December 20, 1999

Honorable Ray Christensen

Secretary of Education

South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs

700 Governors Drive

Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Christensen:

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in South Dakota during the weeks of April 12
and May 17, 1999 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 South
Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs (DECA), and parents
and advocates in South Dakota.

In conducting its review of South Dakota, OSEP applied the standards set
forth in the IDEA 97 statute and in the Part C regulations (34 CFR Part
303) as they were in effect at the time of the OSEP review. The Part C
regulations in effect in May 1999 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 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. The Part B regulations
published on March 12, 1999 which included conforming changes to the
Part C regulations took effect on May 11, 1999. In planning and
implementing improvement strategies to address the findings in this
report, DECA should ensure that all improvement strategies are
consistent with the new final regulations.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration among the Steering Committee of broad-based
constituencies, including representatives from DECA and participation
from OSEP. The Steering Committee assessed the effectiveness of State
systems in ensuring improved results for children with disabilities and
protection of individual rights. In addition, the Steering Committee
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, including representation on the
Steering Committee.

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 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. The Part B (services for children
aged 3 through 21) requirements were clustered into four major areas:
Parent Involvement, Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least
Restrictive Environment, Secondary 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 noncompliance with the
requirements of IDEA, and suggestions for improved results for infants,
toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. Enclosed you will find
an Executive Summary of the Report, an Introduction including background
information, and a description of issues and findings.

DECA has indicated that this Report will be shared with members of the
Steering Committee, the State Interagency Coordinating Council and the
State Advisory Panel. OSEP will work with your Steering Committee 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, Deborah Barnett
and Barbara Hemmelman 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 Committee to better
understand the State's systems for implementing the IDEA.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
South 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: Deborah Barnett

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**SOUTH DAKOTA MONITORING 1999**

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 South Dakota during the weeks of April 12 and May 17,
1999. 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, a series of public
input meetings with guided discussions around core areas of IDEA, and
the organization of Steering Committee that provided further comments on
the status of implementation of IDEA. As part of the public input
process, OSEP and the State made particular 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 South Dakota Department of Education
and Cultural Affairs (DECA), parents, advocates, and members of the
Steering Committee.

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:]{.underline}**

###### Part C of IDEA

**Strengths**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

A State-wide data collection system to assist the State in the
supervision and monitoring of the early intervention system;

Local interagency Child Find activities designed to cast a wide net to
screen all children in an area. Network activities include participation
from most local agencies involved with services for children; and

Local Networks formed to assure coordinated services for eligible
children, and a natural location for the Early Intervention Program.
Local networks are interagency and include all service providers in a
geographic area.

#### Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   There are insufficient Public Awareness activities in rural and
    reservation areas;

-   Clinical opinion is not used to determine eligibility;

-   Services are interrupted and reduced during the summer months;

-   All early intervention services needed by a family are not included
    on the IFSP;

-   Service coordination does not include all required activities;

-   Family supports and services are not identified and included on the
    IFSP; and

-   Transportation is not included as a service to families who may need
    it.

**[Education of Children and Youth With Disabilities:]{.underline}**

**[Part B of IDEA]{.underline}**

#### Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Parents are invited to be members of all workgroups organized by the
    State's Office of Special Education;

-   During the 1997-1998 school year, 98% of parents attended IEP
    meetings along with 95% of students, when appropriate;

-   Implementation of a State-level Student Information Management
    System to assist DECA in the identification of results for children
    with disabilities;

-   New endorsement requirements for teacher certification which focus
    on the needs of children with disabilities;

-   The use of disability coordinators in Vocational Technical
    Institutes and universities to assist high school students preparing
    to go to college; and

-   An exemplary program for Secondary Transition in the Meade County
    School District prepares students for a variety of post-secondary
    options, including jobs, job training and college.

#### 

#### Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of non-compliance:

-   DECA does not ensure an adequate supply of qualified personnel to
    provide a free appropriate public education to all students with
    disabilities;

-   DECA does not ensure that a free appropriate public education is
    made available to all children with disabilities who need extended
    school year services;

-   Secondary Transition plans for students with disabilities do not
    represent a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented
    process that promotes movement from school to post-secondary
    activities; and

-   IEP meeting notification to parents does not contain all secondary
    transition planning meeting requirements.

**SOUTH DAKOTA MONITORING REPORT**

TABLE OF CONTENTS

**INTRODUCTION [1](#introduction)**

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND CHILDREN SERVED
[2](#administrative-structures-and-children-served)

I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION [3](#i.-part-c-general-supervision)

A. STRENGTH [4](#a.-strength)

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS,\
AND THEIR FAMILIES [4](#their-families)

II\. PART C: CHILD FIND/PUBLIC AWARENESS
[7](#ii.-part-c-child-findpublic-awareness)

A. STRENGTH [8](#a.-strength-1)

C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS,\
AND THEIR FAMILIES [10](#their-families-1)

III\. PART C: EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS
[12](#iii.-part-c-early-intervention-services-in-natural-environments)

A. STRENGTH [13](#a.-strength-2)

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [14](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance)

C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS,\
AND THEIR FAMILIES [20](#their-families-2)

IV\. PART C: FAMILY-CENTERED SYSTEM OF SERVICES
[22](#iv.-part-c-family-centered-system-of-services)

V. EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION [24](#v.-early-childhood-transition)

VI\. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT [25](#vi.-part-b-parent-involvement)

A. STRENGTHS [26](#a.-strengths)

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND\
YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
[26](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

VII\. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
ENVIRONMENT
[27](#vii.-part-b-free-appropriate-public-education-in-the-least-restrictive-environment)

A. STRENGTHS [28](#a.-strengths-1)

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [29](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-1)

C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND\
YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
[31](#c.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

VIII\. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION
[32](#viii.-part-b-secondary-transition)

A. STRENGTH [33](#a.-strength-3)

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [33](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-2)

C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND\
YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
[35](#c.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities-1)

IX\. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION [37](#ix.-part-b-general-supervision)

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND\
YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES
[38](#suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

#  INTRODUCTION[^1]

South Dakota is located in the heartland of the United States. The
Missouri River, harnessed by four gigantic dams within the State\'s
borders, divides South Dakota into two distinct regions, popularly
referred to as East River and West River. The State is a rectangular
area about 370 miles by 210 miles. Its 77,047 square miles make it the
16^th^ largest among the 50 States in size. South Dakota\'s population
is estimated at 738,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998).

South Dakota\'s educational system, which consistently has one of the
highest high school graduation rates in the country, is characterized by
a strong element of local control. There are 176 public school districts
and 80 non-public school systems in the State. There were 133,723 public
school students enrolled in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 in the
1997-98 school year.

Data from the Department of Education and Cultural Affairs (DECA)
1997-98 [Education in South Dakota]{.underline}: [A Statistical
Profile]{.underline} indicate that the State\'s drop-out rate was 2.05
percent for all students. The drop-out rate for students with
disabilities, grades 9-12, was 3.7 percent. Eighty percent of students
with disabilities in South Dakota graduate with diplomas. The 1998
graduate survey indicates that 44 percent of graduates are enrolled in
South Dakota four-year universities, 19.4 percent are enrolled in
out-of-state four-year colleges or universities, and 14.7 percent of
graduates are enrolled in other South Dakota post-secondary
institutions.

By State statute, DECA developed State-level content standards in the
following disciplines: language arts, mathematics, science and social
studies. The standards have been adopted by the South Dakota Board of
Education. Local school districts must \"adopt and implement clearly
defined and measurable course guidelines so as to meet the State
academic content standards\". All course guidelines must be in place by
July 2000. DECA has provided extensive training to education staff
relative to the standards.

South Dakota's Statewide accountability system is comprised of two
testing programs: (1) Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition
and (2) the Stanford Writing Assessment. Students with disabilities who
are eligible under IDEA participate in both assessments and are provided
with accommodations and modifications as determined by their IEP teams.
The testing accommodations provided are based upon the needs of the
student as documented in the IEP and the demands of the testing event.
IEP teams determine whether students with disabilities will participate
in the assessments and how they will be assessed.

The Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition, is mandated for all
students in grades two, four, eight and 11. The Stanford Writing
Assessment is mandated for all students in grades five and nine. Both
assessments are norm-referenced tests. Students with disabilities are
identified in the demographics portion of the student information
section of the test. The information is used to determine the
participation rates for students with disabilities in each Statewide
test. In second grade, 91 percent of students with disabilities
participate, 91 percent in grade four, 84 percent in grade eight and 79
percent in grade 11 for an overall percentage of 88 percent. The purpose
of the testing program is to provide the State and its school districts
with a regular check on the progress of South Dakota's students when
compared to a national sample.

