Special Education: Improved Timeliness and Better Use of Enforcement Actions Could Strengthen Education's Monitoring System
Published: 2004-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures the education of the nation's disabled children. As a condition of receiving IDEA funds, states must provide educational and related services that facilitate learning to students with disabilities based on their individual needs. The Department of Education (Education) is responsible for ensuring state compliance with the law. In recent years, questions have been raised about Education's oversight of IDEA. GAO agreed to determine how Education monitors state compliance with IDEA for children aged 3-21, the extent and nature of noncompliance found, and how Education has ensured that noncompliance is resolved once identified. GAO analyzed Education monitoring documents, interviewed state and federal officials, and visited 5 state special education offices.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To monitor compliance with IDEA provisions that affect children aged 3-21, Education annually reviews special education data submitted by all states and uses a risk-based approach to identify those states in need of further inspection. This monitoring system relies upon collaboration with states, as each state is responsible for assessing and reporting its performance on the provision of special education services. However, some of the data used by Education, such as information about how parents are included in their children's education and students' experiences after they leave school, are weak in that they are not uniformly measured or are difficult for states to collect. In states Education visited for further inspection from 1997-2002, the department identified roughly equal amounts of noncompliance for failing to adequately provide services to students as noncompliance for not adhering to IDEA's procedural regulations, according to GAO analysis. Education found a total of 253 compliance failures in 30 of the 31 states visited during this period, with an average of approximately 8 across the 30 states. GAO found 52 percent of compliance failures to be directly related to providing student services, for instance counseling and speech therapy. The remaining 48 percent involved a failure to meet certain IDEA procedural requirements. Once deficiencies were identified, Education has sought resolution by providing states with technical assistance and requiring them to develop corrective action plans that would ensure compliance within 1 year. However, GAO found that most cases of noncompliance had remained open for 2 to 7 years before closure, and some cases still remain open. GAO's examination of Education documents showed that a considerable amount of time elapsed in each phase of the correction process, including Education's issuance of noncompliance findings and approval of correction plans. On occasion, Education has also made use of sanctions to address longstanding issues with noncompliance, but in these cases, too, resolution has been protracted. States expressed concerns about the standard 1-year timeframe Education imposes for correction, and Education officials acknowledged that it is sometimes not feasible for states to remedy noncompliance and demonstrate effectiveness in that length of time.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the 2003-2004 school year, states received more than $9 billion under  the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) toward educating  the approximately 6.5 million eligible children aged 3–21 with disabilities  in the United States. IDEA funds are used to provide both educational  services and related services, such as counseling, speech pathology, and  occupational therapy, that facilitate learning. As a condition of receiving  IDEA funding, states agree to comply with certain requirements regarding  the educational and related services provided to disabled children. These  requirements include the development of an individualized education  program (IEP) that outlines the specific services to be provided to each  student based on individual needs. For students over the age of 14, IEPs  must include a statement of transition services to be provided to students  to help them obtain the educational and vocational skills needed to  improve the likelihood of self-sufficiency once they leave school.   Similarly, infants and toddlers served under the act must have  individualized family service plans in place that include steps to be taken  to support the child’s transition to preschool or other services.
When IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, Congress placed a new emphasis on  state and local accountability for complying with IDEA and improving  educational outcomes, such as graduation and other measures of  postsecondary success, for disabled students. The reauthorized law made  each state’s annual federal funds conditional on its success in providing a  free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.  States were also required to establish goals for student performance and  to provide the Department of Education (Education) with progress  measures toward accomplishing those goals. With the enactment of the No  Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, Congress further emphasized  states’ obligations to educate disabled children by requiring them to fully  include disabled children in statewide achievement systems. With few  exceptions, disabled students are to be assessed against the same state  academic standards as nondisabled students, their aggregated scores are  to be publicly reported, and schools are to be held accountable for their  performance.
Education has responsibility for oversight of IDEA and for ensuring that  states are complying with the law. Education both provides states with  technical assistance in implementing IDEA and monitors their compliance  with its requirements. However, questions have been raised about the  effectiveness of Education’s oversight. Specifically, concerns have been  raised that Education has not held states accountable for ensuring that  students with disabilities receive the services to which they are entitled  and that Education’s efforts to remedy noncompliance have been  ineffective. In response to these concerns, you asked us to examine  Education’s oversight of IDEA, focusing on Part B, which provides  services to children age 3-21. Our review did not include Part C of IDEA,  which provides services to infants and toddlers from birth up to age 3.   This report presents information on (1) how Education monitors state  compliance with IDEA, (2) the extent and nature of noncompliance in  those states Education selected for review, and (3) the measures  Education has used to remedy noncompliance with IDEA and the results  of those measures.
