assessments. The Task Force has met six
times since October 1997 and includes school principals, regular
educators, guidance counselors, special educators, university personnel,
outreach service providers, NDDPI personnel and parents with knowledge
of assessment issues. The Task Force has developed draft guidelines on
the *Participation of Students with Disabilities in State-District
Assessment Programs*.

####### 

### 2. Interagency Service Support Efforts

North Dakota is implementing interagency efforts to develop preventive
and supportive service systems among agencies. Agencies involved in this
effort include: Foster Care, Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities in the Department of Human Services, Juvenile Services in
the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Public Instruction.

###### 

## B. Areas of Noncompliance

### 1. Adequate Supply of Qualified Personnel to Provide a Free Appropriate Public Education

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.380(a)(2), formerly 34 CFR §300.381, requires that each State
ensure an adequate supply of qualified personnel, including special
education and related services personnel and leadership personnel,
necessary to carry out the purposes of IDEA.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that NDDPI did not ensure that an
adequate supply of qualified personnel (special educators, related
services personnel and trained paraprofessionals) is available to
implement IDEA.

In six of seven school districts visited, administrators reported that
personnel shortages existed that resulted in children with disabilities
not receiving all the services to which they were entitled. In three
districts, teachers and administrators reported that providers are often
required to choose between providing direct services identified on IEPs
or conducting evaluation activities within the required three-year time
line. Teachers and administrators in three of the seven districts
reported that children with disabilities are not evaluated in a timely
manner because of staff shortages. Administrators in two districts
reported attempts to address personnel shortages through contracted
services but that none were available. Teachers and administrators in
two districts reported that crisis intervention, identified as a need on
IEPs, is sometimes unavailable because it is necessary to schedule
qualified personnel in advance. Teachers and administrators in five
districts reported that either the type or amount of service is
determined by providers' schedules rather than by the child's identified
needs or that children with disabilities are denied opportunities to
participate in general education classrooms because of personnel
shortages.

### 2. Availability and Provision of Extended School Year Services

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.13, formerly 34 CFR §300.8, requires that services be provided in
accordance with an appropriate IEP.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that NDDPI did not ensure that
children are provided extended school year services, in accordance with
an appropriate IEP.

OSEP determined that extended school year services are not available for
all children with disabilities who need such services in order to
receive a free appropriate public education in North Dakota. Teachers
and administrators in one district reported that no extended school year
services are available for consideration, regardless of individual
children's needs. Teachers and administrators in two other districts
reported that all children are permitted to participate in summer school
programs that are available to all children in the district. Such
services are not provided in accordance with an IEP, and services
pursuant to an IEP are not available during the summer, regardless of
individual student needs. In six of seven districts where teachers and
administrators reported availability of extended school year services,
these services are provided through summer school programs; however,
extended school year services were not identified on any of the IEPs
reviewed by OSEP. Three districts provide services based on funding
availability. Two districts provide transportation at parent expense or
only to children with specific categories or severities of disability.

### 3. Support in the Regular Education Setting to Ensure Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment

34 CFR §300.550(b) requires that, to the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities are educated with children who are not
disabled. In addition, removal of children with disabilities from the
regular education environment may occur only when the nature or severity
of the disability is such that education in regular classes, with the
use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved
satisfactorily. Section 602(29) of IDEA defines supplementary aids and
services as aids, services and other supports that are provided in
regular education classes or other education-related settings to enable
children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to
the maximum extent appropriate. Section 601(c)(2)(A)(5) states that
research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children
with disabilities can be made more effective by providing appropriate
aids and supports in the regular classroom, whenever appropriate.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that children with disabilities are
often not placed in regular classes to the maximum extent appropriate,
because of a lack of supplementary aids and services.

Teachers and administrators in two districts reported that staff
shortages (special educators, related services personnel, and trained
paraprofessionals) limit the amount of time and numbers of children with
disabilities that IEP teams can place in regular education environments,
regardless of the individual needs of the child. NDDPI reported that
funding considerations affect the ability of districts to provide
sufficient staff. Teachers and administrators in six districts reported
that due to lack of training in behavior management for both special and
general education teachers, some children with behavior problems were
not educated in the regular education environment to the maximum extent
appropriate.

