Process for State and Local Improvement

73. In the table below, indicate the types of analysis used to support decisions related to corrective actions and local improvement planning or implementation. [Check all boxes that apply; disregard the shaded numbers.]

Type of Analysis	Used for Decisions Related to Corrective Actions	Used for Decisions Related to Local Improvement Planning or Implementation
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to targets set for that monitoring unit	1	2
Comparing present levels of compliance or performance to the monitoring unit's own baseline	1	2
Determining trends for the monitoring unit and comparing those to the monitoring unit's current compliance or performance	1	2
Comparing areas of strength to areas of weakness within the monitoring unit	1	2
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to standards that apply to all monitoring units in the state	1	2
Comparing levels of compliance or performance to the levels for other monitoring units in the state	1	2
Other: ______________________	1	2

74. In the table below, estimate how frequently the actions listed were required of monitoring units as part of corrective actions or as part of local improvement planning and implementation. [Check two boxes in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]
    View question 74
75. Estimate in the table below how frequently the state lead agency took the actions listed in support of corrective actions or local improvement planning and implementation by monitoring units. [Check two boxes in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]
    View question 75
76. What procedures did the state lead agency follow in monitoring progress on corrective actions?
1. Progress on corrective actions was not monitored by the state lead agency.
2. Progress on corrective actions was noted and addressed the next time the monitoring unit was selected for monitoring but was not followed in the interim.
3. Monitoring units were required to take the initiative on corrective actions and report progress to the state lead agency.
4. State lead agency staff took the initiative to follow up with monitoring units on corrective actions, possibly including conducting a follow-up visit to the monitoring unit.
5. Other: ______________________
77. What procedures did the state lead agency follow in monitoring progress on local improvement plans?
1. Progress on plans was not monitored by the state lead agency.
2. Progress on plans was noted and addressed the next time the monitoring unit was selected for monitoring but was not followed in the interim.
3. Monitoring units were required to take the initiative on improvement plans and report progress to the state lead agency according to a schedule.
4. State lead agency staff took the initiative to follow up with monitoring units on improvement plans, possibly including conducting a follow-up visit to the monitoring unit.
5. Other: _______________
78. Did the state lead agency examine the relationship between (a) findings from the review of a monitoring unit's compliance with the processes and procedures required by law and requirements to provide appropriate services and (b) the monitoring unit's child/family outcomes?
1. Yes
2. No . SKIP to Item 80
79. What kind of analysis did the state lead agency conduct? [Check all that apply.]
1. A cross-sectional statistical analysis comparing compliance data to outcome data across monitoring units at a single point in time
2. A longitudinal statistical analysis comparing compliance data to outcome data over time within a monitoring unit
3. A qualitative analysis that used expert informants to provide evidence of links between compliance and outcomes within a monitoring unit
4. An informal analysis based on the judgment of state lead agency staff
5. Other: ___________
80. How did the state reward monitoring units for reducing noncompliance? [Check all that apply.]
1. Proclamations, public commendation, or awards
2. Additional funds or monetary awards
3. Less frequent monitoring
4. Other: _____________________
5. Other: _____________________
6. State used no rewards
81. Did the state lead agency have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific incentives the state would use with monitoring units to reduce noncompliance?
1. Yes
2. No
82. How did the state reward monitoring units to encourage local improvement planning and implementation? [Check all that apply.]
1. Proclamations, public commendation, or awards
2. Additional funds or monetary awards
3. Less frequent monitoring
4. Other: _____________________
5. Other: _____________________
6. State used no rewards
83. Did the state lead agency have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific incentives the state would use with monitoring units to encourage local improvement activities?
1. Yes
2. No
84. What sanctions did the state have authority to use in the event of noncompliance by a monitoring unit? [Check all that apply.]
1. Negotiating a compliance agreement
2. Imposing restrictions or special conditions on the use of funds
3. Withholding funds in whole or in part
4. Obtaining a "cease and desist" order
5. Referring the noncompliant entity to the state attorney general
6. Other: _____________________
85. What factors did the state lead agency consider in deciding whether to impose a sanction? [Check all that apply.]
1. Duration of noncompliance
2. Extent (breadth) of noncompliance
3. Severity of the noncompliance
4. Trend of noncompliance
5. Effort made to correct the problem
6. Whether the problem was related to provision of services versus procedural requirements
7. Other: ____________________
86. Did the state lead agency have written guidelines or procedures outlining the specific sanctions that would occur for specific types of noncompliance?
1. Yes
2. No
87. Did the state lead agency use materials, procedural guidelines, or technical assistance related to monitoring and improvement planning that were provided by any of the following? [Check all that apply.]
1. Regional Resource Centers (RRCs)
2. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)
3. National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC)
4. National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
5. Early Childhood Outcome Center (ECO)
6. Other OSEP-funded projects: ________________, ________________, ________________
7. Other Department of Education-funded projects: ________________, ________________, ________________
8. In-state university or university-affiliated consultants
9. Out-of-state university or out-of-state university-affiliated consultants
10. Private consultants or private organizations
11. Professional organizations: ________________, ________________, ________________
12. Other: ________________
13. None of the above
88. In regard to the preparation of early intervention and other personnel, did findings from monitoring influence practices at universities in the state?
1. Yes
2. No SKIP to Item 90
3. Don't know SKIP to Item 90
89. In what ways did findings from monitoring influence practices at universities in the state? [Check all that apply.]
1. Findings were considered by state agencies when deciding which personnel preparation programs to license or support.
2. Findings were used by faculty in deciding what type of technical assistance or professional development to offer.
3. Findings were used by the state in considering what university-based technical assistance or professional development to support.
4. Findings were used by faculty for curriculum planning.
5. Other: ________________
6. Other: ________________
90. Were monitoring findings used by other departments and divisions in the state lead agency or by other state agencies?
1. Yes
2. No SKIP to Item 92
3. Don't know SKIP to Item 92
91. List departments, divisions, or other agencies using monitoring findings:
    ________________________________

Top