FFY2020-FFY2025 Part B SPP/APR Measurement Table

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

Download: docx | pdf | html



Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and 
Annual Performance Report (APR)
Indicator Measurement Table
FFYs 2026-2031

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
FFY 2026 Submission

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering  educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

		
Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)
Part C Indicator Measurement Table

Table of Contents	
Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments	3
Indicator 1 – Percent of infants and toddlers with Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.	3
Indicator 2 – Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings.	5
Indicator 3 – Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved outcomes.	6
Indicator 4 – Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family.	9
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C	11
Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find	11
Indicator 5 – Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs.	11
Indicator 6 – Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs.	12
Indicator 7 – Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline.	13
Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition	14
Indicator 8 – Percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning.	14
Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision	17
Indicator 9 - Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable if Part B due process procedures under Section 615 of the IDEA are adopted).	17
Indicator 10 - Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.	18
Indicator 11 – State Systemic Improvement Plan	19
Indicator 12 – General Supervision	22
Paperwork Burden Statement	24



Monitoring Priority: Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments 

Indicator 1 – Percent of infants and toddlers with Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must be based on actual, not an average, number of days. Include the State’s criteria for “timely” receipt of early intervention services (i.e., the time period from parent consent to when IFSP services are actually initiated).
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who receive the early intervention services on their IFSPs in a timely manner) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.
Account for untimely receipt of services, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select early intervention service (EIS) programs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, describe the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period) and how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Targets must be 100%.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. States report in both the numerator and denominator under Indicator 1 on the number of children for whom the State ensured the timely initiation of new services identified on the IFSP. Include the timely initiation of new early intervention services from both initial IFSPs and subsequent IFSPs. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
The State’s timeliness measure for this indicator must be either: (1) a time period that runs from when the parent consents to IFSP services; or (2) the IFSP initiation date (established by the IFSP Team, including the parent).
States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 303.310(b), documented in the child’s record. If a State chooses to report in its calculation children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child’s record, the numbers of these children are to be included in the numerator and denominator.
Include in the discussion of the data, the numbers the State used to determine its calculation under this indicator and report separately the number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances.




Indicator 2 – Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS902.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily receive early intervention services in the home or community-based settings) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers with IFSPs)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
The data reported in this indicator should be consistent with the State’s 618 data reported in Table 2. If not, explain.


Indicator 3 – Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:
    A. Development and use of social-emotional skills (including within social relationships);
    B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication); and
    C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
State selected data source.
Measurement:
Outcomes:
    A. Development and use of social-emotional skills (including within social relationships);
    B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and
    C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
Progress categories for A, B and C:
    a. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning = [(# of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    b. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    c. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    d. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
    e. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of infants and toddlers with IFSPs assessed)] times 100.
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:
Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in category (d)) divided by (# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (a) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (b) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (c) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d))] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (d) plus # of infants and toddlers reported in progress category (e)) divided by the (total # of infants and toddlers reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e))] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling of infants and toddlers with IFSPs is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions for additional instructions on sampling.)
In the measurement, include in the numerator and denominator only infants and toddlers with IFSPs who received early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.
Report: (1) the number of infants and toddlers who exited the Part C program during the reporting period, as reported in the State’s Part C exiting data under Section 618 of the IDEA; and (2) the number of those infants and toddlers who did not receive early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. States will use the progress categories for each of the three Outcomes to calculate and report the two Summary Statements.
Report progress data and calculate Summary Statements to compare against the six targets. Provide the actual numbers and percentages for the five reporting categories for each of the three Outcomes.
In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining “comparable to same-aged peers.” If a State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Process (COS), then the criteria for defining “comparable to same-aged peers” has been defined as a child who has been assigned a score of 6 or 7 on the COS.
In addition, list the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including if the State is using the ECO COS.
If the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”) under IDEA Section 632(5)(B)(i), the State must report data in two ways. First, it must report on all eligible children but exclude its at-risk infants and toddlers (i.e., include just those infants and toddlers experiencing developmental delay (or “developmentally delayed children”) or having a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay (or “children with diagnosed conditions”)). Second, the State must separately report outcome data on either: (1) just its at-risk infants and toddlers; or (2) aggregated performance data on all of the infants and toddlers it serves under Part C (including developmentally delayed children, children with diagnosed conditions, and at-risk infants and toddlers).



Indicator 4 – Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family:
    A. Know their rights; 
    B. Effectively communicate their children’s needs; and 
    C. Help their children develop and learn. 
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
State selected data source. State must describe the data source in the SPP/APR.
Measurement:
    A. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
    B. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family effectively communicate their children’s needs) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
    C. Percent = [(# of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family help their children develop and learn) divided by the (# of respondent families participating in Part C)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling of families participating in Part C is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions for additional instructions on sampling.)
Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. The State must describe how the data are collected. The State must also describe how the data are utilized to promote meaningful family involvement in order to improve services and outcomes for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
While a survey is not required for this indicator, a State using a survey must provide a link to the current survey and report whether the survey is new or has been revised.
Report the number of families to whom the surveys were distributed and the number of respondent families participating in Part C. The survey response rate is auto calculated using the submitted data.
The State must compare the current year’s response rate to the previous year(s) response rate(s) and describe strategies that will be implemented which are expected to increase the response rate year over year.
States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centers in collecting data.


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C

Effective General Supervision Part C / Child Find

Indicator 5 – Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS902 and Census (for the denominator).
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 1)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s Section 618 data is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations. The data reported in this indicator should be consistent with the State’s reported 618 data reported in Table 1. If not, explain why.
The State should conduct a root cause analysis of child find identification rates, including reviewing data (if available) on the number of children referred, evaluated, and identified. This analysis may include examining not only demographic data but also other child-find related data available to the State (e.g., geographic location, family income, primary language, etc.). The State should report the results of this analysis. If the State is required to report on the reasons for slippage, the State must include the results of its analyses.


Indicator 6 – Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS902 and Census (for the denominator).
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs) divided by the (population of infants and toddlers birth to 3)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s Section 618 data is not allowed. 
Describe the results of the calculations. The data reported in this indicator should be consistent with the State’s reported 618 data reported in Table 1. If not, explain why.
The State should conduct a root cause analysis of child find identification rates, including reviewing data (if available) on the number of children referred, evaluated, and identified. This analysis may include examining not only demographic data but also other child-find related data available to the State (e.g., geographic location, family income, primary language, etc.). The State should report the results of this analysis. If the State is required to report on the reasons for slippage, the State must include the results of its analysis.


Indicator 7 – Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline.  
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement
Data Source:
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system and must address the timeline from point of referral to initial IFSP meeting based on actual, not an average, number of days.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45-day timeline) divided by the (# of eligible infants and toddlers evaluated and assessed for whom an initial IFSP meeting was required to be conducted)] times 100.
Account for untimely evaluations, assessments, and initial IFSP meetings, including the reasons for delays. 
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, describe the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period) and how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Targets must be 100%.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide actual numbers used in the calculation.
States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 303.310(b), documented in the child’s record. If a State chooses to report in its calculation children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child’s record, the numbers of these children are to be included in the numerator and denominator.
Include in the discussion of the data, the numbers the State used to determine its calculation under this indicator and report separately the number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances.
Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

Indicator 8 – Percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has:
    A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday;
    B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the State educational agency (SEA) and the local educational agency (LEA) where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and
    C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Data to be taken from monitoring or State data system.
Measurement:
    A. Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C at age 3 who have an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties not more than nine months, prior to their third birthday) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C at age 3)] times 100.
    B. Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where notification (consistent with any opt- out policy adopted by the State) to the SEA and LEA occurred at least 90 days prior to their third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.
    C. Percent = [(# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C where the transition conference occurred at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B) divided by the (# of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.
Account for untimely transition planning under 8A, 8B, and 8C, including the reasons for delays.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Indicators 8A, 8B, and 8C: Targets must be 100%.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Indicators 8A and 8C: If data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. If data are from State monitoring, also describe the method used to select EIS programs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, describe the time period in which the data were collected (e.g., September through December, fourth quarter, selection from the full reporting period) and how the data accurately reflect data for infants and toddlers with IFSPs for the full reporting period.
Indicators 8A and 8C: States are not required to report in their calculation the number of children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances, as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 303.310(b), documented in the child’s record. If a State chooses to report in its calculation children for whom the State has identified the cause for the delay as exceptional family circumstances documented in the child’s record, the numbers of these children are to be included in the numerator and denominator. Include in the discussion of the data, the numbers the State used to determine its calculation under this indicator and report separately the number of documented delays attributable to exceptional family circumstances.
Indicator 8A: The measurement is intended to capture those children exiting at age 3 for whom an IFSP must be developed with transition steps and services within the required timeline consistent with 34 CFR §303.209(d) and, as such, only children between 2 years 3 months and 2 years 9 months should be included in the denominator.
Indicator 8B: Under 34 C.F.R. § 303.401(e), the State may adopt a written policy that requires the lead agency to provide notice to the parent of an eligible child with an IFSP of the impending notification to the SEA and LEA under IDEA Section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.209(b)(1) and (2) and permits the parent within a specified time period to “opt-out” of the referral. Under the State’s opt-out policy, the State is not required to include in the calculation under 8B (in either the numerator or denominator) the number of children for whom the parents have opted out. However, the State must include in the discussion of data, the number of parents who opted out. In addition, any written opt- out policy must be on file with the Department of Education as part of the State’s Part C application under IDEA Section 637(a)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.209(b) and 303.401(d).
Indicator 8C: The measurement is intended to capture those children for whom a transition conference must be held within the required timeline consistent with 34 CFR §303.209(e) and, as such, only children between 2 years 3 months and 2 years 9 months should be included in the denominator.
Indicator 8C: Do not include in the calculation but provide a separate number for those toddlers for whom the parent did not provide approval for the transition conference.


Effective General Supervision Part C / General Supervision

Indicator 9 - Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (applicable if Part B due process procedures under Section 615 of the IDEA are adopted).
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B) and 1442))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS908.
Measurement:
Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling is not allowed.
This indicator is not applicable to a State that has adopted Part C due process procedures under Section 639 of the IDEA.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of resolution sessions is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of resolution sessions reaches 10 or greater, the State must develop baseline and targets and report them in the corresponding SPP/APR.
States may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75-85%).
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s 618 data, explain.
States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.


Indicator 10 - Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B) and 1442)
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS907.
Measurement:
Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of mediations is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of mediations reaches 10 or greater, the State must develop baseline and report them in the corresponding SPP/APR.
The consensus among mediation practitioners is that 75-85% is a reasonable rate of mediations that result in agreements and is consistent with national mediation success rate data. States may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75-85%).
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s 618 data, explain.
States are not required to report data at the EIS program level.


