DMS

REPORT 

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATE NEW YORK

DATE FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

IDEA PART C 

CONTENTS

LETTER ...................................................................................................................................1

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES ....................................................................5

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................12

FISCAL MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................................17

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..........................................................................................................20

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................29
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DIRECTOR

Letter

February 29, 2024 

By Email

James V. McDonald, M.D., M.P.H. 

Commissioner

New York State Department of Health 

Corning Tower Building 

Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12237 

Email: James.McDonald@health.ny.gov

Dear Dr. McDonald: 

The purpose of this monitoring report is to provide a summary of the results of the Differentiated Monitoring 

and Support (DMS) activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP). As part of its DMS process, States are monitored on their general 

supervision systems which encompass the States’ responsibility to ensure that States and their subgrantees and 

contractors meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Those 

requirements include: 1) Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all infants, toddlers, 

children, and youth with disabilities; and 2) Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under 

Parts B and C of IDEA, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to 

improving educational results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. During the DMS 

process1 OSEP examined the State’s policies and procedures and State-level implementation of these policies 

and procedures regarding the following monitoring priorities and components of general supervision: 

• Monitoring and Improvement

• Data including the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) 

• Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

• Dispute Resolution 

• Provision of Early Intervention Services

This DMS monitoring report summarizes OSEP’s review of IDEA Part C requirements regarding these general 

supervision monitoring priorities and components. OSEP conducted interviews with representatives from the 

New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), the State lead agency (LA) that is responsible for 

administering New York’s Early Intervention Program (NYEIP), through its Bureau of Early Intervention 

(BEI), during September 2022 through November 2022, and an onsite visit on November 29, 2022, through 

December 1, 2022. The interviews with NYSDOH staff included BEI’s Director, Associate Directors and staff 

from its Provider Approval, Due Process and Monitoring Unit, Data and Program Evaluation Unit and its 

1 For additional information on DMS, see Resources for Grantees - DMS. 
Page 2—Lead Agency Director

Financial Planning and Policy Unit. In addition to interviews with NYSDOH staff, OSEP reviewed publicly 

available information, policies, procedures, monitoring reports, dispute resolution documents, and other related 

information that NYSDOH submitted to OSEP. Finally, OSEP solicited feedback from various groups of 

interested parties and representatives from early intervention service (EIS) programs 2 that administer NYEIP at 

the local level in order to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s system of general supervision.

3

Based on a review of available documents, information gathered, and interviews conducted, OSEP has 

identified thirteen findings of noncompliance with IDEA Part C requirements at the conclusion of our 

monitoring activities. OSEP is making the following findings, listed below, and described in more detail further 

in the monitoring report, including any required actions. OSEP’s findings, especially regarding failure to make 

IDEA Part C services available in a timely manner, are also reflected in the Office of the New York State 

Comptroller’s February 28, 2023, State Audit report, Oversight of the Early Intervention Program (State 

Audit).4

 

Finally, OSEP has not identified noncompliance in the data component; therefore, the data section is not 

included in the narrative below. OSEP’s review of monitoring priorities and components of general supervision 

did not include an examination of implementation IDEA Part C requirements by all the local programs within 

your State, and OSEP cannot determine whether the State’s systems are fully effective in implementing these 

requirements without reviewing data at the local level. 

Summary of Monitoring Priorities and Outcomes 

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

1. Provision of Early Intervention

Services 

1.1 OSEP finds that the State is unable to ensure that early intervention

services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families in a timely manner as required by 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e). 

1.2 OSEP finds that the State is unable to ensure that early intervention 

services that are needed by the child are identified on the 

individualized family service plan (IFSP) based on the unique 

needs of the child as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 

303.322(c), and 303.344(d). 

1.3 OSEP finds that the State is unable to ensure that early intervention 

services are available in all geographic areas in the State, consistent 

with 34 C.F.R. § 303.207. 

2. Monitoring and Improvement 2.1 OSEP finds that the State does not identify noncompliance in a 

timely manner using its data system, as required under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700 through 303.702. 

2 NYSDOH has both EIS programs under 34 C.F.R. § 303.11 and EIS providers under 34 C.F.R. § 303.12. 

3 Interviews were held with the following counties/municipalities that administer NYEIP at the local level: Erie, Clinton, Onondaga, Albany, 

Monroe, Steuben, and Nassau as well as with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYC DOHMH).) 

4 See the Office of the New York State Comptroller Report, Oversight of the Early Intervention Program (February 28, 2023) (State Audit). 
Page 3—Lead Agency Director

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

2.2 OSEP finds that the State does not verify the correction of all 

findings of noncompliance related to IDEA Part C (beyond 

SPP/APR indicators) as required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120 and its 

monitoring responsibilities in 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(e). 

3. Fiscal Management 3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a methodology, including 

policies and procedures, to track all State and local public funding 

sources to ensure compliance with the IDEA Part C Maintenance of 

Effort (MOE) requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b). 

3.2 OSEP finds that the State has not consistently ensured that it 

coordinates all available resources as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 303.120(b). 

3.3 OSEP finds that the State’s System of Payments (SOP) policy does 

not reflect the State’s practice as required by 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.203(b)(1), 303.510, 303.520, and 303.521. 

4. Dispute Resolution State Complaints

4.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have written State complaint 

procedures that are reasonably designed to implement the dispute 

resolution requirements specific to: 

a. A complaint filed by an organization or individual from another 

State as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a)(1). 

b. The resolution of State complaints which must include (1) the 

failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective 

actions appropriate to address the needs of the infant or toddler 

with a disability who is the subject of the complaint and the 

infant's or toddler's family (such as compensatory services or 

monetary reimbursement) as required in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1); and (2) appropriate future provision 

of services for all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 

families as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(2). 

c. Effective implementation of the LA’s final decision including 

technical assistance (TA) activities, negotiations, and corrective 

actions to achieve compliance as required in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2). 

d. Extension of the 60 day timeline for State complaint resolution 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1). 

e. Set aside of written complaints being addressed in a due 

process hearing until the conclusion of the hearing as required 

in 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(c)(1). 
Page 4—Lead Agency Director

MONITORING COMPONENT FINDINGS SUMMARY

Mediation

4.2 OSEP finds that the State has a form that does not allow parties to 

pursue mediation involving any matter under the Part C IDEA 

regulations as required under 34 C.F.R § 303.431(a). 

Due Process

4.3 OSEP finds that the State does not ensure hearing officers possess 

knowledge of IDEA Part C requirements consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 303.435(a). 

4.4 OSEP finds that the State does not have a mechanism in place for 

tracking the implementation of due process hearing decisions by 

municipalities, contracting agencies, or providers consistent with 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700. 

Procedural Safeguards

4.5 OSEP finds that the State has not met its responsibility as the LA to 

ensure the effective implementation of the State’s procedural 

safeguards to include the LA and EIS providers in the Statewide

system that is involved in the provision of early intervention 

services consistent with the requirements set forth in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.400. 

We appreciate your efforts to ensure compliance and improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities

and their families. If you have any questions, please contact Susan Kauffman, your OSEP State Lead. 

Sincerely,

Valerie C. Williams

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Raymond Pierce, Director, Bureau of Early Intervention 

Peter Baran, Associate Director, Bureau of Early Intervention

Michael Iorio, Associate Director, Bureau of Early Intervention

Enclosure: 

DMS Monitoring Report 

Appendix 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 5 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES 

NYSDOH contracts with 57 counties (also referred to as "municipalities”) and New York City (NYC) 5 to 

ensure the local administration of the NYEIP. In this DMS Monitoring Report, OSEP refers to the 57 counties 

and NYC as 58 EIS programs under 34 C.F.R. § 303.11. NYSDOH reports in its SPP/APR on the local 

performance through these 58 EIS programs. Under New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCCR)6 all 

“individuals and agencies” must have an approved agreement with NYSDOH to deliver early intervention 

services in the State. NYSDOH is responsible for approving and entering into provider agreements with all EIS 

programs and providers, conducting oversight of the local implementation of NYEIP and maintains all 

enforcement authority over approved EIS programs and providers.7 All municipalities except for NYC provide 

service coordination, and all 58 EIS programs coordinate with NYSDOH-approved EIS providers to deliver 

early intervention services.

Consistent with 10 NYCRR 69-4, and NYSDOH’s Early Intervention Administration Work Plan 

(October 1, 2021−September 30, 2026), local municipalities are responsible for ensuring implementation of 

several components of the NYEIP including, but not limited to: public awareness and child find activities, 

family-centered services, child and family outcomes, service delivery and natural environments (including, 

ensuring that services are individualized and delivered in accordance with the IFSP in an environment 

appropriate to meet the unique needs of the child), and administrative activities (including developing policies 

and procedures, record retention and transmitting data). 

