Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 1 of 6

The purpose of this document is to provide the public with a concise and accessible explanation 

and rationale of the proposed revisions to 1820-0578: Part C State Performance Report (Part C

SPP) and Annual Performance Report (Part C APR) and is divided in two sections. The first 

section, “Background,” lays out the legal requirements, i.e., elements of the SPP/APR that are 

required by statute and may not be changed, and describes prior significant milestones and 

SPP/APR revisions. The second section, “Proposed FFY 2013-FFY 2018 SPP/APR” describes 

the proposed revisions. A majority of this information is taken verbatim from the “Justification 

Statement” that is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

1. BACKGROUND

1.a Legal Requirements

The State performance plan (SPP) and annual performance report (APR) and its contents are 

prescribed by statute and regulation.

Plan and Report: Sections 616(b)(1) and 6421of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA or Act) require that, not later than one year after the date of 

enactment of IDEA, each State have in place a Part C SPP that evaluates the State’s efforts to 

implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA Part C and describes how the State will 

improve such implementation. IDEA sections 616(b)(1)(C) and 642 require each State to review 

its SPP every six years. Consistent with IDEA sections 616(b)(2)(C)(ii) and 642, each State 

must report annually to the public on the performance of each early intervention service (EIS) 

program located in the State on the targets in the State’s performance plan and to the Secretary

on the State’s performance under the SPP, i.e., an APR. 

Indictors: As required by the Act,

2

the SPP is comprised of quantifiable3indicators in the 

following areas –

 To the maximum extent appropriate, early intervention services are provided in natural 

environments

 State exercise of its general supervisory authority including –

o Child find

 

1 Consistent with IDEA section 642, sections 616, 617, and 618 shall, to the extent not inconsistent with IDEA Part 

C, apply to Part C, except that references to a State educational agency are considered to reference a State’s Part C 

lead agency, any reference to local educational agency, educational service agency, or a State agency is considered 

to reference an early intervention service provider; and any reference to the education of children with disabilities or 

the education of all children with disabilities is considered to reference the provision of appropriate early 

intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities. 

2

See IDEA sections 616(a)(3) and (4) and 635(a)(16)(A). 

3

Sections 616(a)(3) and 642 also allow for qualitative indicators as necessary; however, prior to this submission, 

OSEP has never proposed a qualitative indicator.
Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 2 of 6

o Effective monitoring

o The use of resolution sessions and mediation

o A system of transition services as defined in IDEA section 637(a)(9)

The SPP also includes indicators that are not specifically included in the statute, like parent 

involvement, that address areas critical to ensuring improved developmental results and 

functional outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities. IDEA sections 616(a)(4) and 642.

Targets: The State must establish measurable and rigorous targets for each indicator. IDEA 

sections 616(b)(2) and 642.

Improvement: Pursuant to IDEA section 616(b)(1)(A), the SPP must include a description of 

how the State will improve its implementation of IDEA.

Report on Slippage: Section 80.40(b)(2) of the Education Department General Administrative 

Regulations, or EDGAR, requires that grantee APRs include the reasons for slippage if the 

established objectives, i.e., targets, were not met.

1.b Prior Significant Milestones or Revisions

The IDEA Part C SPP/APR package (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number 

(04569) 1820-0578) was originally approved by OMB in 2005. The original IDEA Part C 

SPP/APR package contained 14 indicators covering the areas required by the Act. Some 

indicators corresponded to the statutory language, e.g., Indicator 2 regarding settings, while 

others were developed to respond to general priority areas, e.g., Indicator 6, the percent infants 

and toddlers with disabilities birth to three with individualized family services plans, was 

included to address child find.

In December 2005, each State submitted its SPP, including targets through FFY 2009 (the APR 

for which was the State’s February 2011 submission). In 2011, to meet the requirement set forth 

in IDEA section 616(b)(1)(C) to review the SPP at least every six years OSEP proposed to make 

no major changes to the SPP4 and to maintain the indicators as written. Therefore, with its 2011 

SPP submission, each State extended its targets and improvement activities through FFY 2012.

