June 15, 2007

Honorable James S. Reinhard

Commissioner

Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse
Services

PO Box 1797

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Commissioner Reinhard:

Thank you for the timely submission of Virginia's Annual Performance
Report (APR) and revised State Performance Plan (SPP) under Part C of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in
2004.

As you know, under IDEA sections 616 and 642, each State has an SPP that
evaluates the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes
of Part C of the IDEA and describes how the State will improve its
implementation of Part C. In the revised SPP due by February 1, 2007,
States were required to provide information on: (1) specific new
indicators; and (2) correction of any deficiencies identified in the
Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) SPP response letter sent
to your State last year. States were also required to submit by February
1, 2007, an APR for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2005 that describes the
State's: (1) progress or slippage in meeting the measurable and rigorous
targets established in the SPP; and (2) any revisions to the State's
targets, improvement activities, timelines or resources in the SPP and
justifications for the revisions. We appreciate the State's efforts in
preparing the FFY 2005 APR and revised SPP.

The Department has reviewed the information provided in the State's FFY
2005 APR and revised SPP, other State-reported data, information
obtained through monitoring visits, and other public information and has
determined that, under IDEA sections 616(d) and 642, Virginia needs
assistance in meeting the requirements of Part C of the IDEA. The State
should review IDEA section 616(e) regarding the potential future impact
of the Department's determination.

The Department's determination is based on the totality of the State's
data in its SPP/APR and other publicly available information, including
any compliance issues. The factors in States' FFY 2005 APR and February
1, 2007 SPP submissions that affected the Department's determinations
were whether the State: (1) provided valid and reliable FFY 2005 data
that reflect the measurement for each indicator, and if not, whether the
State provided a plan to collect the missing or deficient data; and (2)
for each compliance indicator that was not new (a) demonstrated
compliance or timely corrected noncompliance, and (b) in instances where
it did not demonstrate compliance, had nonetheless made progress in
ensuring compliance over prior performance in that area. We also
considered whether the State had other IDEA compliance issues that were
identified previously through the Department's monitoring, audit or
other activities, and the State's progress in resolving those problems.
See the enclosure entitled "How the Department Made Determinations under
Section 616(d) of the IDEA in 2007" for further details.

Specific factors affecting OSEP's determination for Virginia include
that its FFY 2005 data reflect: (1) for Indicator 1, 72% compliance; (2)
for Indicator 9, 75% compliance; and (3) for Indicators 8A. 8B, and 8C,
respectively, the following levels of compliance: 86%, 89%, and 75.36%.
For Indicators 1, 8A, 8B and 8C, Virginia did not demonstrate correction
of prior findings of noncompliance. For these reasons, we were unable to
determine that Virginia met requirements under IDEA sections 616(d) and
642. Balancing these factors were that the State: (1) provided FFY 2005
data for each indicator; and (2) reported a high level of compliance for
Indicator 7 (98%) and 100% compliance for Indicator 10. We also commend
the State for its improvement in Indicator 8. We hope that Virginia will
be able to demonstrate that it meets requirements of Part C in its FFY
2006 APR.

The table enclosed with this letter provides OSEP's analysis of the
State's FFY 2005 APR and revised SPP and identifies, by indicator,
OSEP's review and acceptance of any revisions made by the State to its
targets, improvement activities (timelines and resources) and baseline
data in the State's SPP. It also identifies, by indicator, the State's
status in meeting its targets, and whether the State's data reflect
progress or slippage, and whether the State corrected noncompliance and
provided valid and reliable data. The table also lists, by indicator,
any additional information the State must include in the FFY 2006 APR
or, as needed, the SPP due February 1, 2008, to address the problems
OSEP identified in the revised SPP or FFY 2005 APR. The State must
provide this required information. We plan to factor into our
determinations next year whether or not States provided the additional
information requested in this table in their FFY 2006 APR, due February
1, 2008, and may take other actions as well, if the State's data, or
lack of data, regarding these issues indicates continuing noncompliance.

As you know, your State must report annually to the public on the
performance of each early intervention services (EIS) program located in
the State on the targets in the SPP under IDEA section
616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(l) and 642. The requirement for public reporting on EIS
programs' performance is a critical provision in ensuring accountability
and focusing on improved results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities. Please have your staff notify your OSEP State Contact when
and where your State makes available its public report on EIS program
performance. In addition, States must review EIS program performance
against targets in the State's SPP, especially the compliance
indicators, determine if each EIS program meets the requirements of the
IDEA and inform each EIS program of its determination. For further
information regarding these requirements, see the SPP/APR Guidance
Materials at <http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/>.

We hope that the State found helpful, and was able to benefit from, the
monthly technical assistance conference calls conducted by this Office,
ongoing consultation with OSEP State Contacts and OSEP-funded Technical
Assistance Center staff, materials found on the IDEA 2004 website, and
attendance at OSEP-sponsored conferences. OSEP will continue to provide
technical assistance opportunities to assist your State as it works to
improve performance under Part C of the IDEA. If you have any feedback
on our past technical assistance efforts or the needs of States for
guidance, we would be happy to hear from you as we work to develop
further mechanisms to support State improvement activities.

OSEP is committed to supporting Virginia's efforts to improve results
for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and looks
forward to working with your State over the next year. If you have any
questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request
technical assistance, please do not hesitate to call Barbara Route, your
OSEP State Contact, at 202-245-7510.  

Sincerely,

 

  /s/ Patricia J. Guard

 

Patricia J. Guard

Acting Director

> Office of Special Education Programs

 

Enclosures

 

cc: Part C Coordinator