Detailed Information on the
IDEA Special Education Grants for Infants and Families Assessment

Collect national point of entry data for children entering the Part C service system.

Collect national progress data on children exiting the Part C service system.

Disseminate outcome data and provide targeted technical assistance to States on issues related to data quality.

Collect final baseline data and establish targets for the child outcome measure.

Establish long-term outcome-oriented objectives, and develop a strategy to collect annual performance data in a timely manner.

Work with Congress on the IDEA reauthorization to increase the Act's focus on results, and reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burden.

Work with Congress on the upcoming IDEA reauthorization, which should increase state accountability for child outcomes. Even with no direct evidence that this program improves outcomes, the $10 million increase requested in the 2004 Budget will help States meet their responsibilities under the IDEA.

Measure: The percentage of children participating in the Infants and Families program who demonstrate positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); acquire and use knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and demonstrate appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Explanation:This is a new measure added in FY 2005. Initial data are not anticipated until FY 2007.

Measure: Percentage of participating families participating in Part C that report that early intervention services have increased their family's capacity to enhance their child's development

Explanation:Data for 1998 and 2001 were obtained from the IDEA National Early Insterveition Study. Additional data will not become available until fiscal year 2008.

Measure: The number of States that serve at least 1 percent of infants in the general population under age one through Part C.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of states that serve at least 2 percent of infants and toddlers in the general population birth through age 2 through the Infants and Families program.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of children receiving early intervention services in the home or in programs designed for typically developing peers.

Explanation:

Measure: The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and the Office of Special Education Program's response to the state.

Explanation:This measure is calculated as the average number of workdays between the completion of site visits in a particular fiscal year and the Department's responses to the States.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of this program is to develop and implement statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency systems that provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Evidence: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), section 631(b), and associated GPRA data for this program.

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Studies indicate that children with disabilities who receive early intervention services (like those provided under Part C) have better educational outcomes than comparable children who do not receive these services.

Evidence: Studies of the effectiveness of preschool interventions for children with disabilities. For instance, the 2000 National Academy of Sciences study "From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development."

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program improves the access infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families have to early intervention services. It does so by providing States with financial resources in exchange for assurances that services are made available to all eligible children. Largely because of this program, each State has established a statewide system to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Evidence: IDEA, Part C, statute and regulations.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: There is no other program that focuses exclusively on the developmental needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities. A major purpose of this program is to coordinate resources from other sources, public and private. To the degree this program pays for services, the statute requires that this program's funding can only pay for services not already paid for by other sources. The IDEA Part C program establishes basic requirements for the early intervention services States make available, and for how States coordinate paying for these services among Federal, State, local, and private sources.

Evidence: "IDEA Part C, Sections 633(purpose), 635(a)(10) (responsibility for services and payments), 637(b)(5)(B) (supplement, not supplant), 638(1)&(2) (use of funds), and 640 (payer of last resort)."

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: There is great variation between States in both the percentage of children served (compared to the population as a whole) and the age at which children are identified. There is also a lack of clarity related to some of this program's statutory requirements (e.g., natural environments) which leads to inconsistent application from State to State. However, there is no conclusive evidence that an alternative approach would be more effective.

Evidence: Child count data shows the variations between States. The comments the Department of Education received on proposed changes to the IDEA Part C regulations highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the statute's "natural environments" provisions.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: This program does not have quantifiable long-term performance goals related to child outcomes.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: This program does not have quantifiable annual performance goals related to child outcomes.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States are required to establish performance goals and indicators for children with disabilities that promote the purposes of IDEA. However, these goals and indicators are not focused on the outcomes of infants and toddlers and their families.

Evidence: The Department of Education's findings from State monitoring, and consumer feedback on Part C.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: The IDEA established the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council (FICC) to coordinate early intervention policy issues among federal agencies, and the FICC has been relatively successful in doing so. For example, the FICC successfully negotiated jurisdictional issues between IDEA and Department of Defense's Champus programs.

