Table A -- Washington Part C

Issues Identified in the State Performance Plan

+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **SPP            | **Issue**                | **Required Action**   |
| Indicator**      |                          |                       |
+==================+==========================+=======================+
| **Indicator 1:** | [Non                     | [Noncom               |
|                  | compliance]{.underline}: | pliance]{.underline}: |
| Percent of       |                          |                       |
| infants and      | On page 45 in the SPP,   | Washington must       |
| toddlers with    | Washington indicated     | ensure that this      |
| IFSPs who        | that four (66%) of six   | noncompliance is      |
| receive the      | local lead agencies      | corrected within one  |
| early            | monitored were found in  | year of its           |
| intervention     | noncompliance with the   | identification and    |
| services on      | Part C timely delivery   | demonstrate           |
| their IFSPs in a | of IFSP early            | compliance with this  |
| timely manner.   | intervention service     | requirement in the    |
|                  | provision requirements   | FFY 2005 APR due      |
| (20 USC          | in 34 CFR §§303.340(c),  | February 1, 2007.     |
| 1416(a)(3)(A)    | 303.342(e) and           | Washington should     |
| and 1442)        | 303.344(f)(1).           | review and, if        |
|                  |                          | necessary revise, its |
|                  | [Other]{.underline}:     | improvement           |
|                  |                          | strategies included   |
|                  | In the SPP, page 4,      | in the SPP to ensure  |
|                  | Washington reported its  | they will enable the  |
|                  | timely standard as "an   | State to include data |
|                  | IFSP service will begin  | in the APR, that      |
|                  | within 30 days of the    | demonstrate full      |
|                  | start date on the signed | compliance with this  |
|                  | IFSP, unless there is    | requirement. Failure  |
|                  | documentation that the   | to demonstrate        |
|                  | parent requests a delay  | compliance at that    |
|                  | in the start of the      | time may affect       |
|                  | service or services."    | OSEP's determination  |
|                  | The State's timely       | of the State's status |
|                  | standard begins with a   | under section 616(d)  |
|                  | starting point that is   | of the IDEA.          |
|                  | not consistent with the  |                       |
|                  | Part C regulations at 34 | [Other]{.underline}:  |
|                  | CFR §§303.342(e) and     |                       |
|                  | 303.344(f)(1). The "IFSP | The State must revise |
|                  | service initiation date" | its timely standard   |
|                  | is established by the    | and may use a         |
|                  | IFSP team, which         | starting point        |
|                  | includes the parent and  | consistent with the   |
|                  | may serve as the         | Part C regulations,   |
|                  | standard, but the State  | such as when a parent |
|                  | may not add an           | consents to the       |
|                  | additional period to     | provision of early    |
|                  | this date.               | intervention services |
|                  |                          | under 34 CFR          |
|                  |                          | §303.404(a)(2).       |
|                  |                          | Alternatively, the    |
|                  |                          | State may use the     |
|                  |                          | "IFSP initiation      |
|                  |                          | date" as its standard |
|                  |                          | but may not add a     |
|                  |                          | time period to this   |
|                  |                          | date and it must      |
|                  |                          | monitor the           |
|                  |                          | implementation of     |
|                  |                          | this standard to      |
|                  |                          | ensure that this date |
|                  |                          | is reasonable when    |
|                  |                          | applied to individual |
|                  |                          | IFSPs. The State must |
|                  |                          | submit its revised    |
|                  |                          | standard and data     |
|                  |                          | based on this         |
|                  |                          | standard in the FFY   |
|                  |                          | 2005 APR, due         |
|                  |                          | February 1, 2007.     |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Indicator 2:** | [Non                     | [Noncom               |
|                  | compliance]{.underline}: | pliance]{.underline}: |
| Percent of       |                          |                       |
| infants and      | See Table B.             | See Table B.          |
| toddlers with    |                          |                       |
| IFSPs who        | [Other]{.underline}: In  | [Other:]{.underline}  |
| primarily        | the SPP, page 8,         | Washington's          |
| receive early    | Washington reported that | established targets   |
| intervention     | the percentage of        | will improve results  |
