September 30, 2005

Honorable Kimberly Belshé

Secretary

California Health and Human Services Agency

1600 9^th^ Street, Room 460

Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Secretary Belshé:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the California Health and
Human Services Agency, Department of Developmental Services (DDS), April
19, 2005 submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 Annual
Performance Report (APR) under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) Part C for the grant period July 1, 2003 through
June 30, 2004. The APR reflects actual accomplishments that the State
made during the reporting period, compared to established objectives.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has designed the APR
under the IDEA to provide uniform reporting from States and result in
high-quality information across States. The APR is a significant data
source for OSEP in the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring
System (CIFMS).

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations
regarding performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This
letter responds to the State's FFY 2003 APR and the Improvement Plan
submitted on January 12, 2005. OSEP has set out its comments, analysis
and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

The conclusion of OSEP's November 29, 2004 FFY 2002 APR response letter
required the State to:

1.  Within 60 days from the date of OSEP's letter:

    a.  Submit a plan to ensure correction of noncompliance in the
        following areas: (1) meeting the 45-day timeline requirements at
        34 CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e), and 303.342(a); and (2)
        individualized family service plans (IFSPs) include
        justification statements where services are not provided in
        natural environments (34 CFR §303.344(d)(1)(ii)); and

    b.  Identify the Regional Centers that the State found out of
        compliance in 2003 with the IFSP content requirements of 34 CFR
        §303.344, the corrective actions that the State required of
        those Regional Centers, and the status of correction. If those
        Regional Centers did not demonstrate correction, the State was
        also to provide a plan for ensuring such correction, including
        strategies, targets, timelines and proposed evidence of change.

2.  In the FFY 2003 APR, clarify the data on page 32 of the FFY 2002 APR
    to indicate how many records were reviewed for compliance with 34
    CFR §§303.344(b) and (c), over what period of time, and provide
    updated data. If the updated data indicated noncompliance with 34
    CFR §§303.344(b) and (c), then the State was to provide, in the FFY
    2003 APR, a plan including strategies, targets, timelines and
    proposed evidence of change to ensure correction of these
    requirements within a reasonable period of time not to exceed one
    year from when OSEP accepted the plan.

### General Supervision

[Identification and timely correction of noncompliance]{.underline}

On pages 2-12 of the FFY 2003 APR, DDS included data, information and
analysis regarding its monitoring system. DDS continued to monitor local
program performance through on-site reviews that incorporated multiple
methods to determine the degree of compliance within the 21 regions. Six
monitoring site visits were conducted during the FFY 2003 reporting
period. Record reviews were completed in 15 regions. A tracking system
was initiated during the reporting cycle to track progress in resolving
findings from previous monitoring activity. The data presented on page 6
represented several years and OSEP could not determine what percent of
items requiring follow-up were cleared for each year, or whether all
identified noncompliance was corrected within a one-year time frame. In
the State Performance Plan (SPP), due December 2, 2005, CDS must provide
data and analysis that demonstrate both the identification and
correction of noncompliance for each Regional Center for a specific
fiscal or calendar year.

####  Dispute resolution

On pages 13 and 14 and in Attachment 1 of the FFY 2003 APR, DDS included
data and analysis regarding its efforts to ensure compliance in this
area. A total of 12 formal due process hearing complaints were received
and 159 requests for mediation/hearing. California has a two-step
system; every parent who files for a hearing receives an offer for a
mediation date and a hearing date. Parents are notified and informed
that the mediation is voluntary. The data in Attachment 1 showed that 94
of 159 requests for mediation or due process were withdrawn, dismissed
or closed prior to any formal resolution process. Nineteen mediations
were settled. Of the eight due process hearings that were held, the
State reported that four decisions were issued within the 30--day
timeline, and the other four were issued within extended timelines. In
an e-mail on August 9, 2005, the State reported that all 38 cases
reported as pending in Attachment 1 had a 30-day extension. The State
confirmed it uses the Part C due process hearing procedures in 34 CFR
§§303.421 through 303.425.

The information in Attachment 1 of the FFY 2003 APR and the State's
correspondence indicates the following area of noncompliance, not
previously identified by OSEP: not later than 30 days after the receipt
of a parent's complaint, the impartial proceeding required under this
subpart is completed and a written decision mailed to each of the
parties (34 CFR §303.423(b)). The State must submit a plan to OSEP with
the SPP, including strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and
timelines designed to ensure correction of the noncompliance as soon as
possible, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's updated data in this area in
the SPP, due December 2, 2005.

####  Personnel

On page 15 of the FFY 2003 APR, DDS included data and analysis
demonstrating compliance and performance. DDS reported that the number
of staff for the program increased by 7.07% during 2003 and that the
rate of expansion in the number of professional resources available to
meet needs was expanding faster than the rate of increase in eligible
children OSEP appreciates the States efforts to improve performance in
this area.

