IDEA 2011 Alaska Part C Annual Performance Report Determination Table (MS Word)

Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators 1. Percent of infants and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s toddlers with IFSPs who through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised the efforts and looks forward to receive the early intervention improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator and OSEP accepts those reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, services on their IFSPs in a revisions. due February 1, 2012, the State’s timely manner. data demonstrating that it is in The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 97.77%. These data represent compliance with the timely [Compliance Indicator] progress from the FFY 2008 data of 86.5%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 target service provision requirements in of 100%. 34 CFR §§303.340(c), The State reported that all seven of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 303.342(e), and 303.344(f)(1). 2008 for this indicator were corrected in a timely manner. Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§303.340(c), 303.342(e), and 303.344(f)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has initiated services, although late, for any child whose services were not initiated in a timely manner, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS

FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 1 of 11 Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators program, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02). In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

2. Percent of infants and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities The State’s actual target data for toddlers with IFSPs who through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that provision of services to infants primarily receive early stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and and toddlers in natural intervention services in the FFY 2012. The State revised the improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator environments are at or greater home or community-based and OSEP accepts those revisions. than 95%. There is no settings. expectation that an increase in The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99.7%. The State’s data that percentage is necessary. [Results Indicator] reflect a high level of performance for this indicator. The State met its FFY 2009 target OSEP appreciates the State’s of 95%. efforts to improve performance and assumes that the State is monitoring to ensure that IFSP teams are making service setting decisions on an individualized basis and in compliance with 34 CFR §§303.12, 303.18, and 303.344(d)(1)(ii).

3. Percent of infants and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s toddlers with IFSPs who through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance. demonstrate improved: stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and The State must report progress FFY 2012. A. Positive social-emotional data and actual target data for skills (including social The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are: FFY 2010 with the FFY 2010 relationship); APR, due February 1, 2012. B. Acquisition and use of The State did not provide a list of knowledge and skills the instruments and procedures FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 2 of 11 Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators (including early FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 used to gather data for this language/communication); Summary Statement 1 Data Data Target indicator and the State must and provide the required list of C. Use of appropriate Outcome A: instruments for FFY 2009 in the behaviors to meet their Positive social-emotional skills 67.1 65.81 60 FFY 2010 APR. needs. (including social relationships) (%) [Results Indicator] Outcome B: 77.66 70.48 66 Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication) (%) Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to 73.33 71.71 62 meet their needs (%) FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Summary Statement 2 Data Data Target Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills 58.2 57.45 52 (including social relationships) (%) Outcome B: 56.97 48.94 46 Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication) (%) Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to 54.92 51.37 46 meet their needs (%) These data represent slippage from the FFY 2008 data. The State met its FFY 2009 targets for this indicator. The State did not provide a list of the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator.

4. Percent of families The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to the participating in Part C who through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that State’s data demonstrating report that early intervention stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and improvement in performance in FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 3 of 11 Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators services have helped the FFY 2012. The State revised the improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator the FFY 2010 APR, due February family: and OSEP accepts those revisions. 1, 2012. A. Know their rights; The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are: B. Effectively communicate their children’s needs; and FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Progress C. Help their children develop Data Data Target and learn. [Results Indicator] A. Know their rights (%) 88.7 90.8 100 2.10% B. Effectively communicate 91.9 90.8 100 -1.10% their children’s needs (%)

C. Help their children develop 88.5 92.3 100 3.80% and learn (%)

These data represent progress for 4A and 4C and slippage for 4B from the FFY 2008 data. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 targets.

5. Percent of infants and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s toddlers birth to 1 with through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance. IFSPs compared to national stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and data. FFY 2012. [Results Indicator] The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 1.45%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2008 data of 1.02%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 1.3%.

6. Percent of infants and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to the toddlers birth to 3 with through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that State’s data demonstrating IFSPs compared to national stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and improvement in performance in data. FFY 2012. The State revised the improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator the FFY 2010 APR, due February and OSEP accepts those revisions. 1, 2012. [Results Indicator] The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 2%. These data represent progress from the FFY 2008 data of 1.79%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 target of 2.5%.