As part of its monitoring activities, OSEP conducted interviews with Early Intervention Officials8 and staff 

from seven local EIS programs including the NYC DOHMH, held discussions with, and reviewed written 

feedback from, Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) and Community Parent Resource Centers 

(CPRCs), including two virtual sessions with parents participating in NYEIP representing various regions of the 

State and NYC. The information gathered from these interviews raised significant concerns with the provision 

of early intervention services throughout the State. 

Legal Requirements

As a condition of receiving assistance under IDEA Part C, each State must ensure that appropriate early

intervention services are available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families as required by 

34 C.F.R. § 303.112. Each State must ensure that Part C services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers 

with disabilities and their families in a timely manner and that each eligible infant and toddler with a disability 

has available early intervention services that are identified as designed to meet his or her unique individual 

needs by the IFSP team as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.322(c), and 303.344(d). Each early 

intervention service must be provided as soon as possible after the parent provides consent for that service, as 

required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.342(e). States also must ensure that resources are made available under IDEA 

Part C for all geographic areas within the State consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.207.

5 The NYC DOHMH administers NYEIP throughout the five boroughs of NYC: Manhattan (New York County), Brooklyn (Kings County), Queens 

(Queens County), The Bronx (Bronx County) and Staten Island (Richmond County).

6 See 10 NYCRR 69-4.5. 

7 BEI’s Provider Approval, Due Process and Monitoring Unit is responsible for these activities within NYSDOH.

8 Early Intervention Officials are designated by the chief elected official of the municipality (county) to administer NYEIP at the local level. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 6 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

OSEP Analysis

Early Intervention Services Not Timely Provided

The State is not ensuring that early intervention services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families in a timely manner as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e). 

IDEA requires that Part C services be provided as soon as possible after a parent provides consent under 

34 C.F.R. § 303.342(e). New York has adopted a 30-day timeline for providing IDEA Part C services after 

parent consent.

9 Prior to and during OSEP’s monitoring visit, OSEP heard from multiple sources about delays 

and waitlists for IDEA Part C services. 

During the public input process, OSEP heard that Statewide EIS provider shortages have impeded the local 

municipality’s ability to provide early intervention services to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities 

and their families. During OSEP’s interviews, all municipalities interviewed reported delays and waitlists for 

the provision of early intervention services. Specifically, one municipality reported to OSEP that only 28 out of 

approximately 230 children with active IFSPs were receiving all the IDEA Part C services for which they were 

eligible in accordance with their IFSPs. The same municipality reported that there were 50 eligible children 

waiting to receive two or more early intervention services. Another municipality reported that on average it 

serves approximately 1,800 children and families and consistently has approximately 200 children waiting more 

than 30 days to receive early intervention services, with the greatest demand for services in the county being 

speech therapy (speech), occupational therapy (OT), and special education. Another municipality reported that 

after the initial referral of the child suspected of having a disability, referred families are told that evaluations to 

determine eligibility for early intervention services could take several months. The same municipality reported 

that if a child is found eligible, the county would not be able to provide early intervention services within the 

State’s 30-day timeline.

Staff from municipalities also reported in interviews with OSEP that the following practices are occurring: 

• IDEA Part C services are being provided by any available EIS provider regardless of the specific early

intervention service(s) listed on the IFSP and the specific discipline of the EIS provider.

• Some or all early intervention services on the IFSP are never initiated prior to an eligible infant or

toddler with a disability exiting the program.

OSEP’s historical review of NYSDOH’s data under IDEA Part C SPP/APR Indicator 1 (timely provision of 

services) identified some concerns about how the State is exercising its general supervision responsibilities to

obtain data on the timely provision of services. NYSDOH reported that its data system, referred to as the New 

York Early Intervention System (NYEIS), is used to collect data from local municipalities on the timely 

provision of IDEA Part C services. OSEP identified issues with three of the State’s nine, “discountable” or 

allowable reasons for delay due to exceptional family circumstances. OSEP noted that delays applied to those 

circumstances may be captured inconsistently with reported data. Those reasons included: “family exited EIP 

prior to service beginning,” “family received service however no claim data available,” and “intermittent 

9 Under 10 NYCCR 69-4.11, the IFSP shall be in writing and include “the projected dates for initiation of services, which date must be as soon as 

possible but no later than 30 days after the parent provides written consent for the services in the IFSP or any subsequent amendments to the 

IFSP, and the anticipated duration of these services, provided however that: if the parent and other members of the IFSP team determine that one 

or more types of service(s) included in the IFSP must appropriately be initiated more than 30 days after the parent provides written consent for the 

services in the IFSP, such service(s) must be delivered no later than 30 days after the projected date of initiation of such service(s) as set forth in 

the IFSP.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 7 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

service and/or frequency per IFSP team decision.” NYSDOH stated to OSEP that it can update and modify its 

current exceptional family circumstance categories to capture the reasons for delay consistent with IDEA

SPP/APR reporting requirements for Indicator 1. The State’s Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021 SPP/APR 

reported Indicator 1 data for timely provision of services more accurately represents and further substantiates 

the State’s struggles with providing early intervention services to all eligible infants and toddlers with 

disabilities.

After OSEP’s on-site monitoring visit, NYSDOH submitted, in February 2023, its FFY 2021 SPP/APR 

Indicator 1 timely provision of service data as 69.25 percent. The State explained that its FFY 2021 data 

demonstrated a decrease because families who did not consent to receive early intervention services through 

telehealth, and preferred in-person service delivery, and had to wait more than 30 days for service delivery were 

counted under “non-discountable” reasons for service delay. 

NYSDOH attributes the inability to obtain in-person providers to, “Statewide provider shortages and many 

providers who are only willing to provide telehealth services, with many counties having difficulty locating 

providers to provide in-person services.” Additionally, in its SPP/APR narrative, NYSDOH reported that “there 

has been reluctance on the part of early intervention [service] providers to return to in-person service delivery” 

(since telehealth service was allowable during the COVID-19 pandemic) and that, “the current reimbursement 

rates for providers are the same for telehealth services and in-person services.” Further, during interviews with 

OSEP, the PTIs, CPRCs and parents in New York, reported that staff shortages and late referrals have resulted 

in significant waitlists. These concerns were also corroborated by the State Audit.10 The waitlists and early 

intervention service provision issues described above, demonstrate NYSDOH’s failure to ensure that 

appropriate early intervention services are timely provided to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 

families as required by the Federal IDEA Part C program in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e). 

Early Intervention Services Needed are Not Identified on the IFSP

The State is not ensuring that early intervention services, that are needed by the child, are identified on the 

IFSP based on the unique needs of the child and family as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.322(c), and 

303.344(d). 

During OSEP’s monitoring visit, OSEP heard from multiple sources that: 

• Early intervention services on IFSPs are tailored to EIS provider availability rather than individual child

needs.

• Families are persuaded to accept telehealth in the interim or endure long wait times for early

intervention services if EIS providers are not available to provide in-person early intervention services.

• In some regions, children and families must accept telehealth as the only modality of receiving early

intervention services without regard to whether telehealth is the appropriate modality for providing

services.

10 The State Audit (February 28, 2023) covers NYEIP performance from July 2018 through February 2022. The report found that children are not 

receiving services in a timely manner. Specifically, it noted that – (1) Of the approximately 95,000 children with an approved IFSP, almost 48,000 

(51 percent) did not receive all the therapeutic [early intervention] services of which they were entitled to receive; (2) Of the nearly 48,000 

children (stated above), about 3,000 (six percent) did not receive any of the therapeutic services authorized on their IFSP; and (3) Of the 

approximately 95,000 children with an approved IFSP, approximately 27,000 (28 percent) did not begin receiving early intervention services 

within 30 days of when they were authorized to start. On August 3, 2023, NYSDOH submitted its comments in response to the February 28, 2023, 

State Audit. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 8 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

During interviews with OSEP, PTIs, CPRCs, and parents also reported that families are struggling to obtain inperson services. As described above, the State acknowledged in its FFY 2021 SPP/APR Indicator 1 data report 

on timely service provision its continued challenges in obtaining EIS providers who are available to provide inperson (instead of telehealth) early intervention services. The State must ensure that IFSP teams identify on the 

IFSP the early intervention services that are needed by the child and family based on the unique needs of the 

child as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.322(c), and 303.344(d). 

Services are Not Available in All Geographic Areas

The State is not ensuring that early intervention services are available in all geographic areas in the State, 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.207. 

During OSEP’s monitoring, OSEP heard that families are being told that specific early intervention services are 

not available because of shortages of discipline-specific providers with disproportionate disparities existing in 

certain regions of the State to a greater extent than others. Additionally, all municipalities interviewed by OSEP 

reported Part C service challenges, with inner cities and rural regions being disproportionally impacted by 

service provider shortages.