Evidence: The annual report of the FICC.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: The Department of Education is conducting a longitudinal study of this program which should provide short and long-term outcomes of childre nwith disabilities served through this program. However, this study will not provide ongoing data on performance.

Evidence: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS).

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: To the extent that States use Part C funds to augment services that are otherwise available, increases in Federal funding should increase the availability of early intervention services. However, the program cannot show a direct linkage between Federal appropriations and program performance.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: There is no system for evaluating the effectiveness of the program's strategic planning, or for correcting deficiencies when goals are not achieved.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department of Education collects program data on: the number of children served; the age of children served; and the settings in which services are provided. These data are used to target the Department's State monitoring, and focus technical assistance and other activities that address problems. Additional baseline data on outcomes is forthcoming from a longitudinal study. However, outcome data are not currently available.

Evidence: Program evaluation plans and GPRA reports.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: This program has not instituted an appraisal system that holds Federal managers accountable for grantee performance. However, as part of the President's Management Agenda, the Department is planning to implement an agency-wide system -- EDPAS -- that links employee performance to progress on strategic planning goals. Grantee performance is monitored on an annual basis through review and approval of annual budget plans, compliance reviews, audits, and site visits. Grantees that do not meet Federal requirements are required to submit improvement plans and can have grants reduced or discontinued for serious or persistent failures to comply. However, IDEA requirements primarily focus on procedures, not results for children with disabilities (though many of these procedures are intended to promote improved results).

Evidence: Program biennial reports, annual data reported by States, and program GPRA reports.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: In recent years, States have vastly improved their timely obligation and expenditure of Part C funds. However, there continue to be delays in a small number of States. Monitoring and program reports indicate that funds are being spent for the intended purpose.

Evidence: Department of Education finance office records indicate that nine States/territories had either not submitted applications, or had not met the application requirements necessary, to receive FY 2001 awards until FY 2002.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: This program has not yet instituted procedures to measure and improve cost efficiency in program execution. However, as part of the President's Management Agenda, the Department is implementing an agency-wide initiative to re-evaluate the efficiency of every significant business function, including the development of unit measures and the consideration of competitive sourcing and IT improvements.

Evidence:  

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The Department of Education's FY 2004 Budget materials satisfy the first part of the question by presenting the anticipated S&E expenditures (including retirement costs) for this program, which constitute 1.2 percent of the program's full costs. However, the Department has not satisfied the second part of the question because program performance changes are not identified with changes in funding levels. Also, the program does not have sufficiently valid and reliable performance information to assess the impact of the Federal investment.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department conducts periodic monitoring of State activities under this program, and States are required to conduct annual audits of their education programs. No internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department of Education has not shown how it has addressed management deficiencies in this program.

Evidence:  

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: State Part C programs submit annual performance reports to the Department, and conduct self-assessments as part of the Department's monitoring activities. In addition, the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center collects annual data on program outputs and characteristics of children served. However, since the program coordinates resources and services available from a wide range of agencies and funding sources, it is difficult to fully assess program activities and expenditures for children served under the program.

Evidence: Program data the Department of Education receives from States.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Department of Education collects program data on: the number of children served; the age of children served; and the settings in which services are provided. These data are available to the public through many channels, including an annual report to Congress and the Department's website. However, none of the Department's data on this program show anything about the outcomes of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.

Evidence: Program evaluation plans, GPRA reports, and the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Long-term goals have not been established for this program. In addition, there are no data available related to outcome measures for children with disabilities for this program.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has been successful in meeting process goals such as the number of children served in natural environments, and goals relating to family capacity and the number served. However, the program has no data on the key measure of program performance -- the educational and developmental outcomes of infants and toddlers served through this program.

Evidence: The Department of Education's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance plans and reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program does not lend itself to the development of efficiency measures that link the Federal investment to program outcomes.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no comparable programs serving this population.

Evidence:  

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A longitudinal study related to this program is underway. This study should provide some information on short and long-term outcomes for children with disabilities served through this program. However, no data are currently available.

Evidence: