DECEMBER 31, 2002

Secretary Linda Renee Baker

Department of Health and Human Services

Harris Building, 3^rd^ Floor

100 South Grand Avenue

Springfield, Illinois 62762

Superintendent Robert Schiller

Illinois Board of Education

100 North First Street

Springfield, Illinois 62777

Dear Secretary Baker and Superintendent Schiller:

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in Illinois during the weeks of October 15,
2001 and April 22, 2002 for the purpose of assessing compliance in the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and assisting Illinois 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 Illinois State Board of
Education (ISBE), the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS), and
parents and advocates in Illinois. In conducting its review of Illinois,
OSEP applied the standards set forth in the IDEA 97 statute and in the
Part C regulations (34 CFR Part 303) and Part B regulations (34 CFR Part
300).

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration between a Steering Committee of broad-based
constituencies, including representatives from ISBE and DHS and 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 is designing
and coordinating implementation of concrete steps for improvement.
Please see the Introduction to the Report for a more detailed
description of this process in Illinois, 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
and focused on specific issues for the State of Illinois. Based upon its
review of the State's Self-Assessment and Improvement Plan, and other
data available before the April 2002 visit, OSEP collected data as part
of its focused on-site review regarding IDEA requirements in six
clusters:

> **Part C:** General Supervision, Early Intervention Services in
> Natural Environments, and Family-Centered System of Services[^1]; and
>
> **Part B:** General Supervision, Free Appropriate Public Education in
> the Least Restrictive Environment, and Secondary Transition.

OSEP identified components for each of these six clusters as a basis to
review the State's performance through examination of State and local
indicators. OSEP did not, as part of this focused on-site review,
collect data regarding two additional Part C clusters (Comprehensive
Child Find and Public Awareness, and Early Childhood Transition) and one
additional Part B cluster (Parent Involvement).

The enclosed report includes an executive summary, an introduction,
OSEP's findings of noncompliance, and suggestions for improved results.
Although the State has corrected some of the noncompliance that OSEP
identified in earlier monitoring reviews, OSEP is concerned that the
State has not corrected much of the noncompliance that OSEP identified
under both Part C and Part B in prior visits and reports. For example,
in OSEP's 1998 and 1999 monitoring reviews of the State's Part C system,
OSEP found that DHS was not fully meeting its responsibilities under
Part C for monitoring and for service coordination. As shown in Sections
I and II of this Report, OSEP found that DHS was not meeting those
requirements in April 2002. Similarly, OSEP found in 1995 that ISBE was
not ensuring that: (1) public agencies corrected noncompliance
identified by ISBE; and (2) that all public agencies met the least
restrictive environment requirements of Part B. As shown in Sections III
and IV of this Report, OSEP, again, found in April 2002 that the State
had noncompliance in the same areas as in earlier OSEP findings.

As part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, the State
developed an Improvement Plan for Part C and Part B, based on the
Self-Assessment that the State submitted to OSEP. The State submitted
that Improvement Plan to OSEP on January 16, 2002. The State must: (1)
review the Improvement Plan; and (2) submit to OSEP, within 60 days of
the date of this Report, an amended Improvement Plan that includes any
revisions in strategies, benchmarks, timelines, and evidence of change
that are necessary to ensure that each of the findings of noncompliance
in this Report will be corrected within one year from the date of OSEP's
approval of the revised Improvement Plan. It is important that the State
work with its Steering Committee in developing improvement strategies
that will ensure improved results for children with disabilities and
their families, and timely and effective correction of the
noncompliance. OSEP will work with DHS, ISBE, and the Steering Committee
to the support the State's improvement efforts.

Public sharing of information and partnerships with diverse stakeholders
are critical components of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process. Accordingly, ISBE and DHS have made the commitment to share
this Report with members of the Steering Committee, the State
Interagency Coordinating Council, the State Advisory Panel, and members
of the public.

I want to thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your
staffs during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Ms.
Carolyn Cochran Kopel, Ms. Janet D. Gully, Dr. Christopher Koch, Dr.
Anthony Sims, Mr. Jack Shook, and their staff members, collaborated
closely with OSEP in preparing for the public input meetings and the
on-site data collection. They were responsive to OSEP's requests for
information, providing access to necessary documentation that enabled
OSEP staff to work in partnership with the Steering Committee and better
understand Illinois' 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
Illinois. 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 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,
>
> Stephanie S. Lee
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Carolyn Cochran Kopel

Dr. Christopher Koch

Ms. Janet D. Gully

Dr. Anthony Sims

**OSEP Monitoring Report --Illinois**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

This Report contains the results of the first two steps (Self-Assessment
and Data Collection) in the Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP)
Continuous Improvement Monitoring of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), Parts C and B, in the State of Illinois during the
weeks of October 15,2001 and Apri122, 2002. The process is designed to
focus resources on improving results for infants, toddlers, children,
and youth with disabilities and their families through enhanced
partnerships between the State agencies, OSEP, parents, and advocates.

The Self-Assessment phase of the monitoring process included the
completion ofa Self- Assessment of the State's Part C and Part B
programs through a joint Steering Committee that provided information on
the status of implementation of IDEA. Although the State did not conduct
public input meetings in developing the Self-Assessment, the Illinois
State Board of Education (ISBE), the Illinois Department of Human
Services (DHS), and the U.S. Department of Education held joint public
input meetings during the week of October 15,2001: The State made
particular efforts to hold public input meetings at locations and times
when stakeholders could attend.

The Data Collection phase included interviews with parents, students,
agency administrators, local program and school administrators, service
providers, teachers and service coordinators, and reviews of children's
records. OSEP and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) staff
held joint interviews at some locations. OSEP shared information
regarding its preliminary findings with DHS in a conference call on May
3, 2002, and with ISBE in a conference call on May 2, 2002.

**Through these efforts, OSEP made the following findings:**

**Part C:**

-   DHS' monitoring procedures are not effective in identifying and
    ensuring the correction of all systemic noncompliance with the
    requirements of Part C.

-   DHS has failed to ensure that infants and toddlers with disabilities
    and their families receive service coordination that meets Part C
    requirements.

-   DHS has not ensured compliance with timelines for evaluation,
    assessment, and IFSP meetings.

-   DHS did not ensure the content of each child's IFSP was determined
    by the IFSP meeting participants.

**Part B:**

-   ISBE's monitoring procedures are not effective in identifying and
    ensuring the correction of all systemic noncompliance with the
    requirements of Part B.

-   ISBE has not reported to the public regarding the performance of
    students with disabilities in the alternate assessment.

-   ISBE has not ensured that all children with disabilities are
    educated in the least restrictive environment.

-   ISBE has not ensured that children with behavioral or emotional
    disabilities are receiving all of the services that they need as
    part of a free appropriate public education, including psychological
    counseling services.

**Illinois Monitoring Report**

**Table of Contents**

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

A. Overview -- Part C [1](#a.-overview-part-c)

B. Overview -- Part B [2](#b.-overview-part-b)

C. Prior OSEP Monitoring -- Part C [4](#c.-prior-osep-monitoring-part-c)

D. Prior OSEP Monitoring -- Part B [5](#d.-prior-osep-monitoring-part-b)

E. Self-Assessment -- Part C and Part B
[6](#e.-self-assessment-part-c-and-part-b)

G. Improvement Planning [9](#g.-improvement-planning)

I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION [13](#i.-part-c-general-supervision)

Areas of Noncompliance [14](#areas-of-noncompliance)

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

Areas of Noncompliance [17](#areas-of-noncompliance-1)

III\. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION [26](#iii.-part-b-general-supervision)

A. Areas of Non Compliance [28](#a.-areas-of-non-compliance)

B. Suggestions for Improved Results
[33](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results)

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

Areas of Noncompliance [36](#areas-of-noncompliance-2)

V. SECONDARY TRANSITION [41](#v.-secondary-transition)

Suggestions for Improved Results [42](#suggestions-for-improved-results)

# INTRODUCTION

Illinois is the 24^th^ largest state geographically. With nearly 12.5
million people, it is the sixth largest state based on population.
Springfield is the capital and Chicago is the most populated city. Based
on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data, 73.5% of Illinois' population is white
(67.8%, white not of Hispanic/Latino origin), 15.1% is Black or African
American, 0.2% is American Indian or Alaska native, and 3.4% is Asian.
The Census data further show that 5.8% reported some other race and 1.9%
reported two or more races. In addition to this racial information, the
Census data show that the percentage reporting Hispanic or Latino origin
was 12.3%.

### A. Overview -- Part C

On January 1, 1998, the Governor designated the Illinois Department of
Human Services (DHS) as the lead agency to administer the birth to three
Early Intervention Program, Part C of the IDEA. Prior to that date, the
Illinois State Board of Education was the lead agency. The Early
Intervention Services System Act (P.A. 91-537) provides the framework
for the State's implementation of the Part C Early Intervention Program.
The Illinois Part C Early Intervention Program is administered locally
through 25 regional system points of entry called Child & Family
Connections. Child & Family Connections vary in administrative structure
which include: ten administered by social service agencies; five
administered by regional offices of education; three administered by
early intervention programs; three administered by hospitals; three
administered by health departments; and one administered by a Child Care
Resource and Referral agency. The Child & Family Connections are
responsible for: (1) coordination of child find; (2) eligibility
determination; (3) IFSP development and service coordination activities;
and (4) participation with DHS in local monitoring and quality assurance
reviews. Some of the Child & Family Connections also provide direct
service to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

The Child & Family Connections serve approximately 14,000 children.
Caseloads vary by Child & Family Connection, ranging from 170 children
and families in the smallest to 1,270 children and families in the
largest. There are approximately 4,900 early intervention providers in
the State. This number has increased during the last 18 months.
According to the April 30, 2002 Report to the General Assembly on the
Early Intervention, as of end of March 2002, the Early Intervention
Program served 1.86% of Illinois' children under age 3. This was an
increase from 1.82% at the end of December 2001. Growth is expected to
continue due to increased child-find activities.

An infant or toddler under 36 months of age is eligible to receive early
intervention services in the State of Illinois if, according to informed
clinical judgment: (1) the child has a 30% developmental delay; (2) the
child has a physical or mental condition present that typically results
in a developmental delay; or (3) the infant or toddler is at risk of
having substantial developmental delays.

Under Illinois' procedures, an infant is eligible to receive Part C
services as "at-risk," if a multidisciplinary team reaches consensus
that a level of developmental delay is probable if early intervention
services are not provided, because of one or more of the following
circumstances:

1.  medical diagnosis of a parent as having a severe disorder (as
    defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
    Disorders IV) or developmental delay;

2.  current alcohol or substance abuse by the primary caregiver;

3.  a primary caregiver is currently less than 15 years of age;

4.  current homelessness of the child;

5.  a chronic illness of the primary caregiver;

6.  alcohol or substance abuse by the mother during pregnancy with the
    child;

7.  a primary caregiver has a level of education equal to or less that
    10^th^ grade, unless that level is appropriate to the primary
    caregiver's age; or

8.  documented abuse or neglect of the child, and the child has not been
    removed from the abuse or neglect circumstances.

DHS has, as part of its application for Part C funds, established a
system of payments. Pursuant to this system of payments, DHS supplements
funding for early intervention services through fees based on a sliding
scale and the use of private insurance with parent consent.

***Marie O. v. Edgar***

The named plaintiffs in the federal class action lawsuit were four
infants and toddlers with disabilities who were placed on waiting lists
for early intervention services and their families. They brought suit on
behalf of the class of eligible but unserved infants and sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to declare that
Illinois\' failure to provide all eligible infants with early
intervention services under Part H (now Part C) was a violation of their
rights under Part H. In 1996, the Federal District Court granted the
plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court required the
State, through its Governor and Superintendent of Education, to provide
early intervention services to all eligible children with disabilities,
and, in so doing, to comply with the mandatory aspects of Part H. In
1997, the 7^th^ Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's
decision. The order mandated specific steps in the areas of: (1) public
awareness; (2) procedural safeguards; (3) child find; (4) evaluation and
assessment; (5) IFSPs; (6) service coordination; (7) elimination of
waiting lists; (8) data collection; (9) financial matters; and (10)
personnel development.

