########## Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2019

Findings of Noncompliance Identified of Noncompliance Identified	Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Within One Year	Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently Corrected	Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected
3	3	0	0

########## FFY 2019 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected Describe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implementing the regulatory requirements

In SY 2019 - 2020, 47 LEAs had files reviewed for Indicator 13 compliance. Each LEA was given a three-week window to make corrections and provide evidence of correct implementation of regulatory requirements. The USBE was able to verify correction of all levels of noncompliance and evidence of correct implementation of regulatory requirements within the three-week window in 44 LEAs. These LEAs were not issued findings of noncompliance. Although the USBE considers LEAs substantially compliant when the data indicates a very high level of compliance (generally 95% or above), the USBE accounts for all noncompliance and ensures 100% correction of all noncompliance. Findings were issued to the three LEAs in which the USBE was unable to verify correction of all noncompliance and evidence of correct implementation of regulatory requirements within the three-week window for all transition requirements below 100% compliant consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the three LEAs that were issued findings, within one year of identification, the USBE verified evidence of correction provided by each LEA for all levels of noncompliance. The USBE also reviewed additional files in each LEA to ensure correct implementation of regulatory requirements. Targeted technical assistance continues to be provided to LEAs to achieve the target of 100%.

########## Describe how the State verified that each individual case of noncompliance was corrected

To correct noncompliance concerning transition plans, LEAs were required to submit documentation of corrected transition plans in the areas identified as noncompliant. If changes needed to be made for existing transition plans, correction was allowed to be made through the IEP amendment process. If a transition plan was not developed for a student who was 14 at the time the IEP was written, the amendment process was not allowed, and the IEP team was required to meet and develop a transition plan. Once corrections were made for items of identified noncompliance, LEAs notified the USBE of correction and correction was verified and approved by the USBE to finalize the correction and confirm 100% compliance.

########## Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2019

Year Findings of Noncompliance Were Identified Findings of Noncompliance Were Identified	Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as Corrected as of FFY 2019 APR	Findings of Noncompliance Verified as Corrected	Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected

### 13 - Prior FFY Required Actions

The State must, in the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified during the April 2021 clarification period, based on FFY 2019 data, for this indicator. Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2019, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2020 SPP/APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2019, although its FFY 2019 data reflect less than 100% compliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2019.

########## Response to actions required in FFY 2019 SPP/APR

### 13 - OSEP Response

The State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2020, and OSEP accepts that revision.

### 13 - Required Actions

Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2020, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in the FFY 2021 SPP/APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2021 SPP/APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2020, although its FFY 2020 data reflect less than 100% compliance, provide an explanation of why the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2020. In addition, the State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2021 SPP/APR, that each LEA corrected the findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 and verified correction of those findings, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in