FFY 2016 Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement (DMS) Decisions

Massachusetts

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.
Results

Designation Factors4Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Universal 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 IDEA Data Center (IDC), and the 

Center for IDEA Early Childhood 

Data Systems (DaSy).

OSEP will provide 

universal support.

Compliance

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Targeted State has been identified as meeting 

criteria specified by GAO audit on 

dispute resolution.

OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States.

OSEP will provide 

targeted monitoring 

and support on 

improving dispute 

resolution.

SSIP

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 IDC and DaSy.

OSEP will provide 

universal support.

Correctional Education

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Universal OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States.

OSEP will provide 

universal support.

Fiscal

Designation Factors Existing/Current Engagement New Engagement

Intensive  Size of award

 MFS 

 Unresolved fiscal monitoring 

findings

OSEP continues to make 

information and TA resources 

available, and provide universal 

support to all States. OSEP has 

provided TA on MFS and 

unresolved fiscal findings

OSEP will provide 

intensive monitoring 

and support using 

protocols on LEA 

allocations and fiscal 

monitoring.

 

4

Factors are only listed if a State has been designated as targeted or intensive in a particular area.