### B. Overview -- Part B

ISBE is responsible for the general supervision of the State's
educational programs for children and youth with disabilities, ages 3
through 21. Illinois has approximately 900 school districts. Most large
districts function as independent school districts and provide special
education and related services to all eligible children. Smaller
districts combine their resources through joint agreements to provide
services.

ISBE staff: (1) provide training to school staff, district
administrators, and others on important issues and current instructional
practices; (2) provide current information on State and federal laws
relating to the education of students with disabilities; monitor
districts' compliance with those laws; (3) help resolve conflicts
between school districts and families of students with disabilities; and
(4) provide additional technical assistance to school districts as
needed. There have been several State-level changes within the past
year, including the appointment of a new State Special Education
Director, the appointment an interim State Superintendent, and later the
appointment of a new State Superintendent.

***Corey H. et al. v. Bd. of Ed. of the City of Chicago and ISBE***

In May 1992, the named plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit in
federal court against Chicago Public Schools and ISBE on behalf of
students with disabilities receiving special education services from
Chicago Public Schools. The suit alleged that such students were not
being educated in the least restrictive environment, in violation of
federal law. A settlement between Chicago Public Schools and the
plaintiffs was reached and approved in January 1998. The case against
ISBE went to trial, with findings issued in February 1998 and a
settlement finalized in June 1999. The findings of the court with regard
to ISBE primarily focused on Least Restrictive Environment and general
supervisory responsibilities.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, an Implementation Plan was
developed by ISBE to carry out the requirements of the Agreement and
monitor its progress. This plan, which was finalized in October 2001,
specifies the following actions that ISBE must take. The agreement
requires ISBE to employ sufficient staff, and to take all of the
following actions within an eight-year period:

1.  Revise its procedures for monitoring and enforcing Part B's least
    restrictive environment requirements in Chicago Public Schools.
    (These procedures must include objective measures of compliance and
    provide for reporting and collection of information.)

2.  In cooperation with the plaintiffs and Chicago Public Schools,
    establish district-wide targets for the promotion of least
    restrictive environment in Chicago Public Schools and benchmarks
    leading to their attainment.

3.  Issue a report of findings to the school, when monitoring identifies
    least restrictive environment violations or failure to meet the
    established targets; local school personnel and Chicago Public
    Schools must develop a corrective action plan within 45 calendar
    days.

4.  Establish procedures for imposing sanctions if a school or Chicago
    Public Schools fails to implement the corrective action plans or
    fails to meet a target by the end of the corrective action
    timeframe.

5.  Monitor 35 Chicago schools during the 2001-2002 school year, and 50
    schools for each of the following years.

6.  Revise the complaint management procedures to ensure that they are
    well known and easily accessible by Chicago Public Schools staff and
    parents.

7.  Ensure that Chicago Public Schools has a comprehensive system of
    personnel development, which is designed to employ, train, and
    support regular and special education staff, paraprofessionals,
    administrators, and other staff to provide students with
    disabilities and education in the least restrictive environment.

8.  Revise/redesign its teacher certification policies to provide for
    non-categorical certification and the provision of special education
    services to students with disabilities in the least restrictive
    environment.

### C. Prior OSEP Monitoring -- Part C

During the week of March 2, 1998, OSEP conducted a targeted on-site
monitoring review of DHS' implementation of Part C. The visit focused
particularly on: (1) child find and public awareness activities; (2)
provision of early intervention services to eligible children and their
families in natural environments; (3) transition from Part C to
preschool or other appropriate services at age three; and (4) DHS'
administrative responsibilities for implementation of the statewide
early intervention system.

OSEP's September 23, 1998 monitoring report identified findings in three
areas: (1) service coordinators were not assisting parents in obtaining
all needed services for eligible children and families; (2) the State
had not ensured that early intervention services were individually
determined and that needed services were included on the IFSP and
provided; and (3) the lead agency had not fulfilled its obligation for
the general administration, supervision and monitoring of programs and
activities used by the State in the following areas -- (a)
confidentiality, (b) procedural safeguards (prior notice and native
language), (c) policies related to payment for services and fees, and
(d) supervision and monitoring of programs.

During the week September 27, 1999, OSEP conducted a follow-up
monitoring review of the State's implementation of Part C. The purpose
of the September 27, 1999 review was to determine the progress that the
State had made in addressing the areas of noncompliance identified
(i.e., service coordination, provision of early intervention services,
and the lead agency's oversight responsibilities) in OSEP's September
23, 1998 report, as well as other areas of implementation. OSEP focused
this inquiry on four critical areas of implementation: child find and
public awareness; provision of early intervention services; transition
from Part C to preschool or other appropriate services at age three; and
the lead agency's administrative responsibilities for implementation of
the Statewide system of early intervention services.

As documented in OSEP's May 22, 2000 monitoring report, OSEP determined
that the State had addressed OSEP's 1998 findings regarding lack of
personnel and lack of sufficient funds or other resources. OSEP found
two areas of noncompliance that the State had failed to correct from the
1998 visit: (1) provision of service coordination; and (2) lack of
individualized decisions by the IFSP meeting participants to determine
needed early intervention services. In the area of supervision and
monitoring, OSEP found that DHS had made progress since the 1998 visit,
but made a finding related to the comprehensiveness of DHS' methods of
monitoring. OSEP made additional findings, not addressed in the 1998
report, in the following areas: (1) lack of comprehensive evaluations
and assessments, including family-directed assessments and (2) lack of
appropriate transition planning.

### D. Prior OSEP Monitoring -- Part B

OSEP conducted an on-site monitoring review in Illinois during the week
of May 1, 1995 for the purpose of determining compliance with Part B,
and issued a monitoring report on February 26, 1996 that included
findings that ISBE had failed to:

1.  Implement an effective system for identifying and correcting
    noncompliance;

2.  Resolve all signed written complaints;

3.  Ensure that due process hearing and administrative review decisions
    were reached within Part B timelines, and were final unless
    appealed;

4.  Ensure that public agencies removed students from the regular
    education environment only when the nature or severity of the
    disability was such that education in the regular education
    environment with the use of supplementary aids and services could
    not be achieved satisfactorily;

5.  Ensure that a full continuum of alternative placements was available
    to meet the needs and implement the IEPs of children with
    disabilities;

6.  Ensure that the educational placement of each child with a
    disability was determined at least annually;

7.  Ensure that children with disabilities participated with nondisabled
    children in nonacademic and extracurricular activities to the
    maximum extent appropriate;

8.  Ensure that needed special education and related services were
    included in the IEP and provided;

9.  Ensure that each child with a disability received a full school day,
    unless the IEP team determined that a different arrangement was
    appropriate due to an individual child's needs;

10. Ensure that decisions regarding the provision of extended school
    year services were based on individual student needs;

11. Ensure that untimely initial evaluations did not result in delays in
    the provision of a free appropriate public education; and

12. Ensure that the IEPs of students aged 16 and older included a
    statement of needed transition services.

OSEP required that ISBE take action to ensure that the State's
noncompliance was effectively and promptly corrected throughout the
State and that ISBE develop a comprehensive corrective action plan with
specific steps and timelines to ensure that all deficiencies were fully
corrected. Included in the plan were components for personnel training,
changes in forms and procedural documents, and on-site monitoring
activities to verify compliance. ISBE made revisions to State procedures
regarding all areas of noncompliance and incorporated the changes
through a revised monitoring system and in State policies and
procedures. ISBE issued a memorandum to notify all school districts,
advocacy groups, parent organizations, and other State agencies of the
findings and the required corrective actions. ISBE submitted written
verification of correction to OSEP through quarterly status reports,
copies of memoranda, and additional informal updates obtained through
discussions with ISBE staff. ISBE submitted documentation that it had
taken all of the required actions, and OSEP closed the corrective action
plan in November 1997.

### E. Self-Assessment -- Part C and Part B

In response to OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, ISBE
and DHS conducted a statewide joint self-assessment regarding the
State's provision of early intervention services, special education and
related services. OSEP provided a framework to guide the self-assessment
process across cluster areas of both Part C and Part B.

The joint self-assessment process started in July 2000, with the
formation of an interagency taskforce representing the two State
agencies responsible for Part B and Part C of IDEA and an external
Steering Committee. The Steering Committee consisted of parents, special
educators, general educators and administrators, private providers,
state agency personnel and representatives from professional
organizations, institutions of higher education, the State Advisory
Council on the Education of Individuals with Disabilities, the Illinois
Interagency Council on Early Intervention, and the Illinois Department
of Corrections. This group of 55 individuals met three times (in August,
October, and December 2000). At the August 31, 2000 meeting, the
Steering Committee identified subcommittees that collectively address
the nine OSEP-identified cluster areas. Each stakeholder chose a
subcommittee, based on his or her preference, experience, and expertise.

The Steering Committee included the following findings in the
Self-Assessment, which the State submitted to OSEP in December 2000:

#### Self-Assessment Findings -- Part C

> **General Supervision**: (1) DHS was not monitoring for compliance
> with all of Part C requirements; (2) DHS had no process to ensure
> correction for areas of non-compliance that were identified; and (3)
> Cornerstone, the DHS data system, was not capable of providing the
> necessary information to ensure that all eligible infants and toddlers
> are identified, located and evaluated.
>
> **Comprehensive Public Awareness and Child-Find System**: (1)
> Improvements in child find materials, outreach efforts and personnel
> training were needed; and (2) Improved efforts were needed in the area
> of identifying family needs.
>
> **Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments:** (1) Infants
> and toddlers were waiting for timely evaluations in certain areas of
> the State; (2) Service coordination caseloads were increasing; and (3)
> IFSPs were developed without all required and appropriate participants
> present.
>
> **Early Childhood Transition:** (1) DHS was not able to determine
> whether transition planning meetings were occurring between Part C,
> Part B and parents; and (2) DHS was not able to determine if children
> were receiving appropriate services upon their third birthday.

#### Self-Assessment Findings - Part B

> **General Supervision:** (1) ISBE did not analyze complaint and
> mediation system data; (2) ISBE was not taking effective action to
> address persistent deficiencies at the district level; (3) ISBE did
> not have a statewide system to identify or respond to systemic issues
> of district noncompliance; and (4) The State funding formula provided
> financial incentives to place students in private programs;
>
> **Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
> Environment:** (1) There were chronic and severe shortages in special
> education and related services personnel; (2) Not all personnel had
> appropriate certification or adequate training; (3) There were no
> performance indicators written specifically for children with
> disabilities to ensure progress in the educational accountability
> system; (4) Graduation rates for students with disabilities were
> low;[^2] (5) Most students with mental retardation were educated in
> restrictive settings, with little progress in serving students with
> mental retardation in the least restrictive environment since 1995;
> (6) Illinois identified students with emotional/behavioral
> disabilities at a rate higher than the national average and was twice
> as likely to place these students in separate public facilities than
> the national average; (7) Illinois was classifying a higher percentage
> of Black students with emotional/behavioral disabilities than the
> national average; and (8) In all categories, students with IEPs were
> suspended at disproportionately higher rates than their non-disabled
> peers.

**F. Public Input**

Although the State did not conduct public input meetings prior to
submitting its Self-Assessment to OSEP in December 2000, ISBE and DHS
later held public input meetings during the week of October 15, 2001 in
Chicago, Naperville, Moline, Effingham, Carbondale, Collinsville,
Bloomington, and Springfield. OSEP staff attended the forums in Chicago,
Naperville, Collinsville, Bloomington, and Springfield. Approximately
475 total participants attended the Part B and Part C sessions. The
purpose of the meetings was to receive public input on the effectiveness
of Illinois' systems for early intervention and special education
services for infants, toddlers, children and youths with disabilities.
Each meeting began with a presentation on the purpose of the forums and
their role in the monitoring of Illinois by OSEP. Following that
introduction, participants separated into a Part C group and a Part B
group to provide information about services in Illinois. Discussions at
the public input meetings centered around the nine cluster areas
identified by OSEP as leading to better results for infants, toddlers
and children with disabilities.

The State used facilitators and note takers at each session.
Participants were provided with e-mail addresses of ISBE, DHS and OSEP
staff, so that they could provide additional input after the public
meetings. Many participants took advantage of this option and addressed
specific issues during the weeks following the sessions. On October 19,
2001, OSEP, ISBE and DHS staff met with the Steering Committee to review
and summarize the input from around the State.