To address these study objectives, we analyzed Education monitoring  reports, documents, and guidance issued to states. We interviewed  department officials and examined available documentation on  Education’s current monitoring system, instituted in 2003, as well as its  previous systems. Specifically, we reviewed the monitoring reports of the  31 states, territories, and other jurisdictions for which Education had  most recently completed monitoring visits, which took place from 1997- 2002. We analyzed Education’s findings of noncompliance in these states  and categorized them as service-related, if the failure directly affected the  provision of an IDEA-required educational service, or procedural-related,  if the infraction involved a more process-oriented failure. In cases where  Education found noncompliance, we analyzed enforcement documents,  such as corrective action approval letters, evidence submitted by states  demonstrating compliance, and correspondence from Education  acknowledging when noncompliance had been resolved. In cases where  noncompliance resulted in sanctions, we reviewed departmental  enforcement documents, including special condition letters and  compliance agreements, from 1994–2003. This longer period of review  enabled us to obtain a more comprehensive view of Education’s use of  sanctions for resolving noncompliance. Additionally, we conducted site  visits to 5 states–California, Georgia, Kansas, New Jersey, and Texas–that  were selected to reflect differences in such factors as special education  population size, previous noncompliance issues, date of last monitoring  visit, and geographic location. In each state we analyzed state monitoring  documents and interviewed state special education officials and members  of the special education community, including administrators, parents, and  advocates, who were involved in the monitoring process. Furthermore, we  interviewed federal officials regarding the monitoring and enforcement  process, as well as representatives from the National Council for Disability  and national education organizations.
We conducted our work between September 2003 and August 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix I explains our methodology in greater detail.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the special education and  related service needs of children with disabilities, including children with  specific learning disabilities, sensory disabilities, such as hearing and  visual impairments, and other disabilities, such as emotional disturbance  and speech or language impairments. The law requires states to provide  eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in  “the least restrictive environment,” that is, in an educational setting  alongside nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate.
School districts are responsible for identifying students who may have a  disability and evaluating them in all areas related to the suspected  disability. In addition, they must re-evaluate children at least once every 3  years, or sooner if conditions warrant a re-evaluation, or if the child’s  parents or teacher requests a re-evaluation. Under IDEA, students receive  special education and related services tailored to their needs through an  IEP, which is a written statement developed by a team of educational  professionals, parents, and interested parties at meetings regarding the  child’s educational program.
If the IEP team determines the child needs extended year services, schools  are required by regulations governing IDEA to provide such services  beyond the normal school year. Further, the act requires that states have  in place a comprehensive system of personnel development designed to  ensure an adequate supply of special education, regular education, and  related services personnel to provide needed services.
IDEA seeks to strengthen the role of parents and ensure they have  meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children.  In particular, IDEA regulations require that parents receive prior  notification of IEP meetings and that the meetings be scheduled at a  mutually agreed upon time and place. The act affords parents other  procedural safeguard protections, such as the opportunity to examine  their child’s records and to present complaints relating to the  identification, evaluation, educational placement of the child, or the  provision of a free appropriate public education. Under IDEA, disputes  between families and school districts may be resolved through due  process hearings, state complaint procedures, or mediation.
The Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs  (OSEP) is responsible for administering IDEA. Education authorizes  grants to states, supports research and disseminates best practices, and  provides technical assistance to states in implementing the law. Education  is also responsible for monitoring states’ compliance with IDEA  requirements and ensuring that the law is enforced when noncompliance  occurs.  Education reviews states’ systems for detecting and correcting  noncompliance in the state, including noncompliance at the local level. In  the event of noncompliance, Education has the specific authority to  employ six sanctions: (1) imposing restrictions or “special conditions” on a  state’s IDEA grant award; (2) negotiating a long-term compliance  agreement with a state requiring corrective action within 3 years; (3)  disapproving a state’s application for funds when the application does not  meet IDEA eligibility requirements; (4) obtaining a “cease and desist”  order to require a state to discontinue a practice or policy that violates  IDEA; (5) withholding IDEA funds in whole or in part depending on the  degree of the state’s noncompliance; and (6) referring a noncompliant  state to the Department of Justice for appropriate enforcement action.
Education’s system for monitoring state compliance with IDEA has been  evolving for more than 5 years. This evolution is, in part, in response to the  stronger accountability and enforcement provisions in the 1997  amendments to IDEA that emphasized the importance of improving  educational outcomes for disabled children, including improving high  school graduation rates, increasing placement in regular education  settings, increasing participation in statewide and districtwide assessment  programs, and improving the outcomes of services provided to students  with emotional and behavioral disorders. In 1998, Education implemented  the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, which focused its  monitoring efforts on states with the greatest risk of noncompliance and  placed increased responsibility on states for identifying areas of weakness.  In 2003, Education implemented the Continuous Improvement and  Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS), which, among other things, added  new state performance reporting requirements to its monitoring system.  Officials of some special education advocacy groups with whom we spoke,  including the National Association of State Directors of Special Education,  commented favorably on these changes. However, the National Council on  Disability, which had published a 2000 study critical of Education’s  enforcement of IDEA, continued to question whether Education has taken  effective actions to remedy the problems reported.
section_title: To Monitor Compliance with IDEA, Education Uses a Risk-Based System That Relies Upon State-Provided Information
paragraphs: Education uses a risk-based system to focus its monitoring efforts, but  some data it uses are weak. Education’s monitoring system relies upon  states to collect information about their special education programs,  assess their own performances, and report these findings to the  department annually. In addition, the department selects a limited number  of states for further inspection based on a subset of measures. Because  this system relies heavily on state data, the department has taken steps in  recent years to ensure that states have adequate data collection systems in  place. However, some of the data are not uniformly measured or are  difficult for states to collect. Education officials acknowledged that data  variability limits the usefulness of the reported information. Some officials  in states we visited attributed these variations in data in part to inadequate  guidance from Education and expressed a desire for more direction on  how to measure and report these data.
subsections: section_title: States Conduct Their Own Performance Reviews and Submit Annual Reports to Education
paragraphs: To assess their own IDEA compliance, states conduct annual special  education performance reviews and report their findings to Education. To  conduct these reviews, states have undertaken a variety of activities. In  particular, states collect data from local districts, including local  graduation rates, student placement rates, and parental involvement  information, and analyze these data to identify areas of noncompliance at  the local level. Additionally, states obtain input from the public about local  special education programs through hearings and surveys. States also  review dispute resolution processes, including state complaint systems, to  determine the type of problems generating complaints and ensure that  complaints are being resolved in a timely fashion. In recent years,  Education has required states to include groups of stakeholders in the  review process, such as parents, advocates, teachers, and administrators  from the special education community. State and local officials work with  these stakeholders to identify areas in which they may be out of  compliance and create detailed improvement plans to remedy these  problems. Several state officials we interviewed said the inclusion of  stakeholders has been an improvement in the self-evaluation process. For  example, officials in Texas told us that working with stakeholders has  helped them better understand the severity of particular problems and  subsequently has helped position the state to respond to these problems  more efficiently. Upon completing the review process, states are required  to create detailed improvement plans to address identified deficiencies,  which are submitted to Education annually along with the results of their  self-reviews through a uniform reporting format. Education implemented  this uniform reporting format in recent years to streamline its review  process, thereby improving the department’s ability to identify data gaps.
section_title: Education Reviews State- Reported Data to Identify Those States Most Likely to Need More Oversight and Assistance
paragraphs: Education reviews state-reported data to assess states’ improvement  efforts and identify those states most in need of further monitoring and  assistance. In recent years, the department has required states to report on  those requirements it considers most closely associated with student  results, a narrower array of issues than the department previously  monitored. These data are focused on performance in five general  categories: (1) the provision of educational services in the least restrictive  environment, (2) state supervision of IDEA programs, (3) facilitation of  parental involvement, (4) student transitions from early childhood  programs, and (5) student transitions into post-secondary programs.  Education has required states to supply a variety of data for each of these  categories. For example, under the state supervision category, states  report information regarding the resolution of formal complaints, due  process safeguards for students and parents, special education personnel  requirements, as well as other supervision data. Officials in 4 of the 5  states we visited said that Education’s narrowed focus has improved the  monitoring process by concentrating attention on those areas most likely  to affect results for children.
Education evaluates the collected data for each state in several ways,  including assessing how the measures have changed over time and  comparing data for special education students to those for general  education students. Education has identified areas of IDEA  noncompliance through these screens. For example, based on its data  review Education can determine if states have been resolving complaints  within IDEA-established guidelines or whether waiting lists have been  preventing students from receiving IDEA-guaranteed services.
Additionally, according to Education, the department uses selected  measures, such as state-reported data on graduation rates, dropout rates  and rates of placement in various educational environments to determine  which states warrant further monitoring and intervention activities,  including onsite visits. States that rank low relative to other states on  these measures may be selected. In conducting site visits, Education  reviews state records, makes visits to selected districts for on-site  examination of student records, and assesses state special education  systems, such as complaint systems and student assessment programs.  Following these visits, Education issues a report of findings and, when  noncompliance is found, requires states to produce a corrective action  plan. Education policy tells states to implement a remedy and provide  evidence of its effectiveness within 1 year of Education approving the  state corrective action plan. As shown in figure 1, Education carried out  monitoring visits in 31 different states between 1997 and 2002, visiting  between 2 and 8 states per year.
section_title: While Education Has Taken Steps to Improve States’ Data Reporting Systems, Some State Performance Measures Are Weak
paragraphs: Because Education has relied heavily on state-reported data, it suspended  its usual monitoring visits in 2003 in order to conduct visits to verify the  reliability of state systems for collecting and reporting special education   data. After reviewing selected data from all states, Education selected 24  states for onsite examination of their data collection procedures and  protocols. Following the data verification visits, the department provided  states with technical assistance to address any identified deficiencies.  According to Education documents, most of the visited states had data  collection systems in place, several of which were of high quality;  however, some states needed to better monitor the accuracy of their data  and train their data entry personnel. Education officials said that selected  states will receive monitoring visits in the fall of 2004.
While Education has facilitated improvements in state data collection  systems, some of the data are weak. Education has allowed states  flexibility in measuring and reporting some performance measures used  for site visit selection, such as graduation rates and dropout rates;  consequently these data have not been calculated in a uniform manner  across states. For example, special education students in Arkansas may  receive a standard diploma even if they have not met regular graduation  requirements, while special education students in Delaware must meet  regular graduation requirements to graduate with a standard diploma.  State education officials we talked with said that comparisons of these  rates might not be valid because of the wide disparity in how graduation  rates are measured and, therefore, should not be used by Education to  make judgments about the relative performance of states.
Other types of information that Education has used to evaluate state’s  performance, such as student transitions and parental involvement, are  weak because they have been difficult to gather or because states have  been unclear about how to measure them. States have used a variety of  methods to report these data; consequently, Education has not compared  states’ performance in these areas. Officials in all 5 states we visited noted  that student transitions data were particularly difficult to collect because  several different agencies were involved in the process and it was often  difficult to track students once they left school. Officials in 4 of the 5  states we visited also expressed confusion about how to report parental  involvement. For example, officials in one state were unclear about  whether they should report the percent of parents notified of meetings or  the percent of parents who attended meetings, while officials from another  state believed that the measures they used to report parent involvement  did not adequately describe parent involvement.
Officials in 2 of the 5 states we visited attributed their difficulty in  collecting and reporting these measures in part to inadequate guidance  from Education, and officials in 3 of the 5 states we visited expressed a  desire for greater guidance from the department on how to collect and  measure these areas. In our review of Education guidance, we found the  direction provided to states in terms of what to measure and report to  Education in these areas was vague, as Education does not specify how  states should demonstrate performance. For example, Education provides  states with 17 potential sources for indicators to measure student  transitions into postsecondary programs but does not specify which of  these indicators should be reported to Education in annual reports.
Education officials with whom we spoke acknowledged difficulties with  student transition and parent involvement data and said that they are  taking steps to improve data quality. To help address data deficiencies,  Education has funded the National Center for Special Education  Accountability Monitoring, which assists states, local agencies, and the  department in the development of data collection systems. In working  with state special education directors, special education advocates,  Education officials, and others, the center has found that reliable data  sources often do not exist for several of the data elements collected by  Education.
section_title: Noncompliance Education Found Was about Equally Split between Failures Involving Services to Students and Procedural Deficiencies
paragraphs: Our analysis of Education monitoring reports for states visited between  1997 and 2002 showed that failures directly affecting services to children  were about as common as failures involving violations of procedural  requirements. Education identified a total of 253 noncompliance findings  in 30 of the 31 states visited during this period, with an average of  approximately 8 findings per state. Our analysis showed that 52 percent of  the findings involved state failures to directly ensure that students were  receiving required special education services. As shown in table 1, the  most common finding of service noncompliance was failure to adequately  provide related services intended to assist learning, such as counseling,  speech pathology, and assistive technology. Another common deficiency  Education cited was failure to adequately outline the activities and  training planned to prepare a student for life after exiting school. Of the 12  states that were cited for not having adequate special education or related  services personnel, some acknowledged that a personnel shortage had  prevented them from always making timely evaluations, which could have  resulted in delayed services, late placement decisions, and limited  provision of extra help that would be needed to teach special education  students in regular education settings.
The remaining 48 percent of Education’s findings were for compliance  failures that we classified as procedural in nature, that is, activities that  did not directly provide or immediately facilitate a service to students.  According to our analysis, Education’s most common finding of  procedural noncompliance with IDEA was failure to invite some of the  appropriate parties to student transition meetings where parents, school  personnel, department representatives, and the students themselves  determined what educational and vocational training they would need  before they left school. Other procedural failures, shown in table 2, often  involved the completeness of paperwork or timeliness of meeting other  IDEA requirements. For instance, the department found that in several  states, notices sent to parents regarding upcoming IEP meetings related to  student transition did not include required information such as the  purpose of the meeting and the list of who was invited. Similarly, some  states did not produce written complaint decisions in a timely manner that  outlined how complaints were resolved.
section_title: Education Has Sought to Bring States into Compliance by Providing Technical Assistance and Requiring Corrective Action Plans, but Resolution Has Been Prolonged
paragraphs: When Education has identified noncompliance, it typically has offered  technical assistance to states and required them to create corrective action  plans; however, states have generally not resolved the noncompliance in a  timely manner. Most cases of noncompliance have remained open for  several years before closure, and some cases dating back as far as 1997  have not yet been completely resolved. Education’s process for correcting  deficiencies consisted of several phases, each of which took a  considerable amount of time to complete. For example, on average, 1 year  elapsed from Education’s monitoring visit to issuance of its report  findings. The department has also made limited use of sanctions to  address longstanding issues with noncompliance, but in these cases, too,  resolution has been protracted. Further, we found that the 1-year  compliance deadlines specified by Education were often missed. State  officials commented, and Education officials confirmed, that this standard  1-year timeframe for correction may not, in some cases, provide an  adequate period of time in which to implement a remedy and demonstrate  its effectiveness. To address noncompliance situations that are expected  to take more than 1 year to correct, 3-year compliance agreements may  allow states to plan their remedial steps over a longer period.
subsections: section_title: To Effect Compliance, Education Typically Provided Technical Assistance and Required State Correction Plans, but Most Cases of Noncompliance Remained Open for Years without Resolution
paragraphs: To resolve the deficiencies identified in 30 of the 31 states visited from  1997-2002, Education offered technical assistance to states and required  them to develop corrective action plans and submit them to the  department for approval. The department assisted states in achieving  compliance through informal guidance and, in some cases, follow-up visits  to confirm states’ actions. Education officials answered questions  regarding policies and best practices as well as referred states to regional  resource centers and other technical assistance providers if needed. Also,  Education required states to create corrective action plans and submit  them to the department for review and approval. The plans were expected  to include strategies to remedy deficiencies and demonstrate the  effectiveness of the remedy within a year of the approval date of the plan.  For example, Maryland was cited for failure to ensure that students with  disabilities were educated in regular education settings to the maximum  extent possible. To address this violation, one of the steps in the state’s  correction plan was to create professional development activities and  training materials that emphasized inclusiveness and making appropriate  placement determinations. During the 1-year period of correction, states  were required to submit periodic updates to document evidence of  improvement for Education’s review.
Although corrective action plans have a 1-year timeframe for completion  according to Education policy, our analysis showed that most cases of  noncompliance addressed through this method remained open for years.  We found that only 7 of 30 states with findings of noncompliance visited  from 1997 to 2002 had completely resolved their deficiencies as of May  2004. Closure of these cases, that is resolution of all deficiencies, took  from 2 to 7 years from the time the deficiencies were first identified during  a monitoring visit. Of the remaining 23 cases, about half have been  unresolved for 5-7 years. Education officials told us that for almost all of  these outstanding cases, states have made progress toward correcting the  noncompliance, and 11 states are close to completion. Table 3 lists the  dates of Education’s monitoring visits, reports, and case closures for the  31 states monitored in the time period 1997 to 2002.
In analyzing the time taken to correct noncompliance, we found that the  correction process consisted of two phases, each of which frequently took  a year or more to complete, as shown in figure 2. The first phase,  Education’s issuance of a findings report following its monitoring visit,  took a year on average, with a range of 4 to 21 months. Officials in the 3  states we visited that were monitored since 1997 expressed concern about  the timeliness of Education’s monitoring reports. Officials from 2 of these  states said that the reports contained out-dated information that did not  reflect the current environment in the state. In addition, state officials in 1  state said that they delayed the development of their corrective action  plans until they received Education’s findings report. Education officials  told us that staffing constraints and multiple levels of report review  contributed to the delays in issuing reports, but they did not provide a goal  of reducing the time needed to issue reports. Second, the time from report  issuance to approval of the corrective action plan generally took an  additional 1 to 2 years. During this time period, states produced an initial  corrective action plan that they revised, if needed, based on review and  feedback from Education. Education officials acknowledged that this  approval process can be lengthy, but have indicated they are working to  reduce the period for corrective action plan approval to 6 months.
section_title: Enforcement Actions Have Been Taken Infrequently; Resolutions Were Protracted
paragraphs: Although most instances of noncompliance were addressed without more  severe actions taken, occasionally Education took measures beyond  technical assistance and corrective action plans by imposing sanctions on  states. During the 10-year period from 1994 to 2003, Education used three  types of sanctions–withholding of funds, special conditions, and  compliance agreements. Withholding of all grant funds was attempted  once by Education, but the state successfully challenged Education’s  action in court and receipt of the grant was not interrupted. The most  commonly used sanction was special conditions put on states’ annual  grants stipulating that the problem must be resolved within 1 year. During  the 1-year period of correction, the states continued to receive funds. In  cases of noncompliance requiring longer-time periods to correct, an  additional tool available to Education was a compliance agreement, which  allowed a state 3 years in which to correct the noncompliance while also  continuing to receive funds. Compliance agreements were used only for  the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. Education officials told us  that compliance agreements were used infrequently because they are  voluntary and states must agree to the arrangement. States that entered  into compliance agreements were also required to undergo a public  hearing process to demonstrate that they could not completely address  their violations within 1 year.
In total, Education has taken enforcement action against 33 states for  noncompliance from 1994 to 2003. An action was taken against multiple  states for failing to publicly report on the performance of children with  disabilities on alternate assessments, as required by the 1997  reauthorization of IDEA. As a result of other compliance issues, Education  has imposed 15 sanctions against 11 states in this 10-year period. Appendix  II contains more details on enforcement actions taken by Education from  1994 to 2003.
Education considers a number of factors in deciding to impose a sanction,  including the duration, extent, and severity of the noncompliance, as well  as whether a state has made a good faith effort to correct the problem. We  found that sanctions were imposed for a variety of specific deficiencies— commonly for failing to provide related services, place students in the  least restrictive environment, or have an adequate state system in place for  detecting and correcting noncompliance at the local level. In New Jersey,  special conditions were imposed to address long-standing noncompliance  involving state oversight of local special education programs. New Jersey  officials told us that the enforcement action caught the attention of senior  state officials and helped the special education department obtain the  resources needed to correct the problem within 2 years of the imposition  of the sanction. When considering the type of sanctions to impose,  Education officials told us that their primary consideration is the expected  time of resolution. In cases where officials believe the problem can be  addressed in 1 year, special conditions may be used. In cases where  resolution is expected to take longer, 3-year compliance agreements may  be pursued.
In cases involving sanctions, the resolution of compliance issues was often  prolonged – generally ranging from 5 to 10 years from the time of problem  identification to the imposition of the sanction to closure, as shown in  figure 3. In most instances, 4 to 9 years elapsed before Education imposed  sanctions, and an additional 1 to 3 years generally passed following the  sanction before noncompliance was closed. For example, Massachusetts  received special conditions on its grant award in 2000 for noncompliance  that was first identified in 1991. Once the special conditions were imposed,  Massachusetts remedied the noncompliance in 1 year. Education officials  indicated that the reason why several years often elapsed before sanctions  were used was that Education preferred to work with states instead of  imposing sanctions if they demonstrated good faith efforts to correct  deficiencies and followed the steps outlined in their corrective action  plans.
In addition to those cases that were closed, some ongoing cases have been  even more protracted. Although states that receive special conditions  attached to their grants are expected to correct problems before the next  grant year, in many cases problems were not fully resolved and continued  for years.  In these cases, states received multiple special conditions for  some of the same issues of noncompliance.  For example, Pennsylvania  received a special condition on its grant for 3 consecutive years beginning  in 1998 before achieving compliance on all issues.  At the beginning of the  1999 grant year, Pennsylvania had resolved two of the five original issues  of noncompliance.  Additionally, enforcement actions for California, the  District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands dating from 1997 and 1998  have not yet been completely resolved.
section_title: Compliance Deadlines Often Missed; State Officials Indicated—and Federal Officials Acknowledged— Difficulties of Meeting Timeframes
paragraphs: States we reviewed often did not meet the 1-year compliance deadline  prescribed by Education, and state officials said that some types of  noncompliance could not be corrected within 1 year, a problem that  Education officials also acknowledged. Our examination of Education’s  records for a sample of 9 states with corrective action plans revealed that  none had completely corrected their noncompliance within 1 year of  approval of the plan, as required by Education. Likewise, states receiving  special conditions on their grant usually did not completely resolve the  noncompliance issue within 1 year, and some took numerous years to  make the correction. For example, California received special conditions  attached to its grant award in 2000 for various deficiencies. The state did  not complete the correction of this deficiency within 1 year and as a result  received an additional special conditions letter in 2001.
Regarding the 1-year deadline, Education officials told us that some states  may not be able to correct deficiencies and demonstrate the effectiveness  of the changes within the year required of them. In addition, they said that  in many cases, a state may take corrective steps within one year but that  demonstrating the effectiveness of the remedy may extend beyond 1 year.  Officials in 3 states we visited also raised concerns that some types of  noncompliance could not be corrected within 1 year. For example, Kansas  officials said the state could not demonstrate compliance with a  requirement to change an IEP component because IEPs are written year- round and thus every IEP could not be changed within the 1-year deadline.  Also, Education officials we interviewed emphasized that some  deficiencies take longer to correct than others. They commented that  states often could correct certain procedural deficiencies within a year,  but entrenched problems, such as personnel shortages, generally take  more than 1 year to remedy.
In cases of noncompliance that require longer periods of time to correct,  Education may pursue 3-year compliance agreements with states that  allow the states to continue to receive funds while they are correcting  noncompliance. This sanction requires states to establish interim goals  and engage in longer-term planning, with specific compliance benchmarks  and timelines. States that enter into compliance agreements must  demonstrate at a public hearing they cannot achieve compliance within 1  year and that a 3-year time frame for correction is more appropriate.  However, this option has been rarely used. One state we visited objected  to a compliance agreement Education proposed. The department did not  pursue the compliance agreement and, instead, imposed special  conditions on the state’s grant approval each year for several years.  Officials from this state said that they chose not to enter into a compliance  agreement because they considered the additional reporting requirements  and monitoring activities it would entail to be too burdensome.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Education has taken steps in the right direction since 1997 in focusing its  review of state support for children with disabilities on those factors that  most affect educational outcomes for disabled students, such as increased  parental involvement and placement in regular education settings. In  recent years, Education has invested considerable effort to assist states in  improving data reliability. Furthermore, by reviewing this information  through the use of a uniform reporting format, Education is in a better  position to make its local site visits yield improvements where they are  most needed. Despite these efforts, some of the information states report  about their special education programs are weak and not comparable,  which limits Education’s ability to select states for on-site visits that have  the most pressing problems. Education made 31 site visits between 1997  and 2002, visiting no more than 8 states in any 1 year. Given such finite  opportunities for inspection, it may be easy to miss areas where children  are not receiving educational and related services.
Aside from targeting the right states for visits, the lengthy resolution  process has been a problem in OSEP’s monitoring system.  In many  instances, noncompliance with the requirements of IDEA has persisted for  many years before correction. One reason for the delay is that Education  has allowed considerable time to elapse in the initial phases of the  correction process; specifically, the time from the first identification of a  problem to the imposition of the 1-year time frame for correction. This  considerable delay—sometimes taking up to 21 months between problem  identification and the issuance of department findings—could result in  states postponing the implementation of corrective plans. Although the  initial phases of the correction process can be lengthy, Education’s 1-year  deadline for states to correct deficiencies is, at times, too short for states  to achieve compliance. Unrealistic timeframes may both discourage states  from focusing on achievable, albeit longer-term, plans for correction.  These unrealistic timeframes may also lessen the impact of the  enforcement action itself, as in the case where special conditions are  imposed for infractions year after year with few consequences to the state,  but potentially detrimental consequences to students with disabilities. The  imposition of appropriate deadlines, including the more frequent use of  compliance agreements that allow for better long-term planning and  predictable consequences when these deadlines are not met, could  motivate states to achieve compliance more quickly.
The combined effect of such prolonged reviews—lengthy timeframes for  the receipt of reports and the approval of corrective action plans—and  failure to hold states more firmly to a rapid resolution could directly affect  the progress of some of the nation’s most vulnerable children. Without  some deliberate and specific improvements to its monitoring process,  Education may face difficulties in helping the nation’s disabled students  realize their full potential.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education    develop and provide states with additional guidance for collecting and  reporting three measures that Education considers key to positive  outcomes for students with disabilities: early childhood transitions,  post-secondary transitions, and parental involvement;    expedite the resolution of noncompliance by improving response times  throughout the monitoring process, particularly in reporting  noncompliance findings to states, and track changes in response times  under the new monitoring process;  impose firm and realistic deadlines for states to remedy findings of  noncompliance; and    when correction of noncompliance is expected to take more than  1 year, make greater use of Education’s authority to initiate compliance  agreement proceedings rather than imposing special conditions on  grants.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment. Education’s written comments are reproduced in  appendix III.  Recommended technical changes have been incorporated in  the text of the report as appropriate. The department discussed, but did  not explicitly agree or disagree with two recommendations, disagreed with  one recommendation, and did not directly respond to one  recommendation, the recommendation regarding imposing firm and  realistic deadlines.
