Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/community/infants_children/early_intervention/2009c_ny_4response.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:06:00+00:00

Document:
1. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.
The State revised its standard for reporting data under this indicator regarding the timely initiation of Part C services. OSEP accepts this revision.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 76.3%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 68%.
The State did not meet its FFY 2007 target of 100%.
The State reported that all three of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 related to this indicator were corrected in a timely manner.
The State reported that noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 with the timely service provision requirements in CFR §§303.340(c), 303.342(e) and 303.344(f)(1) was corrected in a timely manner.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the requirements in CFR §§303.340(c), 303.342(e) and 303.344(f)(1), including correction of the noncompliance the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR.
In reporting on correction, the State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements; and (2) has initiated services for each child, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02).
If the State is unable to demonstrate compliance in the FFY 2008 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary to ensure compliance.
2. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or programs for typically developing children.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 91.2%. The State's FFY 2006 reported data are 91.5%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 89.76%.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts to improve performance.
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator and OSEP accepts those revisions.
The State submitted a revised sampling plan for this indicator in its FFY 2007 APR. An evaluation of the sampling plan indicated that it will yield valid and reliable data for this indicator as long as New York continues to ensure representativeness by over-sampling.
The State reported the required progress data and improvement activities. The State must provide baseline data, targets and improvement activities with the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
C. Help their children develop and learn.
These data represent slippage for 4A, 4B and 4C from the FFY 2006 data.
The State did not meet its FFY 2007 targets for 4A, 4B, or 4C.
The State reported that the data for this indicator were collected from a response group that was not representative of the population. The State indicated that it will conduct additional data analyses to determine why the parent survey response group was not representative and will develop training, technical assistance, and outreach strategies to improve the response rate among those subpopulations with low response rates.
OSEP looks forward to the State's data demonstrating improvement in performance in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010.
The State reported that the FFY 2007 data for this indicator were based on a parent survey response group that is not representative of the State's population. In the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, the State must continue to indicate whether its response group is representative of the State's population and, if not, the actions the State has taken to address this issue.
The State did not meet its FFY 2007 target of 1.16%.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 4.11%. These data represent slippage from the FFY 2006 data of 4.24%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 4.095%.
7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an evaluation and assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 77.5%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 71.3%.
The State reported that the one finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 related to this indicator was corrected in a timely manner.
The State reported that noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 with the 45-day timeline requirements in 34 CFR §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1), and 303.342(a) was corrected in a timely manner.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1), and 303.342(a), including correction of the noncompliance the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR.
In reporting on correction, the State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s); and (2) has conducted the initial evaluation, assessment and IFSP meeting, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 81.1%. These data represent slippage from the FFY 2006 data of 87.1%.
OSEP's June 6, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR, due February 2, 2009, actual numbers when reporting on this indicator. The State included the actual numbers.
Although the State reported less than 100% compliance for this indicator for FFY 2006, the State reported that it made no FFY 2006 findings of noncompliance related to this indicator.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the IFSP transition content requirements in 34 CFR §§303.148(b)(4) and 303.344(h), including correction of the noncompliance the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR.
In reporting on correction, the State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s); and (2) has developed an IFSP with transition steps and services, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 90.1%. These data represent slippage from the FFY 2006 data of 97.8%.
Under IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I), 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1) and OSEP's 2004 Letter to Elder, the lead agency must disclose to the LEA where the child resides limited child find information unless the lead agency has adopted an opt-out policy and the parent opts out; the lead agency may not require affirmative parental consent for this limited disclosure. The State submitted an opt-out policy and OSEP has provided its analysis in a separate memo.
OSEP's June 6, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR, due February 2, 2009 actual numbers when reporting on this indicator. The State included the actual numbers.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1), including correction of the noncompliance the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR.