#### Part C Public Input

> **Referral & Evaluation Process:** Participants recognized that
> education targeting physicians and hospital staff was important to
> appropriate and timely referrals. Suggestions to improve education
> were offered. It was also suggested that changes to the EI system may
> be contributing to the lack of understanding of the referral process.
> Service gaps, access to providers and quality assurance issues were
> identified as barriers to obtaining evaluations. Recommendations and
> suggestions were offered to address the concerns.
>
> **Provision of Early Intervention Services:** Participants generated a
> number of comments on new policies and procedures, including the use
> of insurance and the implementation of the quality enhancement
> process. It was suggested that improved communication to both parents
> and providers, would improve the lack of understanding of the proposed
> changes.
>
> **IFSP Development & Family Supports:** Participants expressed concern
> regarding the lack of attendance by providers at the IFSP meetings and
> the reliance on the dispute process to address concerns about the
> quality enhancement process. It was noted that high service
> coordinator caseloads was a barrier to the provision of family support
> and it was suggested that providers and Child & Family Connections
> provide additional support to families. The lack of family support is
> a concern in the rural areas of the State.
>
> **Transition Planning:** Participants reported that eligible children
> do not have an IEP in place at age three. Suggestions were offered to
> better prepare families and the system for transitioning children at
> age three.
>
> **General Supervision:** Participants acknowledged that the State
> strives to ensure infants and toddlers receive appropriate services.
> The Steering Committee identified issues relating to funding,
> caseloads, and "under trained" providers as problems, and indicated
> that the State is more "reactive than pro-active."
>
> **Procedural Safeguards:** Participants acknowledged that Child &
> Family Connection agencies are making sure that families know about
> their rights during intake and IFSP development, although they
> suggested that families may need additional information regarding the
> dispute process to fully understand it.
>
> **Quality Enhancement Process:** Participants challenged the quality
> enhancement process. Concerns raised involve inconsistency across the
> state, lack of parent involvement, restrictions and delays in
> services, its negative impact on the IFSP development process
> (prescribing instead of advising) and the application of guidelines as
> maximums.

#### Part B Public Input

> **General Supervision:** Parents reported that districts were not
> adhering to mediation agreements, agreements were not being monitored
> by ISBE, and that there are no sanctions imposed on districts for
> noncompliance.
>
> **Free Appropriate Public Education In The Least Restrictive
> Environment:** Parents reported that: (1) a continuum of services is
> not available and that placement decisions are made based on program
> location; (2) some students are in school for shortened days; (3) high
> school students are not getting the supports and services they need to
> exit school with job training; (4) parents are not getting information
> about adult services; (5) special education classrooms are located in
> segregated areas of the school buildings; (6) public agencies moved
> special education program sites on a yearly basis, requiring some
> students with disabilities to change schools every year; and (7) the
> placement decision for some children with disabilities was not
> determined, based on the unique needs of the children, by a group that
> included the parents; rather, administrators for cooperatives were
> determining placement, based on the location of programs within
> districts.
>
> **Secondary Transition:** Parents reported that: (1) students are not
> involved in transition activities, (2) transition services are not
> always included in IEPs, (3) transition coordinators do not understand
> their roles, and (4) other agencies are not involved in transition
> activities.

Following the week of public input sessions, ISBE posted a detailed
summary of the Part B sessions on its website:
[http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/]{.underline}.

OSEP staff participated in a phone conference on April 19, 2002 with the
Illinois State Special Education Advisory Council. During the call,
council members shared the following state-level concerns: funding
shortages, legal challenges of Corey H. court case, and shortage of
qualified teachers. The council members also identified the following
barriers Illinois faces in addressing statewide concerns: inadequate
staffing for ISBE and the impact on the State's ability to provide
effective supervision of the districts; unavailability of teachers for
professional development; and ineffective coordination between state
agencies. The Council expressed their approval of the Illinois
Improvement Plan and the efforts currently underway to implement it.

### G. Improvement Planning 

Through the collaborative efforts of ISBE, DHS, the Steering Committee
members and OSEP, the State developed an Improvement Plan and jointly
submitted Parts B and C to OSEP on January 16, 2002. The Part C portion
of the plan consists of desired outcomes in the areas of General
Supervision, Child Find - Public Awareness, Early Intervention in
Natural Environments, Family Centered Services and Early Childhood
Transition. The Part B portion of the plan is structured around five
goal areas. Included in the plan is a re-structuring of the ISBE
monitoring system for identifying and correcting noncompliance in all
local districts. The other four areas focus on LRE, graduation/dropout
rates, performance on statewide assessments and parent involvement.

The State has posted the Improvement Plan (Parts B and C) at the ISBE
website: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/spec-ed/. Following the issuance of
this report, OSEP will assist the State in addressing additional areas
of non-compliance in the Improvement Plan. In addition, timelines for
evaluating and reporting of progress on correcting areas of
noncompliance will be determined.

**H. Data Collection -- Part C and Part B**

During the week of April 22, 2002, OSEP conducted a focused, onsite
monitoring review of Illinois under Part B and Part C of the IDEA.

OSEP visited six Child & Family Connections for the purpose of
monitoring the State's administration of the early intervention system
and the impact of the State's administration on local practice in the
delivery of early intervention services. The six Child & Family
Connections visited were:

-   Batavia Child & Family Connection #4

-   Arlington Heights Child & Family Connection #6

-   Chicago Child & Family Connection #10

-   Bloomington Child & Family Connection #16

-   Effingham Child & Family Connection #20

-   Swansea Child & Family Connection #21

For each Child & Family Connection, OSEP completed record reviews and
interviews. The data collection process targeted the following areas:
(1) service coordination; (2) timely completion of evaluation,
assessment, and IFSP development; (3) development of an IFSP; (4) family
supports and services; and (5) general supervision by DHS. OSEP
conducted interviews with family members, early intervention providers,
service coordinators, interagency collaborators, administrators, members
of the Quality Enhancement teams at each of the Child & Family
Connections, and State staff in Springfield.

OSEP Part B Staff visited a total of seven local education agencies in
six locations:

-   Kankakee

-   Northern Suburban Special Education District

-   Springfield

-   Four Rivers/Jacksonville

-   East St. Louis District

-   Carbondale Elementary

-   Carbondale High School

In these local education agencies, OSEP staff visited four elementary
schools, three middle schools, six high schools, and a preschool,
covering a varied range of program options and disability categories.
OSEP conducted joint interviews with the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) at three of the high schools. OSEP collected data
in these school districts in the areas of placement in the least
restrictive environment, participation in the general curriculum,
provision of psychological counseling, participation in statewide
assessments, and secondary transition.

Concurrent with the visits to the schools, OSEP staff also conducted
interviews with ISBE staff from both the Springfield and Chicago offices
on key State systems, including State monitoring, complaint
investigations, impartial due process hearings, mediation, comprehensive
system of personnel development, secondary transition, statewide
assessments, the State funding formula, and the provision of a free
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

# I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION

As the State's lead agency for Part C, the Department of Human Services
(DHS), 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.

The Lead Agency is responsible for the general administration and
supervision of programs and activities receiving assistance under Part C
(34 CFR §303.501(a) and (b)(1)-(4)). To meet these requirements, DHS
must adopt and use proper methods of administering each program,
including: (1) monitoring agencies, institutions, and organizations used
by the State to carry out Part C, whether or not they receive Part C
funds; (2) enforcing any obligations imposed on those agencies under
Part C; providing technical assistance; and (3) correcting deficiencies
that are identified through monitoring.

***Prior OSEP Findings Regarding The Lead Agency's Monitoring System***

As set forth in OSEP's September 23, 1998 Illinois Part C monitoring
report, OSEP found in March 1998 that DHS was not meeting its monitoring
responsibilities under Part C. Specifically, OSEP found that the
documents used by the Comprehensive Quality Review System contained
inaccuracies or policies inconsistent with Part C.

During the week of September 27, 1999, OSEP conducted a follow-up
monitoring review of DHS to determine the extent to which the State had
corrected the noncompliance documented in OSEP's 1998 report. OSEP found
that the State had made progress in the area of supervision and
monitoring since the 1998 visit, but, as stated in the May 2000 report,
OSEP found in 1999 that DHS' monitoring procedures did not include a
mechanism to monitor the extent to which service coordinators and
service providers were meeting their responsibilities under Part C, and
failed to monitor all entities and individuals providing early
intervention services.

***Self-Assessment Findings Regarding DHS' Monitoring System***

The Steering Committee found that: (1) DHS was not monitoring for
compliance with all Part C requirements; (2) DHS had no process to
ensure correction for areas of non-compliance that were identified; and
(3) Cornerstone, the DHS data system, was not capable of providing the
necessary information to ensure that all eligible infants and toddlers
are identified, located and evaluated.

***OSEP's 2002 Findings Regarding DHS' Monitoring System***

## Areas of Noncompliance

1.  **Failure to Identify Noncompliance and to Monitor all Entities
    Implementing Part C**

Staff from the Bureau of Early Intervention and the Office of Technical
Assistance and Monitoring jointly conducted monitoring reviews of the 25
Child & Family Connections in May and June 2001, which were the most
recent reviews at the time of the OSEP visit.[^3] Staff from the Office
of Technical Assistance and Monitoring wrote the reports, and the format
and content of these reports varied from one Office of Technical
Assistance and Monitoring region to another.

DHS informed OSEP that DHS's reports did not include findings regarding
issues like service coordination and the process used to develop IFSPs
because the monitoring procedures included very little interview
inquiries that would allow DHS to make such findings. OSEP reviewed the
DHS reports for the six Child & Family Connections that OSEP visited.
OSEP confirmed that although, as detailed in Section II of this Report,
OSEP found significant systemic noncompliance with Part C's service
coordination requirements in four of the six Child & Family Connections
that it reviewed as part of its April 2002 visit, DHS did not find any
noncompliance with those requirements when it monitored those same Child
& Family Connections in May and June 2001.

Further, DHS informed OSEP that it had monitored only the Child & Family
Connections, and has not monitored compliance by agencies and
individuals that provide early intervention services other than service
coordination. OSEP had made this same finding in its May 2000 Illinois
Part C Monitoring Report.

2.  **Failure to Ensure Correction of Identified Noncompliance**

Each Child & Family Connection provided a written response during the
summer of 2001 to the DHS findings in the agency's monitoring report, in
which it explained the steps that it would take to correct the
identified issues. With the exception of one Child & Family Connection,
DHS had not, at the time of OSEP's April 2002 visit: (1) provided any
written response to the submissions from the Child & Family Connections;
or (2) collected any data or documentation as to whether each Child &
Family Connection had corrected identified noncompliance.

The Cornerstone data system was not in effect until 2000. Before then,
the only implementation data that DHS had were payment data from the
Central Billing Office. Although Cornerstone went into effect in Spring
2000, it was not until November 2001 that Early Intervention had
meaningful access to the data; before that, the Bureau needed to make a
separate data request each time it wanted access to data and made very
little use of the data. DHS did not use the Cornerstone data as part of
the monitoring reviews in May and June 2001.

As discussed in Section II of this report, DHS data have shown clearly
for more than a year that none of the 25 Child & Family Connections were
meeting the 45 day timeline for completing evaluations and assessments
and holding an IFSP meeting. Further, DHS found noncompliance with that
requirement when it monitored five of the six agencies in 2001. However,
as of the time of OSEP's April 2002 visit, noncompliance persisted in
all six Child & Family Connections that OSEP visited.

OSEP found in both 1998 and 1999 that the State was failing to meet Part
C's service coordination requirements. OSEP found such noncompliance in
four of the six Child & Family Connections that OSEP visited in 2002,
showing that DHS has failed to correct noncompliance after repeated OSEP
reports of noncompliance.

***Steps That DHS Is Taking To Make Its Monitoring And Administration Of
Part C Effective***

During OSEP's April 2002 visit, DHS informed OSEP that it has instituted
several initiatives to improve its monitoring procedures for Part C, and
to improve compliance and results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities.

DHS has developed a series of measures of program performance and shared
them with Child & Family Connections and other stakeholders. DHS
anticipates that the measures will assist it in learning more about the
customers that it serves, inform basic policy making, and measure
performance of the system and of individual Child & Family Connections.