During discussions with OSEP, NYSDOH shared that it maintains a “Central Directory” of the approved EIS 

providers municipalities to contact to coordinate early intervention services within their geographic catchment

areas. EIS programs expressed frustration with the central directory, claiming the directory is not an accurate 

representation of early intervention providers that are available. OSEP heard from EIS programs that EIS 

providers may be approved by NYSDOH and listed in the directory, but that does not necessarily mean that the

EIS provider is active and available to provide direct early intervention services. The State Audit11 also supports 

this claim and further reported that:

• Municipal officials explained that [NYSDOH] does not remove [EIS] providers that are not accepting

children in the municipalities’ area from the directory, even when requested to do so.

• If the municipality removes [EIS] providers that are no longer providing services from the local

directory, they are instructed to add the provider back when it is identified through NYSDOH’s

oversight activities, even if the [EIS] provider is not serving [in] the municipalities geographic region.

• Municipal officials expressed frustration with this [practice] from program staff and parents who are

continually turned down by approved providers that are not actually offering services.

• The auditor also noted that about 1,800 (23 percent) of the approximately 7,800 service providers listed

in the directory had not provided any [early intervention] services during the time of the audit.

As described above, NYSDOH is responsible for approving and entering into provider agreements with all EIS 

programs and providers and as noted in the State’s Early Intervention Provider Agreement, between the EIS 

provider and NYSDOH, the EIS provider designates the service catchment area. While the agreement allows an 

approved EIS provider to work throughout the State, the EIS provider must identify the municipalities in which 

they are currently available to provide services and agrees that they can and will deliver services in the areas 

identified.

12 

OSEP’s discussions with counties and other interested parties revealed that available EIS providers tend to 

provide Part C services only within geographic areas close to their homes, determine the modality of service 

11 See State Audit (February 28, 2023), Lack of Available Service Providers, p. 13. 

12 See the New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Early Intervention: Early Intervention Provider Agreement (effective 2018) p. 7. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 9 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

provision they provide (e.g., virtual or in-person), and choose the locations in which they will provide Part C 

services. Specifically, due to poverty and provider safety concerns, securing EIS providers in particular 

neighborhoods of inner cities pose significant challenges, while due to the lack of reimbursement for mileage 

and extensive travel time, municipalities also have difficulty finding providers willing to provide services to 

families living in very rural areas. 

As a result, EIS providers have begun to offer Part C services in community locations (often at libraries, 

community centers, or at the service providers’ locations), and in group settings to be able to serve children and 

families that reside in hard-to-reach locations. Although efforts are being made by EIS providers to access these 

children and families, additional inequities exist for those families that are unavailable at the time a service is 

being offered and are unable to afford or obtain transportation to access early intervention services, further 

putting those children and families at a disadvantage. 

During discussions with OSEP, NYSDOH, EIS programs and other interested parties, reported that a financial 

disincentive to provide in-person services has been created due to the State’s reimbursement rates being the 

same regardless of the modality of service delivery (in-person or via telehealth). Counties and other interested 

parties further reported that this rate structure has impacted individualized service delivery decisions for 

children and families, due to service providers in certain regions only offering to provide early intervention 

services via telehealth. Additional barriers to accessing Part C services exist in circumstances in which 

telehealth early intervention is the only modality of Part C services offered or available. Specifically, this can 

negatively impact families that do not have access to or use technology, have unreliable internet service, and for 

those families that have government-supported telephone service (which have restrictions on use). OSEP also 

heard during interviews with municipalities and other interested parties, that families who are non-native 

English speakers face even more challenges accessing and receiving Part C services. These families experience

increased wait times for evaluations and early intervention services due to interpreter shortages, and the costs 

for interpretation services. Municipalities also reported these issues leave EIS providers dependent on family 

members or members of the local community to assist in translation efforts.

OSEP shared the information gathered during these public input discussions, and NYSDOH acknowledged that 

provider capacity is a challenge and that current Medicaid reimbursement rates are insufficient to attract and 

retain service providers. Additionally, NYSDOH stated that current funding rates have contributed to a 

disincentive to provide services in-person and in particular geographic regions. 

NYSDOH discussed some initiatives that are currently underway to address some of the issues NYEIP is 

facing. For example, NYSDOH reported that it holds bimonthly calls with all counties and monthly calls with 

NYC to increase communication and collaboration. NYSDOH also reported that they are working with the 

Statewide Early Intervention Coordinating Council (EICC) on provider capacity and have established a EICC 

Rate Setting and Provider Capacity Task Force to further evaluate this issue. The State is also updating the 

NYEIP regulations regarding qualifications for early intervention provider approval. NYSDOH stated that it

will continue to support and advocate for increasing provider rates for the program and shared that it will be 

conducting outreach activities throughout the State at institutions of higher education to support recruitment 

efforts.

While OSEP appreciates the State’s effort, as described above, there are significant concerns over the State’s 

ability to provide Part C services to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities in the State, which was also 

supported by the concerns outlined in the State Audit. The auditor found Statewide disparities in access to 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 10 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

NYEIP and disproportionate access to [EIS] providers for children with IFSPs.13 

The auditor also reported that:

• Although there are [EIS] provider shortages throughout the State, the issue is more “pronounced in some

parts of the State than others.”

• Municipalities reported concerns around not having [EIS] providers available that speak the child’s

native language but were unable to analyze data around this issue due to NYEIS not capturing the

information.

• Municipalities stated that it is difficult to find [EIS] providers willing to travel to certain geographic

areas within the region, and one municipality reported that its population is difficult to contact through

electronic methods which was further exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic for families that did

not have access to technology but used it out of necessity.

Under Section II.A.8 of New York’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part C Grant Application, NYSDOH provides an 

assurance that Part C resources are made available for all geographic regions in the State. As a result of the 

monitoring activities, OSEP attributes NYSDOH’s inability to ensure that Part C resources are made available 

for all geographic areas of the State as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.207, in part, to the State’s funding structure, 

which provides a financial disincentive to provide in-person services particularly in rural areas and inner-city 

regions of the State which has resulted in underserved and hard-to-reach communities being disproportionately 

affected by early intervention service provider shortages that exist throughout the State. 

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State, interviews with State staff 

and other interested parties, and the State Audit. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that the State is unable to

ensure that: 

1.1 Early intervention services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 

families in a timely manner as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e). 

1.2 Early intervention services that are needed by the child are identified on the IFSP based on the unique 

needs of the child as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.322(c), and 303.344(d). 

1.3 Early intervention services are available in all geographic areas in the State, consistent with

34 C.F.R. § 303.207. 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Updated policies and procedures documenting its process to ensure that that appropriate early

intervention services are available to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families as

required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.112, 303.322(c), 303.342(e), and 303.344(d).

2. A description of how the State will make resources available to all geographic areas within the State as

required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.207.

13 The auditor referenced additional equity and access issues in NYEIP as reported in an August 2021, Executive Summary by NYSDOH on Early 

Intervention Program Data: Race and Ethnicity (July 2017–June 2020).
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 11 

PROVISION OF EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES

3. A description of how the State will address situations when EIS providers are not available to serve

infants and toddlers with disabilities or when there has been a delay or disruption in service provision as

required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e).

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Updated data and a description of the State’s improvement activities for addressing its provider

shortages reflecting improved availability of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with

disabilities and their families in all areas of the State.

2. Actual monitoring reports or updated data demonstrating that the State has implemented its revised

policies and procedures and provided monitoring or other oversight of the requirements in

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.112, 303.322(c), 303.342(e), and 303.207.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 12 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and NYSDOH used the DMS Integrated Monitoring and 

Sustaining Compliance and Improvement protocol to examine how NYSDOH implements its general 

supervisory responsibility, including policies and procedures to identify and correct noncompliance and 

improve educational results and functional outcomes for all infants and toddlers with disabilities. OSEP 

reviewed NYEIP policies and procedures, State rules and regulations, monitoring protocols and additional 

documents submitted by NYSDOH, which are referenced throughout this section. 

Components of the State’s Monitoring System

During discussions with OSEP, NYSDOH staff described the components of its general supervision system and 

provided evidence of the State’s general supervision activities. Under Section 2550 of New York Public Health 

Law (NYPHL), NYSDOH is responsible for “the general administration and supervision of programs” 

including the monitoring of agencies, institutions and organizations that provide early intervention services 

which are under the jurisdiction of a State early intervention service agency” including, “enforcing any 

obligations imposed on those agencies” consistent with NYPHL and IDEA Part C. (Chapter 45, Article 25, 

Tittle 2-A § 2550). NYSDOH reported that its general supervision system consists of Statewide monitoring of 

its 58 EIS programs and its EIS providers, which includes approved individuals and agencies; data review and 

program evaluation; and the State’s Part C Dispute Resolution system. 