Teachers and administrators in two districts reported that many children
with mental retardation are excluded from the general education
environment based solely on their category of disability because
teachers are often not trained to appropriately support children with
mental retardation in either regular or special education classrooms.
Teachers in three other districts reported that IEP teams don't consider
placement in some regular classes because of the attitudes of the
regular teachers and the lack of training in behavior management.

OSEP reviewed IEPs in the agencies visited and noted that most IEPs
included an explanation for the child's placement. Examples in IEPs
reviewed included: "Expectations in the regular classroom are paced too
fast;" "Material is given too fast and is beyond her abilities;"
"...services in the EMH room are necessary for him to meet his...needs;"
"regular classroom is not least restrictive and doesn't meet \_\_\_\_'s
needs;" and "\_\_\_\_\_ is too easily distracted to comprehend academics
in a regular classroom." When OSEP inquired of teachers and
administrators what actions could be taken to allow these children to
participate in regular education classes, they said that general
education teachers require training in order to accommodate children
with disabilities in their classrooms and that attitudes, as well as
staffing issues, prevented successful placements in regular classes.

Therefore, because of the unavailability of appropriate supplementary
aids and services, including adequate numbers of appropriately-trained
staff, children with disabilities are not educated in regular education
environments with nondisabled children to the maximum extent
appropriate.

## C. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children

OSEP made the following observations about improving the provision of a
free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

### 1. Certification Requirements that Support Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment

The Self-Assessment identified categorical certification of special
education teachers as a significant barrier to implementation of the
least restrictive environment provisions of IDEA. Continued efforts on
the part of the State's IDEA Advisory Panel and NDDPI to effect changes
in these requirements could have a significant positive impact on both
the availability of qualified personnel and the placement of children
with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

IDEA does not require categorical services to children with disabilities
or categorical certification of teachers. [See]{.underline} section
612(a)(3)(B). In fact, it is inconsistent with IDEA to base the services
provided to children with disabilities on their category of disability
rather than on their unique needs.

### 2. Timely Transfer of Records from Part C to Part B

##### Records for children with disabilities transitioning from Part C to Part B did not identify dates when records were transferred. Identification of transfer dates would assist NDDPI in determining whether such transfers are delayed and could assist in identifying problems associated with record transfers. Timely transfer of records is critical in ensuring that transition teams make appropriate decisions about service provision. OSEP recommends that NDDPI and NDDHS work together to facilitate the consistent recording of this information and the actual timely transfer of records. OSEP did not identify any significant changes in the types or amounts of services when children transitioned from Part C to Part B services.

# VIII. Part B: Secondary Transition

The National Longitudinal Transition Study states that the rate of
competitive employment for youth with disabilities out of school for
three to five years was 57 percent, compared to an employment rate of 69
percent for youth in the general population. The Study identifies
several factors that were associated with post-school success in
obtaining employment and earning higher wages for youth with
disabilities. These include completing high school, spending more time
in regular education, and taking vocational education in secondary
school. The Study also shows that post-school success is associated with
youth who had a transition plan in high school that specifies an
outcome, such as employment, as a goal. The secondary transition
requirements of IDEA focus on the active involvement of students in
transition planning, consideration of students' preferences and
interests by the IEP team, and the reflection, in the IEP, of a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process which
promotes movement from school to post-school activities. Through parent
and student involvement, along with the involvement of all agencies that
can provide transition services, student needs can be appropriately
identified and services provided that best meet those needs.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

### Monitoring: 

OSEP's 1994 monitoring report did not include any findings of
noncompliance related to transition and commended NDDPI on efforts
related to transition including: intensive training and technical
assistance activities; since 1986, the inclusion of transition planning
for students beginning at age 14; and regional training for staff funded
jointly by NDDPI and the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation.

### Self-Assessment: 

Section 10 of the North Dakota Part B Self-Assessment addresses
"Post-School Transitions." It discusses two documents in which
transition is addressed: *Special Education in North Dakota: Guidelines
for the Individualized Education Program Planning Process (1995)* and
*Bridging the Gap (1995)*. In addition, the Self-Assessment summarizes
local school district monitoring data from 1992-1997 relative to
transition. Data reviewed for the most recent monitoring cycle
(1997-1998) indicate that districts are not consistently meeting State
standards and that considerable training and technical assistance will
be necessary in order for local school districts to meet those
standards.