Indicator 11 – State Systemic Improvement Plan
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
Measurement:
The State’s SPP/APR includes an SSIP that is a comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. The SSIP includes the components described below.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Baseline Data: The State must provide baseline data expressed as a percentage and which is aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. 
Targets: In its FFY 2026 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2028, the State must provide measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the six years from FFY 2026 through FFY 2031. The State’s FFY 2031 target must demonstrate improvement over the State’s baseline data.
Updated Data: In its FFYs 2026 through FFY 2031 SPPs/APRs, due February 2028 through February 2033, the State must provide updated data for that specific FFY (expressed as percentages), and that data must be aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. In its FFYs 2026 through FFY 2031 SPPs/APRs, the State must report on whether it met its target.
Implementation and Evaluation of the SSIP: 
It is of the utmost importance to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families by improving early intervention services. Stakeholders, including parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities, early intervention service (EIS) programs and providers, the State Interagency Coordinating Council, and others, are critical participants in improving results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and must be included in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the SSIP and included in establishing the State’s targets under Indicator 11. The SSIP should include information about stakeholder involvement in all phases of the improvement cycles.
The State must, consistent with its evaluation plan, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. This includes: (A) data and analysis on the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long-term outcomes or objectives for implementation of the SSIP and its progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families (SiMR); (B) the rationale for any revisions that were made, or that the State intends to make, to the SSIP as the result of implementation, analysis, and evaluation; and (C) a description of the meaningful stakeholder engagement. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
Data and Analysis
As required in the Instructions for the Indicator/Measurement, in its FFYs 2026 through 2031 SPPs/APRs, the State must report data for that specific FFY (expressed as actual numbers and percentages) that are aligned with the SiMR. The State must report on whether the State met its target. In addition, the State may report on any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that were collected and analyzed that would suggest progress toward the SiMR. States using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model) should describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR.
Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
The State must provide a narrative or graphic representation (e.g., a logic model) of the principal activities, measures and outcomes that were implemented since the State’s last SSIP submission (i.e., February 1, 2027). The evaluation should align with the theory of action and the evaluation plan. The State must describe any changes to the activities, strategies, or timelines and include a rationale or justification for the changes. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
The State must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that were implemented, and relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance). The State must describe the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2026 APR, report on anticipated outcomes to be attained during FFY 2027, July 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028).
The State must summarize the specific evidence-based practices that were implemented with or on behalf of children and/or families and the strategies or activities that ensured their use with fidelity. Describe how implementation fidelity data and/or any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based practices and inform decision- making for the next year of SSIP implementation.
Stakeholder Engagement
The State must describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts and how the State addressed concerns, if any, raised by stakeholders through its engagement activities.

Additional Information
The State should provide any information not already described related to ongoing implementation of the SSIP. 

Indicator 12 – General Supervision
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
The State must include findings from data collected through all components of the State’s general supervision system that are used to identify noncompliance. This includes, but is not limited to, information collected through State monitoring, State database/data system, dispute resolution, and fiscal management systems as well as other mechanisms through which noncompliance is identified by the State. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation. Include all findings of noncompliance regardless of the specific type and extent of noncompliance. 
Measurement:
This SPP/APR indicator requires the reporting on the percent of findings of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: 
    a. # of findings of noncompliance issued the prior Federal fiscal year (FFY) (e.g., for the FFY 2026 submission, use FFY 2025, July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026)
    b. # of findings of noncompliance the State verified were corrected no later than one year after the State’s written notification of findings of noncompliance
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
This SPP/APR indicator focuses on the State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibility to monitor its Early Intervention Service (EIS) Providers and EIS Programs1 for requirements under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through the State’s reporting on timely correction of noncompliance (20 U.S.C. 1416(a) and 1435(a)(10); 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120 and 303.70). 
Targets must be 100%. 
States are required to complete the General Supervision Data Table within the online reporting tool. 
Report in Column A, the number of findings of noncompliance made in FFY 2025 (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026), and report in Column C1, the number of those findings which were timely corrected, as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State’s written notification of noncompliance. Report in Column B, the number of additional findings of noncompliance related to the compliance indicator made in FFY 2025 (July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026) and report in Column C2, the number of those additional findings related to the compliance indicator which were timely corrected, as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State’s written notification of noncompliance. 
States may also provide additional information related to other findings of noncompliance that are not specific to the compliance indicators(e.g., Results indicators, including related requirements, Fiscal, Dispute Resolution, etc.).
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of child-specific and regulatory/systemic noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response for the previous SPP/APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of previous findings of noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance and the actions that have been taken, or will be taken, to ensure the subsequent correction of the outstanding noncompliance, to address areas in need of improvement, and any sanctions or enforcement actions used, as necessary and consistent with IDEA’s enforcement provisions, the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), and State rules.
Additionally, if the State reported less than 100% compliance for any compliance indicator for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, the data for FFY 2025), but did not identify any findings of noncompliance, the State is required to provide an explanation of why the State did not issue any written findings of noncompliance and include how the State verified, prior to issuing a finding, that the EIS program/provider has corrected each individual case of child-specific noncompliance and is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements.



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.