DMS

REPORT

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATE VERMONT

DATE AUGUST 9, 2019

IDEA PART C

CONTENTS

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

ENCLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 3

DMS NOTICE ................................................................................................................................... 16
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.

Letter

Letter

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

August 9, 2019

Honorable Al Gobeille

Secretary

Vermont Agency of Human Services

280 State Drive

Waterbury, Vermont 05671

Dear Secretary Gobeille:

This letter provides a summary of the results of the differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) 

activities conducted by the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) during an on-site visit to the Vermont Agency of Human Services (AHS) on

April 29, 2019 to May 1, 2019. OSEP’s visit focused on specific aspects of AHS’s 

implementation of the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities and 

their families under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Participants during the visit included staff from Vermont Agency of Human Services, Vermont’s 

Early Intervention Service Providers (EIS), Vermont’s Agency of Education, the National Center 

for Systemic Improvement, the Early Childhood Personnel Center, and the Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center.

As part of the DMS process, OSEP conducts an organizational assessment (OA) of factors to 

identify States’ progress in meeting performance standards and complying with the requirements 

of Part C of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. OSEP uses the information from the OA and an 

Engagement Decision Tree to make decisions about how it will engage with States over the 

Federal fiscal year (FFY). The FFY 2018 DMS areas were: 1) Results; 2) Compliance; 

3) State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP); and 4) Fiscal.

On October 26, 2018, OSEP sent the Vermont Agency of Human Services’ DMS notice to 

Danielle Howes, Vermont’s Part C Coordinator. OSEP’s notice provided a level of engagement 

of universal, targeted, or intensive for each of the four areas OSEP identified for DMS. The DMS 

notice represents a snapshot of the most recently available data in each of the four DMS areas. 

The notice also identified the monitoring and support activities that would be carried out to 

address the factors contributing to the elevated need for monitoring and support in each of the 

areas that were identified for intensive engagement. We have attached a copy of the DMS notice 

for your convenience.

The enclosure describes the: 1) Background; 2) Monitoring1 and Technical Assistance Activity 

for each DMS area; 3) Summary; and 4) OSEP’s conclusion, including Next Steps and Required 

Actions. If OSEP issued findings of noncompliance with the IDEA requirements, you would find 

1 Monitoring is broadly defined as including activities examining both compliance and performance issues and encompasses 

traditional monitoring reviews and technical assistance activities.
specific details about the finding of noncompliance, along with the respective citation(s), and the 

corrective action required to address the identified finding of noncompliance.

If you have any questions, please contact Curtis J. Kinnard, your OSEP State Lead, at 202-245-

7472. We appreciate your efforts to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Sincerely,

/s/

Laurie VanderPloeg

Director

Office of Special Education Programs 

cc: Danielle Howes, Part C Coordinator

Enclosure

DMS Notice
ENCLOSURE

Background 

OSEP has a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) system as a component of Results 

Driven Accountability to improve results for children with disabilities under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DMS is designed to help the Department identify potential 

grantee risk and to assist OSEP in effectively using its resources to monitor State grantees as they 

implement the IDEA in their States. DMS addresses State-specific and Entity2

-specific needs in 

the areas of results, compliance, State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), and fiscal by 

differentiating levels and types of monitoring and support based on each State’s and Entity’s 

unique strengths, progress, and challenges in each area.

During the 2019 DMS visit to Vermont OSEP examined the State’s compliance system with a 

focus on the implementation of the IDEA Part C requirements related to timely service provision 

to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, early childhood transition notification 

and early childhood transition conference3

. In reviewing Vermont’s systems for compliance, 

OSEP:

• Reviewed the State’s systems for collecting and reporting data submitted for selected 

indicators in the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 Annual Performance Report

(APR)/State Performance Plan (SPP)

• Reviewed the following:

o The State’s SPPs/APRs, including the SSIPs,

o The State’s FFY 2018 IDEA Part C Application,

o The State’s Part C to B Interagency Agreement,

o The State’s website for its IDEA Part C Early Intervention Program, and

o Other pertinent information related to the State’s efforts to improve results for 

children with disabilities.