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

On pages 18-20 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included information
regarding its efforts to ensure compliance and improve performance in
this area. A table on pages 18-19 described the multiple methods for
collecting data related to the Part C program. DDS reported that
progress was made during the FFY 2003 reporting period on refining data
systems and determining appropriate uses for exiting data including
newly introduced reports pertaining to regional percent-served rates.
DDS did not describe methods or reach conclusions regarding the accuracy
of their data. This is an indicator in the SPP. In preparation for the
submission of the SPP on December 2, 2005, DDS should carefully consider
its current data collections against the requirements related to this
indicator in the SPP packet to ensure that all data will be accurate.
The State must include data and analysis in the SPP to address this
indicator.

[Fiscal responsibility]{.underline}

In Attachment 2 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
analysis regarding its performance in this area to ensure the
coordination of funding resources within the State that resulted in the
provision of early intervention services. DDS reported that State
general funds constituted the greatest financial support. OSEP
appreciates the State's efforts in this area.

### Comprehensive Public Awareness and Child Find System

On pages 21-28, the State included data and information regarding its
efforts to ensure compliance and improve performance. The State reported
18 different types of public awareness/child find activities conducted
by each Regional Center. Future activities would address efforts to
identify the most effective outreach, child find and public awareness
activities. Additional measures were taken during the 2003-2004
reporting period to identify regional rates compared to State rates of
growth. DDS reported that comparisons showed that some regions were
dramatically under-serving children in the Part C program, compared to
State averages. Technical assistance plans were written for these
regions as part of the comprehensive program evaluation process.
According to the annual child count submitted under section 618 of IDEA,
California served 1.72% of its birth-through-two population in 2002 and
1.76% in 2003. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and
looks forward to reviewing updated data and information responsive to
the child count indicators in the SPP.

### Family Centered Services

On pages 29-30 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included information
indicating that DDS used monitoring methods to obtain evidence that
IFSPs contained documentation of family concerns, priorities, and
resources that were reflected in outcomes in IFSPs. The State reported
that, since January 2003, data collection occurred on 896 records. Of
the records reviewed, 98.4% contained evidence that concerns,
priorities, and resources were documented in the IFSP and 97.77%
contained evidence that documented concerns, priorities, and resources
were reflected in outcomes for the child and family. OSEP appreciates
the State's efforts to ensure compliance in this area.

***Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments***

####  Service coordination

On page 33 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
regarding its efforts to ensure compliance and improve performance in
this area. The State reported that family interviews occurred with over
180 families during the FFY 2003 reporting period and no findings were
issued regarding timely assignment of a service coordinator. OSEP
appreciates the States efforts in this area.

[Evaluation and identification of needs]{.underline}

On pages 34-36 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information indicating continued noncompliance in the following area:
initial evaluation and assessment are completed, and the initial IFSP
meeting convened within 45 days from referral (34 CFR §§303.321(e),
303.322(e), and 303.342(a)). The State reported that, based on
monitoring data, 87.66% of the cases sampled had IFSPs completed within
45 days.[^1] This was a slight increase from the monitoring data
reported in the FFY 2002 APR when 84.5% of the evaluations and
assessments were completed within the 45-day timeline and a decrease
(and or contradiction) from the data in the January 12, 2005 Improvement
Plan submitted to OSEP. In that plan, DDS indicated that "almost 12
months of data compiled during the 2004 calendar year show improvement
in the development of IFSPs within 45 days, from 84.7% to 91.6%." The
strategies, targets and timelines in the January 12, 2005 Improvement
Plan resulted in slight improvement but were not successful in
correcting the noncompliance; therefore, the State must submit updated
data and analysis to OSEP with the SPP reporting on the most current
status of compliance with 34 CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e), and
303.342(a). To the extent that the data and analysis do not demonstrate
correction of the noncompliance, the State also must submit a revised
Improvement Plan with additional strategies, proposed evidence of
change, targets and timelines to ensure correction of the noncompliance
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year from the date
OSEP accepts the plan.

[Individualized family service plans (IFSPs)]{.underline}

In its January 12, 2005 Improvement Plan, DDS submitted data and
indicated that it "more accurately represents the State's performance in
IFSP content for specific items." A total of 471 records were reviewed
for required IFSP content. The State reported that all 21 of the
Regional Centers were above 90% compliance. In a table on page 5,
however, DDS indicated that compliance was at 83% for IFSPs containing
current levels of development in all five domains as required by 34 CFR
§303.344(a).

As requested by OSEP, specific information was included in the January
2005 Improvement Plan for the five Regional Centers that were not in
compliance with IFSP content requirements at 34 CFR §303.344 in the FFY
2002 APR. The State indicated that "these regional centers now
demonstrate substantial compliance with IFSP content requirements." The
State also reported that two of the Regional Centers had continuous
improvement plans for the two IFSP elements found in noncompliance and
that both Regional Centers would be reviewed again in 2005 to determine
progress.