## Administrative Structures and Children Served

DECA was appointed as the lead agency for the State\'s implementation of
Part C of IDEA, known as "Birth to 3 Connections" in South Dakota. DECA
administers the program through arrangements with 22 local interagency
networks. These local networks are responsible for conducting public
awareness/child find activities, initial service coordination activities
from receipt of referral to development of the initial Individual Family
Service Plan (IFSP), and on-going service coordination activities as
appropriate. They also assist DECA with data collection requirements. In
addition, DECA directly pays authorized providers for the provision of
direct services to eligible infants and toddlers and their families.

DECA has five full-time equivalent staff at the State level to assist in
the implementation of the Birth to 3 Connections program: the
coordinator and four regional staff. On December 1, 1998, 595 children
aged birth to three years had active IFSPs. This is an increase of 23%
over the previous year.

By State statute, the 176 local school districts are responsible for
providing special education and related services to children and youth
with disabilities, ages three through 21. Many districts access certain
services (i.e., school psychology services or speech therapy) through
one of thirteen educational cooperatives.

South Dakota\'s total count for children with disabilities served was
15,244, from ages three through 21, based on the December 1, 1998 child
count. Federal Part B funds comprise approximately 8% of the total
special education expenditures in the State, with State funds comprising
approximately 43% and the remainder, approximately 44%, in local funds.
DECA employs a director of special education and five full-time
equivalent professional staff for the purpose of Part B IDEA
administration, as well as 1.5 full-time equivalent clerical staff.

# I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION

The State lead agency 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 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 State's self-assessment committee found that general supervision for
Part C services in South Dakota was satisfactory. The committee
identified strengths as: (1) the in-depth agreement between the
Departments of Human Services, Social Services, Health, and Education;
(2) the provision of services at no cost to families; (3) utilization of
other funding sources at the State and local level; (4) and
collaboration by State agencies on the toll free number that is used as
an information and referral system, as well as the central directory.
The only formal complaint received by the State to date was resolved
through mediation. Although parents, providers, and local programs
indicated the State was performing well in this area, the State
Interagency Coordinating Council identified several areas for
improvement strategies. These included: (1) clarifying the role of State
agency personnel at local interagency Network meetings; (2) increasing
parent involvement in Network activities and policy decisions; and (3)
clarifying to local interagency Networks which early intervention
services are to be provided by State programs such as the Children's
Special Health Services.

Information gathered during the Validation Planning visit demonstrated
the State's ability to implement an effective training program when a
problem is identified. Prior to training on natural environments, many
services had been provided in segregated settings, settings that only
children with disabilities attended. Throughout the State, OSEP heard
that providers, service coordinators, and administrators, as well as
parents now understood that these segregated settings do not meet the
requirement for a natural environment. OSEP noted that additional
training may be needed to ensure that all staff implement regulations
related to the inclusion of a justification on the IFSP for services not
provided in a natural environment, and that the home and child care
settings are only two of the multitude of community settings that are
natural and normal for children ages birth to three.

State monitoring of local programs occurs on a regular cycle, according
to administrators and other local program staff who attended the public
input sessions. A review of documents sent to OSEP by the State revealed
a systematic monitoring process with activities for correction of
identified deficiencies. However, local administrators, providers and
service coordinators stated that they had not attended or been offered
training opportunities related to IFSP development, family directed
assessment, and other activities related to the early intervention
system. In a review of local monitoring reports, it was noted that some
problems persisted in process activities, such as meeting timelines and
completing the IFSP document satisfactorily.

Based on information obtained through the self-assessment, the public
input process, and review of monitoring reports, local applications, and
local and State procedures, OSEP identified the following concerns: (1)
monitoring of activities related to family needs, supports and services;
(2) training activities to ensure appropriately trained staff; (3)
coordination among the State and the Indian tribes related to effective
implementation of the early intervention system; (4) interagency
collaboration; and (5) training for family centered services, supports
and services for families.

To investigate the issues identified through the validation planning
process, OSEP collected data from parents, service providers, State
agency staff, local program providers and administrators across South
Dakota related to the Lead Agency's responsibility for supervision and
administration of the early intervention program. Analysis of the data
collected resulted in identification of the following strength and
suggestions for improvement.

## A. STRENGTH

######### State-wide Data Collection System

South Dakota has implemented a new, State-wide data collection system
that will allow the State to analyze all aspects of the early
intervention system to ensure that services are delivered in a timely
manner, and that there are adequate numbers of staff and services. The
State will also be able to ascertain frequency, intensity, and location
of service delivery by individual localities, in addition to other
information required by the State for monitoring. This improvement
enables the State to monitor early intervention services more
efficiently.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND 

## THEIR FAMILIES

**1. [Training Activities]{.underline}**

Local administrators, service coordinators and providers in four of the
five areas visited by OSEP identified as an area of need training on:
writing IFSPs, developing outcomes and strategies, family centered
services, family supports and services, and transition, as well as
effective child find strategies. State administrators provided OSEP with
examples of training materials and training sessions offered throughout
the State. However, as reported by State administrators, many local
service providers do not take advantage of training offered, and the
State indicated that providers are not required to attend training
activities.

Although the State provided training on a variety of topics, State staff
reported attendance was low. Local providers stated that the training
was not offered locally, but they had to travel over a hundred miles if
they wanted to attend training.

The State may want to consider procedures to ensure adequately trained
staff to provide appropriate services for infants, toddlers and their
families, such as, mandating requirements for early intervention service
providers, providing incentives and including requirements for
certification in its Comprehensive System for Personnel Development.

**2. [Interagency Collaboration]{.underline}**

State administrators, Head Start representatives, and interagency
representatives from the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health,
and Medicaid, informed OSEP that there is insufficient interagency
coordination of services for the early intervention program. State
agency representatives on the State Interagency Coordinating Council
spoke of activities that their agencies were involved in that would
impact infants and toddlers with disabilities, but could not articulate
how those activities were part of, or included in, the State-wide early
intervention system. When asked about collaboration on public awareness
and child find efforts, the administrators of these programs could not
identify activities in which there is coordination of child find efforts
with the State\'s early intervention system. One State administrator
remarked that the interagency members on the State Interagency
Coordinating Council do not necessarily discuss how the agencies they
represent could participate in activities or change their procedures to
improve the efficacy of the early intervention program.

Interviews with administrators from State agencies indicated there is
very little collaboration among agencies with service programs and child
find activities that affect the population of children and their
families who are or may be eligible for early intervention services. At
the State level, agency administrators mentioned few instances of
collaboration among their agencies with the State's early intervention
system. Although all agencies had some State-wide services for children,
none of the agency administrators could identify ongoing, collaborative
efforts to assist the State in the development of a system of early
intervention services.

**3. [Services on Indian Reservations]{.underline}**

States are required to ensure that appropriate early intervention
services are available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities in
the State and their families, including Indian infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families residing on a reservation geographically
located in the State. Service providers, State administrators and local
Network administrators both on and off the reservations in areas visited
by OSEP stated there was little collaboration between Indian tribes
providing early intervention services, and the State\'s early
intervention program, and a lack of coordination and collaboration at
the local level. Tribes and tribal organizations, on reservations served
by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children operated or
funded by the Department of the Interior, are eligible to receive Part C
funds from the Department of the Interior for the coordination of
assistance in the provision of early intervention services by the States
to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The funds
are to be used by the tribes for child find, screening and evaluation,
parent training and may also be used for direct services.

Although these funds are for the coordination of assistance in the
provision of early intervention services by the State, OSEP identified
only one tribal entity that both the State and the tribal representative
could describe as having a positive working relationship with the State.
Another tribal program had established a collaborative relationship with
one county in their four-county reservation area. This reservation tribe
provided some funds to the local school system to provide early
intervention services to Indian children. Nevertheless, this tribal
representative reported that there was no collaboration and little
cooperation in provision of services for Indian children in the other
three counties of that particular reservation. This is consistent with
information received from service coordinators, providers, and Network
administrators that children on reservations and rural areas were not
being identified and provided with services. (See finding in section
II,B,1 below regarding Child Find.)

The State and tribal entities may want to begin meetings for the purpose
of ensuring the identification of all Indian children in the State and
provision of appropriate services for eligible children and their
families. Since each tribe has its own tribal government, an agreement
with each sovereign tribe and the State would ensure that the unique
needs of children on each reservation could be met. Through
collaboration and coordination of assistance in the provision of early
intervention, resources of the State and the tribes could be utilized to
benefit eligible children and their families.

