November 22, 2006

Honorable Roderick Bremby

Secretary

Department of Health and Environment

Charles Curtis State Office Building

1000 SW Jackson Street, Suite 540

Topeka, Kansas 66612-1368

Dear Secretary Bremby:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) recent verification visit to
Kansas. As indicated in my April 26, 2006 letter to you, OSEP is
conducting verification visits to a number of States as part of our
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) for
ensuring compliance and improving performance under Parts B and C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We conducted a visit
to Kansas during the week of September 11, 2006.

The purpose of our verification reviews of States is to determine how
they use their general supervision and State-reported data collection
systems to assess and improve State performance and to protect child and
family rights. The purposes of the verification visits are to: (1)
understand how the systems work at the State level; (2) determine how
the State collects and uses data to make monitoring decisions; and (3)
determine the extent to which the State's systems are designed to
identify and correct noncompliance.

As part of the verification visit to the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE), the State's Part C Lead Agency, OSEP staff met with
Carolyn Nelson, Director, Children's Developmental Services (and the
State's Acting Part C Coordinator), representatives from the Kansas
State Department of Education (KSDE), and members of the KDHE early
intervention staff who were responsible for the State's general
supervision activities (including monitoring, mediation, complaint
resolution, and impartial due process hearings), and the collection and
analysis of State-reported data. Prior to the visit, OSEP staff reviewed
a number of documents, including the State's Part C Application, FFY
2003 and FFY 2004 Annual Performance Reports, Kansas' 2005 State
Performance Plan, submissions of data under Section 618 of the IDEA, and
<http://www.kdheks.gov/its/index.html>, the KDHE Part C website.[^1]

OSEP also conducted a conference call on August 4, 2006, with members of
the Kansas State Interagency Coordinating Council, to solicit their
perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the State's systems for
general supervision and data collection and reporting.

The information that Ms. Nelson and the Part C staff provided during the
OSEP visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff
reviewed in preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our
understanding of the Kansas Early Intervention System and KDHE's system
for general supervision and data collection and reporting.

***General Supervision***

In looking at the State's general supervision system, OSEP collected
information regarding a number of elements, including whether the State:
(1) has identified any barriers (e.g., limitations on authority,
insufficient staff or other resources, etc.) that impede the State's
ability to identify and correct noncompliance; (2) has systemic,
data-based, and reasonable approaches to identifying and correcting
noncompliance; (3) utilizes guidance, technical assistance, follow-up,
and -- if necessary -- sanctions, to ensure timely correction of
noncompliance; (4) has dispute resolution systems that ensure the timely
resolution of complaints and due process hearings; and (5) has
mechanisms in place to compile and integrate data across systems (e.g.,
618 State-reported data, due process hearings, complaints, mediation,
previous monitoring results, etc.) to identify systemic issues and
problems.

Based on documents reviewed, prior to and during the visit, and
discussions with the State, OSEP believes that KDHE's systems for
general supervision constitute a reasonable approach to the
identification and correction of noncompliance; however, OSEP cannot,
without also collecting data at the local level, determine whether they
are fully effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance.

# Overview

KDHE staff reported that *"tiny-k,"* the State's Part C program, was
housed under KDHE's Division of Health, Bureau for Children, Youth, and
Families, Children's Developmental Section. KDHE staff explained that
the State Interagency Coordinating Council (SICC) was a jointly funded
effort of KDHE, the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE), and the
Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (KDSRS) and that
the program was able to draw on the resources and strengths from each of
these agencies. They further reported that 36 local provider agencies
(also referred to as networks by KDHE staff) administered *tiny-k*,
serving all 105 counties in the State and that each network was
programmatically and fiscally responsible for its individual programs.
To that end, KDHE explained the broad range of funding sources for each
of the networks, including, but not limited to, IDEA Part C funds,
Medicaid reimbursement, local monies, and philanthropic contributions.
Network lead agencies included education organizations, community
developmental disability organizations, private non-profit
organizations, hospitals, and Indian reservations. Each of the State's
local interagency coordinating councils (LICC) selected the local
network agency and defined the network's specific service area. After
selection by the LICC, the State approved the network. The network
provided services with qualified staff to eligible children within the
service area. While the State described the system as a locally
controlled structure, KDHE also reported that the State was responsible
for ensuring that each network fulfilled its statutory and regulatory
responsibilities under Part C.

KDHE reported that the Network Continuous Improvement Plan (NCIP) was an
important general supervision tool. The State described the NCIP as an
annual self-assessment report and an improvement plan submitted to the
State by each network. This document included network-specific
information addressing points of focus, indicators of success, program
objectives, implementation strategies, and proposed corrective action if
noncompliance was identified. The State explained that the NCIP included
the following five programmatic categories: local program supervision;
child find and public awareness; family-centered services; natural
environments; and early childhood transition. KDHE reported that each
network was provided with the data needed to develop the NCIP such as
State-level data analysis reports compiled from raw data provided by the
network.