On pages 37--41 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
analysis regarding its progress in ensuring compliance with the IFSP
content requirements of 34 CFR §303.344 as follows: 93.40% of records
reviewed included outcomes that contain procedures, criteria and
timelines; 95.32% of records reviewed listed services with method,
frequency, intensity, and duration; 98.94% of records reviewed had
service providers and location of services identified; and 98.51% had
concerns, priorities and resources reflected in outcomes. The State's
data indicated noncompliance with the requirement at 34 CFR
§303.344(a)(1) that IFSPs include a statement of the child's present
level of development in five areas, in that 85.74% of records reviewed
included this information. The State must submit with the SPP a revised
Improvement Plan with additional strategies, proposed evidence of
change, targets and timelines to ensure correction of the noncompliance
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year from the date
OSEP accepts the plan.

####  Natural environments

In its January 2005 Improvement Plan, DDS submitted data indicating that
"justifications for services provided in segregated environments are now
present in 97.7% of the instances when a multidisciplinary team has
determined that such circumstances are warranted." Seventeen Regional
Centers were represented in the data.

On pages 43--46 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
analysis that demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in
OSEP's November 2004 letter, in the following area: IFSP justification
statements where services are not provided in natural environments 34
CFR §303.344(d)(1)(ii). DDS reviewed 470 records during 2004 and revised
the review process for determining if services were provided in natural
environments and established new baselines. Not all regions had reviews
for services in natural environments using the newer criteria. Of the 59
records reviewed using the new criteria, the State reported that 93.22%
contained the required justifications. For the 6.78% of records that did
not contain justification the State reported that corrective action
plans were approved and implemented and follow-up from Part C State
staff occurred. OSEP appreciates the work of the State in ensuring
compliance with these requirements.

[Early childhood outcomes]{.underline}

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C.
1116, the effectiveness of the IDEA Part C program is measured based on
the extent to which children receiving Part C services demonstrate
improved and sustained functional abilities in the cognitive, physical,
communication, social or emotional and adaptive developmental areas. The
Part C FFY 2001, 2002, and 2003 APRs requested data on the percentage of
children participating in the Part C program that demonstrate improved
and sustained functional abilities in the developmental areas listed in
34 CFR §303.322(c)(3)(ii)). On pages 47-50 of the FFY 2003 APR, DDS
provided OSEP with limited information in response to this performance
indicator. The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area,
for which States must provide entry data in the FFY 2005 APR, due
February 1, 2007. The State should carefully review the instructions to
the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. OSEP looks forward
to reviewing the State's plan for collecting the data, in the SPP.

***Early Childhood Transition***

On pages 51-55 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
regarding its efforts to ensure compliance and improve performance in
this area. DDS monitors for eight standards specific to transition and
was demonstrating compliance in all eight areas. Percentages included
91% compliance for families receiving notice at 2.6 years of age, 92%
for local educational agencies (LEAs) participating in transition
planning, and 94% for transition steps included in IFSPs. Oversampling
of transition records occurred during 2004 in order to ensure that
transition activities occurred in a manner consistent with State and
Federal regulations. The State reported that improved follow-up on
previous monitoring findings may be responsible for improvements in
transition planning. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's updated
data in this area in the SPP.

## *Conclusion* 

## 

## As noted above, in the SPP, DDS must submit to OSEP:

1.  Data and analysis demonstrating full compliance with the requirement
    that an initial evaluation and assessment is completed, and an
    initial IFSP meeting is convened within 45 days from referral (34
    CFR §§303.321(e), 303.322(e), and 303.342(a)); and

2.  An improvement plan to correct noncompliance with 34 CFR
    §303.344(a)(1) that IFSPs include a statement of the child's present
    level of development in five areas; and

3.  An improvement plan to correct noncompliance with 34 CFR §303.423(b)
    that not later than 30 days after the receipt of a parent's
    complaint, the impartial proceeding required under this subpart is
    completed and a written decision mailed to each of the parties.

The Improvement Plan must include strategies, proposed evidence of
change, targets and timelines to ensure correction of the noncompliance
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year from the date
OSEP accepts the plan.

In the State Performance Plan (SPP), due December 2, 2005, DDS must
submit data and analysis that demonstrate both the identification and
correction of noncompliance for each Regional Center for a specific
fiscal or calendar year.

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

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State, and we look forward to collaborating
with you as you continue to improve results for infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families. If you have questions, please
contact Rhonda Spence at (202) 245-7382.

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

cc: Rick Ingraham

[^1]: The State completes initial IFSPs at the initial IFSP meeting.