DHS reports that it will include the performance measures in its
contract with each Child & Family Connection, and use the data for each
measure to evaluate each Child & Family Connection and the Statewide
system, and to set goals to improve services. In January 2002, DHS
reviewed with each Child & Family Connection its performance data, in
preparation of implementing the performance contracting system.

In October 2002, DHS began to publish data regarding how each of the 25
Child & Family Connections ranks on a number of the variables. DHS is
publishing these data and the rankings by providing the information to
the State Interagency Coordinating Council and the 25 Child & Family
Connections, and by posting the information on its web-site
([http://www.dhs.state.il.us]{.underline}). In addition, DHS will begin
calculating the amount of State funds each Child & Family Connection
will receive, based on its performance on the key variables, using
fiscal incentives to reward high-performing Child & Family Connections
and penalties for low-performing Child & Family Connections.

An additional initiative is the ongoing development of a comprehensive
system of self-assessment, review, analysis and continuous improvement.
The continuous improvement process begins with a self-assessment of
local system implementation. In April 2002, DHS informed OSEP that the
Child & Family Connections would begin the self-assessment process in
July 2002. Each Child & Family Connection will use the above-mentioned
performance data as the baseline for its local self-assessment. The DHS
procedures require each Child & Family Connection to identify local
strengths, and resources and barriers that support or impede progress
toward the achievement of identified outcomes for eligible infants and
toddlers and their families. One third of the 25 Child & Family
Connections will receive on-site monitoring visit each year, with the
first round of on-site monitoring visits beginning in October 2002.

# II. 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 principals 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
ensures that the rights of children and families are provided, arranges
for assessments and IFSP meetings, and facilitates 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 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 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 achieved
satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment, the
IFSP must include a justification of the extent, if any, to which their
services will not be provided in a natural environment.

## Areas of Noncompliance

1\. DHS has failed to ensure that infants and toddlers with disabilities
and their families receive service coordination that meets Part C
requirements.

The Part C regulations require, at 34 CFR §303.23(a)(2), that DHS ensure
that each eligible infant and toddler with a disability and the child's
family have a service coordinator who is responsible for "(i)
Coordinating all services across agency lines; and (ii) Serving as the
single point of contact in helping parents to obtain the services and
assistance they need."

34 CFR §303.23(a)(3) further provides that: "Service coordination is an
active, ongoing process that involves\--(i) Assisting parents of
eligible children in gaining access to the early intervention services
and other services identified in the individualized family service plan;
(ii) Coordinating the provision of early intervention services and other
services (such as medical services for other than diagnostic and
evaluation purposes) that the child needs or is being provided; (iii)
Facilitating the timely delivery of available services; and (iv)
Continuously seeking the appropriate services and situations necessary
to benefit the development of each child being served for the duration
of the child\'s eligibility."

34 CFR §303.23(b) further requires that: "Service coordination
activities include---(1) Coordinating the performance of evaluations and
assessments; (2) Facilitating and participating in the development,
review, and evaluation of individualized family service plans; (3)
Assisting families in identifying available service providers; (4)
Coordinating and monitoring the delivery of available services; (5)
Informing families of the availability of advocacy services; (6)
Coordinating with medical and health providers; and (7) Facilitating the
development of a transition plan to preschool services, if appropriate."

The service coordinator for each eligible child and family must be a
person who has demonstrated knowledge and understanding about eligible
infants and toddlers, Part C statutory and regulatory requirements, the
nature and scope of services available under the State's early
intervention program, the system of payments for services in the State
and other pertinent information. 34 CFR §303.23(d).

As detailed below, the State has not ensured that service coordinators
meet all of their responsibilities under Part C, including their
responsibilities to coordinate and monitor the provision of early
intervention services.

***Prior OSEP Findings Regarding Service Coordination***

As set forth in OSEP's September 23, 1998 Illinois Part C monitoring
report, OSEP found in March 1998 that the State was not meeting its
service coordination responsibilities under 34 CFR §303.22.
Specifically, OSEP found that service coordinators were not assisting
parents in obtaining all needed services for eligible infants, toddlers
and their families.

OSEP conducted a follow-up monitoring visit in September 1999 to
determine the extent to which the State had corrected the noncompliance
documented in OSEP's 1998 report. As detailed in OSEP's May 2002 report,
OSEP found that the State had [not]{.underline} corrected the
noncompliance regarding service coordination. OSEP found that service
coordinators were typically not: (1) coordinating services across agency
lines; (2) coordinating medical and health services; and (3) preparing
children and their families for transition out of Part C.

***Self-Assessment Finding Regarding Service Coordination***

The Steering Committee found that there were "increased service
coordination caseloads," but did not include conclusions in the
self-assessment regarding the impact of the increased caseload on the
provision of service coordination.

***OSEP's 2002 Findings Of Noncompliance Regarding Service
Coordination***

OSEP found in April 2002 that the State continues in its failure to
ensure that each eligible child and family receives service coordination
that meets Part C requirements. As detailed below, service coordinators
and others, in four of the six Child & Family Connections that OSEP
visited, reported that service coordinators were not able to provide all
services that Part C requires.

At 34 CFR §303.23(b)(4), the Part C regulations specify that the
required service coordination activities include, "coordinating and
monitoring the delivery of available services."[^4] Service coordinators
in one Child & Family Connection informed OSEP that that they are not
able to monitor the provision of early intervention services, and that
they cannot "keep up with their service coordination caseloads." They
further stated that caseloads are currently too high for them to
maintain adequate contact with the families they serve. They explained
that they do not have enough time to call each family even once a month,
and that this makes it impossible for them to have adequate family
contact. They also stated that they are not able to meet families' needs
for family support services. They explained they "do not have the time
to obtain family services because of caseloads," and that, regardless of
need, family support services would not be included on the IFSP. The
Child & Family Connection manager and the manager's supervisor concurred
that with the high, and increasing, caseloads, it is very difficult for
the service coordinators to meet their service coordination
responsibilities. They further stated that there is not enough staff to
address unexpected problems like illnesses or jury duty, and they were
amazed that turnover among service coordinators is not worse.

The service coordinators in a second Child & Family Connection informed
OSEP that, due to their high caseloads, they must rely on families
asking them for assistance, rather than providing ongoing coordination
and monitoring of the early intervention services, as required by 34 CFR
§303.23(b)(4). In order to ensure adequate family contact, this agency
has established a standard of at least one contact per month with each
family. However, given their large caseloads and other demands, they
were not able to meet even this minimal standard. (DHS data show that
the caseloads in this Child & Family Connection are among the very
highest in the State.)

Service providers who attend IFSP meetings in this Child & Family
Connection informed OSEP that "family supports and services were
discussed only if the parent brings it up; the service coordinator does
not bring up family needs." Two administrators told OSEP that, "family
supports are ignored" in the development of IFSPs. Service coordinators
told OSEP that, regardless of family needs, a very low percentage of
families are offered family supports and services in initial IFSP
meetings.

Service coordinators in a third Child & Family Connection informed OSEP
that, due to their high caseloads, they do not always have time to
conduct the 6-month review of the IFSP, as required by 34 CFR
§303.342(b).[^5] The Child & Family Connection administrator concurred.
The service coordinators also stated that they spend the vast majority
of their time completing paperwork, rather than supporting families in
the early intervention process. An administrator for this Child & Family
Connection stated that it is "totally unrealistic to serve families with
double or triple the paperwork and the quality of family services is
hampered." Another stated that, due to paperwork burdens, they "lose
family contact." The service coordinators told OSEP that due to the high
caseloads and paperwork demands, they often must rely on families and
providers to "monitor services and call them when there is a problem,"
rather than the service coordinators being able to meet their
responsibility to monitor the delivery of services (as required by 34
CFR §303.23(b)(4)).

Service coordinators in a fourth Child & Family Connection informed OSEP
that they do not have time to fulfill all of their responsibilities as
service coordinators because the caseloads are "overwhelming." They also
stated that they need more training. None had received training
regarding the paperwork requirements relating to the Quality Enhancement
Team process, and they needed training on this process and service
coordination in general. All of the service providers interviewed in
this Child & Family Connection told OSEP that service coordination is
"only a paperwork process, rather than guiding parents through the early
intervention process." Two parents informed OSEP that, because of the
lack of service coordination, it has been necessary for them to
coordinate their own services. Another stated that the family had
received no family supports. The service coordinators, Child & Family
Connection manager, and DHS State liaison for the Child & Family
Connection all described unique challenges presented by the large
geographic, mostly rural, area that the Child & Family Connection's
service coordinators must cover.

As discussed in Section I of this report, in 2001when DHS monitored the
four Child & Family Connections in which OSEP made service coordination
findings, DHS did not make any service coordination findings. DHS is
revising its monitoring procedures, and has begun tracking service
coordination caseloads in the 25 Child & Family Connections, and ranking
and publishing those caseload numbers.

**2. DHS has not ensured compliance with timelines for evaluation,
assessment, and IFSP meetings.**

Part C requires, at 34 CFR §303.321(e), that, within 45 days after it
receives a referral, the public agency must complete the evaluation and
assessment and hold an IFSP meeting. In order to meet the requirements
of 34 CFR §303.321(e), DHS requires and monitors for compliance with the
State requirement that the initial IFSP be completed within 45 days.[^6]

As described below, the State is not meeting these requirements.

***Self-Assessment Finding Regarding Timely Evaluations***

The Steering Committee found that infants and toddlers were not
receiving timely evaluations in certain areas of the State.

***Prior OSEP Findings***

As part of the finding on evaluations in its May 2000 report, OSEP
reported that the State was not completing evaluations in all required
developmental areas until after the development of the initial IFSP.

***OSEP's 2002 Findings***

During the April 2002 visit, DHS provided OSEP with data regarding
compliance with the 45-day timeline for the State, and for each of the
25 Child & Family Connections. Those data showed that none of the 25
Child & Family Connections were in compliance with that timeline.

The data for February and March 2002 show that the average number of
days to complete the evaluation, assessment and IFSP was 73.5 for
February and 65.4 days for the month of March. (DHS collects monitoring
and cornerstone data only regarding the date on which the Child & Family
Connection completes the initial IFSP, rather than the date on which an
initial IFSP meeting is held.)

The following is a summary of the data that DHS provided to OSEP during
OSEP's April 2002 visit, for the six Child & Family Connections that
OSEP visited:

+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| D |                       |        |        |        |            |
| H |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| D |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| R |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| G |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| R |                       |        |        |        |            |
| D |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| G |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| M |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| L |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| O |                       |        |        |        |            |
| R |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| O |                       |        |        |        |            |
| M |                       |        |        |        |            |
| P |                       |        |        |        |            |
| L |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| O |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
|   |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| O |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| V |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| L |                       |        |        |        |            |
| U |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| O |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| , |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| M |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| , |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| D |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| N |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| T |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| L |                       |        |        |        |            |
| I |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| P |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Data Element**      | *      | **Fe   | **June | **FY 02    |
|   |                       | *March | bruary | 01**   | through    |
|   |                       | 02**   | 02**   |        | March 02** |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake**[^7]   | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | **past 45 days**      | 32.7** | 33.6** | 35.5** |            |
| S |                       |        |        |        |            |
| t |                       |        |        |        |            |
| a |                       |        |        |        |            |
| t |                       |        |        |        |            |
| e |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | **     |        |            |
|   | days**                | *8.5** | 13.5** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **     | **     |        | **72.3**   |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 65.4** | 73.5** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     |        |            |
| * | days**                | 34.6** | 32.1** |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| A |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | **     | **     |            |
|   | days**                | *6.8** | 12.8** | 55.1** |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **     | **8    |        | **91.58**  |
|   | IFSP ave. days**      | 70.3** | 5.46** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | days**                | 47.8** | 50.8** | 29.7** |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| B |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | **     | **     |        |            |
|   | days**                | 19.4** | 26.2** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **8    | **9    |        | **96.36**  |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 7.53** | 8.96** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | days**                | 38.8** | 38.5** | 56.6** |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | *      |        |            |
|   | days**                | *6.0** | *9.9** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **9    | **8    |        | **100.86** |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 0.31** | 4.00** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | days**                | 31.5** | 27.4** | 27.2** |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| D |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | *      |        |            |
|   | days**                | *6.3** | *6.2** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **6    | **8    |        | **68.60**  |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 2.00** | 3.09** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | days**                | 31.6** | 17.8** | 19.4** |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| E |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | *      |        |            |
|   | days**                | *0.0** | *5.6** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **5    | **7    |        | **61.33**  |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 9.38** | 1.50** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
| * | **% of intake past 45 | **     | **     | **     |            |
| * | days**                | 14.6** | 10.4** | 28.8** |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| C |                       |        |        |        |            |
| F |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
| * |                       |        |        |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **% of intake past 90 | *      | *      |        |            |
|   | days**                | *0.8** | *1.0** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+
|   | **Intake to initial   | **5    | **5    |        | **55.85**  |
|   | IFSP average days**   | 4.32** | 8.16** |        |            |
+---+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+------------+

These data show that the Child and Family Connections are not meeting
the required 45-day timeline. As indicated in the table above, the March
data showed that 32.7% of IFSPs were completed more than 45 days after
referral, and 8.5% were completed more than 90 days after referral.

