Number and percentage of states, by date of last completed monitoring period or cycle: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that had various persons directly providing Part C services, by type of person and service: 2004–05

State definition of monitoring unit: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states responsible for different numbers of monitoring units: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states selecting different numbers of monitoring units for monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that focused monitoring activities on additional levels other than the monitoring unit, by additional level of focus: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states whose monitoring and improvement planning focused on a select set of areas or priorities: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using the same focus areas or priorities for all monitoring units in the state: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific focus areas for monitoring and improvement planning, by focus area: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select focus areas for monitoring and improvement planning, by method of selection: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific indicators for each focus area: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific targets related to the indicators for each focus area: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that coordinated monitoring of monitoring units under IDEA with monitoring activities of other programs: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that coordinated monitoring under IDEA with specific other programs, by program type: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states devoting monitoring and improvement efforts to various accountability areas, by accountability area and percent of effort: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified statewide systemic noncompliance requiring special attention and systemic remedies: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to identify statewide systemic noncompliance, by method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified local systemic noncompliance that required special attention and systemic remedies: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that identified local systemic noncompliance, by method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various procedures to select monitoring units for monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using a regular cycle to select monitoring units for monitoring, by length of cycle: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used various compliance or performance criteria to select monitoring units for monitoring, by selection criteria: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used various monitoring-related activities for monitoring units not selected for monitoring, by activity: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that reviewed child records in monitoring units selected for monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used random sampling to select child records for review: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used random sampling to select child records for review, by type of random sampling used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used stratified random sampling, by categories (strata) used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used oversampling for one or more categories: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that oversampled specific categories, by category: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that reviewed various percentages of child records, by lowest and highest percentage of records reviewed in a monitoring unit: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring unit monitoring involved a site visit: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where selected monitoring units were required to conduct self-assessments: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided a standard self-assessment procedure for monitoring units to follow: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various data sources when monitoring monitoring units or planning improvements, by data source and frequency of use: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state had electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring and improvement planning: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states whose electronic database of individual child records included child records for various age groups, by child age group and availability: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states whose electronic database of individual child records included IFSPs for various age groups, by child age group and availability: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where the electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring allowed tracking of children from Part C to Part B: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state had electronic database of individual child records that was used for monitoring and improvement planning, by frequency of updates: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where the state has plans to establish electronic database of individual child records for use in monitoring and improvement planning: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where planned database will include child records from all monitoring units: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that will include different age ranges in the planned electronic database, by planned age range: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with established date for planned database to be fully operation, by planned date: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with specific information available for monitoring and improvement planning, by information source: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that analyzed dispute resolution data to determine whether statewide systemic noncompliance had occurred: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that analyzed dispute resolution data to determine whether local systemic noncompliance had occurred: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where findings from monitoring and improvement activities led to further evaluation in specific areas where statewide systemic noncompliance was found: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that conducted further evaluation of specific areas where statewide systemic noncompliance was found, by entity conducting the evaluation: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that had an individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: 2004–05

Name of person whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: 2004–05

Name and position of person supervising the individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate monitoring activities: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that had an individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: 2004–05

Name of person whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: 2004–05

Name and position of person supervising the individual whose primary responsibility was to coordinate improvement planning and implementation: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to monitoring units on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to monitoring units on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for monitoring, by frequency of training: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to monitoring units on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for local improvement activities: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that provided training to monitoring units on requirements and procedures for collecting and reporting data used for local improvement activities, by frequency of training: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals serving on monitoring teams, by type of individual: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals participating in monitoring site visits, by type of individual: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with various types of individuals participating in local improvement planning or implementation, by type of individual: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select parents of children with disabilities or disability advocates to serve on monitoring teams, by selection method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring, by frequency of training: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals serving on monitoring teams participated in training about monitoring, by training topic: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals working on local improvement planning and implementation participated in training about monitoring: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where individuals working on local improvement planning and implementation participated in training about monitoring, by frequency of training: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with a state-level steering committee specifically devoted to monitoring and improvement activities: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states including various stakeholders on the state-level steering committee, by type of stakeholder: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to select individuals with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, and disability advocates for the state-level steering committee, by selection method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states receiving steering committee input on specific areas, by area of input: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where members of state-level steering committee served on the teams monitoring monitoring units: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific methods to inform monitoring units about procedures for monitoring and improvement planning, by method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various methods to inform the public about procedures for monitoring and improvement planning, by method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states providing monitoring units with different types of monitoring team reports, by type and timing of report: 2004–05

Number and percentage of starts that made various types of monitoring results and local improvement activities publicly available, by type of information and dissemination method used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of stats that used different types of analyses to support decisions related to corrective actions, by analysis type: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that used different types of analyses to support decisions related to local improvement planning or implementation, by analysis type: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states requiring various actions of monitoring units as part of corrective actions, by type and frequency of action: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states requiring various actions of monitoring units as part of improvement planning, by type and frequency of action: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states taking various actions in support of corrective actions, by type and frequency of action: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states taking various actions in support of improvement activities, by type of frequency of action: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific procedures for monitoring progress on corrective actions, by procedure used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific procedures for monitoring progress on local improvement plans, by procedure used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that examined the relationship between monitoring unit compliance with process and procedural requirements and monitoring unit child/family outcomes: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific types of analyses when examining the relationship between monitoring unit compliance and child/family outcomes, by type of analysis used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using specific monitoring unit rewards for reducing noncompliance, by type of reward: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific incentives to monitoring units for reducing noncompliance: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using rewards to encourage local improvement planning and implementation, by type of reward: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific incentives to monitoring units to encourage local improvement planning and implementation: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with authority to use sanctions in the event of monitoring unit noncompliance, by type of sanction: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that consider various factors when deciding whether to impose a sanction for noncompliance, by factor considered: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states with written guidelines or procedures outlining specific sanctions for specific types of noncompliance: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states using various sources of materials, procedural guidelines, or technical assistance related to monitoring and improvement planning, by source used: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring findings influenced practices at universities in the state with regard to the preparation of teachers and other personnel: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring findings influenced practices at universities, by type of practice influenced: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where other departments or divisions in the state or other state agencies used monitoring findings: 2004–05

Name of departments, divisions, or other agencies using monitoring findings: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where monitoring has changed since 1997, by type and degree of change: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where special situations played a role in shaping monitoring and improvement activities since 1997, by type of special situation: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated since 1997: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated, by evaluation method: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where evaluation of state performance included an opportunity for monitoring units to provide feedback on state performance: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state's performance in conducting monitoring and improvement activities was formally evaluated since 1997, by how decision to evaluate was made: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states that made major revisions to their procedures for monitoring and improvement, by year of most recent revision: 2004–05

Number and percentage of sates providing comments about important changes made to state monitoring and improvement activities since last monitoring period: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states where state has a plan for major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement: 2004–05

Number and percentage of states planning major changes in procedures for monitoring and improvement activities, by year changes are scheduled to be in place: 2004–05