Legal Requirements

In order to effectively monitor the implementation of IDEA Part C requirements, the State must have a system 

that is reasonably designed to ensure that the State can meet its general supervisory responsibility for 

monitoring the provision of IDEA Part C services as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 

303.702. Under 34 C.F.R § 303.700(b), the primary focus of the State's monitoring activities must be on: 

1. Improving early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and toddlers with

disabilities;

2. Ensuring that EIS providers meet the IDEA program requirements, with a particular emphasis on those

requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention results for infants and toddlers

with disabilities; and

3. Ensuring that the State has a system that collects and reports valid and reliable data14.

Under the IDEA, there is a longstanding requirement to correct noncompliance as soon as possible, but no later 

than one year after the State’s written notification of noncompliance. This is codified in the IDEA regulations in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a)(iv) and 303.700(e). When verifying the correction of noncompliance, States must 

ensure that they have internal controls and documentation consistent with other applicable Federal laws – 

GEPA, EDGAR, and the OMB Uniform Guidance, in addition to the IDEA implementation requirements. 

See Appendix I for explanation and listing of legal requirements. 

14 20 U.S.C. §§ 1435(a)(10)(A) and 1442; 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a) and 303.700; 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.329 and 200.332. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 13 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

OSEP Analysis

Failure to Identify Noncompliance in a Timely Manner: Data Review and Program Evaluation 

The State is not notifying EIS programs of identified noncompliance in a timely manner.

NYSDOH staff described the data review and program evaluation component of the State’s general supervision 

system for identifying and correcting noncompliance. Using its data system, NYEIS,

15 NYSDOH conducts an 

annual local data review with its 58 EIS programs to determine compliance with IDEA Part C requirements. 

State staff reported that this review includes verifying the accuracy of information reported in NYEIS, 

correcting any missing or incorrect data, issuing annual data findings if compliance is below 100 percent for 

SPP/APR compliance indicators and reviewing subsequent data to ensure correction of noncompliance. 

Noncompliance identified through the annual data review, specific to IDEA Part C compliance indicators, is 

subsequently reported in the State’s SPP/APR. NYSDOH also uses the data from the annual data review when 

making local determinations. NYSDOH issues its annual determination letters for all 58 EIS programs after it 

has received its annual determination from OSEP. Local program determinations are based on Part C SPP/APR 

compliance and results indicators.16 

During discussions with OSEP, NYSDOH confirmed that they are not issuing formal letters of noncompliance, 

based on its review of data until more than a year after gathering the initial data and more than six months after 

receiving any corrected data. Specifically, in spring of each year, State staff noted that data are pulled from 

NYEIS, and, in July, NYSDOH provides municipalities with spreadsheets of their indicator data to review. 

NYSDOH staff confirmed that it does not issue findings on the collected data until June of the following year. 

As an example, for its FFY 2020 SPP/APR, the data were pulled from NYEIS between January 1, 2021, and 

March 31, 2021. From July 2021 to December 2021, municipalities had an opportunity to clarify their data and 

submit revised spreadsheets to NYSDOH. NYSDOH then completed a last data pull to finalize the data before 

they submitted the data to OSEP on February 1, 2022, with their SPP/APR. NYSDOH, however, did not issue 

findings of noncompliance based on the FFY 2020 data until it issued local program determination letters on 

June 27, 2022.17 In response to OSEP’s question about this timeline, NYSDOH staff stated they did not 

consider the data final until after OSEP’s SPP/APR clarification period, NYSDOH did not provide additional 

reasoning explaining the timeline for identifying noncompliance beyond it being based on historical practice but

did inform OSEP that its process could be changed if necessary. 

To meet its general supervisory responsibility under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a) and 303.700(e), NYSDOH must 

provide notification of findings of noncompliance as soon as possible after it identifies noncompliance and must 

ensure compliance with the IDEA, Part C requirements. When a State is made aware of potential 

noncompliance with an EIS programs or provider’s implementation of IDEA, the State must investigate the 

issue and reach a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. If, through its review of evidence, the State 

determines that the EIS program or provider is out of compliance with an applicable IDEA requirement, the 

15 BEI’s Program Evaluation Unit is responsible for overseeing and managing program data for NYEIP within NYSDOH. 

16 Compliance Indicators: Indicator 1 (Timely Provision of Services); Indicator 7 (45-Day Timeline); Indicator 8A (Early Childhood Transition); 

Indicator 8B (Early Childhood Transition); and Indicator 8C (Early Childhood Transition). Results Indicators: Indicator 2 (Services in Natural 

Environments); Indicator 3 (Early Childhood Outcomes); Indicator 4 (Family Involvement); Indicator 5 (Child Find: Birth to One); and Indicator 6

(Child Find: Birth to Three).

17 NYSDOH determination letters include standard language that, “States are required to use the following three categories of determinations: meets 

requirements, needs assistance, and needs intervention.” OSEP reminds the State that although there may not be any EIS programs that have met 

the criteria for needs substantial intervention, the State must review all four determination categories: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs 

intervention, and needs substantial intervention, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(a)(2).
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 14 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

State must issue a written notification of noncompliance (i.e., a finding) to the relevant EIS program or 

provider. The finding must be issued in a timely manner, generally within three months of the State

substantiating the accuracy of the information and reaching a conclusion, unless the EIS program or provider 

immediately (i.e., before the State issues the finding) corrects the noncompliance and the State is able to verify 

the correction.

18 

Although NYSDOH can identify noncompliance by reviewing data in the NYEIS as part of its general 

supervision system, OSEP has determined that NYSDOH is not issuing findings of noncompliance to its EIS 

programs in a timely manner after discovering noncompliance, which is inconsistent with the timely 

identification requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a) and 303.700(e). Specifically, NYSDOH does not provide 

written notices of findings to its programs until it issues its local determinations in June of each year, up to 18 

months after it pulls the data from the NYEIS and more than six months after municipalities have provided any 

clarifying or corrected data. 

Failure to Verify Correction for Non−SPP/APR Requirements: Statewide Monitoring 

The State does not have a mechanism in place to verify the correction of findings issued to EIS programs and 

providers in the State on IDEA Part C requirements beyond the SPP/APR indicators.

NYSDOH contracts with an outside vendor, Keystone Peer Review Organization (KEPRO), to conduct 

Statewide monitoring of approved EIS programs and providers in the State. When OSEP inquired about 

NYSDOH’s process for verifying correction of noncompliance identified outside of the Part C SPP/APR 

indicator findings, NYSDOH acknowledged that they do not verify correction for these findings. Under 

NYSDOH’s monitoring contract with KEPRO, KEPRO staff only verify correction of findings related to Part C 

SPP/APR indicators and health and safety findings consistent with NYPHL. Further, NYSDOH staff stated that 

they were unsure if the requirements regarding verification of correction of noncompliance applied only to 

Part C SPP/APR indicators. 

Under the monitoring and enforcement provisions of 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, the LA is responsible for identifying 

and correcting findings of noncompliance for not only the IDEA Part C requirements represented as indicators 

in the SPP/APR process but, for compliance with all the requirements of IDEA Part C. Just as States may not 

limit the scope of their general supervisory activities to only the IDEA requirements included in the State’s 

annual SPP/APR submission (i.e., the SPP/APR indicators and data reported to the Department under IDEA 

Sections 616 and 642), the State may not limit the scope of its responsibility to verify the correction of 

identified noncompliance to the SPP/APR indicator requirements.19 While NYSDOH issues findings for 

noncompliance that is identified outside of the Part C SPP/APR indicators, it does not verify correction of all 

findings related to IDEA Part C. 

To effectively monitor the implementation of IDEA Part C by early intervention service providers, as required 

by, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a) and 303.700, the LA must have a general supervision system that corrects 

noncompliance in a timely manner. NYSDOH staff stated they believed the requirements listed in OSEP’s 

previous guidance on identifying and correcting noncompliance,20 applied only to noncompliance identified 

18 As referenced in OSEP’s July 24, 2023, Question and Answer document 23-01, State General Supervision Responsibilities under Parts B and C of 

the IDEA: Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement (OSEP QA 23-01), Question B-2. Note that OSEP also made a similar finding

regarding the State’s timeline for issuing findings in OSEP’s 2008 New York Part C Verification Visit Letter and Enclosure.

19 See OSEP QA 23-01, Question A-4. 

20 OSEP QA 23-01 (issued July 24, 2023) supersedes OSEP’s guidance document, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Memorandum 09-

02: Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report Required under Sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (Oct. 17, 2008). 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 15 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

through the SPP/APR indicators and therefore, the State does not verify correction of findings of 

noncompliance not related to the SPP/APR. This practice is inconsistent with OSEP’s longstanding guidance, 

including OSEP QA 23-01, and the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120(a) and 303.700. 