2 States include each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Entities include freely 

associated States, outlying areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

3 Early childhood transition and early childhood transition conference in this enclosure specifically refer to IDEA regulation 34

C.F.R. § 303.209 Transition to preschool and other programs. (b)(1) Notify the local educational agency for the area in which 

the child resides that the child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services under Part B of the Act, as

determined in accordance with State law; (c)(1) In the case of a child who may be eligible for preschool services under Part B 

of the Act, with the approval of the family of the child, convene a conference among the lead agency, the family, and the local 

educational agency at least 90 days, and at the discretion of the parties, up to 6 months, before the child is eligible for the 

preschool services, to discuss any services that the child may receive under Part B of the Act.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 4 

• Gathered additional information through surveys, focus groups, or interviews with:

o Danielle Howes, Vermont’s Part C Coordinator 

o State personnel responsible for implementing compliance systems

During the visit, OSEP did not examine the areas of results, SSIP, or fiscal because the State 

level of engagement was universal in each of these areas. However, OSEP will continue to work 

with the State on these areas during regularly scheduled phone calls and provide universal 

technical assistance (TA) through National TA calls, webinars, and documents posted on our 

websites.

Vermont Annual Performance Report Determinations

The U.S. Department of Education’s (Department), FFY 2015 through 2019 determinations for 

Vermont under Part C of the IDEA under Sections 616 and 642 of the IDEA, was Needs 

Assistance. In FFY 2019 (based on FFY 2017 data), the State’s determination score was 71.88%. 

In FFY 2018 (based on FFY 2016 data), Vermont’s determination score was 73.21%, which 

increased from 70.54% in FFY 2017 (based on FFY 2015 data); consequently, Vermont’s 

determination was Needs Assistance (see Sections 616 and 642 of IDEA). The table below 

highlights the indicator data that is the basis for Vermont’s targeted score for assistance.

Indicator 1: 

Timely service 

provision

Indicator 8B: 

Transition 

notification

Indicator 8C: 

Timely transition 

conference

Indicator 8A: Additional 

Notes

FFY 2016 

APR

88.08% 90.58% 87.94% 91.24% Longstanding 

noncompliance: 

Uncorrected 

identified 

noncompliance 2 

to 4 years

FFY 2017 

APR

89.51% 84.80% Slippage 89.80% 87.29% Slippage

Vermont Service and Monitoring Structure

Vermont’s IDEA Part C early intervention services are part of Vermont’s statewide Children’s 

Integrated Services (CIS) Program. Vermont’s Agency of Human Services (AHS) administers 

CIS. The Vermont Agency of Education is Vermont’s co-lead for IDEA Part C services. An 

Interagency Agreement between AHS and the Vermont Agency of Education governs this 

relationship. AHS contracts with 12 regional non-profit, community-based organizations to 

deliver CIS services. Regionally based parent-child centers most often provide early Intervention 

services under those contracts. Vermont CIS Early Intervention provides some form of assistance 

to approximately 2,100 children annually (up from 1,600 in FFY 2013). 

Based on the summary included in Vermont’s FFY 2016 APR, CIS conducts contract monitoring 

on three regions annually. Contract monitoring in each region occurs at least once every four 
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 5

years. Vermont’s monitoring includes client file reviews for adherence to contractual 

requirements. A client file review consists of the following areas: timeliness of service delivery 

and transition processes; the provision of services in the natural environment(s) identified by the 

child’s family; parent/guardian’s participation in their child’s IFSP team and the development of 

their child’s IFSP plan, including outcomes that address the family’s hopes and priorities. As part 

of its monitoring process, Vermont provides each region a summary of the region’s monitoring 

visit, including any identified areas of strength or areas in need of improvement. Based upon the 

Vermont monitoring report, each Region is required to submit a Quality Improvement Plan to 

address any areas the State identifies that need improvement. 