Several transition-related initiatives are described in the
Self-Assessment, including:

(1) Follow-up Information on North Dakota Education and Training
    (FINDET), an interagency collaborative effort to provide follow-up
    information on North Dakota education and training programs to
    improve instructional and program planning and to avoid duplication
    of resources among agencies;

(2) Student Information Automation Feasibility Study, a student
    information system to be used in support of FINDET;

(3) School-to-Work Opportunities System providing inclusion and outreach
    to students with disabilities in community settings; and

(4) the Interagency Transition Agreement update with particular emphasis
    on addressing concerns for students in the 18-21 age group.

### Public Input Process: 

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Do students with disabilities, ages 14 and older, receive instruction
and coordinated services that facilitate successful transition from
school to work or from school to post-secondary education?" Responses
indicated that there is great variation from special education unit to
special education unit. Some parents reported that they had not heard of
transition, even though their child was older than 14. Some parents
reported that transition was a strength in their school district and
that significant efforts were made to prepare their children for
post-secondary activities. Many parents recalled discussions about
post-school activities but were uncertain of the context or outcome of
those discussions. School personnel reported that linkages with adult
service providers were difficult and that the Departments of Vocational
Rehabilitation and Developmental Disabilities refused to participate
until students were over 18.

While noting several initiatives related to transition in the
Self-Assessment, the Steering Committee expressed concerns that
students, including those on American Indian reservations, are not
adequately prepared for post-secondary activities and independent
living. At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing
information obtained through the Self-Assessment and public input
process, the Steering Committee requested that OSEP investigate the
following concerns/issues: reports that

(1) agency linkages are not facilitated, particularly with Vocational
    Rehabilitation, Developmental Disabilities, Job Service, Vocational
    Education and Institutions of Higher Education, and the
    appropriateness of involvement of those agencies at various ages;

(2) students are kept in school beyond the age of 18 because adult
    service provision is unavailable until students reach age 21;

(3) appropriate transition goals, services and activities are not
    addressed in IEPs;

(4) Independent Living Centers are not involved or available to the
    extent necessary;

(5) students are not informed at age 17 of rights and responsibilities
    that will become theirs upon turning age 18; and

(6) opportunities for agency involvement, community experiences, and the
    development of independent living skills are insufficient on
    American Indian reservations.

It should be noted that because the requirement that students, at age
17, be informed of rights and responsibilities that will become theirs
upon turning age 18 did not take effect until July 1, 1998, OSEP did not
collect Statewide data related to this requirement. It is recommended
that the State examine policies and procedures outlining the transfer of
rights to ensure compliance with IDEA requirements. The State's
monitoring procedures must include a process to determine appropriate
implementation of the State's policies.

In reviewing the concerns identified by the Steering Committee, OSEP
determined that the appropriate mechanism to address concerns related to
Independent Living Centers was to investigate the linkages being made
between local school districts and other agencies. To investigate the
remaining five issues, OSEP collected information from the review of
children's records and State and local policies and procedures, and
interviews of State personnel, local program administrators, teachers,
and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths, areas of noncompliance, and suggestions for improved results
for children.

## A. Strengths

### 1. Funding for Transition Coordinators

The North Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation agreed to
continue funding positions for Transition Coordinators beyond the
expiration of North Dakota's Transition-related systems change grant.
These individuals are available to assist school districts in planning
and coordinating transition activities.

### 2. Interagency Coordination for Transition

NDDPI's Departments of Special Education and Vocational Education,
Vocational Rehabilitation, Developmental Disabilities, and
representatives of Institutions of Higher Education meet regularly as a
task force to identify and attempt to resolve issues of concern related
to transition and to refine the interagency agreement related to
transition.

###### 

### 3. Longitudinal Follow-up Study

NDDPI continues to collect longitudinal follow-up data on students who
have left school in order to evaluate the effectiveness of transition
planning.

##### 

## B. Areas of Noncompliance

### 1. Involvement of Student and Participating Agency Representatives in Transition Planning

34 CFR §300.344(c) of the regulations in effect at the time of the
monitoring visit required that, if a purpose of the meeting is the
consideration of transition services for a student, the public agency
shall invite the student and a representative of any other agency that
is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services. If the student does not attend, the public agency shall take
other steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests are
considered. If an agency invited to send a representative to a meeting
does not do so, the public agency shall take other steps to obtain the
participation of the other agency in the planning of any transition
services.

