Part B Annual Performance Report for 2007-08 - New York State
February 2009

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

See Overview of the Development of the Annual Performance Report (APR) in the Introduction section, page 1.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 12:  Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an individualized education program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

  1. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.
  2. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays.
  3. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
  4. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services.

Account for children included in a but not included in b, c or d.  Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.

New York State (NYS) will use the above formula except it will add “e” to the equation as follows:

  1. # of children whose IEPs were not implemented by their third birthdays but for reasons that are “in compliance” with NYS regulations.

NYS Data = [(c ) divided by (a-b-d-e)] times 100

In the 2006-07 school year, NYS used the PD-12 report to collect these data. This report is at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/forms/pdforms/0607/06pdf/06pd12.pdf. In the 2007-08 school year, the State collected these data at the individual student level through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) in order to be able to distinguish between students who are found eligible for special education from those who are not.

 

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

FFY 2007
(School Year 2007-08)

100 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, will have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

Actual Target Data for FFY 2007:

78.2 percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who were found eligible for Part B, had an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday or in compliance with timelines established in State law.

Based on data submitted for the 2007-08 school year by 107 school districts that are representative of the State, 78.2 percent of children, who transitioned from Early Intervention (EI) (Part C) and were found to be eligible for preschool special education services under Part B, had their IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday.  An additional six school districts’ data are not included in this report since they were not certified by the time this report was prepared.  All children for whom there were delays in eligibility determination or who did not have their IEP implemented for reasons that are in compliance with State requirements were removed from the denominator as illustrated in the data chart below.  All school districts that were required to submit data on this indicator reported data on all eligible children, except that New York City (NYC) provided data on a representative sample of students.


Region

A

B

C

D

E

F

# of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination

# of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthday

# of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday

# of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in eligibility determination or initial services

# of children for whom delays in determination of eligibility or delays in implementing the IEP were caused by reasons that are “in compliance” with State requirements

Compliance Rate Calculation
[( C ) /(A-B-D-E)]*100

Central

117

6

11

1

                 95

73.3%

Eastern

135

4

12

5

               102

50.0%

Hudson Valley

198

16

19

20

               136

73.1%

Long Island

228

18

34

2

               174

100.0%

New York City

1,656

17

131

52

            1.422

79.4%

Western

450

23

37

15

               364

77.1%

Total State

2,784

84

244

95

            2,293

78.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Column E in the table above includes the following other reasons determined to be "in compliance” with NYS requirements for implementing the IEP past the child’s third birthday for children included in Column A above:

Some of the reasons provided by school districts for implementing the child’s IEP past the third birthday determined to be "out of compliance" with NYS requirements were as follows:

Number of Days Past the Third Birthday When IEPs were Implemented - In order to inform regional interventions in improving results for this indicator, following is an analysis of the number of preschool children whose IEPs were not implemented by their third birthday.  These delays were caused by reasons which are NOT in compliance with State requirements.  In previous years, the State could not distinguish between children for whom delays were caused by reasons that were in compliance with State requirements from those whose reasons were not in compliance with State requirements.  Collecting these data at the individual student level has made this differentiation possible.

Number of Days Past the 3rd Birthday When IEPs Were Completed for Children Whose Delays were Caused by Reasons Not In Compliance with State Requirements

Region

2007-08

1 to 10 Days

11 to 20 Days

21-30 Days

More than 30 Days

Central

1

1

0

2

Eastern

0

0

0

12

Hudson Valley

0

2

0

5

Long Island

0

0

0

0

New York City

2

0

2

30

Western

1

0

0

10

Total State

4

3

2

59

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 2007:

Explanation of Progress or Slippage

NYS did not meet its target of 100 percent, however made progress in its compliance rate from 73.8 to 78.2 percent.

NYC made the most significant progress from 51.8 to 79.4 percent.

During the 2007-08 school year, all school districts reported data for this indicator on an individual student basis and received electronic notices of their compliance rates immediately upon certifying their data.

School districts that were not 100 percent in compliance with this indicator were required to analyze the reasons for not implementing the IEP by child’s third birthday and to develop and or revise their processes and procedures related to ensuring timely implementation of IEPs.  School districts were required to provide a Statement of Assurance to the State once they had made the required changes.  In addition to this, school districts with less than a 90 percent compliance rate have been re-assigned to report data to the State on this indicator for the 2008-09 school year in order to document full compliance.  See the schedule of the school years in which school districts must resubmit data on this indicator, posted at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/sedcar/resubschedule.html.  The Special Education School District Data Profiles will be updated with school districts’ revised compliance rates based on resubmission of data. These profiles are posted at http://eservices.nysed.gov/sepubrep/.

Improvement Activities Completed in 2007-08

The Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) accessed technical assistance to further inform its activities to improve the timeliness of completion of preschool and school-age individual evaluations from the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) (http://www.nectac.org/).  See Indicator 11.

Activities Completed:

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY 2007 [If applicable]

None.