October 14, 2005

Honorable Frederick P. Cerise

Secretary

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals

P.O. Box 629

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-0629

Dear Secretary Cerise:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to Louisiana's March 31, 2005
submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 Annual Performance
Report (APR) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part C for the grant period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
The APR reflects actual accomplishments that the State made during the
reporting period, compared to established objectives. The Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) has designed the APR under the IDEA to
provide uniform reporting from States and result in high-quality
information across States. The APR is a significant data source for OSEP
in the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations
regarding performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This
letter responds to the State's FFY 2003 APR. OSEP has set out its
comments, analysis and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

The conclusion of OSEP's November 19, 2004 FFY 2002 APR response letter
required the State to submit documentation that it corrected the
following areas of noncompliance from OSEP's 2000 monitoring visit[^1]:

-   *General Supervision.* One area of noncompliance, with three issues
    (34 CFR §303.501): (1) monitoring for compliance with all Part C
    requirements; (2) monitoring all programs and agencies that provide
    Part C services; and (3) ensuring correction of all identified
    noncompliance.

-   *Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments.* Four areas of
    noncompliance: (1) ensuring that individualized family service plans
    (IFSPs) identified the services and supports necessary to enhance
    the family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the child
    and to meet the unique needs of the child and family (34 CFR
    §303.344(b)); (2) provision of services in natural environments (34
    CFR §§303.344(d)(1)(ii), 303.18 and 303.12(b)); (3) coordination of
    all services needed by the family and child (34 CFR
    §303.23(a)(2)(i), (3)(i), and (3)(ii)); and (4) provision of
    transportation services needed to meet the IFSP (34 CFR
    §303.12(d)(15)).

OSEP's letter further directed the State to submit the following
documentation regarding each of those areas of noncompliance: (1) a
description of the procedures that it used to monitor agencies to ensure
compliance with each of those requirements; (2) a list of the agencies
in which the Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) implemented those
monitoring procedures from July 1, 2003 through February 28, 2005; (3)
the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with each of those
requirements that DHH made in any of those agencies; and (4) the status
of correction of such findings.

OSEP's letter also directed the State to include the following in the
FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005:

1.  A report on the sufficiency of all staff and providers in all
    regions of the State and the impact of any shortages in qualified
    personnel, and the impact of any shortages on Louisiana's
    noncompliance, addressed in the special conditions attached to its
    FFY 2004 Grant Award, related to waiting lists for evaluations and
    the timely provision of needed services to infants and toddlers with
    disabilities and their families;

2.  Strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines
    designed to maintain compliance and performance related to public
    awareness and child find procedures;

3.  Collection of data and any analysis completed to demonstrate
    improved and sustained functional abilities of eligible infants and
    toddlers; and

4.  Data on the total number of children for whom transition plans were
    required, an analysis of monitoring data or other supporting data
    showing whether the policies and procedures regarding transition at
    age three were being carried out throughout the State, and an
    analysis of the exit reasons, and strategies to maintain compliance
    and improve performance in early childhood transition.

OSEP's July 13, 2005 FFY 2005 Louisiana Part C Grant Award letter
determined that the State failed to provide the required documentation
or proposed actions to ensure timely correction of the noncompliance
related to four areas of noncompliance: (1) conducting evaluations and
assessments and convening the initial IFSP meeting within 45 days of
referral under 34 CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e) and 303.342(a); (2)
convening an IFSP meeting and obtaining parental consent prior to
eliminating or reducing early intervention services as required under 34
CFR §303.342(e); (3) identifying on the IFSP all early intervention
services needed to meet the unique needs of the child and family under
34 CFR §303.344(d); and (4) providing the early intervention services
listed on the child's IFSP under 34 CFR §303.342(e). In the State's FFY
2005 Part C Grant Award letter, OSEP designated the State as a high-risk
grantee and imposed Special Conditions on the Grant Award related to
those four areas of noncompliance. In the Special Conditions enclosure
to that letter, OSEP included a detailed analysis of the status of the
State's efforts to correct the noncompliance, and specified
documentation that the State must submit documentation in its first
Progress Report, due by October 28, 2005 and in its second Progress
Report, no later than April 14, 2006, demonstrating correction. OSEP is
not addressing those areas of noncompliance in this letter and will
respond separately to the progress reports due under the Special
Conditions.