In response to our recommendation that Education provide states with  additional guidance for collecting and reporting data on student  transitions and parental involvement, the department was not explicit  about its intended actions. While Education agreed with the need to  provide states assistance in these areas, it did not clearly indicate whether  it would develop the guidance we recommended. Education said that it is  funding several centers that are assisting states in collecting data in these  areas. We commend Education’s efforts to improve special education  performance data. However, to maximize the usefulness of these efforts,  the department should formalize the results of these activities in guidance.   Therefore, we continue to recommend that Education develop and provide  states with guidance on collecting and reporting student transitions and  parental involvement data.
Regarding our recommendation to improve the department’s response  times throughout the monitoring process, Education acknowledged past  problems with timeliness but indicated that it had made improvements in  recent years. Education stressed that the reports we reviewed were based  on its previous monitoring processes, rather than the current process, the  Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).  The  department said that timeliness had improved in several areas.  For  instance, Education said that the time required to issue its data verification  monitoring reports has been about 4 months and that this is a substantial  improvement over the previous system.  Education also said that the  CIFMS is resulting in the timely receipt of and response to state  improvement plans and that the department has a goal to issue responses  to all plans by September 30, 2004.  However, we could not determine  whether, overall, Education’s new CIFMS monitoring process will result in  improved timeliness. Education officials told us that the data verification  visits primarily focused on accuracy of state data, not detecting  noncompliance. Therefore, timeliness associated with these visits may not  be an indication of overall improvement.  In addition, the timeliness of the  focused monitoring visits has not been established since they have not yet  begun. We believe that Education’s response times should be improved,  but we could not determine the extent to which changes already made  might impact timeliness.  Therefore, we modified our recommendation to  suggest that Education track timeframes associated with various steps in  the new monitoring process to substantiate possible improvements.
In response to our recommendation that Education make greater use of its  authority to initiate compliance agreement proceedings when appropriate,  the department said that it cannot independently initiate these  proceedings because the compliance agreement process is voluntary on  the part of the states.  We do not agree with this position. The relevant  statute specifically authorizes the department to hold a hearing and directs  it to invite certain parties, including the state.  While the department  cannot compel a state to enter into a compliance agreement, we think  initiating proceedings to consider the merits of entering into such an  agreement could likely result in beneficial corrective action discussions  between the department and the state. It could also result in greater  reliance on the 3-year compliance agreement or at least improve corrective  action planning by the state. While Education may impose other remedies  such as partial or full withholding of funding, issuing a cease and desist  order, or referring a state’s noncompliance to the Department of Justice,  we believe that in many instances of noncompliance, the 3-year  compliance agreement could be the least onerous, and perhaps most  helpful, tool to improve state compliance with IDEA.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this  report.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of  Education and the House and Senate Committees with oversight  responsibility for the department. We will also make copies available to  other parties upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on GAO's Website at http//:www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any  questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in  appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: As requested, our review focused on the Department of Education’s  monitoring of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part  B, those aspects of the law that regulate the provision of services to  disabled school-aged and preschool children.  In conducting our review,  we examined Education’s monitoring procedures and guidance since  Congress last amended IDEA legislation in 1997. Additionally, we  examined reports submitted to Education to document compliance,  including self-assessments, Section 618 data reports, and improvement  plans. We also reviewed compliance and enforcement documentation and  Education monitoring reports for the 31 states visited for Part B  monitoring since 1997 (see below for more information). Because  Education infrequently used sanctions, we examined the previous 10-year  period to capture a more comprehensive picture of enforcement actions.  Additionally, we conducted site visits to 5 states, where we interviewed  state officials and special education experts. We also interviewed  Education officials; representatives from the National Council for  Disability, an independent federal agency that makes recommendations to  the President and Congress on disability-related issues; and  representatives from national education organizations.
We conducted our work between September 2003 and August 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: We conducted site visits to five states – California, Georgia, Kansas, New  Jersey, and Texas. States were selected for variation in the number of  special education students served, geographic location, the date of their  last monitoring visit, whether they had received a data verification visit,  and whether they had been placed under sanctions by Education for IDEA  violations since 1993. Additionally, in selecting states, we considered how  states ranked on various Education risk factors, including student  placement rates, graduation rates, drop-out rates, and level of state  complaints. We conducted our site visits between December 2003 and  March 2004.
While in each state, we analyzed state monitoring documents and met with  officials at states’ Departments of Education, including the State Directors  of Special Education and members of their staff responsible for  monitoring efforts. We interviewed these officials about their experiences  with Education’s monitoring processes and gathered information about  the systems used by their states to monitor local compliance with IDEA.  Additionally, in each state we spoke with members of the state  stakeholder committees, which help state officials conduct their self- assessments and create improvement plans. Stakeholders we spoke with  included parents of special education students, special education and  school administrators, and special education advocates.
section_title: Monitoring Report Analysis
paragraphs: To determine the nature of noncompliance in those states selected by  Education for review, we analyzed the reports issued by Education for the  31 Part B monitoring visits Education made between 1997 and 2002. A  2002 cut-off date was selected because at the time of our analysis,  Education had not yet issued a monitoring report for the one state it  visited in 2003. To analyze these reports, we reviewed the noncompliance  findings cited in these reports and divided the findings into two categories;  those relating to infractions that were service-related and those relating to  infractions that were procedural in nature.
