1 / 39

General Supervision Training Document Unit 3 Resolution of Noncompliance/Correction and Verification of Correction of No

General Supervision Training Document Unit 3 Resolution of Noncompliance/Correction and Verification of Correction of Noncompliance. Purpose.

kyne
Télécharger la présentation

General Supervision Training Document Unit 3 Resolution of Noncompliance/Correction and Verification of Correction of No

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General SupervisionTraining DocumentUnit 3Resolution of Noncompliance/Correction and Verification of Correction of Noncompliance

  2. Purpose • To increase the capacity of participants to conduct general supervision activities around the resolution, correction, and verification of correction of noncompliance

  3. Intended Audience • New RRCP (Regional Resource Center Program) Staff • New TA&D (Technical Assistance and Dissemination) Staff • New SEA (State Education Agency) Staff • New LA (Lead Agency) Staff • New LEA (Local Education Agency) Staff • New EIP (Early Intervention Program) Staff

  4. Objectives • Participants will gain a working understanding and increased capacity for the effective resolution of identified areas of noncompliance • Participants will be able to develop effective corrective action plans, improvement strategies, and systems of incentives/sanctions for correction/lack of correction of noncompliance • Participants will gain a working understanding and increased capacity for tracking, verifying, and documenting that correction of noncompliance has occurred

  5. Outcome • The consumers of the information will be able to demonstrate an understanding and increased capacity around the resolution, correction, and tracking, verification, and documentation of correction of noncompliance

  6. Standard Disclaimer • The content of this training document was developed by a Subgroup of the Regional Resource Center Program’s (RRCP) General Supervision Priority Team. The information provided on this site has not been vetted by the U.S. Department of Education and may not necessarily represent the views of the US Department of Education or the Office of Special Education Programs. Any information provided on the State Performance Plan University (SPPU) website is the intellectual property of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education.

  7. Objective 1 • Participants will gain a working understanding and increased capacity for the effective resolution of identified areas of noncompliance

  8. Objective 1 (cont’d) • Assign Accountability for the Issue and Its Resolution • The accountability should be based on the identified issue of noncompliance and the results of an analyses conducted, including the extent/level and the root cause of the noncompliance

  9. Objective 1 (cont’d) • Conduct analysis of the level/extent and the root cause of the identified noncompliance • Determine areas in need of improvement • Explore relationship to the State Performance Plan (SPP) and the Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicators • Determine resources needed • Staff • TA providers • Others • Develop improvement strategies consistent with the level/extent and root cause of the noncompliance

  10. Objective 1 (cont’d) • Use the results of the analysis of the level/extent and the root cause of the identified noncompliance • Determine at what level does resolution need to occur • Schools, programs, or statewide • Identify responsible parties • Determine appropriate corrective actions • Identify data used to verify correction

  11. Discussion Questions • How are you organized to be accountable? • What levels of authority exist? • What authority is in place to make others accountable? • How could you assign accountability differently? • To whom do you assign accountability?

  12. Discussion Questions(cont’d) • Do you receive support from General Education? • How do you make findings of noncompliance? • What type of plans for correction and improvement do you require? • When/how do you determine what actions and data will be required to demonstrate correction?

  13. Resources • Determining the Extent/Level of the Noncompliance and Its Resolution Information in this document is based on the October 17, 2008 OSEP 09-02 Memo and the September 2, 2008 • “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identification and Correction of Noncompliance and Reporting on Correcting in the State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) •  Six Steps for Monitoring and Program Improvement • Local Contributing Factor Tool for SPP/APR Compliance Indicators C-1, C-7, C-8, C-9/B-15, B-11 and 12

  14. Objective 2 • Participants will be able to develop effective corrective action plans, improvement strategies, and systems of incentives/sanctions for correction/lack of correction of noncompliance

  15. Objective 2 (cont’d) I. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) • Developed for noncompliance issues around compliance Indicators • Must follow OSEP timeline for correction (as soon as possible, but no later than one year from notification) • The nature of the corrective actions may vary depending on the extent of the noncompliance and other factors.

  16. Objective 2 (cont’d) • A CAP is not required for all instances of noncompliance • Extent of noncompliance • Systemic or individual • 95% compliance or 50% compliance? • Past identified issues of noncompliance were not corrected within required timeframe • Reflects a long-standing failure to meet IDEA requirements

  17. Objective 2 (cont’d) • Improvement Plan • Used for results Indicators • This may be implemented over a period of years • Sanctions/enforcement actions for uncorrected noncompliance • These actions should be developed, agreed upon, and disseminated in advance

  18. Discussion Questions • What type of plans for correction and improvement activities are required? • How do you determine whether a Corrective Action Plan or Improvement Plan is needed? • How will Corrective Action Plans/ Improvement Plans be evaluated?

  19. Objective 3 • Participants will gain a working understanding and increased capacity for tracking, verifying, and documenting that correction of noncompliance has occurred

  20. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Tracking Correction of Noncompliance • An SEA/LA must develop a mechanism for tracking the correction of all identified issues of noncompliance, regardless of the level of noncompliance

  21. Objective 3 (cont’d) • The timeline for correction of noncompliance (as soon as possible but in no case later than one year) begins on the date on which the SEA/LA notifies a school or program, in writing, of its finding of noncompliance. • Both the correction of noncompliance by an LEA/LA and the verification of correction of that noncompliance by the SEA/LA must be completed within that one-year time frame.