Since the April 2002 visit, DHS has continued to provide OSEP with data
regarding compliance with the 45-day timeline for the State. Although
data through July 2002 show continuing noncompliance, they also document
significant improvement in recent months. (As of July 2002, DHS had
decreased, to 20.8%, the percentage of initial IFSPs completed more than
45 days after referral, and to 4.5% the percentage completed more than
90 days after referral.)

DHS personnel and staff in the six Child & Family Connections that OSEP
visited acknowledged these significant delays, and DHS found
noncompliance in 2001 with the 45-day State timeline for completing
evaluations and assessments and developing an initial IFSP in five of
the six agencies that OSEP visited in 2002. DHS personnel, and staff in
the six Child & Family Connections that OSEP visited, attributed the
delays to a range of factors, including: (1) difficulty in contacting
families (especially in rural or high poverty areas); (2) service
coordinator caseloads; (3) the Quality Enhancement Team process; (4)
insurance issues; and (5) delays by providers in completing evaluations.

As discussed above, DHS has instituted a system to focus on data
collection and analysis. In October 2002, DHS began publishing detailed
data regarding how each of the Child & Family Connections ranks on a
number of indicators, including a number of indicators regarding the
extent of compliance with the 45-day timeline. In addition, beginning
with State fiscal year 2003, DHS will apply a system of incentive
payments and penalty adjustments in calculating the amount of State
funds that each Child & Family Connection receives. The following
incentive payments and penalty adjustments focus on improving compliance
with the 45-day timeline:

1.  A 2% incentive grant to: (a) each of the 12 Child & Family
    Connections with the lowest percentages of cases in intake over 45
    days over the most recently completed six-month period; and (b) each
    of the 12 Child & Family Connections with the highest rates of IFSP
    completion within 45 days over the most recently completed six-month
    period; and

2.  A 2% reduction of the quarterly based payment to: (a) any Child &
    Family Connection that exceeds the following percentages of cases in
    intake for more than 90 days, over the most recently completed
    quarter: (i) 15% for the first quarterly adjustment; (ii) 10% for
    the second adjustment; and (iii) 5% for the third; and (b) to any
    Child & Family Connection that fails to complete the following
    percentages of new initial IFSPs within 45 days during the six-month
    period for which a quarter's basic payment is calculated: (i) 10%
    for the first quarterly payment; (ii) 20% for the second adjustment;
    and (iii) 30% for the third.

3\. DHS did not ensure that the IFSP team determined the content of each
child's IFSP.

The Part C regulations require, at 34 CFR §303.344(d)(1), that the IFSP
include a statement of the specific early intervention services
necessary to meet the unique needs of the child and the family to
achieve the outcomes identified in 34 CFR §303.344(c). A team that
includes the participants specified at 34 CFR §303.343 must, in a
meeting pursuant to 34 CFR §303.342, develop all of the content of each
child's IFSP, including the statement of specific early intervention
services. The content of the IFSP must be based on result of the
evaluation and assessment process and must identify the unique strengths
and needs of the child and the needs, priorities, concerns, and
resources of the family. The IFSP must also identify services
appropriate to meet those needs of the child using appropriate
evaluation and assessment methods conducted by qualified personnel. See
34 CFR §§303.322(c)(3)(iii) and 303.342(c).

***Self-Assessment Finding Regarding The Development Of The IFSP***

The Steering Committee found that IFSPs were developed without all
required and appropriate participants present.

***OSEP's 2002 Findings Regarding The Development Of The IFSP***

Prior to the April 2002 visit, OSEP determined that DHS' written
procedures and State regulations were not consistent with Part C,
because they did not require that the participants in the IFSP meeting
for each infant and toddler with a disability determine the type and
amount of early intervention services to be included in the IFSP and
provided to the child and family. In written communications that OSEP
sent to DHS on September 6, 2001 and February 4, 2002, OSEP formally
informed DHS of OSEP's determination that DHS' procedures were
inconsistent with Part C, because the Quality Enhancement Team, rather
than the participants in the IFSP meeting, were making the final
determination as to the services that each child and family would
receive.

Although DHS informed OSEP before the April 2002 visit of the State's
intent to discontinue the Quality Enhancement Team procedures described
above, the procedures described above remained in effect at the time of
OSEP's visit. As part of the April 2002 visit, OSEP collected data
regarding the extent to which Child & Family Connections were
implementing practices that were consistent with Part C requirements.
During the visit, OSEP collected data from DHS State staff and in six
Child & Family Connections regarding the implementation of the Quality
Enhancement Team process and the manner in which the early intervention
services for each child and family were determined. As detailed below,
OSEP found that Child & Family Connections were determining early
intervention services in a manner that was inconsistent with Part C.

Members of the Quality Enhancement Team for one Child & Family
Connection informed OSEP that the Quality Enhancement Team had "veto
power" over the decisions made by the IFSP meeting participants, and
that -- regardless of the quantity of service the IFSP participants
determined that a child and family needed -- the Quality Enhancement
Team made the final decision regarding the amount of service to be
included in the IFSP and provided. They further expressed their belief
that, although DHS' original intent in establishing the Quality
Enhancement Team process was to "inculcate the trans-disciplinary model
of early intervention," DHS had implemented the process as a way of
"gate-keeping" the amount of services provided. The Child & Family
Connection manager and the manager's supervisor stated that although
DHS' written procedures described the input from the Quality Enhancement
Team to the IFSP meeting participants as "recommendations" to the IFSP
participants, DHS had implemented the procedures in a way that the IFSP
participants were treating the input as directives that they must
follow.

In another Child & Family Connection, the service coordinators informed
OSEP that the Quality Enhancement Team determines the amount and type of
early intervention services for each child and family, and that although
the service coordinator attended the Quality Enhancement Team for each
family that is part of the coordinator's caseload, "the service
coordinator has no say. We sit back and wait for the decision." They
further stated that the Quality Enhancement Team "overrode" the
decisions made in the IFSP meeting. Three administrators in this Child &
Family Connection concurred. "The IFSP team does not have the authority
to ensure that children and family's receive the early intervention
services they need. The IFSP can only make recommendations; the final
decisions regarding services are made by the Quality Enhancement Team."

Many individuals that OSEP interviewed in three other Child & Family
Connections informed OSEP that the Quality Enhancement Team, rather than
the IFSP meeting participants, determined the amount of services to be
provided to each eligible child and family. These individuals consisted
of three Quality Enhancement Team members, all eight of the service
coordinators that OSEP interviewed in one Child & Family Connections and
two Child & Family Connection administrators.

***DHS' Recent Actions To Revise Procedures For Development Of Ifsps***

DHS submitted to OSEP a written statement that DHS discontinued the
Quality Enhancement Team process described above, effective July 31,
2002. On September 5, 2002, DHS provided a written assurance to OSEP
that it will require that an IFSP meeting will, consistent with the
requirements of 34 CFR §§ 303.340-303.344, determine the content of the
IFSP, including the type, amount, duration, and frequency of early
intervention services to be provided, for each infant or toddler with a
disability and family that receives Part C services, and that DHS will
revise its regulations to make them consistent with Part C.

# III. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

The 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 the 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.

***ISBE's Systems for Complaints, Mediation, and Due Process Hearings***

As set forth in its 1996 report, OSEP found in 1995 that ISBE had failed
to implement an effective system to ensure the timeliness of decisions
in due process hearings and administrative reviews. In response, ISBE
made significant changes in the State's written procedures and practices
for due process hearings and provided OSEP with appropriate
documentation.

Currently, Illinois has a "one tier" hearing system, in which ISBE is
responsible for conducting impartial due process hearings. If either
party is unsatisfied with the decision issued, they may appeal to the
State or federal court. Hearing officers are appointed on a rotating
basis, and receive ongoing training from the Southern Illinois
University Law School. An ISBE Screening Committee hires and supervises
hearing officers. The parties resolve most issues in pre-hearing
conferences. If a parent refuses to participate in a pre-hearing
conference, the hearing goes forward as scheduled. ISBE analyzes due
process data and uses those data in monitoring districts and in making
training decisions. Between July 2000 and April 2002, ISBE received 73
due process hearing requests from districts that OSEP visited (42 of
those requests in one district). Of these 73 hearing requests, the
parties resolved all but five prior to a due process hearing. ISBE posts
hearing decisions on its web site, updating it quarterly.

ISBE's database tracks the issues raised in State complaints and
documents timelines, extensions and delays. Over the past three years,
there has been a significant decrease in the number of special education
complaints that ISBE receives each year (from 199 to 111). ISBE reports
that findings of serious noncompliance as part of a complaint trigger a
focused monitoring visit to the district. OSEP reviewed the ISBE
complaints logs for July 2000- June 2001 and July 2001-March 2002, and
found that ISBE had resolved most complaints within 30 days, and that
ISBE had extended the timeline for complaint resolution in very few
cases.

ISBE staff view mediation as a successful, efficient way to resolve
disagreements. ISBE staff reported that 90% of all mediation takes place
in the greater Chicago area. ISBE plans to institute a team of eleven
external mediators to be available to all districts for conflict
resolution.

***Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments***

ISBE's Assessment Division is responsible for developing and
administering tests that measure the performance of students and schools
against the Illinois Learning Standards. The two regular State
assessments for Illinois are the Illinois Standards Achievement Test
(ISAT) and the Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE). The ISAT is
administered in grades three, five, and eight to measures individual
student performance in Reading, Writing and Mathematics; and in grades
four and seven to measure performance in Science and Social Science. The
PSAE is administered in grade eleven to measure performance of students
relative to the Illinois Learning Standards for Reading, Writing,
Mathematics, Science, and Social Science. The two other components of
the state assessment system are the Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in
English (IMAGE) and the Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA). The IMAGE
measures the progress of Limited English Proficiency students in
attaining the English-language reading and writing skills needed to
achieve in the Illinois Learning Standards. The IAA is the State
portfolio assessment that is used for a special education-eligible
student whose Individualized Education Plan indicates that he/she is
unable to participate in the ISAT or PSAE, even with accommodations. All
students enrolled in an Illinois public school district are required to
participate in state and district-wide assessments. The only students
with disabilities who can be exempted from participation are those who
have been convicted as adults under state law and are incarcerated in
adult prisons.

ISBE reports in the 2002 Biennial Performance Report that, with the
exception of students who were absent, all students with disabilities
participated in the statewide assessment system during the 2000-2001
school year and 108,082 students with disabilities participated in the
general assessments. Participation guidelines are provided to all
districts and are also posted on the website. All accommodations are
acceptable on the ISAT and PSAE except reading aloud the reading portion
of the ISAT reading test. Parents cannot "opt out" their children from
the statewide tests. Illinois does not permit the use of out-of --level
testing in the statewide assessment system. As indicated by the chart
below, there is a significant gap between performance of students with
disabilities and their non-disabled peers. During the 2000-2001 school
year, this gap was wider in the higher grades for all three content
areas reported.