# 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 South Dakota self-assessment committee reviewed the data from the
Part C self assessment in the area of Child Find and Public Awareness
and determined that eligible infants and toddlers and their families
were evaluated, that culturally-relevant materials were available, and
that community outreach activities were provided in family-centered
language, locations and formats. An area of strength reported by the
self-assessment committee was that the percentage of infants and
toddlers served compared favorably with nationwide data and indicated a
consistent growth in the State's child count. The committee's review of
the State's monitoring results indicated that Child Find is an area of
minimal concern, as only four of the 22 Networks had findings concerning
primary referral sources. The areas of concern discussed by the
committee included the effectiveness of child find in rural areas of the
State, and the identification of children at an earlier age. Areas that
the State identified for improvement or maintenance included: (1)
updating the information provided through their toll free number, (2)
obtaining an improved breakdown of referral sources, (3) pursuing
additional avenues and media for public awareness activities, and (4)
asking local Networks to attach the States' name for the early
intervention program, "Birth to 3 Connections," to the local Network
name to increase state wide recognition.

During its Validation Planning visit, OSEP obtained information at
public input sessions concerning South Dakota's Child Find and Public
Awareness programs. Parents and providers reported that the current
public awareness activities and materials were not sufficient and did
not reach rural areas. OSEP heard from administrators and service
providers that although they believed the State was doing a good job
with child find activities, information was not getting to rural and
reservation areas. Other speakers stated that physicians and some
medical facilities were not referring children for early intervention
service, but instead, providing services in their own private
facilities, which could mean that families and eligible children may
have been denied services they were entitled to if they had been
referred to the early intervention system and an IFSP had been
developed. These providers and administrators declared that doctors and
nurses in some areas of the State are not referring children and that
there is a lack of coordination with tribes that conduct child find
activities on reservations. Parents and providers expressed a concern
that some children who needed early intervention services were not
identified, particularly in rural areas and on reservations.

At the end of the Validation Planning process, the following
concerns/issues were identified as areas that could be investigated
during the Validation Data Collection week: (1) children not being
served due to delay in referral by primary referral sources, (2) lack of
available information for families to learn about early intervention
services, (3) child find and public awareness activities not reaching
all areas of the State, (4) insufficient culturally competent public
awareness materials, and (5) lack of interagency collaboration around
child find at the State level, as well as lack of coordination with
Indian reservations on child find activities.

To investigate these Child Find and Public Awareness issues, OSEP
collected data from local programs and providers throughout South
Dakota, from parents, service providers, local programs, State-wide
programs and from central office staff members. Analysis of the data
collected resulted in the identification of the following strength,
areas of non-compliance and suggestions for improved results for
infants, toddlers and their families.

## A. STRENGTH

**[Local Interagency Child Find Activities]{.underline}**

Throughout the State, each Network conducts child screening activities,
striving to screen every child born in the State of South Dakota.
Extensive publications, flyers, radio announcements and collaboration
with other agencies participating in local Networks are focused on
getting information to the public about the availability of free
evaluation and assessment, and services if needed. Local Networks
utilize a variety of methods, including health fairs, special events,
immunization clinics and providing special activities for families to
encourage attendance. Also, many local Networks have developed creative
and innovative public awareness materials to entice families to bring
their infants and young children to be screened. With few exceptions, a
variety of local agencies work cooperatively in all aspects of providing
services to infants, toddlers and their families.

**[B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE]{.underline}**

1.  **[Insufficient Public Awareness Activities and Coordination in
    Rural and Reservation Areas]{.underline}**

Each State's early intervention system must include child find
activities to ensure that all infants and toddlers in the State who are
eligible for services under Part C are identified, located and
evaluated. [See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.321(b)(1). The lead agency,
with the assistance of the State Interagency Coordinating Council, must
also ensure that child find efforts are coordinated with other State
agencies' child find activities, as well as tribes and tribal
organizations that receive payments under Part C.

DECA has not ensured through adequate public awareness and child find
activities the early identification of children who may be eligible in
rural and reservation areas nor coordination of child find activities
with tribes and tribal organizations receiving funds under Part C.

Service providers, program administrators and service coordinators in
four areas of the State reported that not all eligible children in rural
and reservation areas were identified and receiving services. These
providers stated that they did not reach all families especially in
rural and reservation areas, and that public awareness materials in most
instances were not culturally appropriate or easily understood by
reservation and rural families. Parents throughout the State, including
reservation and rural parents, told OSEP that parents were not included
in the development of public awareness materials.

Providers and administrators in one area reported that the lack of
collaboration and coordination prevents adequate information from
reaching Indian and rural populations to locate all children who may
need service. State administrators told OSEP there was not a current
interagency agreement with any of the eight tribes in South Dakota that
receive federal funds from the Department of the Interior. State
administrators further related that development of interagency
agreements with tribes was difficult, partly due to sovereignty and the
individuality of each tribal government, and partly that some tribes
wanted to operate their own child find and service delivery programs.
Even though tribes provide child find or early intervention services,
the State is not relieved of its responsibility to ensure child find and
early intervention services to all children in the State, including
Indian children living on reservations within the geographical
boundaries of the State.

**2. [Failure to Use Clinical Opinion]{.underline}**

Each State's procedures must provide for the use of informed clinical
opinion to measure a child\'s development in each area and to determine
a child\'s eligibility under Part C. [See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.300
and §303.322. Informed clinical opinion is especially important if
standardized procedures are not appropriate for a given age or
developmental area.

DECA has not ensured the appropriate use of informed clinical opinion in
determining initial and continuing eligibility, as required by Federal
regulations.

Although each State may establish its own eligibility criteria for
developmental delay, the procedures that will be used to measure a
child\'s development must provide for the use of informed clinical
opinion. When asked about use of informed clinical opinion to determine
eligibility, State administrators told OSEP that it was their
understanding that evaluators always use clinical opinion as part of
determining eligibility for children. However, in all five areas of the
State visited, providers and service coordinators told OSEP that
informed clinical opinion is not considered in determining eligibility
for Part C. If a child is not eligible according to the scores from an
evaluation protocol, the child would not be eligible for the early
intervention program even if the evaluator believed the child was in
need of services. One evaluator stated, \"we must go by the scores; we
can\'t just say the child is eligible." Part C regulations require that
"no single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining a
child's eligibility. See 34 CFR §303.323(c).

Service providers throughout the State concurred that if the children
did not meet the eligibility criteria according to a test protocol the
child was not eligible for services, unless the child met the medical
condition criteria. None of the providers interviewed had ever
determined a child eligible using only their clinical judgement when the
child was not eligible according to the protocol.

## C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND 

##  THEIR FAMILIES

1.  **[Primary Referral Sources]{.underline}**

While South Dakota has apparently done a good job in getting the medical
community to collaborate and cooperate in child find activities in some
areas of the State, there are still areas of the State that require
action to ensure all children are identified early and obtain the
services they are entitled to receive.

State administrators told OSEP that much work has been done to ensure
that doctors, nurses and medical facilities are aware of the early
intervention program and have been provided information on how to refer
children. Examples of those efforts provided by the State were a recent
article in the State medical journal written by a doctor about the early
intervention program, and the development and distribution of a poster
specifically for display in doctor\'s offices.

In three of the five Network areas visited in South Dakota, parents,
providers, and administrators reported that the medical community was
cooperative and children were referred in a timely manner to the early
intervention system. However, in two areas of the State, providers,
parents and administrators stated that doctors, nurses and sometimes
social workers did not refer children in a timely manner. Physicians
would refer children to a clinic or to private providers, rather than
the early intervention system, which could mean children are not
evaluated in all areas of development and may not receive needed
services and service coordination. Parents told OSEP that doctors would
tell them to delay referral to the early intervention system because the
child \"might grow out of it." Two parents of speech-delayed children
reported that the doctor told them to wait until their children were two
years of age before getting an assessment. One of these children did not
produce any sounds at all; the mother did not wait, as advised by her
doctor, and obtained needed services for her child on her own. In
another area, a child with trisomy 9 and a child with cerebral palsy,
conditions that have a high probability of developmental delay, were not
referred until they were more than 12 months of age. The Single Point of
Contact in that area stated that doctors are reluctant to refer children
to the early intervention system. Many parents in these areas reported
frustration over the doctors' lack of knowledge about early intervention
services. However, service providers and administrators in one of the
areas with a recent good record of doctor referrals indicated that there
has been a drastic change in the last six months, stating that referrals
have improved dramatically during this time. They credited this
improvement to the public awareness activities directed towards doctors
and the medical community.