Further, NYSDOH is also not verifying individual child-specific correction of noncompliance identified in State 

complaint decisions.21 OSEP reviewed NYSDOH’s State complaint decisions from July 2019 to September 

2022. These complaint decisions included allegations and findings regarding early intervention service 

provision and corroborated the Part C early intervention service provision concerns expressed by municipalities 

and other interested parties during interviews with OSEP. Specifically, NYSDOH made findings regarding 

delays in initiating early intervention services, gaps in service provision, and Part C services not being 

authorized prior to the IFSP end date. For example, one of the complainants reported that there were “numerous 

allegations of violations of NYSDOH regulations, occurring across 37 individual child cases, over a six-month 

period.” When OSEP asked NYSDOH if the 37 children, included in the original complaint received any 

remedy, NYSDOH reported that they did not address all children in the report because they did not need to in 

order to determine a violation against the provider and that it would be the responsibility of the county to 

address child-specific noncompliance. Although NYSDOH determined that the EIS provider was not complying 

with IDEA Part C requirements, it did not take steps to ensure correction for each of the children potentially 

impacted by the noncompliance. During OSEP’s visit, OSEP informed NYSDOH that the State LA must have a 

system in place to verify correction when the LA is aware of child-specific or systemic findings of 

noncompliance or when there has been a denial in services identified in the IFSP. 

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State 

staff and other interested parties. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

2.1 The State does not identify noncompliance in a timely manner using its data system, as required under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700 through 303.702. 

2.2 The State does not verify the correction of all findings of noncompliance related to IDEA Part C 

(beyond SPP/APR indicators) as required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120 and its monitoring responsibilities 

in 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(e). 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Updated policies documenting its process for issuing findings of noncompliance using the data system

component in a timely manner. 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700 through 702.

2. Updated policies that document its process of verifying the correction of all identified findings of

noncompliance (not just SPP/APR indicators) in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700(e).

Evidence of Implementation – as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report, the State must submit to OSEP: 

21 OSEP has a separate finding below that NYSDOH neither has policies nor monitors its State complaint decisions for systemic issues to ensure that 

when a State complaint finds violation such as a failure to provide services, the resolution of the State complaint includes appropriate corrective 

action(s). 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 16 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

1. Evidence of timely identification of noncompliance, including monitoring reports issued in a timely

manner based on the State’s data system.

2. Other supporting evidence demonstrating the State has required verification of correction of findings of

noncompliance with Part C requirements that are not included in the IDEA Part C SPP/APR compliance

indicators.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 17 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and NYSDOH staff used the IDEA Part C single line of 

responsibility fiscal monitoring protocol to examine NYSDOH’s role in specific fiscal areas including the 

general supervision, monitoring, funding, interagency coordination, and other responsibilities in meeting the 

requirements under Part C of IDEA.

Legal Requirements

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b), each State LA must have a methodology to track its maintenance of effort or 

MOE. This includes the ability to calculate the total amount of State and local funds budgeted for expenditures, 

and actually expended, in a fiscal year for early intervention services for children and their families. The State 

LA must have this methodology to ensure that “the total amount of State and local funds budgeted for 

expenditures in the current fiscal year for early intervention services for children eligible under Part C and their 

families must be at least equal to the total amount of State and local funds actually expended for early 

intervention services for these children and their families in the most recent preceding fiscal year for which the 

information is available.” 

See Appendix I for explanation and listing of additional legal requirements.

OSEP Analysis

As noted earlier, the State is unable to ensure the timely provision of early intervention services and OSEP is 

concerned that the State’s funding structure may contribute to these service provision challenges. New York 

reported it uses funds from private insurance and public benefits/insurance, local municipality revenue and State 

general revenue to pay for IDEA Part C services. OSEP’s review of New York’s fiscal system identified the 

following three issues, which, in taking actions to address, the State may wish to review its overall funding 

structure of its IDEA Part C early intervention system. 

Funding Sources: MOE Requirements

During interviews with OSEP, NYSDOH staff were unable to describe its MOE methodology and 

acknowledged that it did not actively track funds budgeted by the municipalities. NYSDOH also questioned its 

capacity to obtain annual local level budget and expenditure information from its 58 EIS programs. During 

OSEP’s review of publicly available information, it appears that local-level budget information is collected in 

the State by the New York Office of the State Comptroller.

22 Based on the discussions with NYSDOH, OSEP 

has determined that the State does not have a system to track and calculate the total amount of State and local 

funds budgeted for expenditures, and actually expended, in a given fiscal for early intervention. Thus, the State 

is unable to ensure that the level of State and local funding for the provision of early intervention services 

complies with the IDEA Part C MOE requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b).

Funding Sources: Coordination of all Available Resources 

NYSDOH uses its Federal IDEA Part C award for administration and not for the provision of early intervention 

services. NYSDOH does not appear to coordinate all available resources as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 303.120(b). Specifically, the State has recently established authority to have private insurers 

22 See Open Book New York, Office of the State Comptroller.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 18 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

directly contribute to the cost of early intervention services through an assessment. Yet its State policies have 

not been updated to ensure that this new funding source is reflected in its policies particularly around ensuring 

the timely distribution of funds to EIS programs/municipalities as well as its SOP policy, as well as any MOE 

calculation, if applicable.

Additionally, under Section 2557 of NYPHL, early intervention services must be provided at no cost to parents 

and no fees are charged to parents (including co-payments and deductibles). Specifically, early intervention 

services are first funded through third party payor sources (such as Medicaid) and the remaining costs are 

shared by the State (49 percent) and municipalities (51 percent). NYSDOH does not use IDEA Part C funds for 

direct early intervention services and IDEA Part C funds instead are used for administration of NYEIP at the 

State and county levels. 

Under the Covered Lives for Early Intervention legislation (signed into law on December 30, 2021),23 private 

insurance companies pay an assessment to the State totaling $40 million annually. This assessment replaces the 

funds EIS providers previously received when billing private insurance directly and is intended to streamline 

the reimbursement process for EIS providers. This assessment represents an increase in funding for early 

intervention services as the reimbursement rates for private insurance had historically remained low and were 

previously an inadequate funding source for the program (around $12 million which is about two percent of the 

total funding of the program). The funds from the assessment will be disbursed to the municipalities annually to 

assist in covering the costs of services for families with private insurance.

OSEP commends New York on the passage of this legislation and identifying this resource for its IDEA Part C 

early intervention system. However, at the time of OSEP’s visit in 2022, no funds had yet been disbursed to the 

municipalities. On September 18, 2023, NYSDOH informed OSEP that approximately $15 million of the 

approximately $20 million in assessment funds designated for early intervention services had been disbursed to 

municipalities for early intervention services. OSEP appreciates NYSDOH’s continued efforts to coordinate and 

distribute the insurance funds under the 2021 legislation. Given the 51 percent required level of local funding to 

pay for early intervention services and variations in local abilities, NYSDOH must coordinate all available 

resources as required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120(b). 

Need to Update the State’s SOP Policy

Under Part C, a State may establish a SOP policy to access public benefits/insurance, private insurance, and/or 

family fees to pay for early intervention services in the State. OSEP last approved New York’s SOP policies

with the State’s FFY 2018 IDEA Part C grant. Those policies indicate that NYSDOH uses public 

insurance/benefits and private insurance to pay for IDEA Part C services. NYSDOH must update its SOP policy 

to reflect its recent changes in funding (i.e., that it no longer bills private insurance) and submit that updated

SOP policy with its next (FFY 2024) grant application, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.203(b)(1), 303.510, 

303.520, and 303.521. 

23 See the State of New York Assembly Bill A5339 (February 12, 2021). 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 19 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State 

staff and other interested parties. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

3.1 The State does not have a methodology, including policies and procedures, to track all State and local 

public funding sources budgeted and expended in a fiscal year for IDEA Part C services to ensure 

compliance with the IDEA Part C MOE requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b). 

3.2 The State has not consistently ensured that it coordinates all available resources as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 303.120(b). 

3.3 OSEP finds that the State’s System of Payments (SOP) policy does not reflect the State’s practice as 

required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.203(b)(1), 303.510, 303.520, and 303.521. Specially the State’s SOP 

policy does not reflect the State’s practice that it no longer bills private insurance. 

Required Actions

1. Within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP its revised policies

describing the State’s methodology to track all State and local public funding sources to enable it to ensure

compliance with the IDEA Part C MOE requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.225(b).

2. Within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report, the State must submit to OSEP its policy that identifies,

and requires coordination of, all available funding resources (including the new assessment funds) as

required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120(b).

3. NYSDOH must submit with its FFY 2024 IDEA Part C grant application either an indication of “no” and a

date not later than December 31, 2024, or its updated SOP policy to reflect that it no longer bills private

insurance, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.203(b)(1), 303.510, 303.520, and 303.521.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 20 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP used the DMS Dispute Resolution protocols to examine how the 

State implements its dispute resolution procedures, including State complaints, mediation and due process 

procedures. The components of NYSDOH’s dispute resolution system under IDEA Part C include formal State 

complaints (referred to by NYSDOH as System complaints), mediation, due process hearings, and an informal 

TA process. OSEP notes that, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 303.430(d)(1), the State has adopted the IDEA 

Part C due process hearing procedures under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.435 through 303.438 and 303.421(a). 

