1 / 58

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo. Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 • November 1-3, 2010 • San Francisco, California. What is General Supervision?. A requirement: IDEA 34 CFR §300.600

elmer
Download Presentation

General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General Supervision: Highlights on Monitoring and the 09-02 Memo Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010 • November 1-3, 2010 • San Francisco, California

  2. What is General Supervision? A requirement: IDEA 34 CFR §300.600 The “State” must monitor the implementation of this part, enforce this part… and annually report on performance under this part. A way to organize what you do An important component of OSEP verification visits and determinations A method of tracking and encouraging continuous improvement

  3. Policies, Procedures & Effective Implementation State Performance Plan Helpful Guidance From TA Providers (NCSEAM) Components of General Supervision Integrated Monitoring Activities Data on Processes and Results Fiscal Management Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution

  4. According to OSEP Five Critical Elements of General Supervision: A system to identify noncompliance in a timely manner using its different components A system to ensure correction of identified noncompliance in a timely manner Procedures and practices to implement the dispute resolution requirements of IDEA Western Regional Resource Center APR Clinic 2010

  5. According to OSEP Five Critical Elements of General Supervision: Procedures and practices to improve educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities Procedures and practices to implement other requirements, i.e., fiscal requirements, private schools, NIMAS, assessments, etc.

  6. Building Effective General Supervision General Supervision Foundation

  7. Step 1 – Identifying an Issue What components are used to identify noncompliance? Which issues to look for: How few are too few? How many is too many? Determining and prioritizing what to look for.

  8. On-site Activities • IEP/Record Reviews • Interviews (Families/Providers/Teachers) • Others ? • Off-site Activities • Database (includes SPP/APR data collections and analysis) • Self Assessment • Desk Audit • Surveys (Families/Providers/Teachers) • Contracts • Dispute Resolution (formal and informal) • Local reporting • Others? Components (examples):

  9. Which Issues to Look For • SPP/APR Indicators • Related Requirements • Your Indicators 9

  10. Using SPP/APR to Identify Issues • Compliance and performance • Self-identified issues (discussion of progress and slippage, improvement activities) • OSEP-identified issues (response table) 10

  11. Monitoring Data and the SPP/APR • Coordination of APR data collection and monitoring data • Database data vs. census data vs. monitoring data 11

  12. From OSEP on Databases • If the SEA/LA receives data through its database that show noncompliance, the SEA/LA must: • Make a finding, AND • Require correction as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the SEA/LA’s notification 12

  13. From OSEP on Databases • SEA/LA may identify one or more points in time during SPP/APR reporting period when it will review compliance data from database and identify noncompliance • In making compliance decisions, SEA/LA should then review all data received since the last time SEA/LA examined data from database and made compliance decisions. SEA/LA may either examine: • All data in database, OR • Statewide representative sample 13

  14. From OSEP on Identifying Noncompliance • Findings must be made based on data collected through any method that demonstrates noncompliance (e.g., when the level of compliance is less than 100%) • “Substantial compliance” (e.g., 95% compliance) or other “thresholds” (e.g., 3 of 4 children had a timely transition conference) do not apply to identification or correction of noncompliance 14

  15. Make a finding of noncompliance. Option 1 • Verify whether data demonstrate noncompliance, and then issue finding if data do demonstrate noncompliance. Option 2 • Verify LEA has corrected noncompliance before State issues written findings of noncompliance, in which case State not required to issue written finding of noncompliance. Option 3 Slide prepared by OSEP 15

  16. Scenario - Identification

  17. Scenario#1 • On October 9, the Lead Agency monitored Oleander Infant/Toddler Daycare Program and found that 2 of 18 files did not have justification for not being in natural environments. • On October 23rd the program faxed the IFSP pages to the LA, with justification statements based on the Medical Team at UNC pediatric services, that two children with active foot/mouth disease were in pediatric medical rehab class for 3 months, after which they would be moved to the regular toddler class. • The Lead Agency issued the monitoring report on November 1st. 17 17