In 2012, as a part of a regulatory approval, OSEP proposed eliminating two indicators where 

OSEP determined that the information submitted was duplicative of data submitted by States 

through another OMB-approved information collection (EDFacts), thereby reducing reporting 

burden. Additionally, these indicators were not required by the statute, and, because the data are 

available to OSEP through the other data collection, OSEP could continue to use the data to 

evaluate a State’s performance as part of OSEP’s determination process. As a result, States were 

no longer required to report on Indicators 10 (State Complaint Timelines) and 11 (Due Process 

Hearing Timelines). 

 

4 Many of the indicators that stakeholders and OSEP would like to remove or change significantly are prescribed by 

statute, and in the absence of Congressional action, may not be removed.
Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 3 of 6

Finally, also in 2012, OSEP requested from, and was granted permission by, OMB to make 

several significant technical amendments to the approved SPP/APR package, which reduced 

reporting burden. Beginning with the FFY 2011 submission (due February 2013), States –

 Are not required to report on progress and must only report on slippage for a particular 

indicator if the State does not meet its target for that indicator.

 May have one set of improvement activities that covers all indicators instead of reporting 

improvement activities under each indicator.

 Must only report on improvement activities for indicators where it did not meet its target

 Are not required to provide data for Indicator 14 with its initial submission.

2. PROPOSED FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 SPP/APR

OSEP is reconceptualizing its accountability system. That system, Results Driven Accountability

(RDA), is aligned to best support States in improving results for young children and students

with disabilities. Previously, OSEP’s accountability system, including the SPP/APR, was 

heavily focused on compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, with limited focus on 

how the requirements impacted results for young children and students with disabilities. RDA 

balances the focus on improved developmental and educational results and functional outcomes 

for young children and students with disabilities while considering compliance as it relates to 

those outcomes and results. The SPP/APR is a critical component of RDA.

The proposed SPP/APR revisions are based on the following principles –

 Alignment with the RDA vision and its goals

 Reduction of reporting burden by requiring only what is necessary in statute and 

regulation and vital to ensuring improved developmental and educational results and 

functional outcomes of young children and students with disabilities

 Retaining consistent data sources and measurements 

Proposal: 

1. Combine SPP/APR into one document – There is no statutory or regulatory requirement 

that a State maintain separate SPP and APR documents. Some States currently have 

merged SPP/APR documents, eliminating the need to maintain and update two separate 

documents. Requiring only one document, which meets both the SPP and APR 

requirements, will reduce duplication and reporting burden.

2. Collect SPP/APR through an online submission system – OSEP is currently developing 

an online reporting and analysis system (GRADS 360) that includes the capability to 

collect the SPP/APR electronically. As conceptualized, the system will prepopulate 

fields using prior years’ SPP/APR data and drawing current data from other U.S.

Department of Education (ED) data sets, e.g., EDFacts, where available. Additionally, 
Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 4 of 6

States will be able to import State-maintained data using an interface such as Excel or a 

CSV file. States will be required to submit through GRADS 360 beginning with the FFY 

2013 (February 2015) submission.

3. Report on slippage only if the State does not meet its target for the reporting year.

4. Develop streamlined, coordinated systems descriptions – Currently, States are required to 

provide a system description by indicator. Neither the statute nor its implementing 

regulations require a discrete description under each indicator. Recognizing that a 

State’s systems are interconnected and that the success of one system may be highly 

dependent on that of another, we believe that providing one systems description, 

inclusive of all of a State’s systems needed to improve developmental educational results 

and functional outcomes for young children and students with disabilities, will provide a 

cohesive representation of the State’s systems that highlights linkages and clearly 

delineates where improvement may be needed.

5. States are no longer required to report on Improvement Activities by each indicator; 

rather States will present a comprehensive State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) 

(through a proposed qualitative Indicator 11). The SSIP is a comprehensive, ambitious,

yet achievable plan for improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. The 

SSIP is a multi-year plan that the State develops in two phases. The basis for this plan is 

a detailed data and infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of strategies to 

increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in EIS programs 

and providers. In order to improve results, States must assess the capacity of their current 

infrastructure systems and their ability to enhance this infrastructure to increase the 

capacity of EIS programs and providers to implement, scale up, and sustain, evidencebased practices that will result in improved outcomes for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities. The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data sources, 

including SPP/APR indicators and IDEA section 618 State-reported data, to identify

systemic approaches that will lead to improved results for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities across key measures. While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of 

the outcomes of infants and toddlers with disabilities, the State must also address in its 

SSIP how the State will use information from its general supervision systems to identify

areas that need improvement and will improve results for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities. 