Legal Requirements

State Complaint Procedures

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430, each LA must adopt written State complaint procedures to resolve any State 

complaints filed by any party regarding any violation of IDEA Part C that meet the requirements in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 through 303.434. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432 this includes a complaint filed by an 

organization or individual from another State, that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 303.434. Additionally, 

under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432, in resolving a complaint in which the LA has found a failure to provide appropriate 

services, the LA, pursuant to its general supervisory authority under IDEA Part C must address:

• The failure to provide appropriate services, including corrective actions appropriate to address the needs

of the infant or toddler with a disability who is the subject of the complaint and the infant’s, or toddler's

family (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement) as required under

34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1); and

• Appropriate future provision of services for all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families as

required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(2).

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(a), a State’s minimum State complaint procedures under IDEA Part C must include 

a 60 day timeline for complaint resolution. The regulations specify two allowable reasons for extending the 60 

day timeline: (1) if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint; or (2) if the parent (or 

individual or organization, if mediation is available to the individual or organization under State procedures) 

and the LA, public agency, or EIS provider agree to extend the time to engage in mediation pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1). Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2) the LA must adopt written procedures pursuant to 

34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a) to include procedures for effective implementation of the LA’s final decision to include 

TA activities, negotiations, and corrective actions to achieve compliance. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(c)(1) if a written complaint is received that is also the subject of a due process 

hearing under 34 C.F.R § 303.430(d) or contains multiple issues of which one or more are part of the hearing 

the State must set aside any part of the complaint that is being addressed in the due process hearing until the 

conclusion of the hearing. 

Mediation

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430(b) each LA must make mediation available to parties to disputes involving any 

matter under IDEA Part C the opportunity to resolve disputes through a mediation process at any time and meet 

the requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431(a), each LA must ensure that 

procedures are established and implemented to allow parties to dispute, involving any matter under IDEA 

Part C, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint, to resolve disputes through a 

mediation process.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 21 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Due Process Hearings

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430(d) each LA must adopt written due process hearing procedures to resolve 

complaints with respect to a particular child regarding any matter listed under 34 C.F.R. § 303.421(a) which is 

the identification, evaluation, or placement of the child, or the provision of early intervention services. The State 

must adopt either the IDEA Part C due process hearing procedures in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.435 through 303.438 

and provide a means of filing the due process complaint; or the IDEA Part B due process hearing procedures in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.440 through 303.449. As stated above, the State has adopted the IDEA Part C due process 

hearing procedures. 

At a minimum, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.435, a hearing officer must have knowledge about the provisions of 

IDEA Part C, including early intervention services available for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 

families. The hearing officer must be able to listen to the presentation of relevant viewpoints about the due 

process complaint, examine all information relevant to the issues, seek to reach a timely resolution of the due 

process complaint and provide a record of the proceedings, including a written decision. Under IDEA Part C, 

the hearing officer is not an employee of the LA solely because the person is paid by the LA to implement the 

due process hearing procedures or mediation procedures. 

Procedural Safeguards

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.400 each LA must establish or adopt the procedural safeguards that meet the 

requirements of IDEA Part C, including among other things, the dispute resolution procedures in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.430. The LA must ensure the effective implementation of the safeguards by each participating 

agency to include the LA and EIS providers in the Statewide system that is involved in the provision of early 

intervention services (34 C.F.R. § 303.400(a) and (b)). 

See Appendix I for explanation and listing of additional legal requirements.

OSEP Analysis

NYSDOH is responsible for the intake and resolution of complaints including tracking complaints and data 

reporting. NYSDOH shared that State complaints are investigated if they allege a violation of New York 

Regulations or relevant Public Health Law that has occurred within one year of receipt of the complaint. State 

complaints require a 60 day timeline for resolution from the date of receipt by NYSDOH. 

Due process hearings are the responsibility of NYSDOH through its Bureau of Adjudication (Bureau). The 

Bureau is responsible for conducting due process hearings, maintaining qualified impartial hearing officers, 

training, and data reporting. Requests for impartial hearings are made through NYSDOH and must be in 

writing. Under NYPHL Title 2-A § 2549(3) requests for hearings may be filed at any time except for requests 

relating to a child not being found eligible for early intervention services. These requests must be made within 

six months of the determination of ineligibility. Due process hearings must be completed, and a decision 

rendered within 30 days of receipt of the request for an impartial hearing (10 NYCRR 69-4.17(h)(4)(i)).

State Complaint Procedures 

OSEP reviewed State complaint decisions that identified a failure to provide early intervention services to 

infants and toddlers with disabilities as well as the subsequent CAPs that local programs and providers must 

develop and submit when noncompliance with one or more requirements of IDEA Part C is found. The 

monitoring team confirmed through a review of these State-submitted documents, as well as through 

discussions with program representatives, that NYSDOH’s written policies and procedures required under 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 22 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

34 C.F.R. § 303.430(c) do not effectively address the resolution of State complaints filed by a party regarding 

violations of IDEA Part C that meet the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 and 303.433. 

Out-of-State Parties

Through a review of the NYCRR Procedural Safeguards and discussions with NYSDOH staff, OSEP 

determined that NYSDOH does not have procedures in place for out-of-State parties to file a complaint, as 

required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a)(1). 

Corrective Actions

A review of State complaint decisions that identified a failure to provide services did not include corrective 

actions addressing the failure to provide appropriate services to the infant or toddler with a disability that was 

the subject of the complaint, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1). OSEP noted during document review, 

and NYSDOH confirmed during interviews, that written State complaint decisions corrective actions are 

generally limited to changes to policies and procedures. The practice of requiring only policy and procedural 

changes in corrective actions does not fully meet the LA’s responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b), which 

requires not only addressing the future provisions of services for all infants and toddlers but corrective actions 

for any child that is the subject of the complaint. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1), each LA, in resolving a State 

complaint where the LA has confirmed that the EIS provider has failed to provide early intervention services, 

must ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken to address the needs of the infant or toddler and their 

family, that was the subject of the complaint, such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement. 

Implementation of State Complaint Decisions

A State’s written complaint procedures must also include mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of 

the LA’s final decision consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2) beyond acceptance of 

changes to policies and procedures prescribed in the corrective actions. While the State’s CAPs require revised 

policies and procedures, the State acknowledged that it does not verify subsequent implementation of the 

revised policies and procedures. 

Extension of the 60-Day Timeline

Review of dispute resolution data from reporting years 2018 through 2022 reflect an increasing number of State 

complaints being resolved with extended timelines beyond that of the 60 d-ay timeline set forth in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(a). Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1) there are two allowable reasons for extending the 

60 -day timeline for resolution of a complaint; (1) if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular 

complaint or (2) the parent, individual, or organization under State procedures and the public agency involved 

agree to an extension to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution. During 

discussions, NYSDOH staff acknowledged that NYSDOH has extended State complaints due to circumstances 

such as mail delivery, staff availability to receive mail, or just extending the complaint arbitrarily without a 

procedure explaining the State’s process. This practice does not align with OSEP’s long standing position that 

staff shortages, heavy caseloads, school vacations and breaks do not constitute an exceptional circumstance for 

an extension of the 60 -day timeline.

24

24 See Question B-31 in OSEP’s Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures (Jul. 23, 2013). 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 23 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Set Aside of State Complaints

In its review of State complaint tracking logs and discussions with NYSDOH staff, OSEP found that State 

complaints that were the subject of a due process hearing were not set aside or resolved consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(c)(1). NYSDOH reported that its practice is to dismiss the complaint and have the 

complainant resubmit the complaint at the conclusion of the due process hearing. NYSDOH confirmed that 

there is no process in place to resolve State complaints that are also the subject of a due process hearing. 

NYSDOH must have written procedures in place to ensure that complaints that were timely filed and set aside 

under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(c)(1), are investigated if the due process hearings do not resolve the matters pending 

in the State complaints. Based on this information, OSEP finds that the State does not have a system in place 

that is reasonably designed to implement the dispute resolution requirements of IDEA Part C State complaints 

under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 and 303.433, based on the reasons stated in the above analysis. Specifically, 

NYSDOH does not have written policies and procedures that address the effective resolution of any State 

complaints filed by any party regarding any violation of IDEA Part C that meet the requirements in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 and 303.433 (34 C.F.R. § 303.430). 

Mediation 

NYSDOH indicated that its document entitled, Early Intervention Steps: A Parent’s Basic Guide to the Early 

Intervention Program is provided to parents and guardians as procedural safeguard notice. It includes an 

explanation of the State’s dispute resolution options, as well as model forms for each of the dispute resolution 

options available. The document includes a model form titled, How to Request Mediation, which states: 

After sharing my concerns with my service coordinator and the county [Early Intervention 

Official] EIO, we are unable to reach agreement regarding the provision of early intervention 

services. Therefore, I would like to request mediation.” 

