FFY 2016 Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement (DMS) Decisions

Arizona

OSEP’s Results Driven Accountability System for differentiated monitoring and support is designed to provide 

differentiated levels and types of monitoring and support based on each State’s unique strengths, progress, 

challenges, and needs. To implement this system, OSEP developed a multi-tiered model for monitoring and 

providing support that is based on the principle that supports are first provided at a core or universal level to 

effectively address the needs of all States and is focused on prevention to minimize the need for more 

targeted or intensive engagement. Targeted monitoring and support is based on OSEP’s identification of 

common needs among multiple States, and intensive monitoring and support is reserved for those State 

education agencies and Lead agencies experiencing the most intense or complex challenges to 

implementation. 

To guide our designations for State monitoring and support at the universal, targeted and intensive levels in 

the areas of results, compliance, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), correctional education, and 

fiscal management, OSEP developed an organizational assessment of States’ progress in meeting performance 

standards and compliance with the legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the 

Education Department General Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, 

Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Using Federal Fiscal Year 2014 data for results, 

compliance, and the SSIP, and the most current data available for correctional education and fiscal 

management, along with information about the factors contributing to elevated needs, the support the State 

has accessed, the State’s capacity to improve results and compliance, and additional contextual information 

about the State, OSEP determined the level of monitoring and support necessary to meet the needs of each 

State. 

As you are aware, we recently completed our first round of DMS for Part B. For the current year’s process, we 

once again examined results, compliance and fiscal data. In addition, we substituted correctional education 

for dispute resolution as the special focus area, and added in the SSIP. Our analysis of the SSIP is based on our 

review of the required elements within the Phase II submission, as well as information obtained through 

follow up conversations with the State. Our analysis of correctional education is based on data from the

EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Report1, the Civil Rights Data Collection2, each State’s Annual 

Performance Report, and each State’s data submitted under section 618 of the IDEA3. The charts below list 

your designation and anticipated level of engagement in each area. 

 

1

EDFacts Consolidated State Performance Report 2013–2014: (1)The total number of children with disabilities who were served in a 

local juvenile corrections or juvenile detention program. (2) The number of students in a local education agency juvenile 

corrections or detention facility who obtained a high school diploma or GED — In Facility.

2

Civil Rights Data 2013–2014: The total number of hours per year that educational program is offered during the regular school year 

in a juvenile justice or detention facility.

3

618 Data 2013–2014: (1) The percentage of students with disabilities in a State that dropped out of school. (2) The percentage of 

students with disabilities who were suspended or expelled from school within a State.
FFY 2016 Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement (DMS) Decisions—Arizona 2

Results

Designation Factors4Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Intensive  Participation of children with 

disabilities (CWD) on regular 

assessments: 

o 4

th grade reading – 89.43%

o 8

th grade reading – 86.72% 

o 4

th grade math – 90.34%

o 8

th grade math – 87.66% 

 Participation of CWD on the 

National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP): 

o 4

th grade reading – 24%

o 8

th grade reading – 25% 

o 4

th grade math – 38%

o 8

th grade math – 25% 

 Percent of CWD dropped out –

24%

 Percent of CWD who graduated 

with a regular HS diploma – 75%

OSEP continues to make 

information and technical 

assistance (TA) resources available, 

and provide universal support to all 

States. In addition, the State 

receives technical assistance from 

the National Center for Systemic 

Improvement (NCSI), the Early 

Childhood Technical Assistance 

Center (ECTA), and the IDEA Data 

Center (IDC).

OSEP will provide 

intensive support on 

improving math and 

reading proficiency, 

participation of CWD 

on regular statewide 

assessments, 

graduation, and dropout rates.

Compliance

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Universal OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States. In addition, 

the State receives technical 

assistance from the NCSI, IDC, and 

CEEDAR. 

OSEP will provide 

universal support.

SSIP

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Intensive  Evidence-Based Practices

 Evaluation Plan

OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States. In addition, 

the State receives technical 

assistance from NCSI, ECTA, and 

IDC.

OSEP will provide 

intensive support to 

improve the State’s 

capacity to develop, 

implement and 

evaluate the SSIP.

 

4

Factors are only listed if a State has been designated as targeted or intensive in a particular area.
FFY 2016 Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement (DMS) Decisions—Arizona 3

Correctional Education

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Targeted  The percentage of students with 

disabilities that dropped out of 

school

OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States. 

OSEP will provide 

targeted support on 

correctional education. 

Fiscal

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Intensive  Change in leadership

 Audits

 Unresolved fiscal monitoring 

findings

 Late liquidation request

OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States. OSEP has 

provided TA on unresolved fiscal 

findings. NCSI and CIFR have 

provided TA on allocations, excess 

cost and LEA MOE.

OSEP will provide 

intensive monitoring 

and support using 

protocols on LEA 

allocations and fiscal 

monitoring.