Compliance

General Supervision

Under IDEA Section 635(a)(10) and 34 C.F.R. §303.120 (Lead agency role in supervision, 

monitoring, funding, interagency coordination, and other responsibilities), the State lead agency 

must have a general supervision system that identifies and corrects noncompliance in a timely 

manner. Each system must include a single line of responsibility in a lead agency 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 Part C of the Act; (2) the monitoring of programs 

and activities used by the State to carry out Part C of the Act (whether or not the programs or 

activities are administered by agencies, institutions, organizations, and EIS providers that are 

receiving assistance under Part C of the Act), to ensure that the State complies with Part C of the 

Act, including-

• Monitoring agencies, institutions, organizations, and EIS providers used by the State to 

carry out Part C of the Act;

• Enforcing and obligations imposed on those agencies, institutions, organizations, and EIS 

providers under Part C of the Act and these regulations;

• Providing technical assistance, if necessary, to those agencies, institutions, organizations, 

and EIS providers;

• Correcting any noncompliance identified through monitoring as soon as possible and in 

no case later than one year after the lead agency’s identification of the noncompliance.

Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report required under 

Sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, OSEP Memorandum

09-02 (OSEP Memo 09-02), dated, October 17, 2008, states that in order to verify that previously 

identified noncompliance has been corrected, the State must verify that the EIS program and/or 

EIS provider: (1) has corrected noncompliance for each child, unless the child is no longer within 

the jurisdiction of the EIS program and/or provider; (2) is correctly implementing the specific 

regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data 

such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (3) if 
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 6

needed, change, or require each EIS program or EIS provider to change, policies, procedures 

and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.

In addition, the State must verify that its EIS programs and EIS providers have corrected 

noncompliance consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02 by:

• Accounting for all instances on noncompliance, including noncompliance identified: (a) 

through the State’s on-site monitoring system or other monitoring procedures such as 

self-assessment; (b) through the review of data collected by the State, including 

compliance data collected through a State data system; and (c) by the Department;

• Identifying where (early intervention services (EIS) programs) noncompliance occurred, 

the percentage level of noncompliance in each of those sites, and the root causes(s) of the 

noncompliance.

A vital component of the monitoring visit with Vermont was a discussion of the State’s 

monitoring system and how the State’s monitoring fits into the overall system of general 

supervision the State implements including how the State addresses identification and correction 

of Non-Compliance (under OSEP Memo 09-02). Based on OSEP’s overview of the 09-02 

requirements during the visit, Vermont staff acknowledged that they did not understand Prong 1 

and 2 requirements, notably the allowable exceptions under Identification and Correction of 

Noncompliance, and that has resulted in some instances of long-standing noncompliance in the 

State’s APR remaining open rather than being closed. Specifically, Vermont staff stated that in 

the APR data, it reported for Indicator 1 and Indicator 8, the State included data on Part C 

children who left the CIS system or jurisdiction.

As part of the on-site discussion concerning identification and correction of noncompliance, 

Vermont staff outlined monitoring concerns from some regional CIS EIS providers. The concerns 

highlighted including that some practitioners were late developing timely LEA notifications for 

toddlers exiting Part C services with a disability who were found to be potentially eligible for 

Part B services per IDEA requirements. In the instances where Vermont identified concerns at the 

local level, the late notifications also delayed the regional scheduling of transition conferences. 

To systemically correct this issue, Vermont stated that the State had provided training, technical 

assistance, and written guidance around the transition process.

During the discussion of identification and correction of noncompliance, Vermont staff stated 

that it was not Vermont’s current practice to issue formal written findings of noncompliance 

through its monitoring or data collection procedures. Vermont staff indicated that currently, the 

State monitors regional data monthly and holds technical assistance calls with each region to

address any areas that need improvement. While Vermont provides verbal notification of 

concerns and issues a written summary of technical assistance, Vermont does not issue a formal 

finding of noncompliance with a one-year timeline for correction. Also, during OSEP’s 

discussion with Vermont staff OSEP met with representatives from each of Vermont’s regional 

service centers. During those discussions, regional service providers indicated that it would be 

helpful if Vermont clarified the roles and responsibilities required in the transition process and 

especially since in many areas of the State there are insufficient numbers of physical, speech and 

occupational therapists to meet the demand in some regions.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 7

Vermont reviewed monitoring data with OSEP that highlighted that the regions of the State 

serving the highest numbers of eligible children are experiencing the highest level of 

noncompliance. To systemically address this issue, Vermont staff highlighted the State’s work 

completing a new transition memorandum between Part C and Part B that has been approved by 

OSEP. Vermont underscored that the State CIS Data Manager conducts calls monthly with all 

regional service providers. Vermont staff stated that it expects that these two interventions will 

improve the understanding and implementation of roles and responsibilities of providers and 

school staff for Part C and Part B.