The model form then asks parents to select from four boxes to choose the area(s) to be mediated. The State’s 

model form includes the following:

We cannot agree on the following (check all that apply): 

• Eligibility of my child for the early intervention program. I understand that the

request for mediation must be made within six months of the date my child was

found ineligible for services.

• Requested early intervention services or evaluations of my child and family.

• County refused to provide early intervention services or evaluations for my child

and family.

• Change in early intervention services or evaluations for my child and family.

OSEP finds that the inclusion of these four prompts for parents appears to restrict the scope of mediation. OSEP 

is concerned that parents would interpret the language on the model form to mean that mediation is only 

available if one of the four circumstances listed in the form apply. Based on this information, OSEP finds the

language in the model form and within NYSDOH’s procedural safeguards document to be inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 303.430(b), which requires the LA to make mediation available to parties to disputes involving any 

matter under IDEA Part C to resolve disputes through a mediation process at any time. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 24 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Due Process Hearings

OSEP identified two issues with the State’s due process policies and/or procedures. First, discussions with 

NYSDOH identified that no documents described impartial hearing officer qualifications, training requirements, 

and NYSDOH’s oversight responsibility. BEI staff indicated that they were not aware of any agreements in 

place to ensure impartial hearing officers are qualified or trained in IDEA Part C regulations. BEI staff stated 

that beyond tracking of decision timelines all other matters relating to due process hearings are the 

responsibility of the Bureau of Adjudication. OSEP finds that NYSDOH does not ensure hearing officers 

possess knowledge of IDEA Part C. Hearing officers must possess knowledge of Part C and the needs of, and 

early intervention services available for, infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 303.435(a). 

Second, NYSDOH staff acknowledged there are not mechanisms in place to track the implementation of due 

process hearing decisions by municipalities, contracting agencies, or providers. As stated above, NYSDOH 

places all responsibility for due process hearings with the Bureau of Adjudication. However, NYSDOH is 

ultimately responsible for ensuring hearing officer decisions are implemented. OSEP finds that NYSDOH does 

not have a mechanism in place for tracking the implementation of due process hearing decisions by 

municipalities, contracting agencies, or providers as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.700. 

Notification of Dispute Resolution Options 

NYSDOH as the State LA is responsible for ensuring implementation of procedural safeguards, as required in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.400, including dispute resolution. NYSDOH is responsible for ensuring that EIS providers 

consistently implement IDEA procedural safeguards, including its dispute resolution provisions. OSEP finds 

that NYSDOH has allowed multiple municipalities to have procedural safeguards that are inconsistent with the 

Part C IDEA regulations. 

During the monitoring visit, through discussions with NYSDOH, EIS providers, and stakeholders, OSEP was 

informed of multiple mechanisms that are being used to resolve disputes in the State by local EIS providers that 

are inconsistent with IDEA dispute resolution requirements. Specifically, these are NYSDOH’s TA unit, NYC’s 

Early Intervention Affairs office, and municipalities’ use of localized online complaint filing forms. 

In NYC, there is a form that is inconsistent with IDEA dispute resolution provisions. NYSDOH provided 

documents for standard responses from the NYSDOH TA unit which include information for the NYC 

Consumer Affairs division encouraging parents to contact the NYC Consumer Affairs division to discuss 

concerns relevant to NYC early intervention. Discussions with stakeholder groups also referenced the use of the 

NYC Consumer Affairs division as means of addressing parent concerns. The NYC Consumer Affairs division 

and NYC DOHMH post the document, Your Family Rights in Early Intervention, on their public facing

website.25 This document has a section titled, “If you have questions or do not agree with a decision,” that 

includes options such as; 1) speak with your service coordinator, 2) call a Regional Office to speak with an 

assistant director, 3) call Early Intervention Consumer Affairs, and 4) if the problem is not solved, or you still 

disagree with a decision, you have the right to ask for the decision to be reconsidered. The form then lists 

dispute resolution options such as, due process rights including mediation, impartial hearings, and System 

complaints. This form includes informal steps and actions that parties must use prior to pursuing the IDEA 

Part C dispute resolution rights afforded to them under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.400 and 303.430. 

25 See the New York City Early Intervention program document, Your Family Rights in Early Intervention (November 2023). 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 25 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Further, OSEP’s review of another municipality’s public facing website yielded a fillable electronic form titled, 

Early Intervention Complaint Form. The municipalities’ Early Intervention Complaint Form, includes the 

following: 

[It] is important that all service providers adhere to New York State Early Intervention 

Regulations and County Department of Health Early Intervention protocols to ensure that 

services your child is entitled to are being delivered as authorized in your Individualized Family 

Service Plan; in accordance with federal, state and local laws. 

The document continues, “(we) will expedite the investigation if we should need additional information,” with 

no reference to the dispute resolution options available under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430. 

OSEP notes that a review of dispute resolution data from 2017 through 2020,26 shows a decline in mediation 

and impartial hearing requests. OSEP is concerned that NYSDOH’s model forms, limited State level written 

policies, referral of parties to municipalities’ informal complaint systems, and municipalities’ procedures that 

do not align with the IDEA and have the potential to unduly create barriers to a party exercising their dispute 

resolution rights afforded under the procedural safeguards of the Part C IDEA regulations. OSEP finds that 

NYSDOH has not ensured that its EIS providers have written policies and procedures for notifying parents of 

IDEA dispute resolution options that are consistent within the State and with IDEA in 34 C.F.R. § 303.430. 

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State 

staff and other interested parties. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

State Complaints

4.1 The State’s written State complaint procedures required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430(c) do not effectively 

address the resolution of State complaints filed by a party regarding violations of IDEA Part C that meet 

the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 through 303.435.

a. The State does not have a policy in place for out-of-State parties to file a complaint consistent

with 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a)(1).

b. The State does not monitor its complaint decisions to ensure that: (1) the failure to provide

appropriate services, including corrective actions appropriate to address the needs of the infant or

toddler with a disability and family (such as compensatory services or monetary reimbursement)

as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1); and (2) appropriate future provision of services for all

infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(2).

c. The State does not ensure that, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a), there is implementation of the

LA’s final State complaint decision as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2).

d. The State inappropriately extends the 60 day timeline when resolving State complaints for

reasons or circumstances that are inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1), pursuant to

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1).

26 See the New York Part C Dispute Resolution 618 Data 2017-2020 from the IDEA Section 618 Data Products, State Level Data Files Part C 

Dispute Resolution.
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 26 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

e. The State does not have a policy for resolving complaints that are also the subject of a due

process hearing under 34 C.F.R § 303.430(d) or complaints that contain multiple issues of which

one or more are part of a due process hearing.

Mediation 

4.2 The State has a model form that does not clearly allow parties to pursue mediation involving any matter 

under 34 C.F.R § 303.431(a). 

Due Process

4.3 The State does not ensure hearing officers possess knowledge of IDEA Part C. Hearing officers must 

possess knowledge of Part C and the needs of, and early intervention services available for, infants and 

toddlers with disabilities and their families, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.435(a). 

4.4 The State does not have a mechanism in place for tracking the implementation of due process hearing 

decisions by municipalities, contracting agencies, or providers as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.149 

and 303.700. 

Procedural Safeguards

4.5 The State has not ensured that its EIS providers have written policies for notifying parents of IDEA 

dispute resolution options that are consistent within the State and with the IDEA requirements in 

34 C.F.R. § 303.430. 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to 

OSEP: 

State Complaints

1. The following revised written State complaint policies and monitoring procedures:

a. Revised policy to allow complaints to be filed by an organization or individual from another State, that

meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(a)(1).

b. Revised policy and monitoring procedures to require that when the State complaint decision identifies a

failure to provide appropriate services, the decision also addresses both: 1) corrective actions appropriate

to address the needs of the infant or toddler with a disability who is the subject of the complaint and the

family (such as consideration of compensatory services or monetary reimbursement) as required in

34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(1); and (2) appropriate future provision of services for all infants and toddlers

with disabilities and their families as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(2).

c. Updated monitoring procedures to require monitoring of the implementation of the LA’s final state

complaint decision as required in pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2).

d. Revised state policy that informs State staff who review State complaint requests for extensions that the

60 day timeline may only be extended for the two circumstances identified in 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1).

e. Revised policy that if a written complaint is received is also the subject of a due process hearing under

34 C.F.R § 303.430(d) or contains multiple issues of which one or more are part of the that hearing, the
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 27 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

State is required to set aside any part of the complaint that is being addressed in the due process hearing 

until the conclusion of the hearing as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(c)(1). 

Mediation 

2. Revised model form that includes expressly an option for mediation to be available for “any matter” under

the Part C IDEA regulations, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint as

required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431(a).

Due Process

3. Revised due process policies and procedures to:

a. Reflect that due process hearing officers will be trained on IDEA Part C requirements consistent with

34 C.F.R. § 303.435(a); and

b. Demonstrate how the State will track the implementation of due process hearing decisions as required

under 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.149 and 303.700.