For our analysis, we defined a service compliance issue as an activity that  directly provides the student with a basic service required by IDEA or is an  activity that will immediately facilitate the provision of a basic service  required by IDEA. A procedural compliance issue was defined as an  activity that meets a process-oriented requirement of IDEA. While the  implementation of these process-oriented requirements might improve the  special education program immediately or over time, the activity or  process does not directly provide or immediately facilitate a basic service  to a student.
section_title: Analysis of Compliance Documentation
paragraphs: To determine the results of Education’s efforts to remedy noncompliance,  we reviewed Education documents and data pertaining to the 30 states  visited between 1997 and 2002 that were cited for noncompliance in  Education monitoring reports. Specifically, we analyzed the 30 monitoring  reports; and available Education documents such as corrective action  plans submitted by states in response to report findings; notification  documents from Education approving state plans; state-submitted  evidence of change in noncompliance; and, when applicable, notifications  to states when noncompliance had been sufficiently addressed. To  determine the length of time it took to resolve cases of noncompliance  through monitoring visits and technical assistance, we analyzed these  documents for dates and deadlines. We computed the length of time for  resolution from the date of the monitoring visit until the date Education  documented resolution of the problem.
section_title: Analysis of Enforcement Documentation
paragraphs: To obtain information about Education’s enforcement efforts, we  reviewed all cases of enforcement action taken against states by  Education from 1994 to 2003. For our review, we viewed enforcement  actions as beginning at the time a sanction was first imposed, regardless of  how many subsequent times a sanction was used to ultimately bring about  compliance. That is, if a state received multiple sanctions for the same  infraction, such as several special conditions letters in consecutive years,  we viewed all of these individual enforcement actions as one action.  Likewise, if a state received one 3-year compliance agreement, while  another state received three consecutive special conditions letters for the  same infractions, we treated both instances as one enforcement case.
For all enforcement cases, we analyzed available Education documents,  such as notifications of sanctions, including state grant award letters  subject to special conditions and compliance agreements; state-submitted  evidence of change to demonstrate compliance; and Education’s  correspondence to states notifying them when noncompliance had been  sufficiently addressed, thus closing the enforcement cases. Additionally,  we examined past monitoring reports to determine when Education first  identified noncompliance that ultimately resulted in an enforcement  action. In those instances when noncompliance was not identified through  a monitoring visit, we used the date of the enforcement action as the date  that the noncompliance was first identified for the purposes of our  analysis. In all cases, we analyzed documentation for dates and deadlines  to determine the length of time it took to resolve cases of noncompliance  through sanctions.
section_title: Appendix II: IDEA-Related Sanctions: 1994- 2003
subsections: section_title: Fiscal management.
paragraphs: Not yet resolved; year has  not yet expired.
Not yet resolved.
Timely resolution of complaints.
Resolved in 2000.
General supervision; identification and  correction of deficiencies, IEP  violations, provision of related services  and least restrictive environment.
Resolved in 2002.
Ensuring ability to request due process  hearings.
Resolved in 2003.
Eleven areas of noncompliance,  including general supervision; due  process hearings; timeliness of  evaluations and placements; and  provision of free appropriate public  education in the least restrictive  environment.
Not yet resolved. Three  findings remain open in  July 2003: timely  implementation of hearing  decisions, placement in  the least restrictive  environment, and timely  evaluations.
Fiscal management.
Not yet resolved; year has  not yet expired.
Ensuring IEP components are  determined at an IEP meeting with all  required participants; placement of  students in least restrictive  environment.
Resolved in 2001.
General supervision; identification and  correction of deficiencies.
Resolved in 2001.
Fiscal management.
Not yet resolved; year has  not yet expired.
General supervision; identification of  deficiencies; placement of students in  least restrictive environment, provision  of extended school year and speech  services.
Resolved in 2001.
Outstanding issues from 1993  compliance agreement regarding timely  evaluations and provision of services.
Resolved in 1998.
Fiscal management.
Not yet resolved.
Provision of services to students with  disabilities who were expelled or  suspended long-term.
1994–Attempt to withhold funds; action  contingent on outcome of court case.  1995–Attempt to withhold funds; action  contingent on outcome of ongoing court  case.   1996–Attempt to withhold funds; action  contingent on outcome of ongoing court  case.
Education was ultimately  unsuccessful in court and  funds were not withheld.  However, subsequent  changes in IDEA  rendered the disputed  issue moot, as all states  were required by statute  to provide services to  disciplined students.
Fiscal and program management;  general supervision; qualified  personnel; placement of students in  least restrictive environment; provision  of transportation services.
Not yet resolved.
Participation and reporting on alternate  assessments.
2002–Special conditions imposed  against 27 states.  2003–Special conditions imposed  against 11 unresolved states, plus 1  additional state, Ky.
Sixteen of 27 states  resolved in 2003; 11  remaining states + Ky. not  yet resolved.
Alaska, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Colo., Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Del., D.C.,  Guam, Ky., Maine, Mich., P.R., and Utah.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: The following people also made important contributions to this report:  Ellen Soltow, Summer Pachman, Behn Kelly, Susan Bernstein, and  Walter Vance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination  Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher  Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
Special Education: Clearer Guidance Would Enhance Implementation of  Federal Disciplinary Provisions. GAO-03-550. Washington, D.C.: May 20,  2003.
Special Education: Numbers of Formal Disputes Are Generally Low and  States Using Mediation and Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts.   GAO-03-897. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2003.
School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying  and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies. GAO-02-240.  Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Student Discipline: Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.   GAO-01-210. Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2001.