Central Directory

Under, IDEA Section 635(a)(7) at 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(7) and 34 C.F.R. §303.117 (Central 

Directory). The central directory must include accurate, up-to-date information about — (1) 

Public and private early intervention services, resources, and experts available in the State; (2) 

Professional and other groups including parent support, and training and information centers, that 

provide assistance to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families; and (3) Research 

and demonstration projects being conducted in the State relating to infants and toddlers with 

disabilities. 

As part of each State’s child find and public awareness efforts to identify children in need to of 

services at the earliest opportunity and make resources available to parents, IDEA requires each 

State to maintain a central directory that is accessible to the general public through the State lead 

agency’s Web-site and other appropriate means.

Vermont stated that Community-based organizations provide Vermont's CIS services with 

qualified and supervised professionals, including nurses, early interventionists, and child 

development specialists. CIS professionals work with families to develop a plan to meet their 

goals. Service providers provide services at home, in a childcare program, or another location 

where families are comfortable. CIS fiscal agents or their subcontractors employ developmental 

educators, home visitors (nurses and social workers), and service coordinators. Physical, speech 

and occupational therapists, as well as hearing, vision, and autism consultants, are individuals 

that are either self-employed or working within a non-profit organization, designated 

health/mental health agency, hospital or other clinic-based settings. CIS Early Intervention 

practitioners have, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree in early childhood special education, social 

work, or another related human services field. CIS Early Intervention providers performing 

assessments maintain a CIS Early Intervention Certificate.

As part of the discussion concerning Vermont's EIS providers, Vermont staff stated that 

Vermont’s IDEA Part C program does not have a Statewide central directory that list providers as 

required by IDEA Section 635(a)(7) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.117. Vermont acknowledged that it 

understands that the State must include a Statewide central directory that is accessible to the 

general public through the lead agency’s Web site. It must also include accurate, up-to-date 

information about public and private early intervention services, resources, and experts available 

in the State, (https://dcf.vermont.gov/child-development/cis).
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 8

FFY 2016 Indicator 1 — Timely Services Provision: 88.08%

Based on discussion with Vermont staff during the on-site-visit and prior TA calls, staff indicated 

that the State has concerns with providing timely service provision to infants and toddlers with 

disabilities and their families. During the on-site visit, Vermont provided an update of its 

improvement strategies and progress report. Although Vermont provided improvement strategies, 

the State is in the process of assessing the outcome of those strategies based on the following 

issues:

• An increase in medical diagnoses. EIS providers reported an increase in the complexity 

of the needs and services of infants and toddlers in the child protection system. 

Documentation from the FFY 2016 APR indicated that children taken into State custody 

might experience several moves in foster care placements, which delayed CIS EI services 

from starting or interrupts the delivery of services.

• The need for increased professional development for EIS providers

• Lack of personnel, and recruitment difficulty of professional EIS providers

o Vermont has difficulty finding private therapists to serve children under the age of 

three (3) in their natural environments. The State data review indicated services 

not delivered timely were due to the lack of availability of private therapists and 

EI Practitioners.

o A review of the data for Indicator 1 found that 66% of the services that were not 

delivered timely was due to the unavailability of private therapists, while 29% 

was due to the unavailability of Early Intervention Practitioners (predominantly 

specialized instruction).

Vermont’s definition of Timely Services Provision is when all services are provided to an infant 

or toddler enrolled in the EI program within 30 days of the parent/caregiver’s signed consent. In 

discussion with OSEP, Vermont staff stated that contractors agreed that if services started any 

time after 30 days from formal consent, the contractor is determined by the State to be out of 

compliance. For services planned to begin later than 30 days, the State also reviewed to 

determine that those services were delivered as planned and consented to by the family. The 

timeliness of these services is also a factor in determining compliance within this indicator.