Procedural Safeguards 

4. A copy of its written memo notifying all EIS providers (with a copy to interested parties and OSEP)

requiring them to review and revise, if needed, their dispute resolution policies to ensure that parents are

notified of the three dispute resolution options, consistent with the IDEA Part C requirements in

34 C.F.R. § 303.430, and a description of how NYSDOH will ensure consistency with IDEA’s dispute

resolution options.

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this 

monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP:

State Complaints

1. Evidence of implementing its State complaint procedures to include:

a. Copies of redacted state complaint decisions that include consideration of appropriate corrective actions,

consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.432(b)(2).

b. A description of how the State has implemented final state complaint decisions, consistent with

34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(2).

c. Monitoring procedures and training materials that include provisions to ensure that State staff who

review State complaint requests for extensions are informed that the 60 day timeline may only be

extended for the two circumstances identified in 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1).

d. Updated data (provided with the FFY 2023 SPP/APR) for the period July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024

regarding the number of extension requests received for State complaints and the basis for any

extensions granted.

Due Process 

2. Evidence of implementing its due process policies and procedures to include evidence of training held for

due process hearing officers trained on IDEA Part C requirements consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.435(a).
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 28 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Procedural Safeguards

3. Follow-up on the NYSDOH memo issued to EIS providers, a description of the actions the State has taken

(including reviewing revised policies of EIS providers) to ensure that they are consistent within the State

and notify parents of the three IDEA Part C dispute resolution procedures.
APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Monitoring and Improvement Legal Requirements

In order to effectively monitor the implementation of IDEA Part C, the State must have policies and procedures 

that are reasonably designed to ensure that the State can meet:

1. Its general supervisory responsibility as required in 34 C.F.R. § 303.120.

2. Its monitoring responsibilities in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700 through 303.702, and

3. Its responsibility to annually report on the performance of the State and of each Early Intervention

Service (EIS) program, as provided in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700(a)(2) and 303.702(b)(2).

A State’s monitoring responsibilities include monitoring compliance by its EIS programs and providers 

(regardless of whether Federal IDEA Part C funds) with the requirements of IDEA Part C, to ensure that the LA 

can effectively carry out its general supervision responsibility under IDEA Part C, consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 303.120(a)(2). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(b), the State’s monitoring activities must primarily focus on:

1. Improving early intervention results and functional outcomes for all infants and toddlers with

disabilities; and

2. Ensuring that EIS programs and providers meet the program requirements under IDEA Part C, with a

particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving early intervention

results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Improving educational results and functional outcomes

for all children with disabilities.

In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(d), the State also must ensure that when 

it identifies noncompliance with IDEA Part C requirements by EIS programs and providers, the noncompliance 

is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State’s identification of the 

noncompliance, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(e). 

Further, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, the State must have a system that includes a single line of responsibility in 

a LA designated or established by the Governor that is responsible for the following: (1) The general 

administration and supervision of programs and activities administered by agencies, institutions, organizations, 

and EIS providers receiving assistance under IDEA Part C; and the monitoring of programs and activities used 

by the State to carry out IDEA Part C (whether or not the programs or activities are administered by agencies, 

institutions, organizations, and EIS providers that are receiving assistance under IDEA Part C), to ensure that 

the State complies with IDEA Part C. The State must also have in effect a system that includes monitoring and 

enforcement requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700 through 303.701 and 303.704. 

In addition, under 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(a)(1), the State must monitor the implementation of IDEA Part C and 

under 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(a)(4) must report annually on the performance of the State and each EIS program on 

the targets in the State’s Performance Plan. As a part of its monitoring responsibilities under these provisions, 

the LA must use quantifiable and qualitative indicators in the priority areas identified in 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(d) 

and the SPP/APR indicators established by the Secretary, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(c). Each State 

also must use the targets established in the State's performance plan under 34 C.F.R. § 303.701 and the priority 

areas described in 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(d) to analyze the performance of each EIS program located in the State. 

34 C.F.R. § 303.702. 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 30 

APPENDIX

Data Legal Requirements

To meet the data reporting requirements of IDEA sections 616 and 618 (as modified by IDEA section 642) and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 303.124, 303.224 and 303.701(c), and 303.720 through 303.724, the State must have a data system 

that is reasonably designed to collect and report valid and reliable data and information to the Department and 

the public in a timely manner and ensure that the data collected and reported reflects actual practice and 

performance. 

Fiscal Management Legal Requirements

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120(a)(1), each State’s system must include a single line of responsibility in a LA, 

designated or established by the Governor, that is responsible for the general administration and supervision of 

all EIS providers (regardless of whether they receive Federal IDEA funds), to ensure Statewide compliance with 

IDEA Part C requirements. As part of this responsibility, LAs must monitor and enforce the fiscal requirements 

under IDEA Part C, including the payor of last resort requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.500 and 303.510 and the 

system of payment policies, such as use of public benefits or insurance or private insurance to pay for Part C 

services in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.520 and 303.521. If the State LA identifies noncompliance, it must ensure that the 

noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the LA’s identification of 

the noncompliance consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.120(a)(2)(iv) and 303.700(e). Further, under 2 C.F.R. § 

200.303, the LA must establish effective internal controls that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with 

“Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award,” and the LA must monitor its 

compliance with the requirements of the Federal award.

Dispute Resolution Legal Requirements

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.421(a), the State must ensure that prior written notice is provided to parents a reasonable 

time before the EIS provider proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation or placement 

of the infant or toddler or the provision of early intervention services. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.421(b), this notice 

must be in sufficient detail to inform parents about the dispute resolution procedures. 

The State must have reasonably designed dispute resolution procedures and practices if it is to effectively 

implement:

1. The State complaint procedures requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.432 through 303.434;

2. The mediation requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 303.431; and

3. The due process complaint and impartial due process hearing requirements 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.440

through 303.449.

State Complaint Procedures

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.432, each LA must adopt written procedures for resolving any complaint, including a 

complaint filed by an organization or individual from another State, that meets the requirements of 

34 C.F.R. § 303.434. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.434, the complaint, among other requirements, must be signed and 

written and contain a statement alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of IDEA Part C or the 

Part C regulations including the facts on which the statement is based. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.434(c), the 

complaint must allege a violation that occurred not more than one year prior to the date that the complaint is 

received. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(a), the minimum State complaint procedures must include a time limit of 

60 days after the complaint is filed to:
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 31 

APPENDIX

1. Carry out an onsite investigation, if the LA determines that an investigation is necessary.

2. Give the complainant the opportunity to submit additional information, either orally or in writing, about

the allegations in the complaint;

3. Provide the public agency with the opportunity to respond to the complaint, including, at a minimum—

a. At the discretion of the public agency, a proposal to resolve the complaint; and

b. An opportunity for a parent who has filed a complaint and the public agency to voluntarily

engage in mediation consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 303.431;

4. Review all relevant information and make an independent determination as to whether the public agency

is violating a requirement of IDEA Part C or of this part; and

5. Issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint and

contains—

a. Findings of fact and conclusions; and

b. The reasons for the LA’s final decision.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(b)(1), the State’s procedures must permit an extension of the 60-day time limit only 

if:

1. Exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular complaint, or

2. The parent (or individual or organization, if mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution is

available to the individual or organization under State procedures) and the public agency involved agree

to extend the time to engage in mediation under 34 C.F.R. § 303.433(a)(3)(ii), or to engage in other

alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.

Mediation 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431(a), each LA must ensure that procedures are established and implemented to allow 

parties to dispute involving any matter under this part, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due 

process complaint, to resolve disputes through a mediation process. Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431(b)(1), the 

State’s procedures must ensure that the mediation process— 

1. Is voluntary on the part of the parties;

2. Is not used to deny or delay a parent’s right to a hearing on the parent’s due process complaint, or to

deny any other rights afforded under IDEA Part C; and

3. Is conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator who is trained in effective mediation techniques.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.431(c)(1)(i)–(ii), an individual who serves as a mediator may not be an employee of the 

LA or an EIS provider that is involved in the provision of early intervention services or other services to the 

child and may not have a personal or professional interest that conflicts with the person’s objectivity.

Due Process Complaint and Hearing Procedures

Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.430(d)(1), the State must provide a means of filing a due process complaint regarding 

any matter listed in 34 C.F.R. § 303.421(a). Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.437(b) each LA must ensure that, not later 

than 30 days after the receipt of a parent’s due process complaint, the due process hearing required under Part C 

is completed and a written decision mailed to each of the parties. A hearing officer may grant specific 
OSEP DMS REPORT NEW YORK PART C | 2024 PAGE 32 

APPENDIX

extensions of time beyond the period set out in 34 C.F.R. § 303.437(b) at the request of either party. Any party 

aggrieved by the findings and decision issued pursuant to a due process complaint has the right to bring a civil 

action in State or Federal court under section 639(a)(1) of IDEA Part C. 34 C.F.R. § 303.438.