As discussed below, OSEP found that NDDPI did not ensure that IEP
notification and invitation meet IDEA requirements regarding transition.

Based on records reviewed and interviews with teachers and
administrators, in all seven of the school districts visited, students
and agency representatives who were likely to be responsible for
providing or paying for transition services, were not consistently
invited to attend meetings where transition services would be
considered. Representatives at the State level from the Department of
Vocational Rehabilitation and the Developmental Disabilities Division of
the Department of Human Services reported that there is no regulation or
policy preventing their agencies from being involved prior to age 21,
that students may be eligible for services prior to age 21, and that
implementation of existing policies vary greatly from region to region.
Special educators and special education unit directors in school
districts visited reported that they did not invite representatives of
agencies who were likely to be responsible for paying for or providing
transition services because the representatives would not attend. They
further stated that services are not made available to students until
students approach age 21. No IEPs reviewed reflected participation of
outside agency personnel nor did notice reflect they were invited. OSEP
found no other methods used to obtain agency participation in transition
planning.

### 2. Notification to Parents of Transition Planning Meeting Requirements

34 CFR §300.345 of the regulations in effect at the time of the
monitoring visit required that if a purpose of an IEP meeting is the
consideration of transition services for a student, the notice must
indicate this purpose, indicate that the agency will invite the student,
and identify any other agency that will be invited to send a
representative.

NDDPI does not ensure that parents are properly notified that transition
is a purpose of an IEP meeting, when applicable, and that the student
and representatives of other agencies will be invited to attend.

In all seven of the school districts visited, teachers and
administrators reported that parents were not routinely informed that,
even for students ages 16 or older, transition was to be a purpose of
the meeting or that the student or any other agency representatives
would be invited. The State has provided a model form that includes a
"menu" of purposes for a meeting. This form includes transition as one
purpose. In most districts, the form used was the State model; however,
the transition option was not consistently checked even when it was to
be a purpose. In the remaining districts, the invitation form was not
the State model and required that the purpose of the meeting be
indicated in a blank section with no prompts given. The parent IEP
meeting notices reviewed for students aged 16 and older did not indicate
that a purpose of the meeting was to consider transition services.
Parents reported that they did not feel prepared to discuss transition
as part of the IEP review meeting, a concern that could be addressed, in
part, by properly informing them that transition services would be
discussed at the meeting.

### 3. Statement of Needed Transition Services Beginning at Age 16 (or younger, if appropriate)

34 CFR §300.346 of the regulations in effect at the time of the
monitoring visit required that the IEP for each child must include a
statement of the needed transition services including, if appropriate, a
statement of each public agency's and each participating agency's
responsibilities for linkages, or both, before the student leaves the
school setting. The statement of needed transition services in IEPs must
be a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process
that promotes movement from school to post-school activities.

In all seven of the school districts visited, needed services for
transition were not clearly delineated in IEPs and, therefore, were not
provided. Agency linkages were absent for reasons cited above in
paragraph B.1 of this section. Special educators reported efforts to
identify and provide appropriate transition services that were not
identified in the IEPs. When asked why this information was not
documented in the IEP, these teachers reported that they were concerned
about including services they might not be able to provide (through lack
of availability, coordination or agency involvement). Special educators
reported a lack of understanding about the kinds of goals that are
appropriate for transition as well as how to consider a student's
preferences and interests. This lack of understanding is reflected in
the examples of transition goals listed below.

Examples of transition services in the IEPs reviewed include:

-   "\_\_\_ will graduate from high school with the skills necessary to
    obtain gainful employment and/or to go on for more education." While
    the IEPs included designated sections for objectives related to
    transition requirements, completed IEPs reflected "NA" (not
    applicable) in all designated areas, with the exception of the
    "Work/Vocational Placement/Education" goal which was to refer the
    student for vocational evaluation. None of the goals/objectives or
    services reflected on the IEP were reasonably calculated to achieve
    the identified goal. Therefore, the IEP did not reflect a
    coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process and
    required transition planning was not reflected.

-   "\_\_\_\_ will graduate from high school with the skills necessary
    to obtain gainful employment and/or to go on for more education.
    \_\_\_\_ plans on joining the armed services (ARMY)." The initial
    goal statement was the same for all IEPs reviewed in this particular
    district. Objectives in all areas identified on the IEP were "to be
    discussed and needs determined within the ED room" or "NA."
    Therefore, objectives were not determined by the IEP team. There
    were no goals/objectives or services directed toward fulfillment of
    any of the three possible goals. Therefore, the IEP did not reflect
    a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process
    and required transition planning was not reflected.