**2. [Interagency Collaboration]{.underline}.**

Although there is interagency cooperation at the local level, the local
agency participation varies across the State. Local agencies staff told
OSEP that they received little or no direction from their State agency
concerning collaboration in the early intervention system. For example,
in some areas of the State, the health department and other social
service agencies cooperate and coordinate their child find activities
with the school system's child find effort. In another area, providers
and administrators told OSEP that the social service agency was not
participating in these activities, and was not referring children known
to be at risk for developmental delay. When asked about the guidance
local staff had received in the area of child find, interviewees in all
areas stated they had not received any direction from their specific
State agency about collaboration in these activities. In addition, as
identified earlier in this report, collaboration with Indian tribes
needs to be part of collaborative activities around child find and other
services to eligible children.

One of the current difficulties confronting the program is the
identification of all children who may be developmentally delayed.
Families in high-risk groups may obtain services from an agency, but not
be referred to the early intervention system. Interviews with pertinent
agency staff indicated that, because of concerns about violating
confidentiality requirements, the State has not yet identified
strategies to ensure that these children and families would be referred
to the early intervention system. The State may want to encourage
interagency members of the State Interagency Coordinating Council to
identify barriers to referral and determine methods to work
collaboratively to ensure identification of all eligible children. Thus,
children and families in need of early intervention services would be
referred in a timely manner, with all agencies in the State working
together to ensure that all children and families in need of early
intervention services are identified and served.

# 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's responsibilities
include assisting families in understanding and exercising their rights
under Part C, arranging for assessments and IFSP meetings, and
facilitating 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 State's self-assessment committee identified three areas that
addressed early intervention services: service coordination, the IFSP,
and the evaluation and assessment sections. All three of these areas
were "rated satisfactory." The State's monitoring of the 22 local
Networks that provide early intervention services revealed few findings
in this area. Some of the positive aspects identified by the
self-assessment committee were: (1) information available is family
sensitive; (2) the flexibility of the Birth to 3 program allows
creativity; (3) positive responses to the survey questions by parents;
(4) providers and single points of contact (SPoC) working well; (5) low
turnover rate of individuals acting as the single point of contact; and
(6) that the majority of services are provided in the home.

Additional results identified by the self-assessment committee disclosed
that parents have frequent contact with their service coordinator from
weekly to 2-3 times a week. Parents also feel actively involved and see
the program as very helpful in coordinating services and assisting
families. On the other hand, the self-assessment committee also noted
that approximately half of the local Networks reported a shortage of
qualified pediatric providers, and those Networks stated a concern with
provision of services in natural environments. The committee identified
strategies for improvement or maintenance in this area. Those strategies
include: (1) providing ongoing training in service coordination, (2)
involving the State Interagency Coordinating Council members to attract
other State Associations to share future personnel training conferences,
(3) revising the IFSP to include documentation of eligibility and
providing ongoing training on development of the IFSP, particularly in
writing outcomes; and (4) developing a technical assistance guide for
providers and families.

From the State's monitoring reports, public input sessions, and other
information, OSEP and the Steering Committee identified the following
issues for investigation during the Validation Data Collection week: (1)
uninterrupted services, (2) adequate services; (3) provision of
transportation, (4) coordination of all services, (5) adequacy of
service coordination, and (6) the process for identifying natural
environments. Other concerns expressed by providers, parents and
advocates included a shortage of service providers, and supports and
services for families.

To investigate these Child Find and Public Awareness issues, OSEP
collected data from local programs and providers throughout South
Dakota, from parents, service providers, local programs, State-wide
programs and from central office staff members. Analysis of the data
collected resulted in the identification of the following strength,
areas of non-compliance and suggestions for improvement.

## A. STRENGTH

**[Local Networks]{.underline}**

South Dakota has 22 Local Networks, which are a consortia of all the
agencies in an area that provide services to infants and toddlers, and
also provide services to the adult population. Although interagency
collaboration is a suggestion for improvement at the State level as
noted in section I, B, 2 and II, C, 2 of this report, local Networks
generally work together to identify service providers and ensure that
families receive needed service. The Network agencies include social
services, health, education, and private agencies as well as individual
providers. In some areas, this includes the Indian Health Service and
Head Start. The Network participants meet on a regular basis to
coordinate and collaborate on the provision of services to eligible
children and their families. These Networks provide a forum for local
interagency collaboration around early intervention services to ensure
that all services needed by a child and family can be readily identified
and provided.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Failure to Provide Continuous Services]{.underline}**

Federal regulations specify that early intervention services are
services designed to meet the developmental needs of each eligible child
and the needs of the family related to enhancing the child's development
and must be specified on an IFSP. The IFSP must be in effect for the
duration of the infant's and toddler's eligibility for early
intervention services. Early intervention providers may not interrupt,
modify or otherwise change early intervention services for reasons
unrelated to the child's needs, such as service availability or changes
in providers' schedules. The IFSP must include specific information
about the frequency, intensity, projected initiation dates and projected
duration of services. [See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.344(d) and (f). This
information must be based on an evaluation and assessment of the child
and family needs.

DECA has not effectively ensured that early intervention services
designed to meet the developmental needs of eligible children are
provided in accordance with the content of the child\'s IFSP, including
the specification of frequency, intensity and duration of services,
during the summer months. Services are modified, reduced or not provided
at all for eligible children in South Dakota during the summer. These
changes are not based on child and family needs, and are made without
amending the IFSP.

Service providers, service coordinators, parents, and administrators in
four of the five areas visited told OSEP the need for services in the
summer is determined in the spring for each eligible child. They further
stated that services in the summer months are less frequent or not
provided at all, and that this change in service is not based on an
evaluation or assessment of the child's needs.

Children in South Dakota suspected of a developmental delay are
evaluated and assessed by the school system. After the evaluation, the
evaluation team determinates whether the child meets the criteria for
the State's definition of "prolonged assistance."[^2] If the child meets
that definition, the early intervention services are provided by the
school district under Part C requirements. If the child does not meet
the prolonged assistance definition, the child may still meet the
eligibility requirement for Part C and receive early intervention
services. If eligible, the Single Point of Contact for that local
Network arranges for development of the IFSP and appropriate services
through Network providers.

OSEP was told by providers, service coordinators and administrators in
four of the five areas visited that the provision of services during the
summer months depended on several factors: (1) whether service providers
were available; (2) whether the parents would accept a change in
location for services; (3) whether the parents would accept a change in
provider during the summer; and (4) whether the child received services
from the school system as a child eligible for "prolonged assistance."
Under the last factor, a "prolonged assistance" the child must meet the
school system's Part B criteria for regression and recoupment to
continue receiving services from the schools during the summer.

Although children determined to be "eligible for prolonged assistance"
are more likely to receive services in some areas of the State in the
summer, the frequency and intensity is changed, and frequently the
service provider changes also. If the public agency determines that a
child is not entitled to services in the summer (extended school year)
using the Part B standard for regression and recoupment, the local
Single Point of Contact (SPoC) attempts to locate service providers to
cover the summer months. These service coordinators and local providers
from four areas told OSEP that providers could not always be found for
children eligible for prolonged assistance. Parents and providers stated
that the services were often reduced for the summer months and then
increased to the pre-summer level when schools reopened in the fall.
This information is not included in children's records nor is there
information to justify decisions regarding the provision of services, or
the lack of service provision during the summer. This information was
not included on any of the IFSPs that OSEP examined.

In only one area of the State visited by OSEP, service coordinators and
parents told OSEP that services remained the same during the summer
months; the only change in this area was the source of payment for the
summer services. Service providers in the other four areas gave a
variety of reasons for changes in services during the summer. Service
providers in two areas told OSEP that they needed a break during the
summer and the children they served frequently did not get services when
school was not in session. Service coordinators in three areas stated
that providers could not be identified for many children during the
summer months. Even for eligible children who do not qualify for
"prolonged assistance" and receive their services primarily in home
settings, parents, providers and coordinators stated that services were
routinely interrupted, modified, reduced or not provided at all during
the summer months, regardless of the child\'s need.

Parents reported a variety of reasons why services were not continued
during the summer months. Parents in one location stated that they were
asked if they would like a vacation from intervention services for the
summer. Parents in another area visited stated that services were
reduced by 50% during the summer months. Parents told OSEP that often
the summer provider would not set up a schedule for summer until July or
later, and it would take a month or more for their child to become
familiar with the new therapist to be able to benefit from the early
intervention. Parents said they sometimes chose not to have services in
the summer because, by the time the substitute therapist established a
convenient schedule for therapy and established rapport with both the
child and family, the summer was almost over and their regular therapist
would resume services in September. Another parent stated that the
substitute summer speech therapist did not contact the family for two
months even though the IFSP required weekly services.

