# ENCLOSURE B

## SPECIAL CONDITIONS

**I. [Basis for Requiring Special Conditions and Nature of Special
Conditions]{.underline}**

Pursuant to 34 CFR §80.12, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) is imposing Special Conditions on Louisiana's Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2004 grant award under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (Part C), related to four areas of noncompliance that OSEP
identified in its July 20, 2001 Louisiana Monitoring Report (Report) and
that the State has failed to correct.[^1] The four noncompliance areas
relate to the timely identification and evaluation of, and provision of
early intervention services needed by, infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families. With regard to these four areas, OSEP's
2001 Report found that the State had failed to:

1\. Conduct evaluations and assessments and convene the initial
Individualized

> Family Service Plan (IFSP) meeting within 45 days of referral under 34
> CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e) and 303.342(a);
>
> 2\. Convene an IFSP meeting and obtain parental consent prior to
> eliminating or reducing early intervention services as required under
> 34 CFR §303.342(e);

3\. Identify on the IFSP all early intervention services needed to meet
the unique

> needs of the child and family under 34 CFR §303.344(d); and

4\. Provide the early intervention services listed on the child's IFSP
under 34 CFR

> §303.342(e).

OSEP's 2001 Report directed the State to develop and implement
improvement strategies to ensure timely correction of all areas of
noncompliance identified in the report, including the four findings
listed above. On June 27, 2002, in response to OSEP's 2001 report, the
Louisiana Department of Education (LDE), the State's designated lead
agency for Part C at that time, submitted the State's Part C Improvement
Plan. OSEP's February 12, 2003 response to the State's Improvement Plan
accepted the Plan and informed the State that it must provide OSEP with
documentation that the State had corrected all areas of noncompliance no
later than February 12, 2004.[^2]

In September 2003, OSEP conducted a verification visit to Louisiana with
the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH), the State's Part
C lead agency, to review the State's systems for Part C general
supervision and data collection. In its December 19, 2003 letter about
that verification review, OSEP noted that the September 24, 2003 DHH
document entitled, [Federal Compliance Findings and Potential
Resolutions]{.underline} (which served as an updated progress report on
the State's Improvement Plan), demonstrated compliance with only one of
the 14 noncompliance areas identified in the Report. On February 13,
2004, OSEP responded to the State's FFY 2001 Annual Performance Report
(APR) and confirmed that the State had corrected two of the findings.
OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter required the State to submit with its
FFY 2002 APR, due on March 31, 2004, either: (1) documentation of
correction of each of the remaining 12 areas of noncompliance; or (2)
the specific additional actions the State would take to ensure full
correction and the date by which the State would be able to provide
documentation that it had fully corrected each of those 12 findings.

On March 31, 2004, the State submitted its FFY 2002 APR, which failed to
provide OSEP with the required documentation or proposed actions to
ensure correction of the following four areas of noncompliance. Pursuant
to the Special Conditions, the State must ensure that, by December 31,
2004, it has corrected each of the four noncompliance areas identified
below, and must submit the required documentation by October 15, 2004
and January 15, 2005.

***1. Convening an initial IFSP meeting within 45 days from referral.***

> **a. [Basis for requiring special conditions]{.underline}**

In its 2001 Report, OSEP found that the State had failed to ensure that
initial evaluations and assessments are conducted and the initial IFSP
meeting is held within 45 days from referral (34 CFR §§303.321(e),
303.322(e) and 303.342(a)). OSEP found on page 17 of the Report that
"service coordinators told OSEP they must act quickly to get the initial
IFSP written within the 45-day timeline, and that frequently the IFSP is
written after the deadline." The Report further noted that "the
multidisciplinary team further stated that the delay in development of
the IFSP was caused by the delays of the service coordination agency,
citing a typical instance when it took two months for a service provider
agency to learn that a child needed service after the evaluation team
sent information to the service coordination agency."