-   "\_\_\_\_ will develop life skills and development of prevocational
    skills." Objectives consisted of exploring career interests (the
    student is in 10^th^ grade) and continuing "academic programming to
    enable him to prepare for vocational life." "Vocational life" is not
    defined. No additional goals/objectives or services were included in
    the IEP nor were any potential linkages or responsibilities of
    agencies identified. Therefore, the IEP did not include a statement
    of needed transition services that was a coordinated set of
    activities within an outcome-oriented process.

## C. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children

OSEP made the following suggestions about improving the provision of
transition services.

### 1. Determination of Appropriate Agency Linkages

> 34 CFR §300.346(b)(1) of the regulations in effect at the time of the
> monitoring visit requires that beginning at age 16, *or younger if
> appropriate*, the IEP of each child with a disability must include a
> statement of needed transition services including, if appropriate, a
> statement of each public agency's and each participating agency's
> responsibilities or linkages, or both, before the student leaves the
> school setting. Since 1986, NDDPI has required that the IEP for each
> child with a disability, beginning at age 14, include a statement of
> needed transition services that describes such responsibilities and
> linkages. NDDPI continues to encourage provision of transition
> services as early as possible, but is concerned that school districts
> are having difficulty making individual determinations about what
> responsibilities and linkages are appropriate prior to age 16. It is
> important that NDDPI continue efforts to assist school districts in
> the identification of appropriate linkages to maximize the use of
> resources.

### 2. Interagency Memorandum of Understanding for Transition

> The work being done by the task force of State agencies to review and
> revise the memorandum of understanding does not, at this time, appear
> to include mechanisms for ensuring consistency across regions of the
> State in implementing the agreement. This may have significant impact
> on differences in the effectiveness of the involvement of various
> agencies from region to region.

### 3. Independent Living Center Involvement and Availability

> While the issue of Independent Living Center involvement and
> availability to provide sufficient services to students leaving the
> school environment is beyond the purview of IDEA, the Steering
> Committee may find it appropriate to investigate whether changes are
> needed to facilitate service provision to students exiting the school
> system. In addition, the Steering Committee, having identified this as
> a Statewide concern, should explore barriers and solutions.

### 4. Community Experiences on American Indian Reservations

> OSEP found limited opportunities for community experiences on American
> Indian reservations. NDDPI should identify alternative mechanisms to
> ensure that children on American Indian reservations have these
> opportunities. Individual efforts are being made by teachers to
> provide career exploration, to obtain the cooperation of outside
> agencies and to provide instruction and opportunities to develop
> independent living skills. It will require a significant effort at
> both the State and regional levels, by all relevant agencies, to
> ensure that these efforts result in appropriate transition services
> for students on American Indian reservations.

# IX. Part B: General Supervision

IDEA assigns responsibility to State education agencies for ensuring
that its requirements are met and that all educational programs for
children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by
any other State or local agency, are under the general supervision of
individuals in the State who are responsible for educational programs
for children with disabilities and that these programs meet the
educational standards of the State educational agency. State support and
involvement at the local level are critical to the successful
implementation of the provisions of IDEA. To carry out their
responsibilities, States provide dispute resolution mechanisms
(mediation, complaint resolution and due process), monitor the
implementation of State and Federal statutes and regulations, establish
standards for personnel development and certification as well as
educational programs, and provide technical assistance and training
across the State. Effective general supervision promotes positive
student outcomes by promoting appropriate educational services to
children with disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely
correction of identified deficiencies, and providing personnel who work
with children with disabilities the knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

#### 

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

### Monitoring: 

OSEP's 1994 monitoring report stated that NDDPI did not meet its
responsibility to determine compliance with IDEA requirements by special
education units, public school districts and private schools providing
services to children with disabilities, including extended school year
services, surrogate parent provisions and the opportunity for children
placed by public agencies in private schools to participate with
nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. In addition,
OSEP found that NDDPI did not adopt and utilize proper methods for the
correction of deficiencies identified through monitoring nor ensure that
complaints were investigated and resolved within 60 days.