As stated under Number 6 below, in addition to evaluating a State’s SSIP, OSEP will 

continue to collect quantifiable information on the timely correction of findings of 

noncompliance under APR compliance Indicators 1, 7, and 8 in order to evaluate

effective monitoring.

6. Eliminating Indicators 9 and 14
Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 5 of 6

Currently approved Indicator 9 – We propose to remove currently approved Indicator 9. 

Indicator 9 requires a State to report on the effectiveness of its general supervision 

systems by reporting on the percent of findings of noncompliance identified in the prior 

fiscal year and corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from 

identification in the reporting fiscal year for the APR. As required for all compliance 

indicators, States must meet a target of 100%.

IDEA sections 616(a)(1), 635(a)(10)(A) and 642 require the Secretary to monitor 

implementation of IDEA through oversight of the exercise of general supervision by the 

States. Further, IDEA section 616(a)(3) requires that the Secretary monitor each State 

using quantifiable indicators in each of the specified priority areas, including State 

exercise of general supervisory authority, which includes effective monitoring; and using 

such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the 

specified priority areas. OSEP believes that the timely correction data that are required to 

be reported by States under the quantifiable APR Indicators that measure compliance 

with certain IDEA requirements (specifically Indicators 1, 7, and 8) provide OSEP with 

the quantifiable information necessary to carry out its responsibility to monitor a State’s 

exercise of its general supervisory authority, including the effectiveness of its monitoring 

system, as required by IDEA. The instructions for these indicators require States to 

provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance reported for 

these indicators in the previous year’s APR. As with all indicators that measure 

compliance, the expectation is that a State must meet a target of 100% both for the 

indicator measurement (e.g., 100% of evaluations are timely for Indicator 11) as well as a 

target of 100% correction of its findings of noncompliance made in the prior year for that 

indicator were corrected in a timely manner. Therefore, the data from these indicators 

provide a reasonable quantifiable basis for OSEP to reach a determination as to whether a 

State has a monitoring system that is effective in correcting identified noncompliance 

within one year of identification. This change will lessen the reporting burden to States 

and OSEP is able to use information reported in these other APR compliance indicators 

to evaluate the State’s compliance with the requirement in IDEA sections 616(a)(1)(C) 

and 635(a)(10)(A) to monitor implementation of Part C of the IDEA by EIS programs 

and providers. OSEP would continue to consider the timely correction information as a 

factor in its determination process. OSEP is also proposing to add a qualitative indicator 

to measure the effectiveness of a State’s general supervision system in improving results 

for young children with disabilities. (See #2 above). In addition, OSEP would continue 

to oversee States’ general supervision through implementing supplemental monitoring 

activities, such as through OSEP’s review of State complaint and hearing data submitted 

through IDEA sections 618. 

Currently approved Indicator 14 – We propose to remove currently approved Indicator 

14. Indicator 14 requires a State to provide data on the timeliness and accuracy of its data 

reported to the Department under IDEA sections 616 and 618. The proposed change 
Proposed FFY 2013 – FFY 2018 Part C SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04569) 1820-0578: Part C SPP/APR Page 6 of 6

would remove the requirement for States to report the data on the timeliness and accuracy

of these data in the APR because the submission is duplicative. IDEA section 618(a) 

requires that States provide data each year to the Secretary of Education and the public as 

specified in section 618(a). States provide these data through submissions to EDFacts. 

Through these other submissions, OSEP would be provided with the information 

necessary to complete its analysis and determine the State’s compliance with the 

requirement to submit timely and accurate data. A State’s compliance with the 

requirement to submit timely and accurate section 618 data would be considered in the 

State’s annual determination. This change would lessen the reporting burden to States 

while continuing to collect the required information.

As the result of these proposed revisions, the SPP/APR will include 11 indicators –

1. Timely Services

2. Settings

3. Early Childhood Outcomes

4. Family Involvement

5. Child Find – Birth to One

6. Child Find – Birth to Three

7. Timely Evaluations

8. Early Childhood Transition

9. Resolution Sessions

10. Mediations

11. State Systemic Improvement Plan