| services in the  | children it served in    | for serving infants   |
| home or programs | FFY 2004 in the combined | and toddlers with     |
| for typically    | categories of home and   | disabilities by       |
| developing       | programs for typically   | providing early       |
| children.[^1]    | developing children was  | intervention services |
|                  | 45% and that the         | in natural            |
| (20 USC          | national baseline        | environments to the   |
| 1416(a)(3)(A)    | average was 83%. In the  | maximum extent        |
| and 1442)        | SPP, Washington          | appropriate. OSEP     |
|                  | established performance  | looks forward to      |
|                  | targets ranging from 65% | reviewing data in the |
|                  | in the first year (by    | APR, due February 1,  |
|                  | 2006) to 90% (by 2010).  | 2007, that reflects   |
|                  |                          | improved performance  |
|                  |                          | in this indicator. As |
|                  |                          | noted in Table B,     |
|                  |                          | OSEP also looks       |
|                  |                          | forward to            |
|                  |                          | Washington's data     |
|                  |                          | demonstrating         |
|                  |                          | compliance with the   |
|                  |                          | IFSP natural          |
|                  |                          | environments          |
|                  |                          | requirements in 34    |
|                  |                          | CFR §§303.12, 303.18  |
|                  |                          | and                   |
|                  |                          | 303.344(d)(1)(ii).    |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Indicator 7:** | [Non                     | [Noncom               |
|                  | compliance]{.underline}: | pliance:]{.underline} |
| Percent of       |                          |                       |
| eligible infants | See Table B.             | See Table B.          |
| and toddlers     |                          |                       |
| with IFSPs for   |                          |                       |
| whom an          |                          |                       |
| evaluation and   |                          |                       |
| assessment and   |                          |                       |
| an initial IFSP  |                          |                       |
| meeting were     |                          |                       |
| conducted within |                          |                       |
| Part C's 45-day  |                          |                       |
| timeline.        |                          |                       |
|                  |                          |                       |
| (20 USC          |                          |                       |
| 1416(a)(3)(B)    |                          |                       |
| and 1442)        |                          |                       |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Indicator 8:** | [Non                     | [Noncom               |
|                  | compliance]{.underline}: | pliance]{.underline}: |
| Percent of all   |                          |                       |
| children exiting | 8A: On page 46 in the    | 8A: Washington must   |
| Part C who       | SPP, the State reported  | ensure that this      |
| received timely  | a 66% level of           | noncompliance is      |
| transition       | compliance (four of six  | corrected within one  |
| planning to      | local lead agencies)     | year of its           |
| support the      | with the Part C          | identification and    |
| child's          | transition plans         | demonstrate           |
| transition to    | requirements at 34 CFR   | compliance with this  |
| preschool and    | §§ 303.148(b)(4) and     | requirement in the    |
| other            | 303.344(h).              | FFY 2005 APR due      |
| appropriate      |                          | February 1, 2007.     |
| community        | 8B: The State did not    | Washington should     |
| services by      | provide baseline data in | review and, if        |
| their third      | the SPP in response to   | necessary revise, its |
| birthday         | this indicator regarding | improvement           |
| including:       | the LEA notification     | strategies included   |
|                  | requirements in 34 CFR   | in the SPP to ensure  |
| A. IFSPs with    | §303.148(b)(1).          | they will enable the  |
| transition steps |                          | State to include data |
| and services;    | 8C: See Table B.         | in the APR, that      |
|                  |                          | demonstrate full      |
| B. Notification  |                          | compliance with this  |
| to LEA, if child |                          | requirement.          |
| potentially      |                          |                       |
| eligible for     |                          | 8B: The State must    |
| Part B; and      |                          | include, in the FFY   |
|                  |                          | 2005 APR, due         |
| C. Transition    |                          | February 1, 2007,     |
| conference, if   |                          | data from FFY 2005    |
| child            |                          | (July 1, 2005 through |
| potentially      |                          | June 30, 2006) that   |
| eligible for     |                          | demonstrate           |
| Part B.          |                          | compliance with the   |
|                  |                          | requirements in 34    |