  -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------- -------------
  **STUDENTS                                                                        
  WITH                                                                              
  DISABILITIES                                                                      
  MEETING OR                                                                        
  EXCEEDING ISAT                                                                    
  AND PSAE                                                                          
  STANDARDS                                                                         
  DURING                                                                            
  2000-2001                                                                         
  SCHOOL YEAR**                                                                     

  **Illinois                                                                        
  Standards                                                                         
  Achievement                                                                       
  Test (ISAT)**                                                                     

  **Grade        **Reading**                 **Writing**                 **Math**   
  Level**                                                                           

                 **IEP**       **Non-IEP**   **IEP**       **Non-IEP**   **IEP**    **Non-IEP**

  3              30%           67%           33%           61%           50%        77%

  5              23%           64%           37%           75%           29%        67%

  8              21%           72%           21%           67%           11%        56%

  **Prairie                                                                         
  State                                                                             
  Achievement                                                                       
  Exam (PSAE)**                                                                     

  11             16%           61%           14%           63%           12%        57%
  -------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------- -------------

## A. Areas of Non Compliance

######### ISBE's Monitoring Procedures are not Effective in Identifying and Correcting Noncompliance

At 34 CFR §300.600(a)(2), the Part B regulations require States to
ensure that each educational program for children with disabilities
administered within the State is under the general supervision of the
persons responsible for educational programs for children with
disabilities in the State educational agency. One method that the State
must utilize to ensure its general supervision over educational programs
for children with disabilities is the effective utilization of a
monitoring system. The State must implement monitoring procedures that
are effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance. 20 U.S.C.
1232d (b)(3).

***Self-Assessment Findings of the Steering Committee and Improvement
Plan***

The Steering Committee indicated that the monitoring system (that was in
effect at the time the Self Assessment was completed) had not been in
effect for a sufficient amount of time to provide data to evaluate its
effectiveness. The Committee identified the following concerns with
ISBE's system for identifying and correcting noncompliance:

> 1\. ISBE's procedures for identifying noncompliance are
> "insufficient."
>
> 2\. Districts and cooperatives were not monitored with sufficient
> frequency to ensure compliance.
>
> 3\. There was inadequate tracking and follow-up to ensure correction
> of deficiencies.
>
> 4\. ISBE did not effectively utilize enforcement actions to address
> persistent deficiencies.

The State's Continuous Improvement Plan includes a specific goal to
implement a new monitoring system during the 2003-2004 school year, that
will be student data-driven and that will impact results and student
performance. ISBE plans to complete the development of the revised
monitoring system by May 2003. Through a focus on goals one through four
of the Improvement Plan, ISBE intends to use individual district
profiles to identify and target those districts showing the least
progress in several measured areas. For those districts that fail to
correct deficiencies, ISBE intends to use enforcement strategies based
on specific criteria.

***Prior OSEP Findings***

As documented in OSEP's 1996 report, OSEP found in 1995 that ISBE had
not been effective in ensuring the correction of previously identified
noncompliance.

Through a corrective action plan submitted to OSEP in December 1996,
ISBE proposed actions to revise its monitoring procedures and to ensure
that all identified deficiencies at the district level were corrected in
a timely manner. During 1997, ISBE provided OSEP with documentation
indicating that new monitoring practices were in place and that
effective measures were being used to ensure correction of identified
deficiencies.

***Description of ISBE's Current Monitoring System***

Currently, ISBE uses two kinds of monitoring reviews to determine
compliance: comprehensive and focused. ISBE conducts comprehensive
reviews on a periodic, cyclical basis that involves pre-site, on-site,
and post-site activities, and focused reviews on an as-needed basis.

Typically, ISBE conducts a comprehensive monitoring review of each
single member district and each joint agreement (cooperative agreements
between several smaller districts) at least once every six years. The
monitoring review is structured in phases over three years. In the first
year, the public agency conducts a self-study and submits it to ISBE.
During this self-study phase, districts identify strengths and areas of
concern and include this information in a report to ISBE. Using the
State-developed format, districts review their own policies and
procedures, handbooks, forms, student records and other local data
elements to respond to each performance indicator.

ISBE utilizes each public agency's self-study as: (1) a basis for
determining the specific monitoring items on which it will focus ISBE's
on-site review; and (2) a verification tool during the second phase of
the comprehensive review. ISBE includes information from the self-study
in the monitoring report, and requires the district to develop and
implement a corrective action plan that includes areas of noncompliance
identified through the self-study process.

During the second year, ISBE uses a set of 35 indicators to determine
compliance through document review, and through on-site interviews.
Under the supervision of the Division Administrator for Compliance, the
ISBE special education monitoring staff serve as team leaders for
district monitoring activities. A team of six full-time and three
part-time staff are assigned to monitor compliance in Chicago Public
Schools, and a Springfield-based team of five is assigned to monitor the
remaining 895 districts. This represents approximately 12 full time
monitoring positions. In preparing for a site visit, team leaders put
together a data collection team using peers (usually local directors)
and ISBE staff. The teams all use the same detailed monitoring manual,
and the Division Administrator for Compliance reviews all reports and
meets with team leaders to discuss procedures and issues regarding
district findings. However, the team leaders acknowledged that there has
been little formal training, and that each team leader makes independent
decisions regarding how to implement the written procedures, with
significant variation among them.

ISBE issues a comprehensive report to the public agency within 60 days
after an on-site visit. This report describes the noncompliance that the
agency must correct. It directs the public agency to propose specific
actions that it will take to correct the noncompliance, and timelines
for completing those corrective actions and submitting documentation to
ISBE that it has completed them.

Upon receiving the public agency's corrective action plan, the ISBE team
leader and the Division Administrator for Compliance review each
proposed corrective action to determine whether it adequately addresses
the noncompliance and whether the proposed timelines are appropriate. If
ISBE determines that the proposed actions and/or timelines are not
sufficient, ISBE specifies changes that the public agency must make in
its corrective action plan. During the third year, each public agency
must complete the required corrective actions and provide documentation
that the agency has completed the corrective actions. ISBE does not
require documentation of the [impact]{.underline} of the corrective
actions in achieving compliance.

Focused reviews may be triggered as a result of major changes in
district policies, data analysis, or compliance deficiencies. These
focused reviews are not cyclical but rather occur as needed, and may be
conducted in response to specific information such as a complaint
investigation or due process outcomes. Each focused review results in a
written monitoring report, and the corrective action procedures that
ISBE uses for focused reviews are the same as those described above for
comprehensive reviews. Over the past three years, at least sixteen
districts or joint agreements received a focused monitoring visit.

State officials acknowledged that ISBE does not have adequate staffing
to do an effective and consistent job of ensuring correction of
noncompliance. Due to the limited number of ISBE monitors, it generally
limits follow-up monitoring reviews to determine whether the actions
taken by a public agency have resulted in correction of the identified
noncompliance. Follow-up by the team leaders on implementation of these
corrective action plans is generally limited to phone calls and document
review due to the personnel shortages noted above, and, as noted above,
public agencies submit documentation of corrective actions they have
completed but not documentation of the impact of these actions.

If a district/joint agreement does not agree with a report and refuses
to negotiate a corrective action plan, they may request a hearing. If
ISBE conducts a hearing, it must reach a final decision of compliance or
noncompliance within thirty days. If a decision of noncompliance is
reached, sanctions can be used to enforce the districts' legal
obligations and may result in a loss of funds. ISBE staff report that
most findings are technical rather than substantive and that monitoring
teams are not finding egregious violations that require sanctions and
enforcement actions.

> **a. ISBE's Monitoring Procedures are not Effective in *Identifying*
> All Systemic Noncompliance**

As noted above, the Steering Committee found that: ISBE's procedures for
identifying noncompliance were "insufficient," and that ISBE did not
monitor districts and cooperatives with sufficient frequency to ensure
compliance.

OSEP reviewed ISBE's monitoring manual, and noted that it relies heavily
on the review of written policies and procedures and student records.
The manual lists interviews with staff as possible data sources, but
provides little guidance to monitors as to when and how they should use
probing interviews to address issues for which compliance cannot be
determined based solely upon the review of documentation. ISBE's
monitoring team leaders acknowledged that there is not consistency in
how they use interview data to make compliance determinations.

In order to determine the extent to which ISBE's monitoring procedures
are effective in identifying noncompliance (including issues that cannot
be effectively addressed without strategic interviewing), OSEP compared
its findings with those ISBE made in recent monitoring reviews of the
same districts. OSEP determined that ISBE's monitoring had not been
effective in finding all existing systemic noncompliance in some
districts.

For example, when OSEP visited one district in April 2002, it made the
following findings[^8]:

1.  Many children identified as behaviorally disabled and placed in a
    separate special education classroom are categorically excluded from
    participation with nondisabled children in nonacademic and
    extracurricular activities and services, regardless of individual
    needs;

2.  Children with disabilities are removed from the regular education
    environment to a special education classroom unless they can
    function in the regular education classroom without supplementary
    aids and services, because special education support in the regular
    education classroom is not currently available; and

3.  Students with disabilities are being exempted from participation in
    statewide assessments.

Neither ISBE's May 2001 monitoring review of this district nor the
district's self-study made findings regarding these requirements. ISBE,
in its monitoring review and the district in its self-study, had made
findings but neither made findings of noncompliance with the Part B
requirements regarding placement in the least restrictive environment or
participation in the statewide assessment.[^9]

Further, when OSEP visited another district in April 2002, it found
systemic noncompliance with Part B requirements for providing
psychological counseling and other counseling services that children
with disabilities need as part of a free appropriate public
education.[^10] However, ISBE did not make any findings regarding those
requirements when it monitored the same agency in February 2001, and the
district did not find such noncompliance when it conducted its
self-study.

**b. ISBE's Monitoring Procedures are not Effective in *Correcting*
Identified Noncompliance**

The Steering Committee found, as part of the State's self-assessment,
inadequate tracking and follow-up to ensure correction of deficiencies,
and lack of effectively utilizing enforcement actions to address
persistent deficiencies.

During OSEP's April 2002 visit, ISBE officials informed OSEP that due to
the small number of monitors, ISBE was rarely able to conduct follow-up
monitoring reviews to determine whether the actions taken by a public
agency had resulted in correction of the identified noncompliance.
Follow-up by the team leaders on implementation of these corrective
action plans was generally limited to phone calls and document reviews
due to the personnel shortages. Public agencies submitted documentation
of corrective actions they had completed but not documentation of the
impact of these actions. State officials acknowledged that ISBE did not
have adequate staffing to do an effective and consistent job of ensuring
correction of noncompliance. Current staffing at the State level limits
the amount of technical support and assistance available to help ensure
correction of the identified deficiencies. They explained that ISBE's
prior senior leadership had apparently viewed compliance as a low
priority, with recent reductions in the number of staff allocated to
monitoring and oversight for special education compliance.

As part of its April 2002 on-site review, OSEP collected data in a
public agency that was visited as part of its Illinois monitoring
reviews in 1989 and 1995. In each of the two earlier visits OSEP had
found significant violations of Part B's requirements for placement in
the least restrictive environment. OSEP found in its 2002 review that
ISBE had not been successful in correcting the noncompliance issues in
the same district. As detailed in OSEP's 1996 report, OSEP found in 1995
that the district had no continuum of placement options for students
identified as "trainable mentally handicapped" or "severely/profoundly
mentally handicapped," and that 100% of these students were placed in
separate schools or separate classrooms. As part of ISBE's 1999-2000
focused monitoring review of the district, ISBE found that the district
was not in compliance with requirements for placement in the least
restrictive environment. The December 2000 child count data for the
district showed that all but three of the 748 children identified as
mentally retarded were placed in separate classes or schools. Several
district staff that participated in IEP meetings and placement decisions
confirmed to OSEP that self-contained special education classes and
separate schools remain the only placement options for children with
mental retardation. Similarly, the December 2000 child count data show
that 100% of children identified as behaviorally disordered were placed
in self-contained special education classrooms or separate schools.
Staff informed OSEP that IEP teams do not consider regular education
placement with supplementary aids and services as a placement option in
determining placement for children identified as behaviorally
disordered. Staff explained that the schools did not have staff to
support children with mental retardation or behavioral disorders in
regular classrooms, and were still being educated in restrictive
placements.