  18. Scenario#1 • Should the Lead agency issue a finding of noncompliance for the two files that did not have adequate natural environment justifications? • What options does the Lead Agency have prior to issuing the monitoring report? 18 18

  19. Prioritizing Issues – Monitoring with a Focus How can you make this process manageable and still get the data you need? 19

  20. Putting it Together

  21. Submit SPP/APR to OSEP Enter CAPs in tracking log, review CAP progress, verify correction, and determine TA needs Submit 618 Child Count, LRE, and Assessment Data Submit 618 Personnel, Exiting, Discipline, Disp.Res. Issue findings School Visits (5 in February/March) Jan Examine B13, B11, B12 data to determine noncompliance Dec Feb Examine B13, B11, B12 data to determine noncompliance • Monthly Activities • Resource Specialist Reports/Meetings • IEP Count Data Report • Evaluations Data Report • Exit Data Report • Personnel Data Report • On-site school visits (Sept - March Mar School Visits (5 in October/November) Nov Issue findings Apr Enter CAPs in tracking log, review CAP progress, verify correction, and determine TA needs Oct May Sept Review SPP/APR progress on improvement activities Report APR performance to the public June Aug July Select schools for onsite visits in next school year Hold initial meeting of APR indicator teams Set agenda for APR indicator drafts meeting in Fall Schedule training and share resources/tools Provide APR data to indicator teams Organizing the Identification Process - The Wheel 21

  22. Steps 2 & 3 – Investigating Issues 22 • Step 2 – Determine the Extent/Level of the Issue • Step 3 – Determine the Cause of the Issue

  23. Factors to Consider • What is the level of compliance/performance? • Look at percentages: All (100%), mostly compliant (95%+), moderately (85-94%), somewhat (76-84%), limited compliance (75% or less) • Look at number of instances of compliance in proportion to the N (total):4 out of 5 -vs.- 40 out of 50 23

  24. Factors to Consider • Where/with whom is the problem happening? • One or more providers/teachers • One or more local programs/schools • Statewide 24

  25. Step 2 – Determine the Level/Extent of the Issue 25

  26. Factors to Consider • Historical/Trend Data • Open CAP on the same issue • Previous completed CAPS on the same issue • Repeat offense – not really fixing the problem although findings are corrected or not issued • Trend data – do data show clear progress or slippage in this area? • More applicable when looking at smaller time periods (quarters) 26

  27. Factors to Consider • Other Considerations • Demonstrated Ability to Correct (previously identified noncompliance corrected within timelines) • Exceptional Circumstances • Number of findings of noncompliance (multiple noncompliance issues vs. one) 27

  28. Step 3 – Determine Cause of Issue • Root Cause Analysis • Need for Improvement • Need for Correction • Policies • Procedures • Practices • Keep in mind what the resolution might be - based on the cause

  29. Root Cause Analysis 29

  30. Using Analyses from Steps 2 and 3 Use decisionson the level/extent and the root cause of issues, including whetherthere isnoncompliance, in order to determine: • At what level resolution needs to happen • Who needs to be responsible • What actions should be required • What data will be used to verify correction 30

  31. Example

  32. Scenario #2 • The Lead Agency monitored the Mothers & Babies Program during an onsite visit. The findings report identified noncompliance based on the following: • 20 out of 50 children did not receive timely services • 2 out of 40 children did not have an IFSP meeting in 45 days • 5 out of 45 children did not receive written prior notice at the appropriate junctures 32 32

  33. Scenario #2 • What actions might the Lead Agency require of 2 the Mothers & Babies Program to ensure correction the noncompliance related to each of the following: • timely services (20 of 50)? • IFSP meeting within 45 days (2 of 40)? • written prior notice (5 of 45)? 33 33

  34. Step 4 - Assign Accountability for the Issue and its Resolution The resolution should be based on the issue and the analyses conducted (extent/level and root cause) For improvement issues (not a compliance issue) Improvement plan For noncompliance Finding must be issued Corrective action 34