In all areas of the State visited, OSEP was informed that if services
were decreased, interrupted or not provided at all during the summer,
the original level of services was provided to the child as soon as
school opened in the fall. As stated earlier, these increases and
decreases occurred without evaluating whether it was appropriate to
decrease services for the summer months or to increase services when the
school year began in the fall. In addition, there was no documentation
of circumstances, such as parent declining services, which may have
accounted for reduction in services. The implementation of these
practices results in interruptions, modifications or denials of services
during the summer months for most eligible children in South Dakota.
State administrators and staff told OSEP that it was the State's
expectation that these children receive all services required throughout
the summer.

**2. [Failure to Include All Needed Early Intervention Services on the
IFSP]{.underline}**

Part C regulations define early intervention services as services that
are designed to meet the needs of each child eligible under Part C and
the needs of the family related to enhancing the child's development.
[See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.322.12 As stated in the note following 34
CFR §303.12, the services listed in the regulations are meant to be
representative, not exhaustive. The note further specifies that, "Early
intervention services may include such services as the provision of
respite and other family support services." The assessment of the child
must identify the child's unique strengths and needs and the services
appropriate to meet those needs, and a family assessment, if desired by
the family must include concerns, resources and priorities (related to
their child's disability), and the supports and services needed to
enhance the family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the
child with a disability. 34 CFR §303.322.

DECA has not ensured that all of the early intervention services needed
by a family are included on the IFSP. Service coordinators in two areas
told OSEP that respite care was not an early intervention service and
the early intervention program did not provide it for any child,
regardless of the needs of the child and the child\'s family. Service
coordinators in the other two areas stated that respite care was not a
service included on the IFSP; however, program staff reported that they
did assist the parents in obtaining respite care or child care, if
needed. The assistance provided was usually in the form of a list of
possible providers or an application for respite care; the service
coordinator did not always assist the parent in obtaining the service.
The State administrators stated that they assumed the early intervention
services were the 16 services defined in the regulations. When it was
explained that the list was not exhaustive, the State indicated the
oversight would be corrected.

**3. [Failure to include all services on the IFSP]{.underline}**

Part C regulations require that the IFSP include medical and other
services that the child needs, but that are not required under Part C.
The IFSP must also include the funding sources to be used in paying for
those services or the steps that will be taken to secure those services
through public or private sources. [See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.344(e).
Note 3 under 34 CFR §303.344 relating to contents of the IFSP states
that, "The 'other services' in paragraph (e) of this section are
services that a child or family needs, but that are neither required nor
covered under \[Part C\]. While listing the non-required services in the
IFSP does not mean that those services must be provided, their
identification can be helpful to both the child's family and the service
coordinator, for the following reasons: First, the IFSP would provide a
comprehensive picture of the child's total service needs (including the
need for medical and health services, as well as early intervention
services). Second, it is appropriate for the service coordinator to
assist the family in securing the non-required services (e.g., by (1)
determining if there is a public agency that could provide financial
assistance, if needed, (2) assisting in the preparation of eligibility
claims or insurance claims, if needed, and, (3) assisting the family in
seeking out and arranging for the child to receive the needed
medical-health services)." Thus it is important for a State\'s
procedures to provide for ensuring that other needs of the child and of
the family related to enhancing the development of the child be included
on the IFSP.

DECA does not ensure that all of the services needed by a child and
family are included on the IFSP as well as the funding sources for those
services or the steps to be taken to obtain those services. Service
coordinators and administrators in the five Networks visited told OSEP
that they did not routinely list services on the IFSP that their early
intervention program did not provide. Service providers and service
coordinators told OSEP it was their understanding that non-required
services were not to be included on the IFSP; only the services provided
by the program were included. These service coordinators said that the
State informed them that they were to list only those services provided
by the program on the IFSP. One service coordinator stated she was
admonished for listing other services on the IFSP. When asked how
services would be coordinated for a severely involved child who received
medical and other services from several agencies, service coordinators
and providers from all five areas of the State visited told OSEP that it
was done informally and these other services were not put on the IFSP.

Of the 27 IFSPs reviewed, 18 contained no entries in the \"other
services\" section, and of those 18, six children\'s records and
evaluation reports identified significant medical involvement. These six
records identified children who had ongoing medical conditions that
required frequent visits to medical facilities that might affect the
provision of early intervention services; however, none of these
services were listed on the IFSP. The nine IFSPs that contained entries
on the \"other services\" pages did not include the steps to obtain the
needed service or the funding source, or simply indicated that the
parent was responsible for obtaining the needed information.

**4. [Failure to Include Family Supports and Services on the
IFSP]{.underline}**

The family directed assessment is designed to determine the resources,
priorities, and concerns of the family and to identify the supports and
services necessary to enhance the family\'s capacity to meet the
developmental needs of their child. 34 CFR §303.322(d). The IFSP must
include a statement of the major outcomes expected...for the child and
family, as well as a statement of the specific early intervention
services necessary to meet the unique needs of the child [and the
family]{.underline} to achieve the outcomes (emphasis added).
[See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.344(c)(d).

DECA has not ensured that the supports and services necessary to enhance
the family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of their child are
identified and included in a statement of the specific services needed
to meet the unique needs of the child and family in the IFSP. According
to the Single Points of Contact in the Network areas visited, a portion
of the State IFSP form is used to meet the requirement to complete a
family assessment of family needs related to the family's ability to
enhance the development of their child. One page of the IFSP form
provides a checklist for parents to identify their resources, concerns
and priorities. Service coordinators throughout the State told OSEP that
this was the family assessment. However, they also said they may learn
of family needs through the intake process.

OSEP found that the needs of families identified on this page of the
IFSP were not included in outcomes on any of the IFSPs reviewed.
Further, the majority of parents interviewed by OSEP stated that the
family needs identified on this page of IFSP document were not met nor
were services and supports identified to meet those needs. These parents
further stated that even if they brought their child to a center for
services where other children and parents might be, there was no way to
meet the parents of other children, as each child was served
individually. Two parents exchanged phone numbers during the OSEP
interviews in order to obtain mutual support, relating that there was no
opportunity to meet other parents.

Of the 27 IFSPs reviewed, 12 had identified needs on the page for family
resources, priorities and concerns; however, only two of these IFSPs
addressed any part of the concerns on the "other services" page. No
family identified needs were addressed as early intervention services
(which can include family training, counseling, home visits, parent
support activities, family psychological services or social work
services, among others). Of the remaining 15 IFSPs with no family needs
identified, eight parents declined to fill out this page, and in seven
other IFSPs, there was neither an indication that the parent had
declined assessment nor any family needs listed.

In all areas of the State visited by OSEP, parents, service
coordinators, administrators, and service providers told OSEP there were
few, if any, available family supports and services to assist families.
Parents from all five areas stated that they had expressed a need for
parent-to-parent support, to meet other families with children with
disabilities, for parent counseling or for organized parent support
groups, but that those needs have not been met.

In the 12 IFSPs that had parent concerns and needs checked, parents also
indicated a need for assistance with behavior problems, and a variety of
other concerns. These needs and concerns were not addressed in child and
family outcomes with appropriate supports and services. When asked,
parents indicated that the identified needs were not met in most
instances, especially the need for family support. Some parents had
found assistance on their own. Typically, the information provided by
program staff consisted of telephone numbers or directions to parents on
how to obtain services themselves, which parents told OSEP was
ineffective, placing one more burden on already overwhelmed families.
Parents in all five areas told OSEP they needed more assistance in
obtaining support, and in contacting and linking with other parents.

While at times it may be appropriate for parents to obtain the
information on their own, most parents told OSEP that service
coordinators did not provide assistance in obtaining services about
which they had inquired. In addition, parents in four of the five areas
visited stated they either didn\'t have time or did not know where to go
to obtain services to meet family needs; therefore, the families were
not receiving services to address those needs.

Service Coordinators and providers in all five areas visited said they
could not meet parents' requests for support from other families because
of confidentiality. Service coordinators also declared that there were
no groups in their area for parents to be able to talk to each other and
receive that kind of support. One Network administrator stated there was
no mechanism to offer parent support.

Network administrators in four of the five areas could not identify any
local parent support organizations or informal parent support
activities, although State staff and one Network administrator stated
there was a State-wide organization, the Parent Connection, to provide
assistance to families. Network administrators and the State said there
were no funds for parent to parent support or for program-supported
parent support services.

The State's monitoring materials address identification of families'
concerns, priorities and resources, but does not include a method that
enables DECA to investigate family needs, lack of outcomes to address
those family needs and the identification of supports and services to
meet those needs. The local monitoring reports refer to use of a page of
the IFSP to identify family concerns, priorities and resources, but
there is no mention of outcomes, supports and services to address family
needs.

**5. [Failure to Include Transportation as an Early Intervention
Service]{.underline}**

Early intervention services are services that are designed to meet the
developmental needs of each eligible child and the needs of the family
related to enhancing the child's development. CFR §303.12. Types of
services include transportation and related costs, which include
mileage, travel by taxi, common carrier or other means, and other costs,
such as tolls and parking expenses, that are necessary to enable a child
to receive early intervention services. [See]{.underline} 34 CFR
§303.12(d)(15).