| (20 USC          |                          | CFR §303.148(b)(1).   |
| 1416(a)(3)(B)    |                          |                       |
| and 1442)        |                          | 8C: See Table B.      |
|                  |                          |                       |
|                  |                          | Failure to include    |
|                  |                          | the data in 8A and 8B |
|                  |                          | will affect OSEP's    |
|                  |                          | determination of the  |
|                  |                          | State's status under  |
|                  |                          | section 616(d) of the |
|                  |                          | IDEA.                 |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Indicator 9:** | [Non                     | [Noncom               |
|                  | compliance]{.underline}: | pliance]{.underline}: |
| General          |                          |                       |
| supervision      | As noted above and in    | Washington must       |
| system           | Table B, Washington      | ensure that this      |
| (including       | reported compliance in   | noncompliance is      |
| monitoring,      | the range of 33% to 66%  | corrected within one  |
| complaints,      | with Indicators 1, 7,    | year of its           |
| hearings, etc.)  | and 8 and with related   | identification and    |
| identifies and   | requirements in          | demonstrate           |
| corrects         | Indicator 2. The State   | compliance with this  |
| noncompliance as | further reported that    | requirement in the    |
| soon as possible | all of the local lead    | FFY 2005 APR due      |
| but in no case   | agencies with identified | February 1, 2007.     |
| later than one   | noncompliance submitted  | Failure to            |
| year from        | approved corrective      | demonstrate           |
| identification.  | action plans. Washington | compliance at that    |
|                  | did not provide data     | time may affect       |
| (20 U.S.C.       | that indicate if         | OSEP's determination  |
| 1416(a)(3)(B)    | identified noncompliance | of the State's status |
| and 1442)        | was corrected within one | under section 616(d)  |
|                  | year of identification.  | of the IDEA.          |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Indicator      | [Other]{.underline}:     | [Other]{.underline}:  |
| 13:**            |                          |                       |
|                  | \(1\) Washington         | \(1\) Washington may  |
| Percent of       | included targets and     | remove the targets    |
| mediations held  | improvement activities   | and improvement       |
| that resulted in | regarding mediation;     | activities related to |
| mediation        | however, baseline data   | mediation in the APR, |
| agreements.      | indicated that the total | due February 1, 2007, |
|                  | number of mediations     | if the number of      |
| (20 U.S.C.       | requested was fewer than | mediations for        |
| 1416(a)(3)(B)    | ten. OSEP guidance on    | 2004-2005 is less     |
| and 1442)        | developing the SPP       | than 10. In a         |
|                  | indicated that targets   | reporting period when |
|                  | and improvement          | the number of         |
|                  | activities were not      | mediations reaches 10 |
|                  | needed until the number  | or greater, the State |
|                  | of mediations requested  | must develop targets  |
|                  | totaled 10 or greater.   | and improvement       |
|                  |                          | activities, and       |
|                  | \(2\) The State          | report them in the    |
|                  | established a target of  | corresponding APR.    |
|                  | 95% for mediation. The   |                       |
|                  | consensus among          | \(2\) If the State is |
|                  | mediation practitioners  | required to establish |
|                  | is that 75-85% is a      | a target in a future  |
|                  | reasonable rate of       | APR because it meets  |
|                  | mediations that result   | the threshold of ten  |
|                  | in agreements and is     | or more mediation     |
|                  | consistent with national | requests, the State   |
|                  | mediation success rate   | may want to review    |
|                  | data. A higher mediation | its target to         |
|                  | goal, while appropriate  | determine if an       |
|                  | for some States, may not | adjustment is needed  |
|                  | be appropriate if it     | and submit the        |
|                  | results in agreements    | revised target in     |
|                  | that are not voluntarily | that APR.             |
|                  | implemented. It is       |                       |
|                  | better to have a lower   |                       |
|                  | percentage of viable,    |                       |
|                  | implemented agreements   |                       |
|                  | than a higher percentage |                       |
|                  | of agreements, some of   |                       |
|                  | which are not            |                       |
|                  | voluntarily implemented. |                       |
+------------------+--------------------------+-----------------------+

[^1]: At the time of the release of this package, revised forms for
    collection of 618 State reported data had not yet been approved.
    Indicators will be revised as needed to align with language in the
    2005-2006 State reported data collections.