(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received	(b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State- established timeline)	FFY 2019 Data	FFY 2020 Target	FFY 2020 Data	Status	Slippage
782	762	97.10%	100%	97.44%	Did not meet target	No Slippage

########## Number of children included in (a) but not included in (b)

20 Account for children included in (a) but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays. Twenty student files across eight LEAs had initial evaluations completed beyond the State-established timeline of 45 school days without a compliant reason for delay as defined by Utah Special Education Rules II.D.3. (e.g., repeated failure to produce the student, enrolling in the school after the timeframe has begun, etc.). These files were determined These evaluations were noncompliant at the time of the review. The USBE reviewed 782 special education files across 79 LEAs. Of the 782 evaluations completed, 10 student files across nine LEAs had initial evaluations completed after the 45-day time period but had a compliant reason for delay documented in the file in accordance with Rule II.D.3. and are included in the 762 count of compliant files.

########## Indicate the evaluation timeline used:

The State established a timeline within which the evaluation must be conducted What is the State's timeline for initial evaluations? If the State -established timeframe provides for exceptions through State regulation or policy, describe cases falling within those exceptions and include in (b). Utah State Board of Education Special Education Rule II.D. states the initial evaluation must be conducted within 45 school days of receiving parental or adult student consent for the evaluation.

########## What is the source of the data provided for this indicator?

State monitoring

########## Describe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data.

Data for Indicator 11 was collected through onsite full monitoring visits and through file reviews focused on initial evaluation compliance and entered in the Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS) online program. During school year (SY) 2020 - 2021, 79 LEAs provided 782 files with data regarding initial evaluations conducted in the current or previous school year. Of the 782 files reviewed, 762 (97.44%) met State requirements. The USBE utilizes UPIPS to monitor and support compliance with federal and state requirements in LEAs across the state of Utah. UPIPS is based on the concept that monitoring is a continuous process to improve procedural compliance and outcomes for students with disabilities. UPIPS includes an RDA process to review LEA performance on APR indicators and State requirements as established (e.g., APR indicators, timeliness of data and fiscal reports, the LEA program improvement plan (PIP), use of internal monitoring for compliance, etc.). LEAs are assigned a risk score in each of the pre- identified areas and indicators, based on their data in each area. The risk range is one through five, with a five designating high risk. LEAs are given a risk score of five for Indicator 11 if the compliance is ten percentage points or more below the State target. After risk scores have been assigned, LEAs are assigned a program implementation monitoring tier (i.e., Supporting, Guiding, Assisting, Coaching, or Directing) which includes a package of supports and activities (including monitoring) for each LEA based on their identified tiers. LEAs who are in the coaching and directing tiers receive a full monitoring visit that will include a review of Indicator 11 data as part of the comprehensive review. Full monitoring visits may also be triggered by dispute resolution or through other general supervision systems. During the visit, the LEA is encouraged to invite staff to participate in and receive technical assistance during the review process and all Indicator 11 data that comes from a full monitoring visit is included in the APR. In addition to full monitoring visits, the USBE collects Indicator 11 data through file reviews focused on initial evaluation timeline compliance. Most of the Indicator 11 data is gathered through these reviews because a larger number of LEAs are included. All LEAs are divided into two rotating cohorts for receiving an Indicator 11 file review on a biennial basis. The four largest LEAs in the state are included in both cohorts and receive an Indicator 11 file review annually. LEAs were stratified by student enrollment, geographical region of the state, race/ethnicity demographics, and socioeconomic level. LEAs across the stratified categories were then randomly assigned to one of the two cohorts. Each of the two cohorts includes large, medium, and small LEAs. The rotation for the Indicator 11 review is on an alternating schedule with the Indicator 8 parent survey. In years the first cohort receives the Indicator 8 parent survey, the second cohort receives an Indicator 11 file review. In years the first cohort receives an Indicator 11 file review, the second cohort receives the Indicator 8 parent survey. COVID-19 was still impacting Utah LEAs in the fall of 2020, and two Indicator 11 reviews on the original schedule were cancelled. Due to increasing COVID-19 infection rates, Utah LEAs were concerned about physical contact with outside people. In response, the USBE pivoted the data collection method used to collect the Indicator 11 data. Previously conducted in-person, reviews were shifted to a virtual format to eliminate the need for USBE reviewers coming in physical contact with LEAs. To support LEAs with the shift to the virtual format, the number of files reviewed for each LEA was reduced from 15 files to 10 during SY 2020 - 2021. LEAs were provided six weeks (Prong 1) to correct noncompliance before being issued any findings of noncompliance. Although the USBE considers LEAs to be substantially compliant when the data indicate a very high level of compliance (generally 95% or above), if an LEA was below 100% compliant on any of the areas outlined in the APR Measurement Table for Indicator 11 at the end of Prong 1, a finding of noncompliance was issued consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. A finding is a written notification from the U SBE to an LEA containing the State's conclusion the LEA program is in noncompliance and includes the citation of the statute or regulation and a description of the data supporting the conclusion. Written notifications of findings occur as soon as possible following the Prong 1 correction window and within less than three months. USBE ensures that all instances of noncompliance are corrected within one year whether written findings were issued or not. Individual instances of noncompliance in an LEA involving the same legal requirement under IDEA and USBE Special Education Rules are grouped together as one finding (I.e., General Supervision, FAPE in the LRE, Parent Involvement, Transition, Disproportionality). If an LEA is noncompliant with Indicator 11, a finding is issued for General Supervision with a citation of 34 CFR §300.301 for the initial evaluation. If the LEA is noncompliant with more