History of Monitoring and Improvement

92. Indicate in the table below how monitoring has changed in the state since the enactment of the IDEA amendments of 1997. [Check one box in each row; disregard the shaded numbers.]

Since 1997 . . .	Greatly decreased	Slightly decreased	Stayed About the Same	Slightly increased	Greatly increased
parent input to the planning of monitoring procedures has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other stakeholder input to the planning of monitoring procedures has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
parent involvement in data collection and analysis activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other stakeholder involvement in data collection and analysis activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public awareness of monitoring and improvement activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
use of data in planning the state lead agency's monitoring and improvement activities has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the number or frequency of site visits to monitoring units to collect information has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the focus on child/family outcomes has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the emphasis on compliance issues such as process and procedural requirements has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public reporting of monitoring findings, by individual monitoring units, has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
public reporting of monitoring findings, aggregated across monitoring units, has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
the frequency of monitoring unit self-assessments has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other area (specify: __________________) has . . .	1	2	3	4	5
other area (specify: __________________) has . . .	1	2	3	4	5

93. What special situations in the state have played a role in shaping monitoring and improvement activities since 1997? [Check all that apply.]
1. None
2. Consent decree or settlement of a lawsuit
3. Pending litigation
4. State law that requires a specific monitoring methodology
5. State law that limits data collection by the state lead agency
6. State law that specifically limits extent of monitoring activities by the state lead agency
7. State law that limits the number of state lead agency staff devoted to monitoring activities
8. Other: _______________________
9. Other: _______________________
94. Has the performance of the state lead agency in conducting monitoring and improvement activities been formally evaluated since 1997?
1. Yes
2. No SKIP to Item 98
95. How was the state lead agency's performance evaluated? [Check all that apply.]
1. The state lead agency conducted a self-evaluation.
2. An advisory group or steering committee evaluated the state lead agency's performance.
3. The state lead agency contracted with an independent external evaluator to assess the agency's performance.
4. Other: _____________
96. Did this evaluation include an opportunity for monitoring units to provide feedback on the state lead agency's performance?
1. Yes
2. No
97. How was it decided that an evaluation was needed? [Check all that apply.]
1. State lead agency performance is evaluated every _____ year(s) according to a fixed schedule.
2. An advisory group or steering committee decided an evaluation was needed.
3. State lead agency administrators decided an evaluation was needed.
4. Evaluation occurs only in response to impending OSEP monitoring activities in the state.
5. Other: ______________________
98. What was the last year the state lead agency made major revisions to the state's procedures for monitoring and improvement activities?
    __________
99. Please describe important changes, if any, that you have made to the state's monitoring and improvement activities since the last monitoring period (i.e., since the time period covered by this survey).
    __________________________________________
    ___________________________________________
    ___________________________________________
100. Does the state have a plan for additional major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement activities?
1. Yes, with changes scheduled to be put in place in the year _________ (e.g., 2006)
2. No

Top