Idaho Part C FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators
1. Percent of infants and toddlers
with IFSPs who receive the
early intervention services on
their IFSPs in a timely manner.
[Compliance Indicator]
2. Percent of infants and toddlers
with IFSPs who primarily
receive early intervention
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Status
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 72%. OSEP
could not determine whether the
State made progress because
baseline data from the SPP were not
comparable to the FFY 2005 data.
The State did not meet its FFY 2005
target of 100%.
The State reported that
noncompliance identified in FFY
2004 was partially corrected in a
timely manner.
The State submitted data beyond
the FFY 2005 reporting period
indicating 83.3% compliance as of
December 1, 2006.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 92.5%. The
State met its FFY 2005 target of
OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
As requested in OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter, the State revised its
timely definition for this indicator in its SPP. The State also revised its SPP
improvement activities. OSEP accepts those revisions.
As requested in OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter, the State included
in its calculation (both in the numerator and the denominator) those children for
whom delays are attributable to documented exceptional family circumstances.
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter also required the State to submit, in
its FFY 2005 APR, its final progress report, which was due October 29, 2006,
demonstrating compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§303.340(c),
303.342(e), and 303.344(f)(1). The data in the FFY 2005 APR show continuing
noncompliance.
In addition, the State reported that of the six regions in which noncompliance
was identified during FFY 2004, one region corrected the noncompliance within
12 months, and another region came into compliance during the reporting year.
(page 35 of APR) It appears that the State also reported updated information
regarding findings made in FFY 2005, but it is unclear if the findings were made
in the same regions in which the noncompliance was identified in FFY 2004, and
it is unclear which regions corrected the noncompliance (pages 5 and 37 of
APR).
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in 34 CFR §§303.340(c), 303.342(e), and 303.344(f)(1), including
correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2005 and the remaining
noncompliance identified in FFY 2004.
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
OSEP accepts those revisions.
Page 1
 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

services in the home or
programs for typically
developing children.
[Results Indicator]
92%. OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance. It is also important
that the State monitor to ensure that IFSP teams make individualized decisions
regarding the settings in which infants and toddlers receive early intervention
services, in accordance with Part C natural environment requirements.

3. Percent of infants and toddlers Entry data provided. The State reported the required entry data and activities. The State must provide
with IFSPs who demonstrate progress data and improvement activities in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,
improved: 2008.
A. Positive social-emotional
skills (including social
relationships);
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills
(including early language/
communication); and
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet their
needs.
[Results Indicator; New]

4. Percent of families The State’s reported baseline data The State provided baseline data, targets and improvement activities and OSEP
participating in Part C who for this indicator are: accepts the SPP for this indicator.
report that early intervention
4A. 56%
services have helped the
family: 4B. 52%
A. Know their rights; 4C. 68%
B. Effectively communicate
their children's needs; and
C. Help their children develop
and learn.