ISBE staff described the States' frequent findings of noncompliance in
this district, and ISBE's efforts to ensure correction of the
noncompliance. They explained that although the district had

taken action to correct the identified noncompliance, ISBE repeatedly
found the same noncompliance when it next returned to the district. ISBE
staff also told OSEP that in some schools where the district had
apparently achieved correction for a time, they found the same
noncompliance issues three years later. ISBE staff further reported
their belief that strong enforcement action, such as withholding, may be
needed to ensure effective and sustained compliance. ISBE has warned the
district of impending sanctions, but has never taken such action to
ensure special education compliance in the district.

1.  **ISBE has not reported to the public regarding the performance of
    students with disabilities in the alternate assessment.**

IDEA requires States to ensure that children with disabilities
participate in State and district-wide assessment systems, develop and
administer alternate assessments, if necessary, and report publicly on
the participation and performance of children with disabilities. State
and district-wide assessments are crucial in ensuring that children with
disabilities are provided access to high-quality instruction in the
general curriculum, and that States and districts are held accountable
for the progress of these children. (See 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)-(17); 34
CFR §§300.137-300.139.) The requirements regarding reporting on
alternate assessments have been in effect since July 1, 2000.

As shown by its Biennial Performance Report and confirmed by ISBE
officials, ISBE has reported on the ***participation*** of children with
disabilities in alternate assessments for school year 2000-2001, but did
***not*** report publicly on their ***performance*** in alternate
assessments, as required by 34 CFR §300.139(a)(1)(ii). Accordingly, the
State's Part B grant award for federal fiscal year 2002 includes special
conditions, which require ISBE to:

1.  Demonstrate, by May 30, 2003, that it is reporting publicly and to
    the Secretary on the performance of children with disabilities in
    alternate assessments;

2.  Submit, by September 30, 2002, a plan detailing the steps and
    timelines for reporting publicly on the performance of children with
    disabilities in alternate assessments by May 30, 2003; and

3.  Submit progress reports on November 29, 2002, January 31, 2003, and
    March 28, 2003, and May 30, 2003.

## B. Suggestions for Improved Results

1.  **The State's Mechanism for Distributing State Special Education
    Funds**

The Part B regulations require, at 34 CFR §300.130(b), that:

> \(1\) If the State uses a funding mechanism by which the State
> distributes State funds on the basis of the type of setting where a
> child is served, the funding mechanism may not result in placements
> that violate the \[least restrictive environmant requirements of
> §300.130(a)\].
>
> \(2\) If the State does not have policies and procedures to ensure
> compliance with §300.130(b)(1), the State must provide the Secretary
> an assurance that the State will revise the funding mechanism as soon
> as feasible to ensure that the mechanism does not result in placements
> that violate that paragraph.

ISBE officials confirmed that State law regarding the distribution of
State special education funds did, under some circumstances, provide a
different amount of State funding, depending on the type of setting in
which a child with a disability receives special education and related
services. Specifically, public agencies receive a different level of
fiscal support for children with very expensive special education
programs, depending on whether the public agency was providing a free
appropriate public education to the child in a public or private school.
If the public agency was serving the child in a public school setting,
the maximum funding the State would provide for extraordinary services
was \$2000 per child per year. For students with disabilities in private
placements, the State reimbursed the district for costs over twice its
per capita tuition. ISBE officials explained that this funding mechanism
could result in a school district receiving a significantly greater
reimbursement from the State if the district places a child with a
disability in a private school than if the district places the child in
a public school setting.

In 1997, ISBE convened a task force to review the Illinois special
education funding mechanism and submit recommendations to the State
Superintendent. ISBE reported that concerns regarding the funding
formulas had been raised several times over the past five years and that
attempts had been made to revise the mechanism. No significant
legislative change had been made and the funding formula has remained
essentially the same. When OSEP questioned ISBE administrators during
the April 2002 visit as to whether ISBE was able to ensure that the
above-described funding mechanisms did not result in placements that
were inconsistent with Part B's least restrictive environment
requirements, they replied that they did not have sufficient data to
make that determination. Although some ISBE staff reported that the
State funding formula might be a contributing factor in the high rate of
private school placements, there is no consensus regarding this among
ISBE officials.

The Illinois Self-Assessment includes neither data nor analysis
regarding the relatively high number of students with disabilities
(particularly students with mental retardation and emotional
disabilities) placed in private and residential settings (see the table
below), and the implications of such data regarding the impact of the
State's funding mechanism on placement decisions. Similarly, the State's
Improvement Plan includes no strategies or activities to address these
data.

+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **PLACEMENTS IN PUBLIC OR  |    |    |    |    |    |              |
| PRIVATE**                  |    |    |    |    |    |              |
|                            |    |    |    |    |    |              |
| **SEPARATE AND RESIDENTIAL |    |    |    |    |    |              |
| FACILITIES -- AGES 6 --    |    |    |    |    |    |              |
| 21**                       |    |    |    |    |    |              |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **Illinois Data**          |    |    |    |    |    | **National   |
|                            |    |    |    |    |    | Average**    |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **SCHOOL YEARS**           | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | **99-00**    |
|                            | *9 | *9 | *9 | *9 | *9 |              |
|                            | 5- | 6- | 7- | 8- | 9- |              |
|                            | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 |              |
|                            | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |              |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **ALL DISABILITIES**       | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | **4%**       |
|                            | 7% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 6% |              |
|                            | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |              |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **MENTAL RETARDATION**     | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | **5%**       |
|                            | *1 | *1 | *1 | *1 | *1 |              |
|                            | 7% | 6% | 6% | 5% | 4% |              |
|                            | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |              |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+
| **EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE**  | *  | *  | *  | *  | *  | **13%**      |
|                            | *3 | *3 | *3 | *3 | *2 |              |
|                            | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 9% |              |
|                            | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |              |
+----------------------------+----+----+----+----+----+--------------+

It is important that ISBE make a data-based determination as to what, if
any changes, are needed in the State's mechanism for distributing State
funds in order to ensure compliance with Part B's requirements for
placement in the least restrictive environment. ISBE should proceed as
quickly as possible to collect and analyze the data needed to make that
determination.

> **2. Technical Assistance**

ISBE reported to OSEP that its statewide capacity-building efforts
include training on inclusion, autism, services for children who are
deaf-blind, teacher certification, and secondary transition. Although
ISBE staff is providing a variety of training activities, there is no
formal connection between compliance and technical assistance in
Illinois. Some mediation and due process decisions require districts to
utilize technical assistance for targeted areas; however, there does not
appear to be a prioritized plan to provide training and technical
assistance based on systemic needs identified by ISBE. Reportedly,
technical assistance is provided at the invitation of districts and
schools. In Illinois, all grantees are required to spend 5% of flow
through dollars on their Comprehensive System of Personnel Development.
At one time ISBE had specific positions for providing technical
assistance, however reductions in state personnel has resulted in less
staff to cover many areas of responsibility including technical
assistance.

ISBE monitoring team leaders informed OSEP that they support districts
during the correction phase of the monitoring process primarily through
phone conferences, and that they did not have adequate staff to address
systemic needs and provide effective technical assistance.

It is critical that ISBE take strong action to ensure the effectiveness
of its technical assistance efforts, especially in light of ISBE's small
special education staff and the State's large number of districts and
large geographic area and population. To make a significant impact, ISBE
should look to a comprehensive approach that links technical assistance
to identified systemic needs. It is important that ISBE use all
available data (including data from monitoring, State complaints,
hearings, and student data such as placement data and performance on
Statewide assessments) to identify the public agencies that most need
technical assistance and the specific assistance they need, so that ISBE
can best target its resources to leverage improved results. Given the
varied needs and limited resources, we recommend that ISBE coordinate
all technical assistance efforts with each other, and with the State's
Improvement Plan and State Improvement Grant activities. It will also be
helpful for ISBE to evaluate, over time, the effectiveness of the
technical assistance it provides to the districts. Further, ISBE should
determine the staff and other resources that it needs to make these
technical assistance efforts work effectively, and secure those
resources.

# IV. 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. Children with
disabilities are educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with
children who do not have disabilities and, unless their IEPs require
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."

## Areas of Noncompliance

1\. ISBE has not ensured that all public agencies meet the least
restrictive environment requirements of Part B.

34 CFR §300.550(b)(2) requires that special classes, separate schooling
or other 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 aides and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. A
group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable
about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement
options, must determine the educational placement for each child with a
disability (34 CFR §300.552(a)(1)). The placement for each child with a
disability must be determined at least annually and be based on the
child's IEP (§300.552(b)(1) and (2)).

34 CFR §300.551 requires that: (a) Each public agency shall ensure that
a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of
children with disabilities for special education and related services;
and (b) The continuum must (1) Include the alternative placements listed
in the definition of special education under §300.26 (instruction in
regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and
instruction in hospitals and institutions); and (2) Make provision for
supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction)
to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.

34 CFR §300.553 requires that, in providing or arranging for the
provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities,
including meals, recess periods, and the services and activities set
forth in §300.306, each public agency shall ensure that each child with
a disability participates with nondisabled children in those services
and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that
child.

***Prior OSEP Findings***

As set forth in OSEP February 26, 1996 Illinois Monitoring Report, OSEP
found that ISBE had failed to:

1.  ensure that public agencies removed students from the regular
    education environment only when the nature or severity of the
    disability was such that education in the regular education
    environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
    be achieved satisfactorily (34 CFR §300.550(b)(2));

2.  ensure that a full continuum of alternative placements is available
    to meet the needs and implement the individualized education plans
    of children with disabilities (34 CFR §300.551);

3.  ensure that the education placement of each child with a disability
    is determined at least annually as required by 34 CFR §300.552(a)(1)
    in the then-existing regulations (now §300.552(b)(1)); and

4.  ensure that children with disabilities participate with nondisabled
    children in nonacademic and extracurricular activities to the
    maximum extent appropriate, as required by 34 CFR §300.553.

***Self-Assessment And Placement Data***

As part of the self-assessment, the Steering Committee determined that
placement data showed that "compared to national data," the State was
"not doing well" in placing students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment.

As part of its review of the State's implementation of Part B
requirements regarding placement in the least restrictive environment,
OSEP reviewed the State's placement data, comparing these data across
time and to the national average. As indicated in the table below and
the table in Section III of this report, there has been some improvement
in the State's placement data over the past several years, but Illinois
continues to serve a significantly higher percentage of its children
with disabilities in more restrictive placements (e.g., separate
classrooms, separate schools (public), private day schools, and public
and private residential settings than the national average.

Five-year trend data for students educated in separate settings show
little change since 1995. Of particular concern is the high percentage
of children with mental retardation and emotional disturbance placed in
these separate settings.

+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+
| **5 YEAR    |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| TREND IN    |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| PLACEMENT   |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| SETTINGS**  |       |       |       |       |       |              |
|             |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| **TIME OUT  |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| OF REGULAR  |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| CLASS FOR   |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| 60% OR MORE |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| OF THE DAY  |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| (AGES       |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| 6-21)**     |       |       |       |       |       |              |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+
|             | Ill   | Ill   | Ill   | Ill   | Ill   | National     |
|             | inois | inois | inois | inois | inois | Average      |
|             |       |       |       |       |       |              |
|             | 95-96 | 96-97 | 97-98 | 98-99 | 99-00 | 99-00        |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+
| ALL         | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    | **20%**      |
|             | 29%** | 29%** | 29%** | 28%** | 28%** |              |
| D           |       |       |       |       |       |              |
| ISABILITIES |       |       |       |       |       |              |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+
| MENTAL      | **    | **    | **    | **    | **    | **51%**      |
| RETARDATION | 75%** | 70%** | 72%** | 72%** | 73%** |              |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+
| EMOTIONAL   | 44%   | **    | **    | **    | **    | **33%**      |
| DISTURBANCE |       | 37%** | 38%** | 38%** | 38%** |              |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------------+

Although the State is taking aggressive action under the consent decree
in the *Corey H.* litigation and has improved compliance with the
requirements for placement in the least restrictive environment, status
reports from ISBE, Chicago Public Schools, and the court monitor show
that significant noncompliance with these requirements continues.

***OSEP's 2002 Findings Regarding Placement In The Least Restrictive
Environment***

In light of the concerning placement data summarized above and past
noncompliance, OSEP collected data as part of the April 2002 on-site
review to determine whether the school districts were in compliance with
Part B's requirements regarding placement in the least restrictive
environment. As detailed below, OSEP found significant systemic
noncompliance in two of the public agencies that it visited as part of
its April 2002 review.