The DECA has not ensured that transportation services are provided to
all infants, toddlers and families who may need them. The State's most
recent application for Part C funds contains appropriate assurances that
transportation is to be provided to eligible children as an early
intervention service. However, all of the parents interviewed in the
five areas OSEP visited stated that neither the need for transportation
nor reimbursement costs were discussed during IFSP meetings. One parent
stated that she received transportation reimbursement, but only after
she asked and informed the program of her need. Another parent stated
that although transportation put a strain on the family budget, program
staff never mentioned transportation reimbursement. In one site, one
IFSP listed transportation as a service, but that was only for
transportation to another city for a specialized service. Transportation
as a service was found on only two of the 27 IFSPs reviewed by OSEP, and
this transportation was not for ongoing early intervention, but for a
specialized evaluation event.

Service coordinators in all five areas visited stated that
transportation was not addressed with every family, and in two areas it
is not addressed with families at all. Four of the areas visited stated
there is a need for transportation, but it is not available, especially
on reservations.

## C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND 

##  THEIR FAMILIES

###### 

**1. [Natural Environments Training]{.underline}**

Regulations define natural environments as "settings that are natural or
normal for the child's age peers who have no disabilities." 34 CFR
§303.18. Regulations further require that early intervention services
can be provided in a setting other than a natural environment only if
early intervention cannot be achieved satisfactorily for the infant or
toddler in a natural environment. ([See]{.underline} 34 CFR §303.167
(c).

DECA has completed extensive training throughout the State on natural
environments. In all areas of the State visited, service providers,
service coordinators, Network administrators and parents stated an
understanding that natural environments were appropriate for the
provision of early intervention services, and that a segregated setting
was not a natural environment. However, most stated that it was their
understanding that only the home or a day care setting would be a
natural environment. It may be appropriate to follow up the training
activities to reinforce the concept and purpose of natural environments,
the process to determine the unique natural environment for each child,
and the multitude of locations in which families may spend time. It is
also important to keep in mind that the natural environment may change
as the child grows and develops. During the course of a child's
development, it is important to periodically identify community settings
and places where the child's normally developing peers would be engaging
in activities and thus, the appropriate environment for the provision of
services to an eligible child.

######### 2. Child Care Provider Training

The provision of services in child care settings may be especially
important to South Dakota as State staff and others reported to OSEP
that in eighty percent of households in the State, both parents work
outside the home. This situation creates a need for child care in some
form, such as day care, child care centers or in-home care. However, in
all areas of the State, service providers, coordinators and
administrators told OSEP that individuals who provided child care in
their homes and in some centers did not want early intervention service
providers to provide services in their homes. DECA may want to consider
an ongoing training program designed to increase the capacity for
service provision to children with disabilities in child-care settings.
Training should be coordinated with other child care training activities
conducted by other State agencies and focus on increasing the skill of
child care providers to effectively care for children with disabilities,
and understand the benefits to children receiving services in the child
care setting. The development of incentives or creation of a model
demonstration outreach program could be considered as approaches to
increase child care provider participation.

# 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
children'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

The South Dakota self assessment committee identified family centered
services as "satisfactory." This group identified areas of strength as
increased parent involvement, parents' reports of benefits in the
program, reports of the value of family-centered philosophy, and that
there had been only one complaint filed to date. Additionally, a
parents' rights video was developed, and parents have been involved in
technical assistance document development. Parents reported receiving
rights information on a regular basis, and monitoring results indicated
few areas of findings under procedural safeguards. Results indicated 83%
to 93% of providers, parents, and single points of contact reported the
procedural safeguards were appropriately addressed. Ninety percent of
parents surveyed agreed that the State or local Networks had
appropriate/effective policies in place for implementation of the early
intervention program, and the for the Family-Centered Services area, the
State ICC identified no strategies for maintenance or improvement.

During the Validation Planning and the Validation Data Collection
visits, parents, providers and administrators told OSEP that the early
intervention program was very family friendly and that parents were
generally satisfied. Providers expressed a belief that parents were
included in all aspects of the IFSP process, yet, as identified in
section III,B,4 of this report, one of the concerns that emerged was the
lack of parent supports and services.

Based on the information collected from all of the Validation Planning
activities, the following concerns were identified to be investigated
during the Validation Data Collection week: inclusion of the parents in
the IFSP process and identification of family supports and services.

To investigate the issues identified through the validation planning
process, OSEP collected data from local programs, parents and providers
throughout South Dakota relative to the involvement of parents in the
IFSP process and the training of parents and staff. With the exception
of the issue of family supports and services which is addressed in a
previous section, analysis of the data collected resulted in the
identification of no strengths or areas of noncompliance.

# V. 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 making reasonable
efforts to convene 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 focus of the State's self-assessment in this area was to scrutinize
the transition process to ensure that children exiting Part C receive
the services they need by their third birthday. The self- assessment
committee found that this area was "rated" as "very satisfied." They
identified areas of strength as: collaboration with Head Start and Early
Head Start programs, positive parental response to how the transition
process was handled, and preparation of parents for transition and later
services. Nevertheless, the State's monitoring process identified
findings in the transition area. The findings were mostly in the area of
documentation indicating whether or not the child's IEP was in place by
their third birthday. The committee reviewed the transition guide and
reached the conclusion that difficulties at age three transitions were
perceived to be more of an issue by providers than families. The State
Interagency Coordinating Council determined there were no strategies
needed for improvement or maintenance.

The information collected by OSEP during the Validation Planning
activities did not reveal any issues with regard to transition from Part
C services. However, due to lack of parent input in this area, OSEP
decided to investigate general areas of transition to determine if
activities occurred in a timely manner and transition plans were
complete. The results of that investigation revealed no areas of
noncompliance.

# 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]{.underline}:** OSEP's 1994 monitoring report did not
identify any findings of noncompliance in this area.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** Principle 6 of the South Dakota Part
B Self-Assessment addresses "Parent/ Student Participation." It
discusses several indicators used to determine how parents participate
in evaluation, eligibility, IEP, and placement decisions. Data sources
include parent responses to questionnaires used as part of the State
monitoring process during the 1997-98 cycle and participation in
parent/student training projects from 1996-1998.

The Self-Assessment reported high rates of parent satisfaction with
their level of involvement in the special education process and good
parent participation in available training activities. Student
participation in the special education decision-making process is much
lower than parent participation. In addition, the Self-Assessment
indicates that parent participation in inservice training, needs
assessments and task forces is limited due to their inability to
physically attend meetings. In addition, parents and students do not
feel that there is adequate preparation for the transfer of rights at
the age of majority.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** 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?"
Many parents reported a high level of involvement in the special
education process, indicating that special education directors and other
school staff are responsive to their needs and respectful of their ideas
and opinions. Some parents disagreed with this perception, particularly
in the larger school systems. Parents in the larger population centers
reported having little information regarding secondary transition and
minimal involvement in transition decision-making.

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 reports that (1)
parents of children with disabilities may not be involved in the
secondary transition process; (2) parents in rural areas of the State do
not receive training; and (3) parents do not actively participate in
educational planning or special education decision-making, especially in
rural areas of the State.

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 suggestions for improved results for children and youth
with disabilities.

##### 

## A. STRENGTHS

###### 1. Parent Involvement in State-level Task Forces and Work Groups

###### Parents are invited to be members of all workgroups organized by the Office of Special Education. Workgroups are formed for various purposes, such as the development of technical assistance documents and providing policy interpretation in the form of "white papers." 

2.  **[Attendance at IEP Meetings]{.underline}**

During the 1997-1998 school year, 98% of parents attended IEP meetings.
This represents an increase in parent attendance from 82% since the
1994-1995 school year.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Parent Partnerships in Special Education]{.underline}**

Some parents, during the public input meetings, reported that they
believe they are not equal partners in the special education
decision-making process, particularly in the area of Secondary
Transition. Many parents across the State told OSEP that they believe
they are not viewed as knowledgeable about their child's educational
needs by district staff and feel intimidated by the numbers of
professionals whom they must confront at each meeting.

##### **[Training in Rural Areas]{.underline}**

##### 

##### Parents in rural areas of the State report difficulty in accessing training opportunities. They agree that many training opportunities exist; however, they must travel long distances at their own expense in order to participate. Often, training is offered only in larger population centers requiring overnight travel and time off from jobs or ranch duties. Not all parents are able to access the Rural Development Television Network.