During an on-site discussion about Vermont’s data system, the State reported that each region 

submits monthly data to the State. The State then imports these data into the State’s database. As 

part of Vermont’s internal data review, the State recognized that there was inconsistency in the 

data submitted by regions. To correct the problem of data inconsistency, Vermont conducts 

monthly audits of all regions to ensure the data submitted is complete, valid, and reliable.

Vermont stated that the State data team identifies any trends in the data and provides guidance 

and training to all required staff for any regional provider when there are instances of 

noncompliance. As part of Vermont’s ongoing efforts to improve Indicator 1 data, the State 

indicated that it is:
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 9

• Collaborating with the ECPC Leadership Institute to assist the CIS staff in learning 

strategies for leading systems change;

• Improving family survey data by working with the IDEA Data Center; 

• Working with the National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) to improve family 

outcomes

• Working with the Vermont Learning Collaborative to learn strategies for implementing 

systems change; and 

• Providing intensive technical assistance to all regions, especially those regions with longterm noncompliance.

FFY 2017 Indicator 1 — Timely Services Provision: 89.51%

Vermont’s FFY 2017 APR data showed that there was 1.43 % increase in compliance with the 

timely services provision requirements of Indicator 1 from the State’s FFY 2016 data.

Based on discussion with Vermont staff and the review of FFY 2018 APR data, many findings 

were due to circumstances where EIS providers failed to meet timelines due to the following:

• A lack of providers’ capacity (EIS and pediatric therapy providers). 

• Delays occurred with early intervention development educators, and speech language 

pathologists.

Vermont’s annual Recruitment and Retention Survey conducted by the State, showed that 

Vermont experience a high degree of turnover of development educators. Vermont’s small 

population of infants and toddlers enrolled in Part C services impacted the retention of therapy 

providers. Staff stated that there are too few Part C children to make up full-time caseloads for 

therapists, which resulted in the inability to prioritize their caseload. According to staff this 

action presented challenges for the Part C Coordinator, because many therapists enter into 

contracts with public schools or had clinic-based or adult caseloads, which resulted in lack of 

services for infants and toddlers. Vermont staff also stated that many speech, physical and 

occupational therapist are in private practices. Other areas worth mentioning are difficulties in 

billing insurance, and the lower caseloads associated with providing home-based services 

because of the long travel time from one location to the next.

Based on discussions with on-site staff, as of a result of continued noncompliance with one large 

regional early intervention program, the State began providing intensive technical assistance to 

the that program. Data analysis showed that much of the noncompliance was due to development 

educators employed by the program.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 10

FFY 2016 Indicator 8B (Transition Notification): 90.58%

During the monitoring visit Vermont Part C staff along with the Vermont Interagency 

Coordinating Committee, and CIS Early Intervention providers reviewed the data for Indicator 

8B and determined that the root cause for non-compliance was related to CIS Early Intervention 

practitioners failing to correctly calculate the tolling of days. Vermont staff stated that in many 

cases timelines were missed by between one to five days because regional Early Intervention 

Service Coordinators were counting by months (a counting system that assigns the same number 

of days to every month) rather than actual calendar days. To address this issue the State has 

required practitioners to use date calculators rather than calendars, and Vermont has implemented 

the use of a Microsoft Excel reporting form, which enables regional CIS Early Intervention 

programs to see their degree of compliance upon submission of their data. Vermont reported that, 

based on the use of date calculators, many regions showed improvement in meeting the federally 

required timelines for Indicator 8B. In addition to implementing the use of date calendars among 

CIS coordinators, Vermont staff stated to OSEP that the State had provided regions with training, 

technical assistance, and written guidance around Indicator 8B to ensure all practitioners 

understand and comply with the federal requirements. Vermont monitors regional data monthly 

ensuring that service providers send all LEA notifications, even if late, and hold technical 

assistance calls with each region to address any areas of non-compliance. Vermont staff said their 

root cause analysis of Indicator 8B data indicated:

• Substantial increases in the number of eligible children being served (54% increase since 

2014);

• Level funding for staffing needs of service coordinators and developmental educators 

since 2014 despite an increase in the number of eligible children that has resulted in a 

staffing shortage; and,

• A high rate of turnover among EIS providers.

