IDEA Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html

Part C State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (Part C SPP/APR)
General Instructions
Each State is required to submit its FFY 2026 SPP/APR by February 1, 2028. 
The State’s FFY 2026 Part C SPP/APR submission must include:
    1) An introduction, with sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the State’s systems designed to drive improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and to ensure that the Lead Agency and early intervention service (EIS) providers and EIS programs1 meet the requirements of Part C of the IDEA. This introduction must include descriptions of the State’s:
    a. General Supervision System: The systems that are in place to ensure that the IDEA Part C requirements are met (e.g., integrated monitoring activities; data on processes and results; the SPP/APR; fiscal management; policies, procedures, and practices resulting in effective implementation; and improvement, correction, incentives, and sanctions). Include a description of all the mechanisms the State uses to identify and verify correction of noncompliance and improve results. This should include, but not be limited to, State monitoring, State database/data system, dispute resolution, fiscal management systems as well as other mechanisms through which the State is able to determine compliance and/or issue written findings of noncompliance. The State should include the following elements: 
        i. A description of the process the State uses to select EIS providers and/or EIS programs for monitoring, the schedule, and number of EIS providers/programs monitored per year. 
        ii. A description of how child records are chosen, including the number of child records that are selected, as part of the State’s process for determining an EIS provider’s and EIS program’s compliance with IDEA requirements and verifying the EIS provider/program’s correction of any identified compliance. 
        iii. A description of the data system(s) the State uses to collect monitoring and SPP/APR data, and the period from which records are reviewed. 
        iv. A description of how the State issues findings: by EIS provider and/or EIS program; and if findings are issued by the number of instances or by EIS provider and/or EIS program.
        v. If applicable, a description of the adopted procedures that permit its EIS providers/ programs to correct noncompliance prior to the State’s issuance of a finding (i.e., pre-finding correction).
        vi. A description of the State’s system of graduated and progressive sanctions to ensure the correction of identified noncompliance and to address areas in need of improvement, used as necessary and consistent with IDEA Part C’s enforcement provisions, the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), and State policies. 
        vii. A description of how the State makes annual determinations of EIS program performance, including the criteria the State uses and the schedule for notifying EIS programs of their determinations. If the determinations are made public, include a web link for the most recent determinations.
        viii. A web link to information about the State’s general supervision policies, procedures, and process that is made available to the public.
        ix. A description of how the State identifies critical issues using formal and informal dispute resolution processes.
    b. Technical Assistance System: The mechanisms that the State has in place to ensure the timely delivery of high quality, evidence-based technical assistance and support to EIS providers/programs;
    c. Professional Development System: The mechanisms the State has in place to ensure that service providers have the skills to effectively provide services that improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families;
    d. Stakeholder Engagement: The mechanisms for broad stakeholder engagement, including activities carried out to obtain input from, and build the capacity of, a diverse group of parents to support the implementation activities designed to improve outcomes, including target setting and any subsequent revisions to targets, analyzing data, developing improvement strategies, and evaluating progress including: 
        i. The number of parent members who provided stakeholder input and a description of how the parent members of the Interagency Coordinating Council, parent center staff, parents from local and statewide advocacy and advisory committees, and individual parents were engaged in setting targets, analyzing data, developing improvement strategies, and evaluating progress;
        ii. Description of the activities conducted to increase the capacity of diverse groups of parents to support the development of implementation activities designed to improve outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families;
        iii. The mechanisms and timelines for soliciting public input for target setting, analyzing data, developing improvement strategies, and evaluating progress;
        iv. The mechanisms and timelines for making the results of the target setting, data analysis, development of the improvement strategies, and evaluation available to the public; and
    e. Reporting to the Public: How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY 2025 performance of each EIS program located in the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its FFY 2025 APR, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.702(b)(1)(i)(A); and a description of where, on its website, a complete copy of the State’s SPP/APR, including any revisions, if the State has revised the targets that it submitted with its FFY 2025 APR in 2027, is available2. 
    2) Baseline data for each indicator. If the State is proposing to revise its baseline data for an indicator, it must provide an explanation for that revision. 
    3) Targets for each indicator that cover the years of the SPP (i.e., FFY 2026 through FFY 2031). The State’s FFY 2031 target must reflect improvement over the baseline data. In setting its targets for FFY 2026 through 2031, the State must describe its stakeholder input process.