In its February 26, 1996 monitoring report, OSEP found that the
placement data for one district showed that 100% of students identified
as trainable mentally handicapped or severely mentally handicapped were
placed in segregated classes and/or separate schools, and that such
separate settings were the only placement options available or
considered in making placement decisions for these children. OSEP
visited this district again in April 2002. The December 2000 child count
data for the district show that this pattern continues \-- all but three
of the 748 children identified as mentally retarded were placed in
separate classes or schools. Several district staff that participated in
IEP meetings and placement decisions confirmed to OSEP that
self-contained special education classes and separate schools remain the
only placement options for children with mental retardation. Similarly,
the December 2000 child count data show that 100% of children identified
as behaviorally disordered are placed in self-contained special
education classrooms or separate schools. Staff informed OSEP that IEP
teams do not consider regular education placement with supplementary
aids and services as a placement option in determining the placement for
children identified as behaviorally disordered. Staff explained that the
schools do not have the staff to support children with mental
retardation or behavioral disorders in regular classrooms.

In another district, many children identified as behaviorally disabled
are placed in a separate special education classroom that is housed in
the basement of a regular education school. One Director informed OSEP
that the school principal had determined that children in this program
may not participate with nondisabled children in the school in
nonacademic and extracurricular activities and services, and that,
therefore, the IEP team did not make, or document in the IEP,
individualized decisions as to the extent to which these children may
have such participation. Thus, as for children in this program, the
public agency was not complying with the requirements of 34 CFR
§300.553. Special education teachers also informed OSEP that because
supplementary aids and services, including special education support in
the regular education classroom, were not currently available to support
their success in regular classes, children with disabilities were
removed from the regular education environment to a special education
classroom unless they could function in the regular education classroom
without such supports. Two special education teachers reported that
unless children with disabilities are functioning within one year of
nondisabled children they were removed to a special education classroom.

2.  **ISBE has not ensured that children with behavioral or emotional
    disabilities are receiving all of the services that they need as
    part of a free appropriate public education, including psychological
    counseling services.**

The Part B regulations require that, "In the case of a child whose
behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, \[the IEP team\]
consider, if appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral
interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior." 34
CFR §300.346(a)(2)(i). Section 300.346(c) further specifies that, "If,
in considering the special factors described in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section, the IEP team determines that a child needs a
particular device or service (including an intervention, accommodation,
or other program modification) in order for the child to receive FAPE,
the IEP team must include a statement to that effect in the child\'s
IEP."

Section 300.347(a)(3) specifies that the IEP for each child with a
disability must include: "A statement of the special education and
related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to
the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program
modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for
the child:

i.  To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;

ii. To be involved and progress in the general curriculum in accordance
    with paragraph (a)(1) of this section and to participate in
    extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and

iii. To be educated and participate with other children with
     disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described
     in this section..."

Each public agency must provide every child with a disability with the
related services (including, among others, counseling services,
psychological counseling services, and social work services in schools)
that the child needs to benefit from special education. (34 CFR §§300.24
and 300.300.)

A public agency may meet a child's need for counseling as a related
service through services provided by a school counselor or social
worker, ***if*** those services meet the unique needs of the child as
determined by the IEP team. However, if a child needs psychological
counseling services pursuant to 34 CFR §300.24(b)(9)(v) in order to
benefit from special education, the IEP team must include those services
in the child's IEP and the public agency must provide them as part of a
free appropriate public education.

Staff in two districts informed OSEP that children with emotional and
behavioral needs may receive counseling services from social workers and
school counselors. However, IEP teams do not include psychological
counseling services in students' IEPs, even if a child needs such
services in order to receive a free appropriate public education. Of
those students needing psychological counseling, most are receiving
private services or services through mental health agencies, with
parents paying on a sliding scale or through Medicaid.

In one of these two districts, two special education teachers for
children with emotional disturbance reported that none of their students
were receiving psychological counseling services and that they had not
been involved in any IEP meetings where it was even considered. In this
same district, six parents reported that their children receive
psychological counseling outside of school because of their intensive
needs. These parents were paying co-insurance fees and reportedly were
not aware that the school district could be responsible for providing
such services as part of a free appropriate public education.

In the other district, several staff reported that IEP teams will not
consider whether to include psychological counseling as a related
service in a student's IEP and that the district does not provide this
service, regardless of individual student need. They reported that the
school helps link the parents to community counseling, but does not
provide or pay for the counseling, regardless of student need. A
building administrator in this same district reported that if a student
needed psychological counseling they would refer the student to
community counseling and that it is up to the parents to pursue that
counseling.

# V. 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% for youth in the general population.[^11] The study identifies
several factors that were associated with post-school success in
obtaining employment and earning higher wages for youth with
disabilities. These factors 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
specified 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, including
post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment
(including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult
services, independent living or community participation. 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 can best meet those needs.

ISBE has the responsibility of ensuring the provision of secondary
transition services, either as special education when provided as
specially designed instruction, or as a related service, if required, to
assist a student with a disability to benefit from special education.
Transition services are essential supports to assist students with
disabilities secure the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a
global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.

***Prior OSEP Findings***

As set forth in OSEP's 1996 monitoring report, OSEP found in 1995 that
ISBE was not ensuring that the IEP for each student with a disability
aged 16 or older (or younger if determined appropriate) included a
statement of needed transition services that met Part B requirements.

***Self-Assessment And Public Input***

The Steering Committee did not make any findings regarding the State's
implementation of Part B's requirements regarding secondary transition.
Rather, the Steering Committee indicated that there were insufficient
data and ability to analyze data to reach conclusions.

Parents attending the public input meetings reported that: (1) students
are not involved in transition activities, (2) transition services are
not always included in IEPs, (3) transition coordinators do not
understand their roles, and (4) other agencies are not involved in
transition activities.

**A. OSEP'S 2002 Data Collection regarding Secondary Transition**

OSEP did not, during the April 2002 visit, make any findings of
noncompliance with Part B's requirements for secondary transition.
Interviews and record reviews in the six districts showed that the
school districts OSEP visited were: (1) inviting transition-aged
students with disabilities and other agencies to IEP meetings; (2)
including a statement of transition service needs in the IEPs for
students aged 14 or older; and (3) including a statement of needed
transition services in the IEPs for students aged 16 or older.

Based on OSEP's 1995 finding and the public input, OSEP collected data
in six school districts regarding secondary transition. In each of those
districts, OSEP collected data in a senior high school; in three of
those districts, OSEP also visited a middle school. In two of the
districts, OSEP collected data in coordination with the United States
Department of Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration, which
conducted a review of the State's implementation of the requirements of
the Rehabilitation Act regarding transition at the same time as OSEP's
April 2002 visit. OSEP also collected data from ISBE staff and the
Rehabilitation Services Administration collected data from the Illinois
Office of Rehabilitation Services. On the final day of the visit, OSEP
and the Rehabilitation Services Administration conducted a joint meeting
with ISBE and Illinois Office of Rehabilitation Services administrators
to discuss the State's transition initiatives.

ISBE monitors secondary transition through a comprehensive review
process, using file reviews and interviews to ensure compliance. ISBE
staff report that very few transition findings of non-compliance have
been made in recent years, as most districts have been meeting the
"letter of the law." If noncompliance is found, the district must
address it in a corrective action plan and provide ISBE with documented
evidence that correction has taken place.

ISBE and Office of Rehabilitation Services acknowledged that the
State-level interagency transition agreement has not been updated since
1997, and reported that they will be working to revise the agreement to
better address the needs of transitioning youth with disabilities. They
indicated that they would complete a draft of the revised agreement by
October 2002.

A Transition Systems Change Project is now in its fifth year of
operation, providing extensive training to staff and parents in seven
districts and developing needs assessments, business partnerships, and
interagency agreements. The State has received additional funding to
continue the Project beyond the fifth year, and the Project will provide
focused technical assistance and training in twenty additional sites and
develop multi-media training materials for dissemination statewide.

## Suggestions for Improved Results

The State's improvement plan indicates that the State does not currently
have data regarding post-school outcomes for young adults with
disabilities, and that the State will begin to collect such data.
Further, the improvement plan does not currently include any goals or
strategies to improve post-school outcomes for young adults with
disabilities. It will be important for the State to continue to collect
and analyze data to assist in ensuring improved post-school outcomes. It
will also be important that, as the State works to revise the
interagency agreement, it focuses on improved post-school outcomes.

During the OSEP visit, ISBE staff indicated that the Transition Systems
Change Project Systems has been very effective in improving practices
and performance in the districts that have participated directly in the
Project, but that it has not yet had much impact on most other districts
in the State. It will be important that the State implement effective
strategies to impact other districts. This may include showcasing
districts that have effectively implemented promising practices in
secondary transition.

[^1]: OSEP has included information that it collected regarding
    Family-Centered System of Services in the finding regarding service
    coordination in Section II of this Report, and has not included a
    separate section in the Report to address the Family-Centered System
    of Services.

[^2]: OSEP note: The percentage of students with disabilities exiting
    who did so with a diploma was 57% for 1997-1998, 60% for 1998-1999,
    56% for 1999-2000, and 66% for 2000-2001.

[^3]: Prior to June 1, 2001, the Bureau of Early Intervention was housed
    in DHS' Division of Community Health and Prevention (DCHP), which
    included 31 other programs. (Effective June 1, 2001, the Bureau was
    moved to DHS' Office of the Associate Secretary, where it is now
    housed.) Within the Division of Community Health and Prevention, the
    Office of Technical Assistance and Monitoring (TAM) was responsible
    for all 32 categorical programs, including the State's Part C early
    intervention program. One of the five Technical Assistance and
    Monitoring regional administrators was responsible for early
    intervention monitoring. Although the Bureau of Early Intervention
    had input into the monitoring instruments, the Office of Technical
    Assistance and Monitoring patterned the early intervention
    monitoring after its monitoring for the other 31 programs, and so
    there were significant limits on the monitoring process.

[^4]: In addressing the requirements of §303.23(b)(4), the State
    regulation states that the service coordinator will "***assist the
    family in*** monitoring" service provision. This is not consistent
    with §303.23(d)(4), which provides that the service coordinator is
    responsible for \"coordinating and monitoring the delivery of
    available services,\" and not merely for assisting the family in
    such coordination and monitoring. DHS has provided OSEP with a
    written assurance that it will revise its regulation to make it
    consistent with Part C.

[^5]: The Part C regulations require, at 34 CFR §303.342(b), that, "(1)
    A review of the IFSP for a child and the child\'s family must be
    conducted every six months, or more frequently if conditions
    warrant, or if the family requests such a review. The purpose of the
    periodic review is to determine\--(i) The degree to which progress
    toward achieving the outcomes is being made; and (ii) Whether
    modification or revision of the outcomes or services is necessary.
    (2) The review may be carried out by a meeting or by another means
    that is acceptable to the parents and other participants." 34 CFR
    §303.23(b)(2) requires the service coordinator to facilitate the
    review of the IFSP.

[^6]: Although Part C does not require that the initial IFSP be
    ***completed*** within 45 calendar days from referral, ***Illinois
    State regulations*** require, at 500.70, that the Child & Family
    Connection complete the evaluation and assessment in all five
    developmental areas, and ***complete*** the development of the
    initial IFSP within 45 calendar days from referral.

[^7]: As used in DHS' data and this table, the term "intake" means
    completion of initial evaluation, assessment, and IFSP.

[^8]: See Section IV of this report for more detail regarding OSEP's
    findings.

[^9]: In its self-study, the district identified concerns regarding IEP
    requirements and documentation, parental consent, curriculum access
    and inadequate facilities. ISBE's May 2001 findings were in the
    following areas: regular teachers not attending IEP meetings,
    parental consent for evaluations, IEP documentation, delay in
    placement, inadequate facilities, and access to the general
    education curriculum.

[^10]: ^?^ See Section IV of this report for more detail regarding
    OSEP's findings.

[^11]: Blackorby, J. and Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal Postschool
    Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities: Findings from the National
    Longitudinal Transition Study. *Exceptional Children.*