FFY 2017 Indicator 8B (Transition Notification): 84.80%

Vermont’s FFY 2017 APR data showed that there was a 5.78 % decrease in compliance with the 

Transition Notification requirement from the State’s FFY 2016 data.

Based on on-site-visit conversations and conference calls with the State, Vermont staff stated that 

the root cause for the decline was due to regional Early Intervention practitioners not correctly 

implementing the regulatory requirements for developing timely LEA notifications for toddlers 

exiting Part C services in accordance with State special education rules, 

(https://education.vermont.gov/documents/state-board-rules-series-2360).

The State in its conversation with OSEP, stated that training, technical assistance and written 

guidance has been provided to regions to ensure all practitioners understand and comply with 

federal requirements. State staff also monitors regional data monthly to ensure that regions make 

timely corrections, and that all LEA notifications are sent, and holds technical assistance calls 

with regions to address any noncompliance issues.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 11

In addition to the above, Vermont’s staff, stated that regional were required to identify root 

causes for the noncompliance and implement strategies and action plans to the State for review 

and approval. To support regions, the State has provided a date calculator within the data 

submission template to ensure compliance with IDEA requirements.

FFY 2016 Indicator 8C (Transition Conferences): 87.94%

In conversations with Vermont staff and a review of information submitted in Vermont’s 

FFY 2016 APR, OSEP learned that the State met with the State’s Interagency Coordinating 

Committee and stakeholders from each of the 12 regions of the State to review data and consider 

root causes. This analysis indicated that 12 of 56 instances of noncompliance were related to 

problems in planning, scheduling, or executing timely transition planning with school staff. 

Another 12 instances of noncompliance resulted from providers who did not complete their child 

determinations of potential Part B eligibility on time. Service Coordinators also cited the time 

required to pursue evaluations as well as administrative reasons as the primary causes of 

noncompliance related to conducting timely transition conferences. Vermont staff indicated to 

OSEP that the State expects that the use of electronic date calculators will help significantly in 

meeting the timelines for this IDEA requirement. Vermont staff also highlighted the new State 

Interagency Agreement between Part C and Part B that clarified the roles and responsibilities of 

schools, Early Intervention Service Coordinators, and EIS providers in the provision of timely 

Transition Conferences.

FFY 2017 Indicator 8C (Transition Conferences): 89.80%

Vermont’s FFY 2017 APR data showed that there was 1.86 % increase in compliance with the 

Transition Conference requirements from the State’s FFY 2016 data.

Based on OSEP conversation with the State, Indicator 8C and 8B had similar issues, for 

example, the State determined that some regional Early Intervention practitioners were not 

correctly implementing the regulatory requirements for developing timely LEA notifications for 

toddlers exiting Part C services, who were potentially eligible for Part B services in accordance 

with State special education rules. The results of not properly implementing regulatory 

requirements, caused a delay in scheduling of transition conferences. According to Vermont’s 

staff, the State provided training, technical assistance and written guidance concerning the 

transition process. In addition, to monitoring regional data the State conducted monthly desk 

audits of the State’s database and held technical assistances calls with each region to address 

non-compliance issues. Like Indicator 8B, regionals with noncompliance were required to 

identify root causes for the noncompliance and implement strategies and action plans for State 

review and approval. The State provided to regions date calculators within the date submission 

template for submitting data to the State and to improve accuracy.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 12

OSEP Conclusion

Finding 1: The State does not have a central directory.

Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with Vermont personnel, as 

described above, OSEP concludes that Vermont does not have a central directory that is 

accessible to the general public per the IDEA requirements in IDEA Section 635(a)(7) at 20 

U.S.C. 1437(a)(7) and 34 C.F.R. §303.117. 

To verify that the EIS program and/or provider are following IDEA requirements, Vermont must 

ensure that there is a central directory that is accessible to the general public through the State 

lead agency’s Web site and other appropriate means and includes accurate, up-to-date 

information about — (1) Public and private early intervention services, resources, and experts 

available in the State; (2) Professional and other groups including parent support, and training 

and information centers, that provide assistance to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 

families; and (3) Research and demonstration projects being conducted in the State relating to 

infants and toddlers with disabilities.