In light of the major devastation to the State following Hurricane
Katrina on August 29, 2005, the State requested, in its September 19,
2005 e-mail correspondence to OSEP, a six-month extension of its
deadline to submit its: (1) October 28, 2005 progress report under the
FFY 2005 Part C grant Special Conditions and (2) the State Performance
Plan (SPP) due December 2, 2005. The Department understands that the
State\'s Part C program office, which is located in New Orleans, has had
to reorganize and will not be able to report data by the October
deadline. By this letter, OSEP is confirming the extension of the
progress report deadline such that one progress report under the FFY
2005 Special Conditions will be due by April 14, 2006. The State
requested an extension of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act SPP submission deadline. The Department currently does not have
legal authority to delay the deadline for the SPP. Section 616(b)(1)(A)
of the IDEA requires States to have performance plans "in place" no
later than December 4, 2005.

## General Supervision

In the area of General Supervision, OSEP's 2001 Monitoring Report and
November 2004 APR response letter identified three issues regarding the
State's failure to implement a system for identifying and correcting
noncompliance issues (34 CFR §303.501): (1) monitoring for compliance
with all Part C requirements; (2) monitoring all programs and agencies
that provide Part C services; and (3) ensuring correction of all
identified noncompliance.

### Identification and timely correction of noncompliance

-   ***[Monitoring for compliance with all Part C requirements &
    monitoring all programs and agencies that provide Part C
    services.]{.underline}***

-   ***[Ensuring correction of all identified
    noncompliance.]{.underline}***

In its FFY 2003 APR, DHH included procedures with detailed descriptions
of the methods used for monitoring the 19 System Points of Entry
(SPOEs), Family Service Coordination (FSC) Agencies and early
intervention providers. The EarlySteps Monitoring Procedure Manual
(Manual) included the schedule which indicated Stage I monitoring
beginning December 2003, concluding with Stage III monitoring in the
Spring 2005. Page 13 of the Manual indicated the hiring of Quality
Assurance Specialists in June 2004, and that extensive monitoring
training was provided to the Quality Assurance Specialists. Pages 23--26
specifically reported the methods used to monitor each FSC agency's
on-going service coordination activities.

Page 22 of the Manual outlined an EarlySteps Quality Assurance
Monitoring, Reporting and Follow-up Timeline for the SPOEs. In addition,
on page 27, the Manual specifically outlined an EarlySteps Quality
Assurance Monitoring, Reporting and Follow-up Timeline for the Family
Support Coordinators. Both timelines showed that DHH used a six-month
monitoring follow-up method to ensure correction and compliance. The
table on page 30 summarized the levels and categories of compliance, and
recognition and sanctions and follow-up monitoring schedule.

On page 4 of the FFY 2003 APR, DHH reported a projected target of
completing SPOE monitoring, that would include the review, final report,
technical assistance and corrective action plan developed for all SPOEs.
In addition, a projected target of completing FSC monitoring, would
include the review, final report, technical assistance and corrective
action plan developed for all FSCs. On page 11, DHH reported the
following projected timelines: (1) the SPOE Corrective Action process
would occur between February 2005 and May 2005; (2) the SPOE timeline
Corrective Action process would take place on a quarterly basis
beginning April 2005; and (3) the FSC Corrective Action process would
occur during Summer 2005.

OSEP recognizes the significant progress that DHH made in developing the
policies, procedures and methods to monitor SPOEs, FSC agencies and
early intervention providers. The State did not, however, include data
and/or analysis to support its conclusion that it corrected the
following noncompliance identified in OSEP's FFY 2002 APR response
letter (34 CFR §303.501): (1) monitoring for compliance with all Part C
requirements; (2) monitoring all programs and agencies that provide Part
C services; and (3) ensuring correction of all identified noncompliance.
The State's response did not, as directed by OSEP's November 2004
letter, include specific data regarding the date and nature of any
findings of noncompliance with each Part C requirement that DHH made in
the agencies it monitored and the status of correction of such findings.

As part of the SPP, due December 2, 2005, DHH must provide a list of the
agencies or providers in which DHH found noncompliance since July 1,
2003, the corrective action(s) DHH required the agency or provider to
take, any correction data provided by that agency or provider, and the
status of correction of the noncompliance. If the State is unable to
demonstrate compliance in the SPP, OSEP will consider designating the
State as a high-risk grantee and impose Special Conditions in this area
in the FFY 2006 Grant Award.

### Personnel

From the data and information provided in the FFY 2002 APR, OSEP could
not determine performance related to the State having an adequate supply
of personnel to provide early intervention services. OSEP's November
2004 letter indicated that, in the FFY 2003 APR, the State must report
on whether there are sufficient qualified professionals in all regions
of the State to ensure the provision of timely evaluations and
assessments of, and early intervention services to, all infant and
toddlers with disabilities and their families in the State.