OSEP's February 12, 2003 letter required the State to submit data
demonstrating compliance with Part C's 45-day timeline requirement
including data from the five parishes OSEP visited in February 2000
(Orleans, Baton Rouge, West Carroll, Ouachita, and Rapides). In March
2003, the State submitted its Part C monthly data reports on the 45-day
timeline compliance requirement for all parishes, which data indicated
continued noncompliance in many parishes, the worst being Calcasieu,
Jefferson, Lafource, Livingston, Orleans and St. John Parishes.[^3]
Effective July 1, 2003, under DHH, the State organized its regional Part
C reporting not by the 66 parishes (or school districts) but by the 19
regional Single Points of Entry **(**SPOEs) that are responsible for
receiving referrals, schedule evaluations and assessments and convene
the initial IFSP meeting.

OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter required the State to provide
documentation that it had corrected the noncompliance, including data by
each region reflecting that the initial IFSP meeting is held within 45
days of referral and, if not, the extent of, and reasons for, the delay.
In addition, OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter directed the State to
submit the corrective actions or other plans to ensure that each region
is in compliance with Part C's 45-day timeline requirement. Page 23 of
the State's March 31, 2004 FFY 2002 APR submission reported data from
all 19 SPOEs and indicating that, as of the APR submission date, six of
the 19 SPOEs (regions 2, 3, 4, 11, 18 and 19) clearly exceeded the
45--day timeline. However, the State's March 31, 2004 APR failed to
indicate that DHH had made noncompliance findings against, or required
corrective actions from, these six regions. The March 31, 2004 APR also
failed to include any analysis for the reasons for the delay in these
six SPOE regions or any corrective actions being required.[^4]

a.  **[Nature of special conditions]{.underline}**:

In the first progress report, due on October 15, 2004, DHH must provide:

1.  A description of DHH's monitoring procedures that demonstrate how
    DHH determines whether a SPOE or provider is in compliance with the
    45-day timeline requirements of 34 CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e), and
    303.342(a); a list of the entities the State has monitored for this
    requirements to date, the date and nature of any findings of
    noncompliance with those requirements that were made in any of those
    entities, and the status of correction of such findings;

2.  Data for all 19 SPOEs (already being collected by DHH) showing the
    percentage of infants and toddlers for whom initial evaluations and
    assessments were completed and the initial IFSP meeting held within
    45 days from referral in July, August, and September 2004;

3.  Those corrective actions DHH is taking or requiring to ensure
    compliance by December 31, 2004 for the six regions identified in
    the State's March 31, 2004 FFY 2002 APR (regions 2,3,4,11,18,
    and 19) and, for any SPOE region identified above that is not
    meeting Part C's 45-day timeline, DHH's analysis of the causes for
    those delays and the specific actions that DHH intends to implement
    or has implemented to ensure that the SPOE region is in compliance
    with that requirement as soon as possible.

In the second progress report, due on January 15, 2005, DHH must
provide:

1.  A description of any changes, since September 30, 2004, in DHH's
    monitoring procedures or corrective action strategies required by
    DHH of SPOEs or providers to ensure compliance with the 45-day
    timeline requirements of 34 CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e), and
    303.342(a), a list of the agencies which DHH monitored regarding
    those requirements from September 30, 2004 through December 31,
    2004, the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with
    those requirements that DHH made in any of those agencies, and the
    status of correction of such findings; and

2.  Data for each of the SPOEs (including regions 2, 3, 4, 11, 18
    and 19) showing the percentage of infants and toddlers whose initial
    evaluations and assessments were completed and an initial IFSP
    meeting held within 45 days from referral, for October, November and
    December 2004.

***2. Convening an IFSP meeting and obtaining consent to eliminate or
reduce services.***

> **a. [Basis for requiring special conditions]{.underline}**:

In its 2001 Report, OSEP found that services were added to the IFSP or
eliminated or reduced without an IFSP meeting or parent consent prior to
the provision of services described in the revised plan (34 CFR
§303.342(e)). On page 17 of the Report, OSEP found (through interviews
with service coordinators and parents in all areas of the State) that
information concerning specific services, frequency and intensity was
added to the IFSP after the meeting without additional input from the
IFSP team or without the required parental consent. Additionally, OSEP
found in its 2001 Report that "parents and service coordinators stated
that the changes in service were made without an evaluation to indicate
a reduced need for services and the changes were made without an IFSP
meeting to discuss changes in child or family needs." OSEP's February
12, 2003 letter required the State to include "a summary of the State's
monitoring findings and actions to ensure correction of noncompliance
with Part C's requirement that public agencies not add or eliminate
early intervention services without conducting an IFSP meeting," and
directed the State to submit data on March 15, 2003, October 15, 2003
and January 15, 2004 from at least the five parishes OSEP had monitored.
The State submitted no responsive data on any of those dates.

OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter again required DHH to submit
documentation that IFSPs were not being unilaterally changed by the lead
agency without an IFSP meeting being held and parental consent being
obtained. OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter specifically requested the
State to provide any available family survey, parent interview or other
monitoring data to demonstrate that early intervention services were not
unilaterally changed without prior parental consent and IFSP meeting
held to revise the IFSP. The State's March 31, 2004 FFY 2002 APR
described the required content for an IFSP, but failed to provide any
responsive data demonstrating correction of this area of noncompliance.

> **b. [Nature of special conditions]{.underline}**:

In the first progress report, due on October 15, 2004, DHH must provide
a description of its monitoring procedures to ensure that early
intervention services are not changed on a child's IFSP without first
holding an IFSP meeting and obtaining parent consent, a list of the
entities in which the State has implemented those monitoring procedures,
the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with those
requirements that the State has made in any entity monitored, and the
status of correction of such findings.

In the second progress report, due on January 15, 2005, DHH must provide
a description of any changes, since September 30, 2004, in the
procedures that DHH uses to monitor agencies to determine whether they
are in compliance with this requirement, a list of the entities which
the State has monitored regarding this requirement since September 30,
2004, the date and nature of any findings of noncompliance with this
requirement that DHH made in any entity, and the status of correction of
such findings.

***3. Ensuring that the IFSP lists all early intervention services or
other services needed to meet the unique needs of the child and
family.***

> a\. **[Basis for requiring special conditions]{.underline}**

In its 2001 Report, OSEP found that the State had not ensured that all
of the early intervention services or other services needed to meet the
unique needs of the child and family were included on the IFSP (34 CFR
§303.344(d)). Page 18 of the 2001 Report noted that "\[a\]dministrators
from three areas of the State told OSEP that IFSPs contain the services
that are available, not what the child needs." The Report further noted
that "\[f\]amily service coordinators, providers, administrators and
parents in three areas reported to OSEP that if a service is not
available it is not included on the IFSP" and that early intervention
services were not available in three areas of the State because of lack
of providers.

OSEP's February 12, 2003 letter directed the State to identify its
actions to address this area of noncompliance and how it would measure
(through monitoring or other methods) the "effectiveness" of its
activities to ensure that early intervention services needed to meet the
unique needs of the child and family, because this issue does not easily
lend itself to self-reporting or a review of individual IFSP records.
OSEP's February 12, 2003 letter requested the State provide by March 15,
2003 its monitoring findings and actions to address this finding. The
State submitted to OSEP (in its Federal Compliance Findings document)
during OSEP's September 2003 verification visit to the State, the
State's plan to use its "data system to monitor what services are most
and frequently used" as well as training of service coordinators."
However, that document acknowledged that this was "planned for future
use" and not in place.

OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter requested DHH to submit by March 31,
2004 documentation demonstrating that the State monitored to ensure that
those early intervention services needed by a child and family were
identified on the IFSP. OSEP's February 13, 2004 letter specifically
directed the State to submit "service coordinator interviews, family
interviews, comparison of IFSP reviews and evaluation reports, and/or
other monitoring data to show that all early intervention services or
other services needed to meet the unique needs of the child and family
are identified on the IFSP." In its March 31, 2004 FFY 2002 APR, DHH
failed to provide any responsive data and only listed the required
content for IFSPs, but included no monitoring data or other
documentation that the State has corrected this area of noncompliance.