#####  

# 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 IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and the House of Representatives Committee on Education
and the Workforce emphasized that too many students with disabilities
are failing courses and dropping out of school. Those Reports noted that
almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to
children without disabilities. They expressed a further concern about
the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority
backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special
education. The Committees stated their 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]{.underline}:** In its 1994 monitoring report, OSEP
reported no deficiencies in the provision of a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment in South Dakota.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** Principles 1 and 4 of the South
Dakota Self-Assessment address "Free Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE)," and "Least Restrictive Environment/Natural Environment"
including indicators which ensure improved results for children with
disabilities.

The Children's Care Hospital and School, South Dakota School for the
Deaf and South Dakota School for the Visually Impaired provide training
programs to increase the number of interpreters, attendant care
providers and outreach programs; however, the Self-Assessment reports an
insufficient number of qualified service providers in rural areas of the
State. Analysis of available information indicates that there is a
significant discrepancy between the number of students with disabilities
who graduate from high school and the number of students with
disabilities who are enrolled in post-secondary vocational programs or
university programs, in spite of significant levels of available support
services. Insufficient data are available regarding high school
completion rates and South Dakota is making efforts to correct this
deficiency. Another concern raised in the Self-Assessment is the level
of knowledge in school districts of discipline provisions in IDEA.
Concerns also were expressed regarding appropriate placements and the
provision of appropriate supplementary aids and services to facilitate
participation in the general education curriculum.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** 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 but they did not
know if this was extended school year 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.

The Steering Committee, as noted in the Self-Assessment, reported
general improvement over the last five years 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: (1)
whether a lack of qualified evaluators and providers exists, especially
for low incidence populations and in rural areas; (2) whether children
with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education,
including, when appropriate, functional behavior assessments and
behavior management plans; (3) whether assistive technology devices and
services are provided, when appropriate, to children with disabilities;
(4) whether extended school year services are considered and, when
determined necessary, provided in accordance with an appropriate IEP;
and (5) whether children with emotional disturbance receive their
services in the least restrictive environment.

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, related service
providers, students and parents.

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

## A. STRENGTHS

1.  **[State-Level Student Information Management System]{.underline}**

Since OSEP's previous monitoring visit, DECA has implemented a single
State-level Student Information Management System to collect data across
programs such as special education, vocational education, kindergarten
through grade twelve, and child and adult nutrition. Under this system,
information can be accessed which presents a broader educational
perspective and which prevents school districts from repetitious
reporting in multiple formats. This assists school districts in
reporting information accurately and assists DECA in establishing a more
comprehensive picture of educational programs and results across the
State.

**2. [Teacher Certification Requirements Related to Children with
Disabilities]{.underline}**

New endorsement requirements have been implemented for teachers
requesting endorsement for birth through age eight programs that would
require coursework identifying typical and atypical behaviors,
individual learning needs, and inclusion of students with disabilities
for students from birth to age eight.

2.  **[Disability Coordinators in Vocational Technical Institutes and
    Universities]{.underline}**

> Vocational Technical Institutes and universities in South Dakota have
> disability coordinators available to assist young adults with
> disabilities and their families. Two training programs, "Navigating"
> and "Catch the Wave" have been made available across the State to
> assist high school students in preparing to go to college. In
> addition, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program provides "Project
> Skills" to assist students in acquiring job-related skills.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

> **1. [Adequate Supply of Qualified Personnel to Provide a Free
> Appropriate Public Education]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.381 requires that each State have procedures and activities that
the State will undertake to 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 the procedures and activities
that DECA has undertaken have not ensured that an adequate supply of
qualified related services personnel is available to implement IDEA.

In all five districts visited, administrators, teachers or related
service providers reported that personnel shortages of related services
personnel existed, resulting in children with disabilities not receiving
all the related services they require to benefit from special education
services. In three districts, teachers, related service providers and an
administrator reported that the type or amount of service is determined
by providers' schedules rather than by the child's identified needs. One
of the speech/language providers stated, \"there are more students with
articulation problems. I don\'t pick them up if they have minor
problems;\" therefore, some students with disabilities who require
speech therapy are not receiving services. In addition, this provider
indicated that when one of the speech teachers from the district goes on
vacation, the remaining staff is expected to pick up the case load and
that some students do not receive all services identified on their IEPs
during that period of time. In one area of the State, there is one
occupational therapist for nine school districts and the related service
provider stated that the service provider schedule impacts student
placement and the amount of service available. As a result, students
may, for example, receive group therapy instead of the individual
therapy called for in the IEP or the IEP may reflect less service than
the student requires to benefit from special education services. In four
of the five districts, related service providers stated that they have
to sometimes choose between providing direct services identified on IEPs
or conducting reevaluations within the required three-year time line.
Therefore, some students may not receive evaluations within the required
three-year time line while other students may not receive all direct
services identified on their IEPs.

**2. [Availability and Provision of Extended School Year
Services]{.underline}**

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

As discussed below, OSEP determined that DECA 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 South Dakota. In four of
five districts visited, teachers and administrators reported that even
when extended school year services are needed as part of a free
appropriate public education, they were not usually reflected in student
IEPs. Teachers and administrators in two districts reported that all
children are permitted to participate in summer school programs that are
available to all children in the district. In one of these districts,
the special education director reported that summer school services are
not identified in IEPs, even when the student needs extended school year
services as part of a free appropriate public education. In addition,
the director stated that all services identified as part of an extended
school year may not be provided during the summer, depending on the
structure of the summer school program, regardless of individual student
need. In three of five districts where teachers and administrators
reported availability of extended school year services, transportation
for extended school year services is not provided by the district even
when required as a related service. Parents are generally expected to
provide transportation to and from the summer school program. In one of
the three districts, transportation was provided only to children with
specific categories or severity of disabilities, but not to students in
other disability categories, regardless of their need for
transportation.

## C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Management
Plans]{.underline}**

The Steering Committee expressed concerns about the provision of a free
appropriate public education, including functional behavior assessment
and behavior management plans included in IEPs, for students with
disabilities suspended in excess of ten days cumulative in a school
year, or who are expelled. However, OSEP found no children with
disabilities suspended for more than ten days cumulative in a school
year, or expelled, in any of the districts visited.

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 ([see]{.underline} §614(d)(3)(B)(i)) require
that in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning,
the IEP team shall consider strategies, including positive behavioral
interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior.
Administrators and teachers in all five districts felt the need for more
training in the area of functional behavioral assessments and behavioral
intervention plans in order to establish positive behavioral
interventions, strategies and supports for students with behavioral
concerns. The use of behavioral intervention plans, based on functional
behavior assessments, for children with behavioral concerns could
significantly increase opportunities for children with behavior concerns
to participate in general education environments.

**2. [More Training on the Involvement and Progress of Students with
Disabilities in the General Curriculum in the Least Restrictive
Environment]{.underline}**

Although OSEP determined that children with disabilities are often
placed in regular classes, in three of the five districts,
administrators and teachers stated that more training was needed to help
students be more involved in and progress in the general curriculum,
regardless of the setting. In addition, teachers wanted more training on
the use of modifications and accommodations to help students access the
general curriculum in the least restrictive environment. Teachers and
administrators in four of five districts stated that more collaborative
training between special education and general education teachers was
needed so that teachers understand how students can be involved in and
progress in the general curriculum in the least restrictive environment.

**3. [State- and District-Wide Assessment ]{.underline}**

###### Administrators and teachers felt they would benefit from additional training regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in State- and district-wide assessments. Although IEPs addressed student participation in State-wide assessments, several teachers felt they needed more guidance from the State on standards for including or exempting students from testing. In addition, once students were exempted, both teachers and administrators felt a need for more training on appropriate alternate assessments for disabled students. 

# 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]{.underline}:** OSEP's 1994 monitoring report did not
include any findings of noncompliance related to transition.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** Principle 3 of the South Dakota Part
B Self-Assessment addresses "Individual Education Program," including
indicators and data analysis which address Secondary Transition.

The Self-Assessment identified several strengths in the area of
Secondary Transition, including: (1) vocational
rehabilitation/independent living centers that operate in conjunction
with special education to increase available opportunities for youth
with disabilities; (2) increased numbers of counselors participating in
IEP meetings; (3) the South Dakota Transition Project; (4) interagency
participation in two memoranda of understanding related to Secondary
Transition; and (5) "Project Skills" which provides funding from
Vocational Rehabilitation for wages, FICA and workers' compensation
while the schools provide job development, job coaching, and
follow-along for the student at the job site. The Self-Assessment also
indicated concerns that appropriate transition plans are not developed
and implemented for all students with disabilities.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** 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 across the State. 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.