  22. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Verification of Correction of Noncompliance • The SEA/LA must account for all findings of noncompliance for any level of noncompliance • Monitoring systems • Self-assessments • Data collected by the State and by the Department of Education • Identify where noncompliance occurred, the percentage level of noncompliance in each of those sites, and the root cause of the noncompliance

  23. Objective 3 (cont’d) • An SEA/LA must verify correction of all findings of noncompliance, regardless of the level of noncompliance • SEAs/LAs cannot use a threshold of less than 100% to conclude that the school or program has corrected noncompliance (i.e., If 95% compliance is reported, the 5% of noncompliance must be corrected.)

  24. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Definition of a Finding • A written notification containing: • The SEA/LA’s conclusion that the program is not in compliance • The citation of the relevant regulatory or statutory requirement • A description of the quantitative and or qualitative data supporting the SEA/LA’s conclusion • A statement that requires correction as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from notification.

  25. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Verification of Correction of Noncompliance Process (2-Prong Review) • Prong 1 • SEA/LA must review each individual case of noncompliance to ensure child-specific correction of the noncompliance • Prong 2 • Review a subsequent set of data to ensure that the LEA/EIP is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance during that review)

  26. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Extensiveness and timeline for conducting Prong 2 review • Levels of compliance • History of longstanding noncompliance • Dispute resolution history • Examples of Prong 2 Reviews • Review additional data through scheduled data pulls • On-site visits to review additional data • Desk audit of randomly selected data

  27. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Both Prongs apply to correction of all findings of non-compliance reported in APRs, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance. • An SEA/LA may choose to keep the original finding open, if the review of a subsequent set of data did not show 100% compliance (Prong 2).

  28. Objective 3 (cont’d) • An SEA/LA may choose to close the original finding if the individual instances of noncompliance originally identified were corrected (Prong 1) and issue a new finding after a review of subsequent data showed instances of noncompliance (Prong 2). • The SEA/LA may choose not to issue a letter of finding if a program corrects noncompliance before the SEA/LA issues a letter of findings of noncompliance • Prong 1 and Prong 2 must be satisfied before a the SEA/LA does not issue a letter of finding

  29. Objective 3 (cont’d) • For child-specific noncompliance without a timeline requirement, the SEA/LA must ensure that the program corrected the noncompliance in each individual case, unless: • The requirement no longer applies; or • The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the program.

  30. Objective 3 (cont’d) • For child-specific noncompliance with a timeline requirement, the SEA/LA must ensure that the service/evaluation/etc. was provided, although late, unless: • The requirement no longer applies; or • The child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the program. • Period of time for verification of 100% correction of noncompliance should depend on the level and cause of the noncompliance

  31. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Mechanisms/Documentation to use as evidence of verification of correction • Identify which data will be used to verify correction of the noncompliance • Findings (Written Notification) • Corrective Action Plans • Data Required to demonstrate correction

  32. Objective 3 (cont’d) • How data for verification is collected and verified • If selections are used, how they are representative • Incentives for correction/improvement

  33. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Documenting Correction of Noncompliance • Notification of Findings • Corrective action plans • Notification of verification of correction • Notify (in writing) the accountable party (school/program/etc.) that correction has been verified and the finding of noncompliance is closed out. Notification may include…

  34. Objective 3 (cont’d) • Corrective actions taken to correct the noncompliance • Data used to verify correction • Correction of each instance • Updated data demonstrating 100% compliance • Whether the noncompliance was corrected within 12 months of the issuing the finding • Notification of findings • Corrective action plans • Notification of verification of correction • Procedures for verification of correction

  35. Discussion Questions • How do you make findings of noncompliance? • How is data for verification collected and verified? • If samples are used, how do you ensure that they are representative? • How do you document and track correction of noncompliance? • What documentation could you use as evidence of how you verify correction? • What incentives do you have in place for timely correction/improvement? • What is your process for imposing sanctions for lack of correction? • When/how do you determine what actions and data will be required to demonstrate correction?

  36. Working Example • An LA found noncompliance in 4% of the service records it reviewed regarding the timely service delivery requirements (Indicator 1) and issued a finding. • What steps must be taken to ensure that correction of noncompliance has occurred?

  37. Working Example • A State examined data to determine whether an LEA had corrected previously identified noncompliance. It verified correction in the child records where it initially based its findings, but did not also verify, based on its review of updated data, that the LEA was correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements. The State concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance. • Correct or Not Correct?

  38. Working Example A State monitored an LEA and found that in 5 of 20 records reviewed, students had not received timely evaluations. The State issued a finding of noncompliance and required correction within one year. To verify correction of the noncompliance, the State: • Reviewed the records for the 5 students who had not received timely evaluations to ensure that, although late, they were evaluated; and • Reviewed updated data (20 new student records). In 18 of the 20 cases (90%), the students were timely evaluated. The State concluded that the LEA had corrected the noncompliance. Correct or Not Correct?

  39. Resources • OSEP Memo 09-02, October 17, 2008 • FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND REPORTING ON CORRECTION IN THE STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN (SPP)/ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT (APR) SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 • www.rrfcnetwork.org • http://therightidea.tadnet.org/articles

More Related