1. Correction of Non-Compliance Prior to Notification Monitoring and Supervision March 11, 2013

3. What Does This Mean for Virginia? DBHDS will officially notify Local Systems of their results for compliance indicators on June 14 (within 3 months of receipt of record review results). The letter from the Commissioner will document any findings of noncompliance.

4. What Does This Mean for Virginia? There is a window of opportunity prior to June 14, 2013 during which Local Systems may demonstrate correction of noncompliance for Indicators 1, 7 and 8. Correction prior to notification will positively impact the Local System’s Determination!

5. Prong 1 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 Local System is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance during that review) Verification of Correction of Noncompliance Process

6. Prong 1 Prong 2 Verification of Correction of Noncompliance Process Both prongs apply to correction of all findings of non-compliance, whether there is a high level of compliance (but below 100%) or a low level of compliance.

7. Prong 1 Applicable in Virginia for Timely Initiation of Services and 45 day timeline Timely Initiation of Services: Documentation that children who hadn’t yet started services now have (or are no longer in the EI system)

8. Prong 1 Applicable in Virginia for Timely Initiation of Services and 45 day timeline 45 Day Timeline: Documentation that children who hadn’t yet had their IFSP meeting now have (or are no longer in the EI system)

9. Prong 2 Data must be reviewed by the State Lead Agency to confirm that the Local System is now demonstrating 100% compliance

10. Prong 2 Local Systems are expected to be reviewing their data on the indicators on an ongoing basis. Local Systems will know through their self-monitoring when they are consistently meeting the requirements. With the new process, Local Systems will be able to notify ITVCA as soon as they are in compliance for a month’s time

11. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 1: Know your local record review results – Indicator 1: Review your local system record review results* – Indicator 7: ITCVA Office will inform you around March 18 if your system is not at 100% – Indicator 8: Review your local system record review results * *Remember: Any instance of noncompliance requires correction. 1

12. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 2: Local Systems are responsible for monitoring in order to identify when they are at 100% for a month. Monitoring Tools are available from ITCVA for those systems who don’t currently have tools available. 2

13. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 3: The Local System must notify ITCVA when they are ready for a review to confirm that they are at 100%. May 10 th is the last date a Local System can request a review to confirm that they have corrected prior to notification. 3

14. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 4: For Indicators 1 and 7: must verify that children noted on Annual Record Review as not yet starting services or who had not yet had an IFSP meeting have now started services/had an IFSP meeting or are no longer in the system (Prong 1) 4

15. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 4 : continued The Monitoring Consultant provides list of records for which data must be submitted for review along with a list of required documentation (Prong 2) Review period is one month Number of records is based on annual child count 4

16. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 5: Local System submits required documentation Documentation must be submitted to the Monitoring Consultant assigned to the indicator: Indicator 1 – Anne Brager Indicator 7 – Richard Corbett Indicator 8 – Mary Anne White 5

17. Process for Correction of Noncompliance prior to June Step 5: continued Monitoring Consultant reviews data to determine if the system has/hasn’t corrected. If review of the documentation confirms correction, a letter confirming correction of noncompliance will be issued. 5

18. Potential Months for Correction of Noncompliance Corresponding Month for ITCVA to Review Documentation/ Verify Correction Indicator 1: Timely Initiation of Services JanuaryMarch FebruaryApril MarchMay Indicator 7: 45 Day Timeline MarchApril May Indicator 8: TransitionJanuaryFebruary March April May Months Available for Correction

19. Indicator 1: Timely Initiation of Services Early March is earliest a Local System can determine if they were in compliance for January Local System will be required to identify Annual IFSPs and/or IFSP Reviews that occurred during the month

20. Indicator 1: Timely Initiation of Services Required documentation (to be submitted via secure server or fax): Documentation that children identified in ARR as not starting services have now started or are no longer in the system (Prong 1) For records identified by ITCVA (Prong 2) Page 6 of the IFSP Page 8 of IFSP (or Page 9 for IFSP Reviews) Contact note for first visit Service Coordinator note documenting family reason for delay, if applicable

21. Indicator 1: Timely Initiation of Services If DBHDS verifies that the LS has corrected, the date of correction will be the earliest IFSP date for the records that were reviewed.

22. Indicator 7: 45 Day Timeline For correction of noncompliance, records will be identified based on the IFSP date, rather than the referral date The earliest month that can be reviewed for correction is March (referrals from December could have IFSP meetings in January and February) April and May are opportunities to correct for March and April

23. Indicator 7: 45 Day Timeline Confirmation of correction of Prong 1 – Richard Corbett will inform you about what documentation is needed to confirm correction to the child level for children referred October 1 – December 31, 2012. Required documentation (to be submitted via secure server or fax) for records identified by ITCVA (Prong 2): – Intake form or SC note documenting referral date – Page 8 of the IFSP; if the parent signed on a different date from the date the meeting was held, SC notes documenting the date of the IFSP must be submitted – If applicable, SC notes documenting family reasons for delay

24. Indicator 7: 45 Day Timeline If corrected, the date of correction will be the earliest IFSP date for the records reviewed.