> b\. **[Nature of special conditions]{.underline}**:

In the first progress report, due on October 15, 2004, DHH must provide:
(1) a description of DHH's monitoring procedures (such as service
coordinator interviews, family interviews, comparisons of individual
IFSP records with the evaluation reports that were reviewed prior to the
development of the IFSP, and analysis of other monitoring data) that
demonstrate how DHH determines whether a SPOE or provider is in
compliance with the Part C requirement that services needed by a child
and family are identified on the IFSP under 34 CFR §303.344(d); (2) a
list of the entities the State has monitored or will monitor for these
requirements by December 31, 2004, the date and nature of any findings
of noncompliance with these requirements that the State has made; (3)
the status of correction of such findings; and (4) any other relevant
data on this requirement available through October 15, 2004.

In the second progress report, due on January 15, 2005, DHH must
provide: (1) a description of any changes, since September 30, 2004, in
DHH's monitoring procedures or strategies required by SPOEs or providers
to demonstrate how DHH determines whether a provider is in compliance
with the Part C requirements that services needed by a child and family
are identified on the IFSP under 34 CFR §§303.344(d); (2) a list of the
entities DHH has monitored for these requirements, the date and nature
of any findings of noncompliance with these requirements that DHH made,
(3) the status of correction of such findings; and (4) any other
relevant data on this requirement available through January 15, 2005.

***4. Ensuring that those early intervention services listed on the IFSP
are provided.***

> a\. **[Basis for requiring special conditions]{.underline}**

In its 2001 Report, OSEP found that the State had not ensured that the
early intervention services listed on the IFSP were provided (34 CFR
§303.342(e)). Pages 18 and 19 of the 2001 Report stated that service
coordinators, service providers, parents and administrators in all areas
of the State told OSEP that services listed on their IFSP were not
always provided. As noted in the 2001 Report, these staff members and
parents also stated that sometimes a service provider could not be
located for that service area and children waited from one to six months
for a provider to be available.

OSEP's February 12, 2003 letter requested the State to provide
documentation that the State was monitoring to ensure that those early
intervention services listed on the IFSP were being provided and any
data reflecting waiting lists for early intervention services. OSEP's
February 12, 2003 letter directed the State to submit relevant data on
March 15, 2003, October 15, 2003 and January 15, 2004, including data
from the five parishes OSEP had monitored. The State submitted no data
or information in response but indicated its plan during OSEP's
September, 2003 verification visit to "use data system to monitor
utilization of IFSP services."

OSEP's February 13, 2004 response to the State's FFY 2001 APR required
DHH to provide by March 31, 2004 data to demonstrate that the early
intervention services listed on the IFSP were being provided. The FFY
2002 APR that the State submitted on March 31, 2004 failed to include
any responsive data and only listed the State's IFSP content requirement
that "\[t\]he projected dates for initiation of the early intervention
services ... as soon as possible after the IFSP meeting."

> b\. **[Nature of special conditions]{.underline}**:

In the first progress report, due on October 15, 2004, DHH must provide:

1\. A description of DHH's monitoring procedures or strategies required
by region, SPOEs or providers to demonstrate how the State determines
whether those early intervention services listed on the IFSP are
provided to the child and family under 34 CFR §303.342(e); a list of the
entities the State has monitored for this requirement to date, the date
and nature of any findings of noncompliance with this requirement that
the State has made, and the status of correction of such findings;

2\. Data showing the number of infants and toddlers with disabilities
who are not receiving the early intervention services listed on their
IFSP (by discipline, child, region or otherwise) in July, August, and
September 2004; and

3\. For each region in which infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families are not receiving the early intervention services listed
on the IFSP in July, August, and September 2004, DHH's analysis of the
causes for failure to provide services and the specific actions that DHH
intends to implement to ensure that each region is in compliance with
the service provision requirements as soon as possible, but not later
than December 31, 2004.