Page 16 of the FFY 2003 APR indicated that, since DHH replaced the
Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) as the State's lead agency for
Part C, effective July 1, 2003, several administrative structural
changes have occurred. DHH reported that a main goal during the
transition was to avoid losing existing service providers, as well as
expanding the participation of partners at the State and local levels to
reflect the diversity of resources, supports and services. The provider
pool was expanded to allow independent providers to enroll, providing an
increase in provider availability and family choice. Family Surveys were
sent to all families enrolled in the EarlySteps system since July 1,
2003. Page 18 of the FFY 2003 APR indicated that 72% of the families
responded that they were receiving services listed on the IFSP. DHH
reported a future activity to analyze the information by region to
determine areas where provider shortages may exist. In addition, DHH
indicated that, in the Spring 2005, modifications would be made to the
existing Early Intervention Data System. A field entitled "No Provider
Available" would allow the State to track provider shortages.

OSEP appreciates the State's efforts to improve performance in this
area.

### Dispute Resolution

On pages 12 -14 of the FFY 2003 APR, data and information indicated the
following area of noncompliance, not previously identified by OSEP:
Regulations at 34 CFR §303.512(a) require that each lead agency include
in its complaint procedures, a time limit of 60 calendar days after a
complaint was filed to: (1) carry out an independent on-site
investigation, if the lead agency determined that such an investigation
was necessary; (2) give the complainant an opportunity to submit
additional information, either orally or in writing, about the
allegations in the complaint; (3) review all relevant information and
make an independent determination as to whether the public agency was
violating a requirement of Part C; and (4) issue a written decision to
the complainant that addressed each allegation in the complaint and
contained findings of fact and conclusions and the reasons for the lead
agency's final decision.

On page 12, for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, DHH
reported that it received 15 complaints. Of the 15 complaints filed,
seven were resolved within 60 days, and eight exceeded the 60-day
timeline. The State reported reasons for exceeding the 60-day timeline,
including obstacles with obtaining cooperation from providers. The State
did not provide data or information related to the use of extensions for
resolving complaints beyond the 60-day timeline. As a result of the
complaints not being processed within the 60-day timeline, DHH reported
the EarlySteps program would refine and establish new complaint
processing procedures, including the completion of the Complaint Data
System in Spring 2005, with implementation in Spring/Summer 2005. OSEP
accepts the State's plan. The State should consider the following data
and information describing compliance with this requirement: (1) number
of complaints filed during the reporting period; (2) timelines within
which written decisions were issued for each complaint; and (3) an
explanation for any timelines exceeding 60 calendar days after the date
the complaint was filed.

The State must include data and analysis documenting progress toward
compliance in the SPP, due December 2, 2005, and provide a final report
to OSEP, including data and analysis demonstrating compliance, no later
than 30 days following one year from the date of this letter.

[Collection and timely reporting of accurate data]{.underline}

## 

On pages 19-20 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
regarding its performance in this area. DHH reported the development of
the Early Intervention Data System, connected to the finance system,
that the State used to collect various data elements, including referral
data, child data, early intervention provider data, family selection
data, IFSP data and service authorization data. The data were utilized
for: (1) federal reporting; (2) facilitating state and local planning;
and (3) continuous quality improvement at the State and local levels.
DHH reported two projected outcomes from the data collection activities:
(1) developing SPOE data validation procedures in April 2005; and (2)
developing statewide and Regional Profiles in June 2005.

OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's updated data in this area in
the SPP, due December 2, 2005.

## 

## Comprehensive Public Awareness and Child Find System

In the FFY 2002 APR, the State reported implementation of the strategies
and activities it identified to correct the noncompliance identified in
the 2001 Monitoring Report for this cluster. On pages 21-32 of the FFY
2003 APR, the State included data and analysis demonstrating continued
compliance and performance in this area.

DHH provided data that indicated the results of the State's public
awareness and child find activities as required by 34 CFR
§§303.320-303.323 of Part C of the IDEA. On pages 21-27 of the FFY 2003
APR, DHH described various partnerships and activities that resulted in
a coordinated child find and public awareness system and increased
performance in each of the SPOE offices. Louisiana reported the number
of eligible children birth to three served continued to increase. State
data for December 1, 2003 indicated 1.3% of infants and toddlers in
Louisiana were served. For the December 1, 2004 count, the FFY 2003 APR
reported the State serving 1.7%. The State also reported that the number
of eligible children under one year of age served, was increasing, but
at a slower rate. For the December 1, 2003 count, the FFY 2003 APR
indicated 2,456 children aged 0-1 with active IFSPs and 2,983 for June
2004.

OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's data in this area in the
SPP, due December 2, 2005***.***

# **Family Centered Services**

On pages 33-44 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
regarding its compliance and performance in this area. The State
reported data and analysis from a Family Survey sent to every family
enrolled in the EarlySteps program since July 1, 2003. Page 34 indicated
that 94% of the families reported that early intervention had a positive
impact on their family. On page 39, the State reported 93% of the
families responded that their child's IFSP was based on issues important
to the family. A future activity included collaborating with Parent
Training and Information Centers to develop a community based education
and training program for families. DHH reported the focus of the
collaboration would be to develop ongoing training programs in each
region of the State by Fall 2006.

OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's response to the family
outcomes indicator (including its plan to collect and submit by February
2007 data regarding family outcomes) in the SPP, due December 2, 2005.

## Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments

In the area of Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments, the
2001 Monitoring Report and November 2004 letter identified four areas of
noncompliance: (1) ensuring that IFSPs identified the services and
supports necessary to enhance the family's capacity to meet the
developmental needs of the child and to meet the unique needs of the
child and family (34 CFR §303.344(b)); (2) provision of services in
natural environments (34 CFR §§303.344(d)(1)(ii), 303.18 and 303.12(b));
(3) coordination of all services needed by the family and child (34 CFR
§303.23(a)(2)(i), (3)(i), and (3)(ii)); and (4) provision of
transportation services needed to meet the IFSP (34 CFR §303.12(d)(15)).

[Evaluation and identification of needs]{.underline}

On page 8 of the FFY 2003 APR, in an attachment titled "SPOE Monitoring
Results, Sanctions and Corrective Action Plan," the State included data
and analysis indicating a need to improve performance in the area of
evaluation and identification of needs. The State included data that
three of 19 SPOEs were below 90% compliance when child records were
monitored. The State also included strategies to improve performance.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing updated information in the SPP,
including the implementation of strategies to improve performance and
resulting data and analysis.

[Individualized family service plans]{.underline}

> *[IFSPs identified the services and supports necessary to enhance the
> family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the child and to
> meet the unique needs of the child and family]{.underline}.*

OSEP addressed the noncompliance with the 45-day timeline in the State's
FFY 2005 Part C Grant Award letter, and will respond to this issue after
it receives the State's Progress Report under the Grant Special
Conditions.

> ***[Transportation services needed to meet the IFSP]{.underline}**.*

The State did not include data and/or analysis to support correction of
the following noncompliance identified in OSEP's November 2004 letter:
provision of transportation services needed to meet the IFSP (34 CFR
§303.12(d)(15)). On page 38 of the FFY 2003 APR, DHH reported that 68%
of families surveyed responded that other services, such as
transportation and childcare, were considered when planning for their
child's services. These data were not sufficient to determine that the
noncompliance was corrected. The data and information provided in the
FFY 2003 APR did not provide the agency-specific data necessary to
determine correction of the noncompliance.

In the SPP, due December 2, 2005, DHH must provide a description of the
procedures that it used to monitor agencies to ensure that
transportation needed to enable families to participate in early
intervention services were included in the IFSP and provided as an early
intervention service, as part of its list of the agencies in which DHH
has implemented monitoring procedures from July 1, 2003 through February
28, 2005, the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with this
requirement that DHH made in any of those agencies, and the status of
correction of such findings. OSEP requested the same data and
information in its November 2004 letter.

If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance in the SPP, OSEP will
consider designating the State as a high-risk grantee and impose Special
Conditions in this area in the FFY 2006 Grant Award.

[Natural environments]{.underline}

> ***[Provision of services in the natural environments]{.underline}**.*

On page 62 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and information
indicating continued noncompliance in the following area: provision of
services in natural environments (34 CFR §§303.344(d)(1)(ii), 303.18 and
303.12(b)). DHH provided a description of the procedures used to monitor
agencies to ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs
of the child, early intervention services were provided in natural
environments, and that the IFSP for each child included the natural
environments in which services would be provided and an appropriate
(child-based) justification of the extent, if any, to which services
were not provided in a natural environment.