The data submitted to KDHE also played an integral role in local network
program improvement and decision-making, and in the development of the
NCIP. KDHE reported that all data submitted by local networks were
analyzed, validated, and assembled in a useful format by KDHE staff and
was subsequently returned to each network for use in the development of
the NCIP and for decision-making and program planning. The NCIP was
modeled after OSEP's Annual Performance Report (APR) and each network
was required to submit an NCIP with its annual renewal application.

KDHE reported that it responded to NCIPs in one of two ways. First, if
the network agreed with the State's findings and the State's mandatory
process for timely correction of noncompliance, KDHE assisted the
network using LICC meetings and presentations, parent interviews, site
visits, file reviews, and technical assistance through Kansas In-service
Training System (KITS). The second type of response occurred when a
local network did not correct noncompliance identified through the NCIP
process or by State monitors in a timely manner. When this happened,
KDHE enacted the Assurance of Accountability (the process by which KDHE
imposes sanctions on networks that have continued noncompliance) to
assure the immediate provision of appropriate services to eligible
children. Further, KDHE reported that it had the authority to restrict
network funding until the noncompliance was corrected.

# State Monitoring

KDHE staff described Kansas as a State with vast rural areas and several
population centers (Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City). The KDHE Part C
monitoring and enforcement staff was comprised of two full-time
employees who reported directly to the Part C coordinator. (The
Coordinator's position was vacant at the time of the verification
visit.) The Director of Children's Developmental Services and an
accounting specialist responsible for collecting 618 data also provided
support for monitoring functions. Additionally, a full-time contractual
employee managed the Part C database and provided support as needed (see
data section below).

KDHE explained that its general supervision system evolved in recent
years to a model similar to OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused
Monitoring System. KDHE reported that the new system expanded the
State's data gathering capacity to compile and integrate data across
systems. KDHE provided OSEP with each of the network's self-assessments
and improvement plans to document how the State received data from the
networks, how the State analyzed the data and how the State and local
programs used the data to improve program performance. The data were
collected from various sources on a continuous, quarterly, semi-annual
and annual basis to evaluate each of the 36 networks. Trend data for
four and one-half years were included in each plan. KDHE reported that
collecting data from multiple sources allowed for improved data
validation and allowed the two full-time monitors to effectively
identify and ensure the correction of noncompliance within one year of
identification. For example, KDHE collected IFSP data and natural
environment data through the State's section 618 data collection system.
They reported that they were able to verify the accuracy of that data by
triangulating it with a variety of other data sources such as random and
census parent surveys, provider surveys, and staff interviews. KDHE
staff also indicated that the State analyzed the compiled data to
identify local trends and gauge performance by comparison to State
averages and OSEP requirements. The monitors were then able to use the
results of the data analyses to guide their onsite focused monitoring
effort and to provide targeted technical assistance.

The State required networks to provide corrective action plans for all
noncompliance identified in the NCIP or by the State monitors. The State
reported that networks corrected identified areas of noncompliance
within one year of identification. OSEP reviewed local program file
records, NCIPs, correspondence between local providers and the State
identifying noncompliance, subsequent corrective action plans, and
correspondence that documented the corrective action was implemented to
correct the noncompliance within one year of identification.

Additionally, KDHE indicated that initial and renewal applications and
contracts play a key role in the State's general supervision system and
were effective enforcement tools. Within each of these documents,
networks were required to provide a statement of assurance that
addressed State and Federal Part C requirements. KDHE reported that they
reserved the right to cancel a contract or reconsider renewal
applications if a network did not meet its contractual obligations.

*Dispute Resolution System*

The State informed OSEP of its three mechanisms for dispute resolution:
State complaints, mediation, and due process hearings. KDHE indicated
that it developed model forms for the three mechanisms and developed a
process for their use. Additionally, the State reported that KDHE had
six certified mediators. KDHE contracted with the Kansas State
Department of Administration to provide a hearing officer when needed.
KDHE staff investigated all formal complaints. KDHE reported that the
State received only one formal State complaint and one request for a due
process hearing within the past five years. (The due process hearing,
upon the request of both parties, was settled through mediation.) In
addition to the formal dispute resolution system, the State monitors and
the Director of the Children's Developmental Services maintained
telephone logs to identify concerns of parents when they called the
State for assistance or for information about the *tiny-k* program.

*Data Collection Under Section 618 of the IDEA*

In looking at the State's system for data collection and reporting, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) provides clear guidance and ongoing training to local
programs/public agencies regarding requirements and procedures for
reporting data under section 618 of the IDEA; (2) implements procedures
to determine whether the individuals who enter and report data at the
local and/or regional level do so accurately and in a manner that is
consistent with the State's procedures, OSEP guidance, and section 618;
(3) implements procedures for identifying anomalies in data that are
reported, and correcting any inaccuracies; and (4) has identified any
barriers, (e.g., limitations on authority, sufficient staff or other
resources, etc.) that impede the State's ability to accurately, reliably
and validly collect and report data under section 618.