  35. For Improvement Issues Use decisions made about the level/extent and the root cause of the issue to: Determine areas in need of improvement Explore relationship to SPP indicators Determine resources needed (staff, TA providers, best practice) Develop improvement strategies 35

  36. Written Notification of Finding • Generally, OSEP expects written notification to be issued less than three months from discovery and should include: • SEA’s/LA’s conclusion that LEA/program is not in compliance • Citation of relevant regulatory or statutory requirement • Description of quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting SEA/LA’s conclusion, AND • Statement requiring correction as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from notification

  37. Counting and Reporting Findings • SEA/LAs may choose how they will count and report their monitoring findings: • Group individual instances in a program involving the same legal requirement together as one finding, AND/OR • Report each of the individual instances of noncompliance as a separate finding • Exception: each finding identified through a State complaint or a due process hearing must be counted as a separate finding

  38. Required Actions to Correct Noncompliance • Corrective action • What actions need to be taken to correct the noncompliance (based on analyses)? • Submit data to demonstrate correction • Corrective Action Plan • How will we know they worked? • Identify which data will be used to verify correction of the noncompliance

  39. Steps 5 & 6 - Verify Correction and Follow-up • Step 5 – Verify Resolution of the Issue • OSEP Definition of Verifying Correction • Step 6 – Follow up on Resolution • Continuous Improvement

  40. Improvement Issues (not compliance issues) Several tools are available to assist states in: • Analyzing indicator data and other performance variables at SEA/LA and school levels • Designing effective improvement strategies • Evaluating improvement activities www.rrfcnetwork.org

  41. Step 5 – Ensure and Verify Resolution of the Issue For improvement issues (not compliance issues), this may be over a period of several years For compliance issues, this is clearly defined by OSEP

  42. Compliance Issues (defined by OSEP) • Verifying resolution of compliance issues is clearly defined by OSEP. Two main documents explain and clarify the process states are to use to correct and verify correction of noncompliance: • OSEP Memo 09-02, October 17, 2008 • F.A.Q. on Identification and Correction of Noncompliance, September 3, 2008

  43. From OSEP on Timeline for Verifying Correction The timeline for when correction must be verified (as soon as possible but in no case later than one year) begins on the date on which the SEA/LA notifies the LEA/program, in writing, of its finding of noncompliance

  44. From OSEP on Timely Correction For an SEA/LA to report that noncompliance has been corrected it must first: Account for ALL noncompliance identified by SEA/LA Determine: in which LEAs/programs noncompliance occurred the level of noncompliance in each, AND the root cause(s) of noncompliance If needed, require change in the LEA’s/program’s Policies Procedures, AND/OR Practices

  45. From OSEP on Timely Correction • In order to demonstrate that previously identified noncompliance has been corrected, an SEA/LA must: • Prong 1 - Account for the correction of all child-specific instances of noncompliance AND • Prong 2 - Determine whether each LEA or Program with identified noncompliance is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (achieved 100% compliance)

  46. Both prongs apply to correction of all findings of noncompliance, and noncompliance reported in APRs, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance States cannot use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the LEA/program has corrected noncompliance From OSEP on Timely Correction

  47. For child-specific noncompliance that is not a timeline requirement, SEA/LA must ensure that LEA/program corrected noncompliance in each individual case, unless: The requirement no longer applies OR The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of LEA/program From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance

  48. From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance • For child-specific noncompliance with a timeline requirement, the SEA/LA must ensure that the service/evaluation/etc. was provided, although late, unless: • The requirement no longer applies OR • The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of LEA/program

  49. To ensure correction of child-specific noncompliance regardless of whether or not it is a timeline requirement… The SEA/LA could review or require a local agency to review all or a sample of the records of affected children to verify correction From OSEP on Correction of Child-Specific Noncompliance

  50. For an SEA/LA to report LEAs/programs are implementing the specific regulatory requirements, in addition to the correction explained for child specific noncompliance, the SEA/LA must: Based on its review of updated data, and within one year of notifying the program of noncompliance, determine if the LEA/program is in compliance From OSEP on Timely Correction

More Related