### Self-Assessment: 

Section 9 of the North Dakota Part B Self-Assessment addressed "General
Supervision." The Self-Assessment concluded that there appear to be
systemic issues that will require further analysis, including:

(1) understanding the concept of least restrictive environment;

(2) acceptable justification for placement determinations;

(3) use of meaningful measures of student progress;

(4) provision of information to parents regarding their child's
    disability and the procedural safeguards that are guaranteed under
    IDEA; and

(5) use of local internal monitoring.

In addition, NDDPI is working on issues related to monitoring, complaint
resolution, mediation and interagency cooperation. NDDPI has hired a
part-time staff person to investigate and resolve complaints. This has
resulted in significant improvement in the completion of complaint
resolutions within required time lines. NDDPI has also begun the
implementation of a State-funded mediation process. The Self-Assessment
indicated that interagency agreements are not in place for Medicaid or
early childhood special education and need to be revised for secondary
transition.

### Public Input Process: 

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings for
Part B was: "Does the state exercise effective general supervision of
the implementation of IDEA through the development and utilization of
tools, mechanisms and activities that result in all eligible students
having an opportunity to receive a free appropriate public education in
the least restrictive environment?" Responses indicated lack of
knowledge about State-level responsibilities for general supervision.
Parents responded that they believed the State should take a more active
leadership role in the implementation of special education by local
school districts. Some parents stated that funds currently being
expended on the special education administrative units could be better
spent in direct services to students. School system personnel viewed
monitoring as thorough and extensive but ineffective in improving
educational results for children with disabilities. Personnel in one
special education unit expressed concern regarding complaint resolution.

The Part B Steering Committee reported general improvement in the
resolution of complaints and an improvement, identified through
monitoring, in the documentation of special education process
requirements. The Committee requested that OSEP investigate the
following concerns/issues:

(1) whether NDDPI has authority under State law to take enforcement
    actions as a result of monitoring, due process hearings and
    complaint resolution;

(2) reports that the complaint resolution process is ineffective
    including ensuring that corrective actions are implemented; and

(3) reports that the monitoring system is ineffective and does not
    improve educational results for children with disabilities.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following area of
noncompliance.

##### 

## Area of Noncompliance

### Monitoring to Ensure Consistent Implementation of Part B Requirements

34 CFR §300.600 requires that the State ensure the requirements of IDEA
are carried out and that each educational program for children with
disabilities is under the general supervision of the State educational
agency and meets the education standards of the State education agency.

As discussed below, OSEP found that while NDDPI utilizes effective
methods to determine whether school districts meet Part B requirements,
it does not ensure that identified deficiencies are corrected in an
effective and timely manner.

Teachers and administrators in six of seven districts report that State
monitoring of Part B is ineffective in improving educational results for
children with disabilities. Teachers and administrators in four
districts reported that monitoring resulted in changes in paperwork and
file contents but did not address systemic issues that affect
educational programs for children with disabilities, such as personnel
shortages, certification issues, or funding.

OSEP analyzed monitoring reports prepared by NDDPI for seven special
education units visited during Validation Data Collection. OSEP found
that:

-   NDDPI's monitoring instrument addresses all Part B requirements;

-   NDDPI made many findings of noncompliance and had, in most cases,
    made findings closely related to the areas in which OSEP made
    findings in their 1998 review;

-   when NDDPI required the implementation of corrective actions
    regarding findings, those corrective actions result only in a change
    in documentation without a real change in how decisions are made or
    implemented for children with disabilities. For example, one
    district reported that NDDPI had required that the school district
    change their forms but that no changes were required in
    outcome-related areas such as placement in the least restrictive
    environment or provision of secondary transition services;
    therefore, noncompliance with LRE requirements continues. NDDPI does
    not always ensure the implementation of corrective actions regarding
    findings. For example, in three districts monitored by NDDPI between
    October and December 1996, corrective action plans had not been
    completed and one had not yet been submitted. In five of the seven
    districts visited, violations identified by NDDPI were also
    identified by OSEP. Corrective action plans from these districts
    indicated that these violations could have been corrected had the
    plans been implemented; and

-   Although the school districts OSEP visited had deficiencies
    previously identified by NDDPI, noncompliance persisted. Therefore,
    OSEP concludes that to the extent corrective actions were
    implemented, corrective actions were ineffective.

[^1]: Much of the information in this section was provided by NDDHS and
    NDDPI through their self-assessments and other documentation.