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.

In 2016, the USBE lowered the transition planning age to 14. Data for Indicator 13 was collected through onsite full monitoring visits and through file reviews focused on transition compliance and entered in the Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS) online program. In school year (SY) 2020 - 2021, 68 LEAs provided 664 files with data for youth aged 14 and above with IEPs. Of the 664 files reviewed, 459 (69.13%) met state requirements. Sixty-three LEAs provided immediate corrections of noncompliance that were verified by USBE Staff within a six-week correction window. These LEAs were not issued any written findings of noncompliance. Five LEAs were issued written findings of noncompliance in SY 2020 - 2021 because they were below 100% compliant in one or more required transition areas at the end of the six-week correction window. USBE began reporting Indicator 13 data for students who were at least 14 years old at the time the IEP was written in the FFY 2019 APR. When looking at the data, it is important to recognize the USBE is reporting on a larger number of LEAs since the FFY 2019 APR and is gradually moving the needle with Indicator 13 compliance which is largely attributed to the intensified training and coaching efforts being made with Indicator 13. The USBE utilizes UPIPS to monitor and support compliance with federal and state requirements in LEAs across 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 five designating high risk. LEAs are given a risk score of five if the Indicator 13 compliance is ten percentage points or more below the State target. After risk scores have been determined, 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 the level of identified need. LEAs who are in the coaching and directing tiers receive a full monitoring visit that will include a review of Indicator 13 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 13 data that comes from a full monitoring visit is included in the APR. In addition to full monitoring visits, the USBE collects Indicator 13 data through file reviews focused on transition compliance. Most of the Indicator 13 data are gathered through these reviews because a larger number of LEAs are included. All LEAs are divided into two rotating cohorts for receiving an Indicator 13 file review on a biennial basis. The four largest LEAs in the state are included in both cohorts and receive an Indicator 13 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 13 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 13 file review. In years the first cohort receives an Indicator 13 file review, the second cohort receives the Indicator 8 parent survey. Due to the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on Utah LEAs, the USBE pivoted the data collection method used to Indicator 13 file reviews in SY 2020 - 2021. 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 20 files to 10 during SY 2020 - 2021. LEAs were provided six weeks (Prong 1) to correct noncompliance before being issued any findings of noncompliance. The USBE considers LEAs substantially compliant, relative to each compliance Indicator, if the LEA data indicate a very high level of compliance (generally 95% or above) at the end of the Prong 1 correction window (OSEP Memo 09-02). If an LEA is below 100% compliant on any of the areas outlined in the APR Measurement Table for Indicator 13 at the end of Prong 1, a finding of noncompliance is issued. A finding is a written notification from the USBE to an LEA containing the State's conclusion the LEA program is in nonco mpliance 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 are 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 13, a finding is issued for Transition with a citation of each rule related to post-school transition in 34 CFR § 300.320-300.322 that demonstrated substantial noncompliance. An LEA will have multiple findings of noncompliance for the same period if the LEA is noncompliant with more than one legal requirement.

Question	Yes / No
Do the State's policies and procedures provide that public agencies must meet these requirements at an age younger than 16?	YES
If yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its data for this indicator and ensure that its baseline data are based on youth beginning at that younger age?	YES
If yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator	14

########## Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)

During the APR Summit, a review of baselines for Indicator 13 was conducted to determine if baselines should remain or be updated. Consideration was given for the impacts of COVID-19, Utah's change to the student age requirements for transition planning, and OSEP's identification of noncompliance reporting requirements. Stakeholders reviewed historical data and projections for where the State would be in 2025 - 2026 if all things stayed the same. Choosing a baseline from a year prior to COVID-19 reflects Utah student abilities in a typical school year and was determined to be appropriate. Although USBE pivoted to a virtual format to collect the Indicator 13 data, the pivot did not interfere with USBE's interacti ons with LEAs during the reviews. Reviewers were still able to provide technical assistance as part of the virtual reviews in a similar way as was previously done through the in- person review process. Following the February 2022 submission, the State identified a data reporting error in the State data system which impacted 27 student transition plans originally reported for indicator 13. These 27 student transition plans had indicated transition services were noncompliant when they actually were. Of these 27 transition plans, 13 plans met all Indicator 13 requirements at the time of the review, and 14 plans had other noncompliance identified. The State's FFY 2020 originally reported as 67.17% (446 compliant transition plans of 664 reviewed). The State's FFY 2020 SPP/APR has been updated to reflect 459 compliant transition plans of 664 reviewed, bringin g the State's FFY 2020 data to 69.13%.