Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 9

The Lead Agency(LA) is responsible for ensuring the general supervision of all educational programs for children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by any other State agency or local agency. As such, the LA is responsible for the development and implementation the system of general supervision that assures IDEA 2004 requirements will be met. A system of general supervision can be characterized by any number of operational components. For example, the State Performance Plan, policies and procedures, monitoring activities, fiscal management, data on processes and results, improvement and corrections, dispute resolution, and technical assistance and professional development are often cited as critical components of a system of general supervision necessary to meet LA IDEA 2004 obligations. Major self-assessment questions include:

• To what extent is the EI Program currently able to fully meet this obligation?
• Does the EI Program have the necessary authority, oversight, or interagency agreement mechanisms to assure that it can exercise its general supervision obligations with other State agencies?
  • For example, to what extent can the EI Program exercise its general supervision obligations with current monitoring, data, dispute resolution, fiscal management, etc. components? What must be done to ensure that the EI Program can properly exercise its general supervision obligations under the current system?
• Does the EI Program have necessary authority, oversight, or interagency agreement mechanisms to assure that it can exercise its general supervision obligations with all LEAs?
  • For example, what aspects of a system general supervision may be missing or need to be improved (e.g., improvement, corrections, incentives, sanctions) so that the EI Program can properly exercise its general supervision obligations.

If noncompliance is identified and persists: 

• Is the State calculating the percentage correctly?
• Has the State examined and, as needed, revised policies and procedures?
• Has the State identified the root cause of the noncompliance?
• Has the State determined if the noncompliance is localized or systemic?
• If the noncompliance is systemic, has the State done State-wide technical assistance?
• If the noncompliance is localized, has the State taken specific action with the noncompliant locals?
• Has the State implemented strategies that are aligned with the root causes of the noncompliance?
• Has the State evaluated the effect of any training it provided?
• Does the State follow-up to ensure correction is sustained?
• Where continuing noncompliance, can the State document the enforcement actions taken?

Original Word Document

• State sample of a Corrective Action (CAP) template that includes information to help ensure the development of a meaningful CAP that addresses contributing factors of noncompliance in a timely manner. 
• State sample of a Completed Corrective Action Template that provides an example of the kinds of strategies a local program might develop to address contributing factors related to noncompliance. 
• States use a variety of methods to monitor local districts/early intervention programs including off-site activities and on-site activities. This link provides a variety of examples of tools used by States for monitoring purposes.
• Included in this season are specific questions to ask when a State has persistent noncompliance. 
• Checklist developed by NCSEAM a state can use in reviewing and approving CAPs submitted by local programs.

• This link provides the description of the components of the system and how the components function as an integrated system and how the system ensures correction of noncompliance.
• State example for developing Root Cause Questions for Developing Meaningful Corrective Action Plans.
• A State sample for developing and approving CAPs and for tracking correction of noncompliance.  The description includes both a listing of state and regional program responsibilities for the activities as well as when the activities are conducted throughout the year.  Although it is a Part C sample, it can be adapted for Part B.
• When trying to determine the reasons for continued noncompliance, it may be helpful to drill down using the Related Requirements for Part C.
• Developing and Implementing an Effective System of General Supervision: This link provides a description of eight components of a State’s General Supervision system, which provides a means for States to consider their needs, their organizational structure, and other factors to how they are accountable.
• Definitions relevant to indicator C-9  This one page document provides clarification on specific terms that are associated with general supervision reported in Indicators C-9.

• Thinking Through Improvement- the IT Kit, an improvement planning tool, provides states with a process to examine their existing system of general supervision. Based upon the review of the existing system, states can use the PIER improvement planning process provided in the IT Kit to develop a plan for increasing effectiveness and efficiency of their system.  For more information on the IT Kit please contact NCRRC Coordinator, Maureen Hawes at hawes001@umn.edu
• Involvement in the General Supervision Community of Practice (when developed) will offer access to multiple technical assistance strategies through a single venue.