25. Indicator 8: Transition February is earliest a Local System can determine if they were in compliance in January Required documentation for records identified by ITCVA (to be submitted via secure server or fax): – Page 7 of the IFSP – SC notes to provide additional information, if all of the required information is not included on the IFSP

26. Indicator 8: Transition Correction date = earliest discharge date for records reviewed

27. If the Local System Corrects by March/April/May: A letter will be sent from the EI Administrator notifying the LSM that the non-compliance has been corrected. The June 14, 2013 notification from the Commissioner will reflect 100%, not the Annual Record Review results The Annual Record Review results will be reported in the APR

28. If the Local System Corrects by March/April/May: The Annual Record Review results will be documented on the Determination Form, but the Local System will receive 0 points While the Annual Record Review results will be reported in the Public Report, a notation will be included indicating that the Local System has corrected

29. Section 1: SPP/APR Compliance Indicators Indicator State Target Local Record Review Result Date Corrected Subsequent Noncomplian ce Identified and Not Corrected by 6/30/12 Score 01: Timely Initiation of Services 100% 65%2/4/20130 07: 45-Day Timeline 100% 65%2 08A: Transition Steps and Services 100% 94%1 08B: Transition Notification to LEA 100% 94%1/3/20130 08C: Transition Conference 100% 0 Scoring is per indicator; possible points = 5 x 2 = 10 95%-100% OR correction to 100% by end of monitoring year (06/30/12) = 0 points 70%-94% OR identification of isolated noncompliance after record review = 1 point <70% OR identification of systemic noncompliance after record review = 2 points 3 How Correction Prior to Notification Impacts Determination

30. Section 7: Local EIS Determination Tabulation Table Section Possibl e Points Score Section 1: SPP/APR Compliance Indicators10 3 Section 2: SPP/APR Results Indicators2 0 Section 3: Timely Correction of Noncompliance2 0 Section 4: Dispute Resolution2 0 Section 5: Fiscal Monitoring2 0 Section 6: Data Quality2 0 Local EIS 2013 TOTAL Points 3 Local EIS 2013 Determination % [ = (20-Local System 2013 Total Points) / 20] 85% Local EIS Lowest Compliance Indicator % 65% Local EIS 2013 Determination Category NA Enforcements Required Section 1: SPP/APR Compliance Indicators Indicator State Target Local Record Review Result Date Corrected Subsequent Noncompliance Identified and Not Corrected by 6/30/12 Score 01: Timely Initiation of Services100% 65%2/4/20130 07: 45-Day Timeline100% 65%2 08A: Transition Steps and Services100% 94%1 08B: Transition Notification to LEA100% 94%1/3/20130 08C: Transition Conference100% 0 Scoring is per indicator; possible points = 5 x 2 = 10 95%-100% OR correction to 100% by end of monitoring year (06/30/12) = 0 points 70%-94% OR identification of isolated noncompliance after record review = 1 point <70% OR identification of systemic noncompliance after record review = 2 points 3 Without correction of noncompliance prior to notification, this system’s score for the compliance indicators would have been 6.

31. Section 1: SPP/APR Compliance Indicators Indicator State Target Local Record Review Result Date Corrected Subsequent Noncompliance Identified and Not Corrected by 6/30/12 Score 01: Timely Initiation of Services100% 83%2/4/20130 07: 45-Day Timeline100% 0 08A: Transition Steps and Services100% 0 08B: Transition Notification to LEA100% 95%1/3/20130 08C: Transition Conference100% 0 Scoring is per indicator; possible points = 5 x 2 = 10 95%-100% OR correction to 100% by end of monitoring year (06/30/12) = 0 points 70%-94% OR identification of isolated noncompliance after record review = 1 point <70% OR identification of systemic noncompliance after record review = 2 points 0 Section 7: Local EIS Determination Tabulation Table Section Possible Points Score Section 1: SPP/APR Compliance Indicators10 0 Section 2: SPP/APR Results Indicators2 Section 3: Timely Correction of Noncompliance2 Section 4: Dispute Resolution2 Section 5: Fiscal Monitoring2 Section 6: Data Quality2 Local EIS 2013 TOTAL Points Local EIS 2013 Determination % [ = (20-Local System 2013 Total Points) / 20] Local EIS Lowest Compliance Indicator % 100% Local EIS 2013 Determination Category Enforcements Required Without correction of noncompliance prior to notification, this local system’s score for the compliance indicators would have been 2 and their lowest compliance indicator would have been 83% which would keep them from achieving “meets requirements.”

32. If Noncompliance is Not Corrected Notification Letter from Commissioner will identify the noncompliance and will provide information about required actions including: – Monthly Local System Monitoring and opportunities for correction – Improvement Plan requirements Specific Information will be provided in Webinar May 30 at 9:00 AM.

33. Questions? Let’s Chat!