## Table B -- California Part C

# Previously Identified Issues 

+----------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
| **Issue**      | ##               | **OSEP       | **Required       |
|                | State Submission | Analysis**   | Action**         |
+================+==================+==============+==================+
| **Indicator    | On page 19 of    | The State    | The State must   |
| 7:**           | the SPP, the     | provided     | review and, if   |
|                | State reported   | data in      | necessary        |
| **34 CFR       | that baseline    | response to  | revise, its      |
| §§             | data from        | Indicator 7  | improvement      |
| 303.321(e)(2), | 2004-2005        | that         | strategies to    |
| 303.322(e)(1)  | indicated that   | demonstrate  | ensure they will |
| and            | 72.38% of        | continuing   | enable the State |
| 303.342(a).**  | children had     | n            | to include data  |
|                | their evaluation | oncompliance | in the APR, due  |
| OSEP's         | and assessment   | with the     | February 1,      |
| September 30,  | completed and an | requirements | 2007, that       |
| 2005 response  | initial IFSP     | of 34 CFR    | demonstrate full |
| to the APR     | meeting held     | §§30         | compliance with  |
| noted that the | within 45 days   | 3.321(e)(2), | this             |
| State's        | of referral. The | 30           | requirement.     |
| January 12,    | State further    | 3.322(e)(1), | Failure to       |
| 2005           | reported the     | and          | demonstrate      |
| Improvement    | percentage for   | 303.342(a).  | compliance at    |
| Plan           | FFY 2003 was     | The level of | that time may    |
| identified     | 87.66%, and the  | compliance   | affect OSEP's    |
| improvement in | percentage for   | reported was | determination of |
| ensuring       | FFY 2002 was     | 72.38%.      | the State's      |
| compliance     | 84.5%            |              | status under     |
| with the       |                  | Although the | §616(d) of the   |
| 45-day         | The State        | State        | IDEA.            |
| timeline       | further          | included     |                  |
| requirements   | indicated that,  | strategies   |                  |
| of 34 CFR      | "often during    | on pages 4,  |                  |
| §              | the first IFSP   | 19, and 20   |                  |
| 303.322(e)(1), | meeting, it is   | for ensuring |                  |
| 303.322(e)(2)  | determined that  | compliance,  |                  |
| and            | additional       | OSEP is      |                  |
| 303.342(a).    | assessments in   | concerned    |                  |
| OSEP's         | specific areas   | about the    |                  |
| September 30,  | are needed to    | data         |                  |
| 2005 letter    | determine        | reflecting   |                  |
| required the   | additional       | slippage in  |                  |
| State to       | service needs."  | this area.   |                  |
| submit, as     | In addition, the |              |                  |
| part of its    | State indicated  |              |                  |
| SPP: (1)       | that they will   |              |                  |
| updated        | "continue to     |              |                  |
| progress; and  | dialogue with    |              |                  |
| (2) to the     | OSEP regarding   |              |                  |
| extent that    | the evaluations  |              |                  |
| the data and   | and assessments  |              |                  |
| analysis did   | required within  |              |                  |
| not            | the first 45     |              |                  |
| demonstrate    | days, as it its  |              |                  |
| correction of  | likely that      |              |                  |
| the            | California is    |              |                  |
| noncompliance, | much closer to   |              |                  |
| a revised      | the required     |              |                  |
| Improvement    | standard than    |              |                  |
| Plan.          | the reported     |              |                  |
|                | percent for this |              |                  |
|                | indicator."      |              |                  |
|                |                  |              |                  |
|                | The State        |              |                  |
|                | included         |              |                  |
|                | strategies for   |              |                  |
|                | ensuring         |              |                  |
|                | compliance on    |              |                  |
|                | pages 4, 19, and |              |                  |
|                | 20.              |              |                  |
+----------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
| **Indicator    | The State did    | The State    | In the APR, due  |
| 9B:**          | not include the  | did not      | February 1,      |
|                | required plan in | submit a     | 2007, the State  |
| 34 CFR         | the SPP, and has | plan for     | must provide     |
| §303.344(a)(1) | provided no      | ensuring     | data             |
|                | documentation    | correction   | demonstrating    |
| Data in the    | that it has      | of this      | full compliance  |
| State's FFY    | corrected the    | specific     | with the         |
| 2003 APR       | noncompliance.   | area of      | requirement in   |
| indicated      |                  | no           | 34 CFR           |
| noncompliance  |                  | ncompliance. | §303.344(a)(1).  |
| with the       |                  | The State    | Failure to       |
| requirement at |                  | did,         | demonstrate      |
| 34 CFR         |                  | however,     | compliance or    |
| §303.344(a)(1) |                  | include      | submit a plan at |
| (85.74% of     |                  | strategies   | that time may    |
| IFSPs reviewed |                  | under        | impact OSEP's    |
| included a     |                  | Indicator 9  | determination of |
| statement of   |                  | for          | the State's      |
| the child's    |                  | correcting   | status under     |
| present level  |                  | identified   | §616(d) of the   |
| of development |                  | no           | IDEA.            |
| in five        |                  | ncompliance. |                  |
| areas). OSEP's |                  |              |                  |
| September 30,  |                  |              |                  |
| 2005 response  |                  |              |                  |
| to the State's |                  |              |                  |