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 reports that (1)
agency linkages are not facilitated; (2) appropriate transition goals,
services and activities are not addressed in IEPs; (3) students are not
informed at age 17 of rights and responsibilities that will become
theirs upon turning age 18; and (4) opportunities for agency
involvement, community experiences, and the development of independent
living skills are insufficient in rural areas of the State.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength, areas of noncompliance, areas needing further review by the
State, and suggestions for improved results for children and youth with
disabilities.

## A. STRENGTH

###### Secondary Transition Program in Meade County

Although OSEP did not review other issues in the Meade County School
District, it reviewed eight IEPs that included secondary transition
services. In addition, OSEP interviewed the eight students, their
parents, teachers, teaching assistants, the building principal, the
director of special education and local employers. The secondary
transition program creates opportunities for students which allow them
to move to additional job training, directly into employment and to
attend colleges throughout the State. Through the self-advocacy
training, students become articulate, assertive and motivated to
succeed. OSEP recommends that South Dakota replicate this program as
extensively as possible.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Coordinated Set of Activities Within An Outcome Oriented
Process]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.18 of the regulations in effect at the time of the
monitoring visit states that, transition services means a coordinated
set of activities for a student with a disability that is designed
within an outcome oriented process that promotes movement from school to
post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational
training, integrated employment (including supported employment),
continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation. Transition services are based on individual
student's needs taking into account the student's preferences and
interests and includes instruction, related services, community
experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult
living objectives and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills
and functional vocational evaluation. 34 CFR §300.346(b)(1) of the
regulations in effect at the time of the monitoring visit states that
the IEP must include, for each student beginning at age 16 (or younger
if determined appropriate by the IEP team), a statement of needed
transition services for the student. These services include, 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.

OSEP found that DECA did not ensure that the IEPs of students include a
statement of needed transition services. Transition services are a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome oriented process
designed to transition the student from high school into an appropriate
post-secondary situation that addresses the students needs, interests,
and abilities.

Based on records reviewed and interviews with teachers and
administrators, all five school districts are not addressing transition
as a coordinated set of activities under a goal oriented approach. In
four of the five districts, IEPs indicated that courses and activities
were not related to the overall goal, and that the goals and transition
plans were generic and did not address the individual student's needs,
interests, and abilities.

Examples of statements of needed transition services in the IEPs
reviewed include:

"\_\_\_\_\_ will pursue a vocation in auto body repair. Perhaps owning
his own shop," followed by "\_\_\_\_\_ prefers independent living and is
capable of doing so." None of the goals/objectives or services reflected
on the IEP were reasonably calculated to achieve the identified goals.
Therefore, the IEP did not reflect a coordinated set of activities
within an outcome-oriented process.

"\_\_\_\_\_ plans to be employed in a job/career that suits his
interests and abilities." No activities, goals or objectives in the IEP
were reasonably calculated to identify his interests or abilities nor
did any goals/objectives or services exist which would prepare the
student for a job or career. Therefore, the IEP did not reflect a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process.

Three of five districts did not include functional "life skills"
(acquisition of daily living skills) on IEPs due to difficulties in
providing these services, regardless of individual student need. Special
educators and special education directors in these districts reported
that "life skills" are not provided to academic track students, or that
they did not have the facilities to provide life skills training,
regardless of individual student needs. The director in one district
indicated that community experience was extremely limited due to the
small size of the town. In four of the five districts visited, IEPs did
not include all required transition components. Personnel in one
district stated that they had a number of transition programs for
students but they did not always indicate these on students' IEPs.

Most of the IEPs in three of five districts visited did not indicate any
interagency linkages even where the IEP team determined they would be
appropriate. One district director confirmed that interagency linkages
were extremely limited. In another district, a high school special
education teacher reported that outside agencies wait until students
reach at least their junior year before becoming involved. One special
education director reported that interagency linkages are not provided
until students are in their last year of high school because other
agencies would not participate until that time, even when these same
agencies have services available prior to students' graduations.

**2.** **[Inviting Representatives of Agencies Likely to be Responsible
for Providing or Paying]{.underline}**

**[for Transition Services]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.345(b)(2) 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. 34 CFR §300.344(c)(3) of these regulations states that 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 DECA does not ensure that IEP
notification and invitation meet IDEA requirements regarding transition.

In four of the five school districts visited, review of student records
showed that 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. Eighteen of 28 IEPs reviewed reflected no participation of
outside agency personnel nor did notices reflect that representatives
were invited, even when agencies existed who were likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition services as indicated
by the IEP. OSEP found no other methods used to obtain agency
participation in transition planning when invited representatives did
not attend IEP meetings. In addition, parents were not routinely
informed that other agency representatives would be invited to the IEP
meetings where transition would be discussed, even when such agencies
were invited.

## C. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES 

**[Provision of Training to Parents/Students/Providers]{.underline}**

Section 612(a)(14), which incorporates a portion of section 653, states
that each State must develop strategies that it will use to address the
identified needs for in-service and pre-service preparation to ensure
that all personnel who work with children with disabilities (including
professional and paraprofessional personnel who provide special
education, general education, related services or early intervention
services) have the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the needs of
children with disabilities. This plan must include a description of how
the State will provide joint training to parents along with special
education, related services and general education personnel. Active
intervention of parents and students in transition planning is most
likely to take place when the parents and students are aware of the
purpose and importance of the transition planning process in IEP
development through consistent and comprehensive training. This training
would produce a partnership with all parties being informed on issues
such as:

-   the purpose of transition

-   notification requirements to parents regarding transition

-   consideration of the student's interests and preferences

-   importance of student and parent involvement in the planning and
    development of the IEP

-   the need for appropriate outcome oriented goals, coordinated program
    of services, and interagency linkages.

# 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]{.underline}:** OSEP's 1994 monitoring report identified
no areas of noncompliance regarding general supervision.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** The South Dakota Part B
Self-Assessment focused on "General Supervision" as an integral part of
all areas addressed. The Self-Assessment concluded that South Dakota
utilizes complaint investigation and resolution, due process hearing
procedures, and the results of cyclical monitoring of local education
agencies to identify deficiencies and initiate corrective actions that
improve results for children with disabilities across the State.

In addition, DECA has incorporated changes under the reauthorization of
IDEA into its monitoring process. South Dakota also has a mediation
process in place and interagency agreements for early intervention and
secondary transition.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}: 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 by administrators often indicated lack of
knowledge about State-level responsibilities for general supervision.
School system personnel reported that DECA customizes monitoring for
school districts and is responsive to requests for assistance in
implementation of corrective actions. Teachers in one district reported
that State monitoring activities have resulted in the inclusion of more
children with disabilities in regular education environments than would
have occurred without this process.

The Part B Steering Committee requested that OSEP investigate the
following concerns/issues: (1) whether monitoring results in systemic
changes and improvement in results for children with disabilities; and
(2) whether enforcement actions are taken, when appropriate, and whether
such actions result in systemic changes.

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.

## SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Monitoring to Ensure Consistent Implementation of Part B
Requirements]{.underline}**

Teachers and administrators in three of the five districts report that
State monitoring of Part B is ineffective in improving educational
results for children with disabilities. Teachers and administrators
reported to OSEP that requirements and instructions for district
participation in the State's monitoring review were inconsistent across
districts. Districts reported that the actual on-site monitoring
activities were not consistent with the information provided to the
districts prior to the monitoring activities about DECA policies and
procedures regarding requirements that would be monitored. DECA
indicated that while occasional required changes might occur between the
provision of information prior to monitoring and the actual monitoring
visit, every attempt is made to ensure consistency between the two.

Two districts were generally pleased with the DECA monitoring efforts.
Three districts reported that feedback was not given to the personnel
who were directly involved with the monitoring process. One district
suggested that the DECA monitoring should be based on the identified
needs of the districts, instead of an arbitrary cycle set by the State.
One district reported that DECA did not respond to corrective action
plans for districts in a timely manner.

2.  **[Providing Training Opportunities to Personnel in the
    District]{.underline}**

Teachers and administrators in three of five districts reported to OSEP
that additional training regarding specific topics in special education
would be appropriate. Districts report a lack of guidance for regular
education teachers about special education programs and services.
Specific areas identified for training and guidance include: functional
behavior assessments, positive behavior interventions, behavior plans,
secondary transition, parent involvement, development of the IEP
(including goals and objectives), and opportunities available for
professional personnel development. Teachers and administrators report
that needed training opportunities are not readily available and
accessible, and generally must be obtained at personal expense.

[^1]: The information in this section was provided by DECA.

[^2]: 2 Children from birth through two may be identified as being in
    need of prolonged assistance if, through a multidisciplinary
    evaluation, they score two standard deviations or more below the
    mean in two or more of the following areas: cognitive development,
    social or emotional development, and adaptive development.