Required Actions/Next Steps

1. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the AHS must provide documentation that it 

has established and is maintaining a central directory that lists EIS providers statewide as 

required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.117.

2. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, AHS must provide a link to, its Web site that 

includes a central directory that is accessible to the general public and meets IDEA 

requirements under C IDEA Section 635(a)(7) at 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(7) and 34 C.F.R. §

303.117.

Finding 2: Vermont does not have formal written policies and procedures to issue findings of 

noncompliance when Vermont identifies noncompliance through State monitoring or data 

collection procedures.

Based on the review of documents, analysis, and interviews with staff responsible for 

implementation of Vermont’s monitoring system for data collection and reporting for SPP/APR 

Indicators 1, 8B and 8C in Vermont for FFY 2016 SPP/APR, OSEP determined that Vermont 

does not have written policies and procedures in place to issue formal written findings of 

noncompliance when Vermont identifies noncompliance through its monitoring or data collection 

procedures. 

Under IDEA Section 635(a)(10) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, the State must have a general 

supervision system that corrects noncompliance in a timely manner. In addition, the State must 

ensure that it verifies correction of noncompliance consistently with OSEP Memo 09-02.

When reviewing data from a database, Vermont must make a finding of noncompliance if data in 

a database demonstrate noncompliance. The State must review data from its database at least 

once each SPP/APR reporting period to identify noncompliance. The State may identify specific 
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 13

time(s) during each reporting period when it will review compliance data in the database and 

identify noncompliance. Vermont may review data in the database at other times as well, for 

purposes such as targeting resources, guidance, or other technical assistance.

The actions that Vermont must take if it collects or receives information indicating 

noncompliance include: (1) Make a finding of noncompliance; (2) Verify whether data 

demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue findings if data do demonstrate noncompliance; and 

(3) Verify the EIS Program has corrected noncompliance. If the EIS Program corrects any 

identified noncompliance before the Vermont issues a written finding of noncompliance, 

Vermont may choose to exercise its ability to determine pre-finding correction as outlined in 

OSEP Memo 09-02.

Required Actions/Next Steps

1. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, AHS must provide documentation of the 

proposed corrective action plan, including actions and timeline to adopt final written 

policies and procedures to:

• Identify noncompliance based on monitoring and/or database to include corrective 

actions for corrections of noncompliance as required by OSEP Memo 09-02, 

Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report 

Required under Section 616 and 642 of the Individual with Disabilities Education 

Act, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02) and 34 C.F.R. §303.700(e).

o In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. §303.700(d) of 

this section, the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance 

with the requirements of this part 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.

• Enforcement procedures for noncompliance.

• Identify a specific time during the State’s Fiscal Year for APR reporting purposes 

when it will review compliance data in the database and identify noncompliance.

• Identify appropriate technical assistance (TA) support from OSEP-funded TA 

centers, to include OSEP when applicable.

• Include procedures to ensure that all EIS providers are trained and aware of their 

responsibilities based on IDEA requirements.

2. The State must report, in its FFY 2018 SPP/APR, due on February 3, 2020, under the 

introduction in the general supervision discussion, on its progress and procedures for 

determining noncompliance, corrective actions, and the State’s verification process and 

enforcement procedures when non-compliance issues have been identified with regional 

EIS providers and subcontractors.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 14

3. The State’s updates under its corrective action plan and its FFY 2018 SPP/APR 

submission on general supervision must continue to reflect the IDEA general supervision 

and monitoring requirements. Under IDEA Section 635(a)(10) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.120 

(Lead agency role in supervision, monitoring, funding, interagency coordination, and 

other responsibilities), the State lead agency must have a general supervision system that 

identifies and corrects noncompliance in a timely manner. Each system must include a 

single line of responsibility in a lead agency 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 Part C of the Act; (2) the monitoring of programs 

and activities used by the State to carry out Part C of the Act (whether or not the 

programs or activities are administered by agencies, institutions, organizations, and EIS 

providers that are receiving assistance under Part C of the Act), to ensure that the State 

complies with Part C of the Act, including—

• Monitoring agencies, institutions, organizations, and EIS providers used by the State 

to carry out Part C of the Act;

• Enforcing and obligations imposed on those agencies, institutions, organizations, and 

EIS providers under Part C of the Act and these regulations;

• Providing technical assistance, if necessary, to those agencies, institutions, 

organizations, and EIS providers;

• Correcting any noncompliance identified through monitoring as soon as possible and 

in no case later than one year after the lead agency’s identification of the 

noncompliance. 