    4) Data from FFY 2026 and other responsive SPP/APR information for each indicator.
    5) If the State’s FFY 2025 data reflect less than 100% compliance in a specific indicator, but the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2025, the State must provide an explanation of why it did not issue any written findings of noncompliance. If the State did not issue any findings because it has adopted procedures that permit its EIS programs/providers to correct noncompliance prior to the State’s issuance of a finding (i.e., pre-finding correction), the explanation must include how the State verified, prior to issuing a finding, that the EIS program/provider: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through monitoring or the State’s data system (systemic compliance); and (2) if applicable, has corrected each individual case of child-specific noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the EIS program/provider, and no outstanding corrective action exists under a State complaint or due process hearing decision for the child. 
    6) The reasons for slippage for indicators where the State did not meet its FFY 2026 target, and any slippage greater than the established threshold.
    7) Information to address any actions required by OSEP’s response to the State’s FFY 2025 SPP/APR, including actions related to the correction of findings of noncompliance identified by the State.
The Part C Indicator Measurement Table lists the monitoring priorities and indicators, required data sources, measurement, and instructions for providing the required information for each indicator. 
In addition to the percentages required in the indicators, States are required to provide actual numbers used in the calculations.3
Indicators 3 and 4 – Sampling 
States are allowed to use sampling when so indicated on the Part C Indicator Measurement Table (i.e., Indicators 3 and 4). When sampling is used, a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates must be submitted to OSEP. The description must describe the: (a) sampling procedures followed (e.g., random/stratified, forms validation); and (b) similarity or differences of the sample to the population of children with disabilities in the early intervention program (e.g., how all aspects of the population, such as disability category, race, age, sex, family income, etc., will be represented). The description must also include how the Lead Agency addresses any problems with: (a) response rates; (b) missing data; and (c) selection bias.
Samples from EIS programs must be representative of each of the EIS programs sampled, considering such variables as eligibility definition (diagnosed condition or developmental delay), age, race, sex, and family income. In reporting on the performance of small EIS programs, the Lead Agency shall not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children or where the available data are insufficient to yield statistically reliable information, i.e., numbers are too small.
For indicators that permit sampling, the Lead Agency must include in its report on the performance of EIS programs the most recently available performance data on each EIS program and the date the data were obtained. If a Lead Agency is using sampling for one or more indicators, the Lead Agency must sample on the performance of each EIS program on each of those indicators at least once during the period of FFYs 2026 - 2031. Further, if a Lead Agency is using sampling, the Lead Agency must collect data from a representative sample of EIS programs each year in order to report on State performance annually.
If a State will use its currently approved sampling plan and only change the years for which it is used, the State can provide an assurance to this effect. If a State proposes to use a sampling plan that was not previously used/approved or will revise its current sampling plan, the State must submit the sampling plan for approval.
Indicators 5 and 6 – Child Find
To improve the analysis of whether States are identifying children who need services as early as possible, States should conduct root cause analyses of child find identification rates, including reviewing data (if available) on the number of children referred, evaluated, and identified. This root cause analysis may include examining not only demographic data (such as race and ethnicity data reported under IDEA section 618 and Indicators 5 and 6), but also other child-find related data available to the State (such as geographic location, family income, primary language, etc.). The State should report the results of its analysis. Furthermore, if a State is required to report on the reasons for slippage, then the State must include the results of its analysis.
Indicator 11 – State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) 
The State must, consistent with its evaluation plan, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. The specific content required includes:
    a. Data and Analysis on the extent to which the State has made progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result(s) (SiMR) for children with disabilities;
    b. Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation of SSIP strategies that inform decisions for the State’s intention to continue implementing the SSIP without modification or rationale for any revisions;
    c. Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement throughout all phases of improvement cycles; and
    d. Additional Information not already reported related to the ongoing implementation of the SSIP.
Submission
The State must submit its Part C SPP/APR electronically using the Department’s online SPP/APR submission tool. If you have any questions about the Part C SPP/APR and/or the submission procedures listed above, please contact your Part C State Lead.
Paperwork Burden Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0578. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,093 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et. seq.). If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate, suggestions for improving this individual collection, or if you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual form, application or survey, please contact Christine Pilgrim/ [email protected] directly.