DHH reported that 19% of children with IFSPs received services in
settings that would not meet the definition of natural environment. On
page 62 of the FFY 2003 APR, DHH reported that the Early Intervention
Data System was not able to capture justification statements nor closely
monitor this requirement during the FFY 2003 reporting period. The FFY
2003 APR did not provide data indicating if the 19% of children
identified above had justifications on their IFSPs.

Page 63 of the FFY 2003 APR contained a numerical goal for increasing
the number of children placed in natural environments. While it is not
inconsistent with Part C of the IDEA to include a numerical performance
goal to increase the percentages of infants and toddlers with
disabilities placed in natural environments, the State must continue to
monitor to ensure that eligibility decisions for all infants and
toddlers are made in conformity with the individual evaluation and
assessment requirements of Part C of IDEA (at 34 CFR §§303.322) and not
based upon a numerical goal.

Regulations at 34 CFR §303.12(b) require that to the maximum extent
appropriate to the needs of the child, early intervention services must
be provided in natural environments, including the home and community
settings in which children without disabilities participate. Natural
environments are settings that are natural or normal for the child's age
peers who have no disabilities. Data and information describing
compliance with these requirements may include: (1) numbers of children
receiving services in the State (e.g., home, day care centers, service
centers, etc.); (2) numbers of children receiving services in natural
environments; (3) the percentage of children not receiving services in
natural environments whose IFSPs include a justification; and (4) an
explanation of why children do not receive services in natural
environments.

In the SPP, due December 2, 2005, DHH must provide: (1) a list of the
agencies in which DHH implemented monitoring procedures, including for
natural environments and justifications for services not provided in
natural environments, from July 1, 2003 through February 28, 2005; and
(2) the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with those
requirements that DHH made in any of those agencies, and the status of
correction of such findings. OSEP requested the same data and
information in its November 2004 letter.

If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance in the SPP, OSEP will
consider designating the State as a high-risk grantee and impose Special
Conditions with this area in the FFY 2006 Grant Award.

### Service coordination

> ***[Coordination of all services needed by the family and
> child]{.underline}**.*

On pages 45-50 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information indicating continued noncompliance in the area of
coordination of all services needed by the family and child (34 CFR
§303.23(a)(2)(i), (3)(i), and (3)(ii)). DHH reported, through the use of
a family survey, that 80% of families surveyed reported that FSC
facilitated the timely access to early intervention services and 74% of
families reported that an Intake Coordinator contacted them within two
days of referral. Page 49 of the FFY 2003 APR indicated: (1) SPOE
monitoring would be conducted by the QAS from August 2004-September
2004; and (2) FSC monitoring would be conducted by the QAS beginning
November 2004-April 2005.

OSEP recommends the following data and information describing compliance
that the State may want to consider: (1) the number of children
receiving services under Part C; (2) the number of those children who
have been assigned a single service coordinator; (3) the percentage of
children under (2) whose service coordinators are performing all
required functions; and (3) explanations for any children whose service
coordinators are not performing all required functions.

In the SPP, due December 2, 2005, DHH must provide a description of its
procedures for monitoring agencies to ensure that infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families received service coordination that
met all of the requirements of 34 CFR §303.23, a list of the agencies in
which DHH has implemented those monitoring procedures from July 1, 2003
through February 28, 2005, the date and nature of any findings of
noncompliance with those requirements that DHH made in any of those
agencies, and the status of correction of such findings. OSEP requested
the same data and information in its November 2004 letter.

If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance in the SPP, OSEP will
consider designating the State as a high-risk grantee and impose Special
Conditions in this area in the FFY 2006 Grant Award.

### Early childhood outcomes

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C.
1116, the effectiveness of the IDEA Part C program is measured based on
the extent to which children receiving Part C services demonstrate
improved and sustained functional abilities in the cognitive, physical,
communication, social or emotional and adaptive developmental areas. The
Part C FFY 2001, 2002 and 2003 APRs requested data on the percentage of
children participating in the Part C program that demonstrate improved
and sustained functional abilities in the developmental areas listed in
34 CFR §303.322(c)(3)(ii)). On page 64-65 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State
responded to but did not provide OSEP with any data in response to this
performance indicator. The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in
this area, for which States must provide entry data in the FFY 2005 APR
due February 1, 2007. The State must make a determination whether plans
currently in place to collect data related to this area will be
responsive to those requirements. Absence of this information at that
time will be considered in OSEP's annual determination on the status of
the State's performance and compliance required under section 616(d) of
the IDEA. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State\'s plan for
collecting these data, in the SPP.