7. Percent of eligible infants The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s and toddlers with IFSPs for through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts and looks forward to whom an evaluation and reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99.39%. These data represent FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 4 of 11 Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators assessment and an initial progress from the FFY 2008 data of 93.04%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 due February 1, 2012, the State’s IFSP meeting were target of 100%. data demonstrating that it is in conducted within Part C’s compliance with the 45-day The State reported that all four of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 45-day timeline. timeline requirements in 34 CFR for this indicator were corrected in a timely manner. §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1), [Compliance Indicator] The State reported that the one finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2006 for and 303.342(a). Because the this indicator was corrected. State reported less than 100% OSEP’s FFY 2008 SPP/APR response table, dated June 3, 2010, required the State to compliance for FFY 2009, the include in the FFY 2009 APR, due February 1, 2011 a revised SPP and APR that fully State must report on the status of reflect all of the revisions to the measurement language with its FFY 2009 APR. The correction of noncompliance State provided all of the required information. reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. The State was identified as being in need of assistance for two consecutive years based on the State’s FFY 2007 and FFY 2008 APRs, was advised of available technical When reporting on the correction assistance, and was required to report, with the FFY 2009 APR, on: (1) the technical of noncompliance, the State must assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and (2) the actions the report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that State took as a result of that technical assistance. The State reported on the technical it has verified that each EIS assistance sources from which the State received assistance for this indicator and program with noncompliance reported on the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance. reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1), and 303.342(a) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has conducted the initial evaluation, assessment, and IFSP meeting, although late, for any child for whom the 45-day timeline was not met, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

8. Percent of all children The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s exiting Part C who received through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts in achieving compliance timely transition planning with the IFSP transition content The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data represent to support the child’s requirements in 34 CFR progress from the FFY 2008 data of 99.2%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of transition to preschool and §§303.148(b)(4) and 303.344(h). 100%. other appropriate community services by The State reported that all six of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 their third birthday for this indicator were corrected in a timely manner. including: A. IFSPs with transition steps and services; [Compliance Indicator]

8. Percent of all children The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s exiting Part C who received through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised the efforts and looks forward to timely transition planning improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator and OSEP accepts those reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, to support the child’s revisions. due February 1, 2012, the State’s transition to preschool and data demonstrating that it is in The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 97.67%. These data represent other appropriate compliance with the LEA slippage from the FFY 2008 data of 99.73%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 community services by notification requirements in 34 target of 100%. their third birthday CFR §303.148(b)(1). Because including: The State reported that the one finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 was the State reported less than 100% not corrected in a timely manner and that the finding subsequently was corrected by compliance for FFY 2009, the B. Notification to LEA, if child January 11, 2011. State must report on the status of potentially eligible for Part B; and correction of noncompliance [Compliance Indicator] reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 6 of 11 Alaska Part C FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has provided notification to the LEA for each child, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program (i.e., the child has exited the State’s Part C program due to age or other reasons), consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

8. Percent of all children The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s exiting Part C who received through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts and looks forward to timely transition planning reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99.78%. These data represent to support the child’s due February 1, 2012, the State’s progress from the FFY 2008 data of 94.16%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 transition to preschool and data demonstrating that it is in target of 100%. other appropriate compliance with the timely community services by The State reported that all five of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 transition conference their third birthday for this indicator were corrected in a timely manner. requirements in 34 CFR

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators including: §303.148(b)(2)(i) (as modified by IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii) C. Transition conference, if child (II)). Because the State reported potentially eligible for Part B. less than 100% compliance for [Compliance Indicator] FFY 2009, the State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each EIS program with noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §303.148(b)(2)(i) (as modified by IDEA section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii) (II)) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has conducted a transition conference, although late, for any child potentially eligible for Part B whose transition conference was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

9. General Supervision system The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s (including monitoring through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised the efforts and looks forward to complaints, hearings, etc.) improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator and OSEP accepts those reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, identifies and corrects revisions. due February 1, 2012, the State’s noncompliance as soon as data demonstrating that the State The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99%. These data represent possible but in no case later timely corrected findings of progress from the FFY 2008 data of 77.36%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 than one year from noncompliance identified in FFY target of 100%. identification. 2009 in accordance with IDEA The State reported that 100 of 101 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 section 635(a)(10)(A), 34 CFR [Compliance Indicator] were corrected in a timely manner. §303.501, and OSEP Memo 09- It is unclear from the tables on page 49 of the State’s FFY 2009 APR whether the one 02. FFY 2008 finding, which was not verified as corrected in a timely manner, was verified In reporting on correction of as corrected beyond the one-year timeline. findings of noncompliance in the As required by OSEP’s FFY 2008 SPP/APR response table, dated June 3, 2010, the FFY 2010 APR, the State must State reported on page 50 that the one remaining finding identified in FFY 2007 was report that it verified that each corrected. EIS program with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009: (1) is The State reported that the one remaining finding identified in FFY 2006 was corrected. correctly implementing the OSEP’s August 27, 2010 verification visit letter required the State to include in the FFY specific regulatory requirements 2009 APR confirmation that the State is continuing to ensure that all noncompliance is (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) identified as a finding to Early Intervention/Infant Learning Programs, regardless of the based on a review of updated data level of compliance; report on correction of findings of noncompliance identified in such as data subsequently FFY 2008; and submit Indicator 9 data that demonstrate that it has timely corrected collected through on-site findings of noncompliance. The State provided all of the required information. monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected The State was identified as being in need of assistance for two consecutive years based each individual case of on the State’s FFY 2007 and FFY 2008 APRs, was advised of available technical noncompliance, unless the child assistance, and was required to report, with the FFY 2009 APR, on: (1) the technical is no longer within the assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and (2) the actions the jurisdiction of the EIS program, State took as a result of that technical assistance. The State reported on the technical consistent with OSEP Memo 09- assistance sources from which the State received assistance for this indicator and 02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the reported on the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance. State must describe the specific

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators actions that were taken to verify the correction. In reporting on Indicator 9 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must use the Indicator 9 Worksheet. The State must confirm, in the FFY 2010 APR, that the one remaining finding of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 was corrected. In addition, in responding to Indicators 1, 7, 8B and 8C in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.

10. Percent of signed written The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to reviewing complaints with reports through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised the the State’s data in the FFY 2010 issued that were resolved improvement activities for FFY 2010 for this indicator and OSEP accepts those APR, due February 1, 2012. within 60-day timeline or a revisions. timeline extended for The State reported that it did not receive any signed written complaints during the exceptional circumstances reporting period. with respect to a particular complaint. [Compliance Indicator]

11. Percent of fully adjudicated The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to reviewing due process hearing requests through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. the State’s data in the FFY 2010 that were fully adjudicated APR, due February 1, 2012. The State reported that it did not receive any requests for due process hearings during within the applicable the reporting period. timeline. [Compliance Indicator]

12. Percent of hearing requests Not applicable. The State’s FFY 2009 APR indicates that the State is implementing The State must correct the 618 that went to resolution Part C due process procedures. data reported on Table 4 and

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators sessions that were resolved resubmit an electronic version to through resolution session OSEP’s data contractor at settlement agreements [email protected] (applicable if Part B due by June 30, 2011. The State must process procedures are notify the OSEP State Contact adopted). when this action has been completed. [Results Indicator]

13. Percent of mediations held The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities for OSEP looks forward to reviewing that resulted in mediation FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that the State’s data in the FFY 2010 agreements. stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and APR, due February 1, 2012. FFY 2012. [Results Indicator] The State reported that no mediations were held during the reporting period. The State reported fewer than ten mediations held in FFY 2009. The State is not required to meet its targets or provide improvement activities in any fiscal year in which fewer than ten mediations were held.

14. State reported data (618 and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s State Performance Plan and through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts and looks forward to Annual Performance Report) reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 95.7% for timeliness and are timely and accurate. due February 1, 2012, the State’s accuracy. However, OSEP’s calculation of the data for this indicator is 96.4%. These data demonstrating that it is in [Compliance Indicator] data represent progress from the FFY 2008 data of 92.6%. The State did not meet its compliance with the timely and FFY 2009 target of 100%. accurate data reporting The State was identified as being in need of assistance for two consecutive years based requirements in IDEA sections on the State’s FFY 2007 and FFY 2008 APRs, was advised of available technical 616, 618, and 642 and 34 CFR assistance, and was required to report, with the FFY 2009 APR, on: (1) the technical §§76.720 and 303.540. If the assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and (2) the actions the State does not report 100% State took as a result of that technical assistance. The State reported on the technical compliance in the FFY 2010 assistance sources from which the State received assistance for this indicator and APR, the State must review its reported on the actions the State took as a result of that technical assistance. improvement activities and revise them, if necessary. In reporting on Indicator 14 in the FFY 2009 APR, the State must use the Indicator 14 Data Rubric.

FFY 2009 SPP/APR Status Table Alaska Page 11 of 11