| FFY 03 APR     |                  |              |                  |
| required the   |                  |              |                  |
| State to       |                  |              |                  |
| include, in    |                  |              |                  |
| its SPP, an    |                  |              |                  |
| improvement    |                  |              |                  |
| plan.          |                  |              |                  |
+----------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
| **Indicator 9A | On p. 25 the     | See          | See discussion   |
| and B:**       | State provided a | discussion   | regarding        |
|                | "Monitoring      | regarding    | Indicator 9 in   |
| **34 CFR       | Matrix" with a   | indicator 9  | Table A.         |
| §303.501**     | list of findings | in Table A.  |                  |
|                | and follow-up    |              |                  |
| The monitoring | for each         |              |                  |
| data in the    | Regional Center. |              |                  |
| State's FFY    | In this matrix,  |              |                  |
| 2003 APR       | the State        |              |                  |
| represented    | indicates        |              |                  |
| several years  | 2004-2005        |              |                  |
| and OSEP could | findings that    |              |                  |
| not determine  | were corrected   |              |                  |
| what percent   | during that same |              |                  |
| of items       | year, but the    |              |                  |
| requiring      | State did not,   |              |                  |
| follow-up were | as directed by   |              |                  |
| cleared for    | the SPP          |              |                  |
| each year, or  | directions,      |              |                  |
| whether all    | indicate the     |              |                  |
| identified     | percentage of    |              |                  |
| noncompliance  | findings that    |              |                  |
| was corrected  | were corrected   |              |                  |
| within a       | within one year  |              |                  |
| one-year time  | from             |              |                  |
| frame. OSEP's  | identification.  |              |                  |
| September 30,  |                  |              |                  |
| 2005 response  |                  |              |                  |
| required the   |                  |              |                  |
| State to       |                  |              |                  |
| include in its |                  |              |                  |
| SPP, data and  |                  |              |                  |
| analysis that  |                  |              |                  |
| demonstrated   |                  |              |                  |
| both the       |                  |              |                  |
| identification |                  |              |                  |
| and correction |                  |              |                  |
| of             |                  |              |                  |
| noncompliance  |                  |              |                  |
| for each       |                  |              |                  |
| Regional       |                  |              |                  |
| Center for a   |                  |              |                  |
| specific       |                  |              |                  |
| fiscal or      |                  |              |                  |
| calendar year. |                  |              |                  |
+----------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+
| **Indicator    | The State        | While Part   | No further       |
| 11:**          | submitted data   | C's 30-day   | action required. |
|                | demonstrating    | timeline     |                  |
| 34 CFR         | full compliance  | does not     |                  |
| §303.423(b)    | and clarified    | allow        |                  |
|                | that all         | extensions   |                  |
| OSEP's         | decisions were   | generally,   |                  |
| September 30,  | issued in the    | the very     |                  |
| 2005 letter    | 30-day timeline  | limited      |                  |
| required the   | with the         | exceptions   |                  |
| State to       | extremely        | identified   |                  |
| submit a plan  | limited          | in           |                  |
| in the SPP to  | documented       | California's |                  |
| ensure         | circumstances    | do not       |                  |
| compliance     | for which an     | reflect      |                  |
| with the       | extension was    | no           |                  |
| requirement    | granted are      | ncompliance. |                  |
| that the due   | limited family   | The State's  |                  |
| process        | illness, family  | standard     |                  |
| hearing        | absence from the | makes clear  |                  |
| decision is    | geographical     | that the     |                  |
| issued within  | area, and family | 30-day       |                  |
| 30 days as     | request in order | timeline is  |                  |
| required by 34 | to secure        | not subject  |                  |
| CFR            | evidence         | to           |                  |
| §303.423(b).   | pertaining to    | extensions   |                  |
|                | the complaint.   | other than   |                  |
|                |                  | the very     |                  |
|                |                  | limited      |                  |
|                |                  | documented   |                  |
|                |                  | family       |                  |
|                |                  | c            |                  |
|                |                  | ircumstances |                  |
|                |                  | to ensure    |                  |
|                |                  | the family's |                  |
|                |                  | ability to   |                  |
|                |                  | exercise its |                  |
|                |                  | rights under |                  |
|                |                  | 34 CFR       |                  |
|                |                  | §§303.420    |                  |
|                |                  | through      |                  |
|                |                  | 303.425.     |                  |
+----------------+------------------+--------------+------------------+