In the second progress report, due on January 15, 2005, DHH must
provide:

1\. A description of any changes, since September 30, 2004, in DHH's
monitoring procedures or strategies required by SPOEs, providers or
other entities to demonstrate how DHH determines whether services listed
on the IFSP are provided under 34 CFR §303.342(e); a list of the
entities the State has monitored for these requirements from October 1,
2004 through December 31, 2004, the date and nature of any findings of
noncompliance with this requirement that DHH made in any entity, and the
status of correction of such findings;

2\. Data showing the number of infants and toddlers with disabilities
who are not receiving the early intervention services listed on their
IFSP in October, November and December, 2004; and

3\. For any region in which infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families are not receiving the early intervention services listed
on the IFSP in from October through December 2004, DHH's analysis of the
causes for failure to provide services and the specific corrective
actions that DHH intends to implement to ensure that each region is in
compliance with the service provision requirements as soon as possible.

**II. [Evidence Necessary for Conditions To Be Removed]{.underline}**

The Department will remove the Special Conditions, if at any time prior
to the expiration of the grant year, DHH provides documentation,
satisfactory to the Department, that it has fully met the requirements
and conditions set forth above, which require DHH to submit data
demonstrating compliance with each of the four noncompliance areas that
are the subject of the special conditions under Part C.

**III. [Method of Requesting Reconsideration]{.underline}**

DHH can write to Troy Justenson, the Assistant Secretary for the Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), if it wishes
the Department to reconsider any aspect of these Special Conditions. Any
request of this sort should describe in detail the changes to the
Special Conditions sought by DHH and the reasons for those requested
changes. The Special Conditions should be appended to all copies of your
eligibility documents that you maintain, distribute, and make available
to the public.

**IV. [Submission of Reports]{.underline}**

Reports must be submitted, in accordance with the time lines included in
this enclosure, to:

> Mary Louise Dirrigl
>
> Education Program Specialist
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> Office of Special Education Programs
>
> Room 4013
>
> 550 12th Street, SW
>
> Washington, DC 20202

[^1]: The State has provided evidence of correction or improvement with
    a plan for full correction for the following seven of the findings
    of noncompliance in the Report : (1) the State Interagency
    Coordinating Council (SICC) had not included the required percentage
    of parents of children with disabilities (34 CFR §303.601(a)(1));
    (2) a service coordinator had not been assigned to a child and
    family until after completion of the initial evaluation and
    assessment (34 CFR §303.23(b)(1)); (3) The State had not implemented
    a public awareness program (34 CFR §303.320; (4) The State had not
    ensured that all children in the State who are eligible for services
    under Part C are identified, located and evaluated; and an effective
    method is developed and implemented to determine which children are
    receiving needed early intervention services (34 CFR
    §303.321(b)(1)(2); (5) The State had not ensured compliance with
    Part C's requirements regarding the provision of services in the
    natural environments (34 CFR §§303.344(d)(ii), 303.18 and 303.12(b);
    (6) Service coordinators did not coordinate all services needed by
    the child and family (34 CFR §303.23); and (7) Families did not
    receive transportation needed to enable them to participate in early
    intervention services (34 CFR §303.12(d)(15). The remaining three
    findings relate to the State's ability to monitor all Part C
    entities for all Part C requirements in order to identify and
    correct noncompliance. These findings will be addressed separately
    by OSEP in its response to the State's FFY 2002 Annual Performance
    Report (APR) that was submitted on March 31, 2004 with an addendum
    submitted on June 2, 2004. Resolving the remaining monitoring and
    other findings should be viewed as a high priority by the State
    during the FFY 2004 grant year.

[^2]: The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) became the
    State's Part C Lead Agency, effective July 1, 2003. In its February
    12, 2003 letter, OSEP emphasized that although the Lead Agency was
    transitioning from LDE to DHH (a process that the State of Louisiana
    began more than one year earlier before July 1, 2002), the State was
    still responsible for correcting all of the noncompliance within the
    one-year timeline regardless of which entity was the Lead Agency.

[^3]: The State (under LDE) provided its parish data under its LANSER
    data system.

[^4]: OSEP could not determine whether those SPOEs (6, 8, 12, 13, and
    17) which reported an average of 45 days for holding the initial
    IFSP meeting are in compliance because an *average* number of 45
    days from referral to holding an initial IFSP meeting does not
    demonstrate compliance, if the timeline for some children exceeds
    that timeline.