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 2

 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators
[Results Indicator; New]
5. Percent of infants and toddlers
birth to 1 with IFSPs compared
to:
A. Other States with similar
eligibility definitions; and
B. National data.
[Results Indicator]
6. Percent of infants and toddlers
birth to 3 with IFSPs compared
to:
A. Other States with similar
eligibility definitions; and
B. National data.
[Results Indicator]
7. Percent of eligible infants and
toddlers with IFSPs for whom
an evaluation and assessment
and an initial IFSP meeting
were conducted within Part C’s
45-day timeline.
[Compliance Indicator]
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance.
for this indicator under IDEA
section 618 are 1.75%. The State
met its FFY 2005 target of 1.59%.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve performance.
for this indicator under IDEA
section 618 are 2.9%. The State
met its FFY 2005 target of 2.73%.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
for this indicator are 90.3%. This OSEP accepts those revisions.
represents progress from the FFY
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to submit, by
2004 data of 88.8%. The State did
February 1, 2007, data that demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 34
not meet its FFY 2005 target of
CFR §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1), and 303.342(a). Although the data in the
100%.
FFY 2005 APR show noncompliance, the State’s data represents progress from
The State reported timely correction its FFY 2004 data, and the State reported timely correction of noncompliance
of noncompliance identified in FFY identified in FFY 2004.
2004.
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the 45-
day timeline requirements in 34 CFR §§303.321(e)(2), 303.322(e)(1) and
Page 3
 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators
8A. Percent of all children exiting
Part C who received timely
transition planning to support
the child’s transition to
preschool and other appropriate
community services by their
third birthday including:
A. IFSPs with transition steps
and services;
[Compliance Indicator]
8B. Percent of all children exiting
Part C who received timely
transition planning to support
the child’s transition to
preschool and other appropriate
community services by their
third birthday including:
B. Notification to LEA, if
child potentially eligible for
Part B; and
[Compliance Indicator]
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Status
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 79%. This
represents slippage from the FFY
2004 data of 81.25%. The State did
not meet its FFY 2005 target of
100%.
The State reported timely correction
of noncompliance identified in FFY
2004.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 87.5%. This
represents progress from the FFY
2004 data of 58%. The State did
not meet its FFY 2005 target of
100%.
The State reported that prior
noncompliance was corrected in a
timely manner for three of four
regions in which noncompliance
was identified in FFY 2004.
The State submitted data beyond
the FFY 2005 reporting period
indicating this region was not yet at
full compliance as of December
2006.
OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
303.342(a), including correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2005.
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
OSEP accepts those revisions.
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to ensure that the
identified noncompliance was corrected and include in the FFY 2005 APR data
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§303.148(b)(4)
and 303.344(h). The data in the FFY 2005 APR show continuing
noncompliance, but the State reported timely correction of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2004.
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in 34 CFR §§303.148(b)(4) and 303.344(h), including correction of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2005.
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
OSEP accepts those revisions.
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to ensure that the
identified noncompliance was corrected and include in the FFY 2005 APR data
that demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1).
While the data in the FFY 2005 APR show noncompliance, they represent
progress from the State’s FFY 2004 data. In addition, the State reported that it
timely corrected noncompliance identified in FFY 2004 in three of four regions.
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(1), including correction of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2005 and the remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2004.
Page 4
 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators
8C. Percent of all children exiting
Part C who received timely
transition planning to support
the child’s transition to
preschool and other appropriate
community services by their
third birthday including:
C. Transition conference, if
child potentially eligible for
Part B.
[Compliance Indicator]
9. General supervision system
(including monitoring,
complaints, hearings, etc.)
identifies and corrects
noncompliance as soon as
possible but in no case later
than one year from
identification.
[Compliance Indicator]
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Status
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 84%. This
represents progress from the FFY
2004 data of 66.7%. The State did
not meet its FFY 2005 target of
100%.
The State reported that prior
noncompliance was corrected in a
timely manner for four of five
regions in which noncompliance
was identified in FFY 2004.
The State submitted data beyond
the FFY 2005 reporting period
indicating this region was not yet at
full compliance as of December
2006.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 75.6%. This
represents progress from the FFY
2004 data of 29%. The State did
not meet its FFY 2005 target of
100%.
OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
The State revised the improvement activities for this indicator in its SPP and
OSEP accepts those revisions.
As requested in OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter, the State included
in its calculation (both in the numerator and the denominator) those children for
whom delays are attributable under Indicator 8C to documented exceptional
family circumstances.
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter also required the State to ensure that
the identified noncompliance was corrected and include in the FFY 2005 APR
data that demonstrate compliance with the requirements in 34 CFR
§303.148(b)(2)(i) (as modified by IDEA section 637(a)(9)). While the data in the
FFY 2005 APR show noncompliance, they represent progress from the State’s
FFY 2004 data. In addition, the State reported that it timely corrected
noncompliance identified in FFY 2004 in four of five regions.
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in the
FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in 34 CFR §303.148(b)(2)(i) (as modified by IDEA section
637(a)(9)), including correction of noncompliance identified in FFY 2005 and
the remaining noncompliance identified in FFY 2004.
The State revised its improvement activities and baseline data for this indicator in
its SPP and OSEP accepts those revisions.
OSEP’s March 24, 2006 SPP response letter required the State to include in the
FFY 2005 APR documentation that the State ensured the correction of identified
noncompliance, as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from
identification. While the data in the FFY 2005 APR show noncompliance, they
represent progress from the State’s FFY 2004 data.
In its FFY 2005 APR, the State reported that it identified in 2004-2005 and
timely corrected in 2005-2006 noncompliance found in one region for Indicator 5
because it was below expected levels of children 0-1 year of age served by the
one region as compared to the State and national demographics. The State may
not find regions in noncompliance based on the number of children they identify
Page 5
 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators Status OSEP Analysis/Next Steps

and serve. In January 2007, the State verbally explained to OSEP that this
finding was based on the lack of public awareness activities in the region and not
a numerical goal.
The State reported that noncompliance identified in 2004-2005 that was to be
corrected in 2005-2006 was partially corrected in a timely manner in Indicators
1, 2, 8B, and 8C and fully corrected in Indicators 5, 7, 8A and two non-priority
areas relating to eligibility and file documentation.
The State must implement and evaluate its improvement activities and revise the
activities, if appropriate, to ensure they will enable the State to include data in
the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in IDEA sections 616(a), 642, and 635(a)(10) and 34 CFR
§303.501(b), including data on the correction of outstanding noncompliance
identified in FFY 2004. In its response to Indicator 9 in the FFY 2006 APR due
February 1, 2008, the State must disaggregate by APR indicator the status of
timely correction of the noncompliance findings identified by the State during
FFY 2005. In addition, the State must, in responding to Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B,
and 8C, specifically identify and address the noncompliance identified in this
table under those indicators.

10. Percent of signed written The State did not receive any signed The State did not receive any signed written complaints during the FFY 2005
complaints with reports issued written complaints during the FFY reporting period. The State described improvement activities it completed.
that were resolved within 60- 2005 reporting period.
day timeline or a timeline
extended for exceptional
circumstances with respect to a
particular complaint.
[Compliance Indicator]

11. Percent of fully adjudicated due The State did not receive any The State did not receive any hearing requests during the FFY 2005 reporting
process hearing requests that hearing requests during the FFY period. The State described improvement activities it completed.
were fully adjudicated within 2005 reporting period.
the applicable timeline.

FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table Page 6

 Monitoring Priorities and
Indicators
[Compliance Indicator]
12. Percent of hearing requests that
went to resolution sessions that
were resolved through
resolution session settlement
agreements (applicable if Part
B due process procedures are
adopted).
[Results Indicator; New]
13. Percent of mediations held that
resulted in mediation
agreements.
[Results Indicator]
14. State reported data (618 and
State Performance Plan and
Annual Performance Report)
are timely and accurate.
[Compliance Indicator]
FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table
Status
Not applicable because Part B due
process procedures have not been
adopted.
No mediations were held.
The State’s FFY 2005 reported data
for this indicator are 100%. The
State met its FFY 2005 target of
100%.
OSEP Analysis/Next Steps
Not applicable because Part B due process procedures have not been adopted.
The State reported that no mediations were requested or held during the FFY
2005 reporting period. The State is not required to provide targets or
improvement activities until any FFY in which 10 or more mediations were
conducted.
The State provided updated information regarding its statewide database in the
SPP. OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts and looks forward to reviewing data in
the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, that continue to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements in IDEA section 616, 618, and 642, and 34
CFR §§303.176 and 303.540.
Page 7