Reporting on Correction of Noncompliance in the Annual Performance Report 

required under Sections 616 and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act, OSEP Memo 09-02, dated, October 17, 2008, states that in order to verify that 

previously identified noncompliance has been corrected, the State must verify that the 

EIS program and/or EIS provider: (1) has corrected noncompliance for each child, 

unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program and/or 

provider; (2) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., 

achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data 

subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (3) if 

needed, change, or require each EIS program or EIS provider to change, policies, 

procedures and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance.

In addition, the State must verify that its early intervention service (EIS) programs and 

EIS providers have corrected noncompliance consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02 by:

• Accounting for all instances on noncompliance, including noncompliance 

identified: (a) through the State’s on-site monitoring system or other 

monitoring procedures such as self-assessment; (b) through the review of data 
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 15

collected by the State, including compliance data collected through a State 

data system; and (c) by the Department;

• Identifying where (early intervention services (EIS) programs) noncompliance 

occurred, the percentage level of noncompliance in each of those sites, and the 

root causes(s) of the noncompliance.

Update on Actions and Data Since OSEP ‘s Visit

Once OSEP has received evidence that the State has completed required actions for identifying 

and correcting noncompliance through State monitoring or data collection procedures for 

Indicators 1, 8B and 8C. OSEP will continue to monitor the State’s progress using the State’s 

FFY 2018 SPP/APR and subsequent annual data submissions.
DMS NOTICE

Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement Decisions:

Vermont

2018–2019

This year we have selected four States for on-site visits as part of OSEP’s Differentiated 

Monitoring and Support (DMS) system. These selections were based on the relative number of 

intensive and targeted Levels of Engagement (LOEs) across all states. Your State has been 

selected for an on-site visit. 

OSEP’s Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) system is a component of Results Driven 

Accountability. DMS is designed to identify potential grantee risk to the Department and to assist 

OSEP in effectively using its resources to monitor grantees. DMS addresses State-specific needs 

in the areas of results, compliance, State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), and fiscal by 

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

progress, and challenges in each area.

DMS is a multi-tiered model for monitoring and providing support based on the principle that 

supports are first provided at a core or universal level to address the needs of all States 

effectively. Targeted monitoring and support are generally based on OSEP’s identification of 

common needs among multiple States. Intensive monitoring and support are reserved for those 

States with the most intense or complex challenges to implementation. 

OSEP has assessed States’ and Entities’ 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. This information 

was used to help OSEP make decisions about a State’s or Entity’s levels of engagement for 

monitoring and support. 

The charts below specify your State’s level of engagement in each area — results, compliance, 

fiscal, and SSIP.
OSEP DMS REPORT VERMONT PART C | 2019 PAGE 17

Results | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and 

technical assistance (TA) resources available and 

provide universal support to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide universal support to improve data quality and child performance outcomes related to 

positive social relationships, skills and knowledge.

Fiscal | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide the State with universal support related to Part C fiscal requirements.

Compliance | Level of Engagement: Intensive

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Indicator 1: Timely service provision: 

88.08%

• Indicator 8B: Transition notification: 

90.58%

• Indicator 8C: Timely transition 

conference: 87.94%

• Longstanding noncompliance: 

Uncorrected identified noncompliance 2 

to 4 years

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States.

New Engagement

OSEP will gather additional information to determine the scope of engagement necessary to assist the 

State in improving IDEA compliance. This may include working collaboratively with the State and 

OSEP-funded technical assistance centers, working with the State to conduct a root cause analysis of the 

factors that contributed to low compliance, and additional OSEP monitoring.

SSIP | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide universal support related to the State’s SSIP.