In reporting on correction, the State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s); and (2) has provided notification to the LEA, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
Under IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I), 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1) and OSEP's 2004 Letter to Elder, the lead agency must disclose limited child find information to the LEA where the child resides unless the lead agency has adopted an opt-out policy and the parent opts out; the lead agency may not require affirmative parental consent for this limited disclosure. It appears from the State's FFY 2007 APR that the State may require parental consent prior to notifying the LEA under 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1). With its Part C FFY 2009 Application, the State must submit its revised transition policy with the parental consent requirement deleted and any opt-out policy if the State elects to adopt one as part of, or an amendment to, Section II of the State's Part C Application. Unless the lead agency has adopted an opt-out policy that is on file with OSEP and the parent opts out, the lead agency must provide the notification required by 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1) and OSEP's 2004 Letter to Elder for all children served in Part C who will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services under Part B.
C. Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 78.9%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 53.7%.
The State did not meet its FFY 2007 target of 100%. The State included a discussion of the actual numbers used to calculate this indicator, however the State also included a paragraph on exceptional family cases that is inconsistent with its initial discussion. OSEP assumes that the State meant to remove the paragraph discussing exceptional family cases. If that assumption is incorrect, in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, the State must clarify how the State calculated this indicator.
OSEP's June 6, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to include in the FFY 2007 APR, due February 2, 2009 actual numbers when reporting on this indicator and a report on the correction of the noncompliance identified in FFY 2005 that was not corrected in a timely manner. The State included the actual numbers, and reported on the correction of the noncompliance identified in FFY 2005 that was not corrected in a timely manner.
The State was identified as being in need of assistance for two consecutive years based on the State's FFY 2005 and 2006 APRs, was advised of available technical assistance, and was required to report, with the FFY 2007 APR, on: (1) the technical assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and (2) the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance. The State reported on the technical assistance sources from which the State received assistance for this indicator and reported on the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that the State is in compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(2)(i) (as modified by IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(II)), including correction of the noncompliance the State reported under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR.
The State must report, in its FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reported by the State under this indicator in the FFY 2007 APR: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirement(s); and (2) has conducted a transition conference for each child potentially eligible for Part B, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
9. General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 91%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 75%.
OSEP's June 6, 2008 FFY 2006 SPP/APR response table required the State to demonstrate in the FFY 2007 APR, due February 2, 2009, that the State has corrected the remaining noncompliance identified in Indicator 9 from FFY 2005. The State did provide this information in Indicator 8C.
The State must demonstrate, in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, that the State has corrected the remaining FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 findings of noncompliance. The State's failure to correct longstanding noncompliance raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the State's general supervision systems. The State must take the steps necessary to ensure that it can report, in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, that it has corrected this noncompliance.
In reporting on correction of noncompliance, the State must report that it has: (1) corrected all instances of noncompliance (including noncompliance identified through the State's monitoring system, through the State's data system and by the Department); and (2) verified that each EIS program with identified noncompliance is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02.
In addition, in responding to Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B and 8C in the FFY 2008 APR due February 1, 2010, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.
In reporting on Indicator 9 in the FFY 2008 APR, the State must use the Indicator 9 Worksheet.
10. Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 96% based on the resolution of 23 complaints. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 82%.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts and looks forward to reviewing in the FFY 2008 APR, due February 1, 2010, the State's data demonstrating that it is in compliance with the timely complaint resolution requirements in 34 CFR §§303.510 through 303.512.
11. Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within the applicable timeline.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data are based on one fully adjudicated due process hearing. The State reported no fully adjudicated due process hearing requests in FFY 2006.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in achieving compliance with the due process hearing timelines requirements in 34 CFR §§303.420 and 303.423(b).
12. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable if Part B due process procedures are adopted).
This indicator does not apply to the State because the State has not adopted the Part B due process procedures to resolve Part C due process hearing requests.
13. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 97%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2006 data of 96%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 82%.
14. State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.
The State's FFY 2007 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data remain unchanged from the FFY 2006 data of 100%.
The State met its FFY 2007 target of 100%.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in achieving compliance with the data reporting requirements in IDEA sections 616, 618, and 642 and 34 CFR §§76.720 and 303.540.
In reporting on Indicator 14 in the FFY 2008 APR, the State must use the Indicator 14 Data Rubric.

References: §303
 §303
 §303
 §303
 §303
 §303