KDHE discussed the State's enhanced system for reporting both 618 data
and data to meet the requirements for completing the State's Annual
Performance Report (APR). KDHE explained that, prior to developing the
SPP, the State relied primarily on the results of family survey data for
various APR indicators. In response to OSEP's previous concern regarding
the State's reliance on family survey data when completing the SPP, the
State explained that the new system (described below) collected data for
each of the SPP/APR Indicators and believed the State's APR, due
February 1, 2007, will contain valid and reliable data.

KDHE reported that Infant Toddler Software (ITS), the *tiny-k* data
system, was created to meet the specific data collection and reporting
requirements of *tiny-k*. Prior to building the database, KDHE staff
identified the core data requirements, including child find, referrals,
evaluations, eligibility, services, IFSP development, timelines, parent
complaints, and December 1 child count. KDHE reported that the State
contracted with an outside provider to build, maintain, and manage a
data collection system that incorporated each of these requirements in a
web-based, secure system. Additionally, ITS was customized for each
network to meet local data collection needs beyond that which was
required for 618 reporting.

KDHE demonstrated the capacity of ITS by providing OSEP with a system
tutorial. The tutorial included data field identification, data entry,
edit check procedures, and report generation. The KDHE data manager
described the following four ITS components: precise data entry; data
collection; data analysis and reporting; and data utilization. All 618
data were input at the network level only by employees trained in ITS
and authorized by the local Part C Coordinator to enter data. The system
had many built-in verification procedures to ensure accurate and
complete data entry. For example, the system would not permit incomplete
data fields to be entered. Further, the local administrator verified all
data and marked it "ready" before the system made the data available to
KDHE. All local data reports were developed and filed through the data
system, eliminating the possibility for transcription errors. The State
described its procedures to recognize anomalies and look for trends and
fluctuations at the State level and among the network programs.
Additionally, the State utilized the data system to identify concerns,
determine topics for State training programs, and to tailor technical
assistance initiatives for each of the network programs. Each local
program used the State's data reports for self-assessing and for
developing the NCIP. The State conducted quarterly technical assistance
meetings with local program directors and provided customized technical
support upon request of the network.

The State reported that it conducted personalized training for new local
data entry personnel prior to data input into the system. Formal
statewide ongoing training occurred at least quarterly and the database
manager provided targeted technical assistance, as needed. Further, KDHE

reported that the most current version of the ITS training manual was
available online and could be accessed as needed.

KDHE described the ITS data validation system. The State validated data
through three methods: pragmatic, predictive, and construct. It was
reported that through these three methods, KDHE identified statewide
levels of deviation in areas such as screenings and evaluations, checked
results obtained from the database against the results of other
indicators that were known to be valid measures of the data set, and
predicted 618 data results in advance of their actual submission. The
actual data were reviewed by the State in comparison to State and trend
data to note anomalies.

KDHE reported that, in the past, some networks were not timely in the
submission of their data. To address this concern, the State added new
provisions to contracts with *tiny-k* programs requiring timely
submission of data as a prerequisite to the program's quarterly funding.
The State reported that this process has been successful in ensuring the
State's timely submission of data to WESTAT.

KDHE highlighted several strengths of the 618 data system. The State
described a system that was originally constructed for the sole purpose
of collecting data from *tiny*-k programs, but has continued to evolve
to meet more complex data collection and reporting needs. For example,
ITS had the capacity to export relevant ITS data directly into the
corresponding data fields of the Kansas Individual Data on Students
(KIDS) Assignment System, the State's Part B data collection system.
This feature allowed the State to accurately track a child's transition
between *tiny-k* and IDEA Part B programs and to assist in determining
educational outcomes for young children. Additionally, it facilitated
sharing the data needed for both KDHE and KSDE to complete relevant
SPP/APR indicators. KDHE and KSDE reported that the State's General
Supervision Enhancement Grants provided funds for development of the
KIDS system. The data system was also linked to all *tiny-k* stakeholder
agencies. KDHE and KSDE provided documentation that the system was
easily accessible and, therefore, frequently used for continuous program
improvement and to support stakeholder program decision-making. Families
Together, Inc., the State's parent information and training center, also
assisted the State in serving families with children transitioning from
Part C to Part B programs.

Based on the information provided to OSEP during the verification visit,
OSEP believes that KDHE's system for collecting and reporting data from
the early intervention programs is a reasonable approach to ensuring the
accuracy of the data that KDHE is required to report to OSEP under IDEA
Section 618.

***Conclusion***

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit. If you have any questions about this letter, please
contact Ms. Marie Mayor, OSEP's State Contact for the Kansas Part C
program at 202-245-7433. We look forward to collaborating with Kansas as
you continue to work to improve results for children with disabilities
and their families.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard

> Patricia J. Guard

Deputy Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Carolyn Nelson

Acting Part C Coordinator

[^1]: Documents reviewed as part of the verification process (before,
    during, and after the visit) were not reviewed for legal
    sufficiency, but rather to inform OSEP's understanding of the
    State's systems.