## Early Childhood Transition

On pages 66-77 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
regarding its compliance and performance in this area. Due to the
reporting period for the FFY 2003 (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004), the
State reported on its performance in this cluster area by including a
review and analysis of the 2002--2003 performance data that DHH received
from LDE during the transition of Part C lead Agency. On page 72 of the
FFY 2003 APR, DHH reported 27% of the children exiting EarlySteps did so
because they completed the IFSP prior to age three. LDE reported during
July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003 that 15% of the children exited Part C with a
completed IFSP prior to age three. A future activity included modifying
the Early Intervention Data System to include: (1) the required date of
local educational agency notification; and (2) the required date of
transition meeting. DHH reported using this information to assist with
transition monitoring activities. LDE reported updating its data system
to assist with data collection in this area. Additionally, on page 74 of
the FFY 2003 APR, a policy clarification was included, outlining
transition procedures for LDE, the Office for Citizens with
Developmental Disabilities and the EarlySteps program.

OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's updated data in this area in
the SPP.

## Conclusion 

As part of the SPP, due December 2, 2005, DHH must provide a list of the
agencies or providers in which DHH found noncompliance since July 1,
2003, the corrective action(s) DHH required the agency or provider to
take, any correction data provided by that agency or provider, and the
status of correction of the noncompliance. If the State does provide
this documentation to show that it can ensure the timely correction of
noncompliance, OSEP will consider designating the State as a high-risk
grantee. This information must include:

1.  A list of the agencies in which DHH implemented its monitoring
    procedures from July 1, 2003 through February 28, 2005, regarding
    requirements addressing transportation, natural environments,
    justification for services not provided in natural environments, and
    service coordination;

2.  The date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with each of
    those requirements that DHH made in any of those agencies; and

3.  The status of correction of such findings.

Further, the State must include the following in the SPP:

1.  The number of complaints filed during the reporting period;

2.  The timelines within which written decisions were issued for each
    complaint; and

3.  An explanation for any timelines exceeding 60 calendar days after
    the date the complaint was filed.

In addition, under its Part C FFY 2005 grant Special Conditions, DHH
must submit its Progress Report no later than April 14, 2006,
demonstrating correction of the noncompliance related to the following
four areas detailed in OSEP's July 13, 2005 FFY 2005 Louisiana Part C
grant award letter: (1) conducting evaluations and assessments and
convening the initial IFSP meeting within 45 days of referral under 34
CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e) and 303.342(a); (2) convening an IFSP
meeting and obtaining parental consent prior to eliminating or reducing
early intervention services as required under 34 CFR §303.342(e); (3)
identifying on the IFSP all early intervention services needed to meet
the unique needs of the child and family under 34 CFR §303.344(d); and
(4) providing the early intervention services listed on the child's IFSP
under 34 CFR §303.342(e). OSEP will respond separately to the Progress
Report that is required to be submitted by April 14, 2006.

IDEA 2004, §616, requires each State to submit a State Performance Plan
that measures performance on monitoring priorities and indicators
established by the Department. These priorities and indicators are, for
the most part, the same as clusters and probes in the APR. OSEP
encourages the State to carefully consider the comments in this letter
as it prepares its SPP, due December 2, 2005.

As noted above, OSEP has, in light of the major devastation to the State
following Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, agreed to extend the
Special Conditions progress report deadline such that one progress
report will be due by April 14, 2006. OSEP recognizes that there are
many requests in this letter for data to be submitted with the SPP due
December 2, 2005. If, in light of that devastation, the State determines
that it will not be able to meet any of the documentation timelines set
forth in this letter, please contact Mary Louise Dirrigl at (202)
245-7324.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State and looks forward to collaborating
with you as you continue to improve results for infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Troy R. Justesen
>
> Troy R. Justesen
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Linda Pippins

[^1]: OSEP's July 20, 2001 Louisiana Monitoring Report identified 14
    findings of noncompliance. OSEP's February 13, 2004 response to the
    State's FFY Part C 2001 APR noted that the State had corrected two
    of the findings. OSEP's July 2004 Part C FFY 2003 grant award letter
    imposed special conditions, under the regulations governing "high
    risk" grantees in 34 CFR §80.12, requiring the State to correct four
    areas of noncompliance identified in the July 2001 Monitoring
    Report. OSEP's November 2004 FFY 2002 APR response letter indicated
    the State had resolved three findings and required the State to
    submit documentation in the FFY 2003 APR that it corrected the
    remaining five areas of noncompliance.