Design for Monitoring and Improvement Activities

3. Under Part C, states vary in regard to the level of service providers or administrative entities that they directly monitor. For example, some states focus their monitoring activities mainly on local lead agencies that have authority to administer and coordinate services. Other states focus their monitoring on local providers that provide direct services under contracts with the state lead agency. Still other states focus their monitoring at multiple levels that provide different Part C services (e.g., a state may focus its monitoring on regional entities that conduct family intakes and on local entities that provide service coordination).

For the purposes of this survey, we use the term "monitoring unit" to mean the level or levels of organizational entity on which How many monitoring units did the state lead agency actually monitor during the monitoring period? __________ monitoring mainly focuses. Because of the variation from state to state, we ask you to define below that term for your state. Please define "monitoring unit" as it applies in your state: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________

NOTE: For the remainder of this survey, please apply the definition you have written above to questions that focus on "monitoring units." Every use of that term is highlighted in bold type.

4. Overall, how many monitoring units (as you defined them in Item 3) was the state lead agency responsible for, whether or not any monitoring activities occurred for those units? __________
5. How many monitoring units did the state lead agency actually monitor during the monitoring period? __________
6. In addition to monitoring units, at what additional levels did the state lead agency focus any monitoring activities? [Check all that apply.]
1. State agencies other than the state lead agency
2. Regional public agencies
3. Local public agencies
4. Private vendors
5. Private individuals providing services under a fee-for-service system
6. Other: _________________
7. Other: _________________
8. The state lead agency focused on no additional levels
7. Did the state lead agency use an approach to monitoring and local improvement planning that focused on a select set of areas or priorities?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 13
8. Were the areas or priorities the same for all monitoring units in the state (as opposed to being developed specifically for each monitoring unit)?
1. Yes
2. No
9. On what areas did the state lead agency particularly focus? [Check all that apply.]
1. Participation rate
2. Child Find
3. Dispute resolution
4. IFSP requirements and procedures
5. Staffing levels
6. Personnel qualifications
7. Natural environments
8. Performance on child assessments
9. Disproportionality of racial/ethnic groups
10. Transition to other settings
11. Transition to preschool
12. Other: _________________
13. Other: _________________
14. Other: _________________
10. How did the state lead agency select the focus areas? [Check all that apply.]
1. Analyzed Section 618 state-reported data
2. Compiled and analyzed data from mediations, due process hearings, and complaints
3. Analyzed findings from the recent monitoring of monitoring units
4. Analyzed information contained in monitoring unit applications for Part C funds
5. Analyzed monitoring unit self-assessments
6. Analyzed monitoring unit policies and procedures
7. Analyzed findings from surveys of stakeholders
8. Consulted with or followed the recommendations of OSEP staff
9. Consulted with or followed the recommendations of a state-level steering committee
10. Consulted with or followed the recommendations of an advisory group
11. Other: _________________
12. Other: _________________
11. Did the state lead agency have specific indicators (compliance indicators or child/family outcome indicators) for each focus area?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 13
12. Did the state lead agency have specific targets (i.e., specified levels of performance) related to the specific indicators for each focus area?
1. Yes, we had specific targets for all focus areas.
2. Yes, we had specific targets for some, but not all, focus areas.
3. No, we had no specific targets.
13. Was monitoring under IDEA coordinated with the monitoring activities of other programs?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 15
14. With which other programs was monitoring under IDEA coordinated? [Check all that apply.]
1. State Education Agency (if the SEA is not the state lead agency)
2. Health Department
3. Maternal and Child Health
4. Medicaid
5. Head Start
6. Child Care
7. Child Welfare
8. Mental Health
9. Developmental Disabilities
10. Other: _________________
11. Other: _________________
15. Every state's monitoring and improvement activities focus on accountability. Broadly speaking, this accountability focuses to varying degrees on (A) process and procedural requirements, (B) requirements to provide appropriate services (plans are appropriate and services are provided), and (C) child/family outcomes. In the table below, estimate the percentage of the state lead agency's overall monitoring and improvement effort that was devoted to each focus. The total should add to 100 percent.

Accountability Area	Percent of Effort
A. Ensuring that process and procedural requirements are met	____%
B. Ensuring that requirements to provide appropriate services are met	____%
C. Improving child/family outcomes directly by improving practices	____%
TOTAL:	100%

16. Did the state lead agency identify statewide systemic noncompliance that required special attention and systemic remedies?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 18
17. How did the state lead agency attempt to identify statewide systemic noncompliance? [Check all that apply.]
1. Analysis of statewide quantitative data on child/family outcomes across monitoring units
2. Analysis of monitoring unit self-assessments
3. Statewide surveys of parents or other stakeholders
4. Surveys of parents or other stakeholders conducted during the monitoring of monitoring units
5. Analysis of interview, focus group, and other qualitative data collected during monitoring activities with monitoring units
6. Record reviews during monitoring activities with monitoring units
7. Systematic reviews of formal complaints, mediations, due process hearings, and other legal actions
8. Other: _________________
9. Other: _________________
18. Did the state lead agency identify local systemic noncompliance (within monitoring units) that required special attention and systemic remedies?
1. Yes
2. No. SKIP to Item 20
19. How did the state lead agency identify local systemic noncompliance? [Check all that apply.]
1. Analysis of quantitative data on child/family outcomes
2. Analysis of the monitoring unit's self-assessment
3. Survey of parents served by the monitoring unit
4. Survey of other stakeholders from the monitoring unit
5. Analysis of interview, focus group, and other qualitative data collected during monitoring activities
6. Record reviews during monitoring activities with the monitoring unit
7. Systematic reviews of formal complaints, mediations, due process hearings, and other legal actions
8. Other: _________________
9. Other: _________________

Top