Part C State Annual Performance Report (APR) for FFY 06/SFY 07

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development

In early 2002, the Illinois Interagency Council on Early Intervention (IICEI) placed particular emphasis on improving the transition process. They have received regular reports on transition performance, similar to the measure used in OSEP's focused monitoring, since that time. The same measure has been included in the program's performance contracting system since its inception. After performance seemed to level out at the end of SFY 04/FFY 03, new steps were introduced based on public input. A new set of termination codes was introduced to help the program better understand why cases were being closed without special education eligibility being determined. Also, a new transition tracking form was introduced to help the program get better feedback from school districts. All of these efforts have helped inform the development of the State Performance Plan and have impacted performance.

For the question of transition steps being in each IFSP, the program has increased emphasis on this requirement in training and the IFSP itself now includes language that indicates the family acknowledges that transition steps were part of the process, even with the initial IFSP. The modification to the IFSP demonstrates 100% compliance.

As for documentation of the transfer of child find data to the LEA, we have placed increased emphasis on fine-tuning our data sharing process with the State Board of Education (ISBE). During FFY 06/SFY 07, ISBE was phasing in its transfer process. In the large majority of cases, including for all cases from the City of Chicago, the LEA received the child find data through this process. ISBE also receives a matrix of the number of children enrolled by age cohort for each school district each month and a list of children terminating from EI with information similar to what they receive on the child find lists. The matrix can be used to aid in local planning. The termination lists help ISBE follow-up quickly with school districts on those cases where EI indicates SE eligibility was not determined.

For purposes of reporting on the transfer of information indicator, it will be assumed that information was transferred to the LEA if it was recorded in Cornerstone and we know that information was transferred for all Chicago children. During FFY 07/FFY 08 ISBE has implemented the data transfer system statewide. So, we will will assume 100% compliance.

The program does not have a means of assuring 100% compliance with transition meetings statewide. Although, if eligibility was determined, even if transition meeting dates were not entered into Cornerstone, it demonstrates that a transition meeting was held. If eligibility was not determined compliance will depend on dates being entered into Cornerstone. During the latter months of FFY 06/FFY 07, the program incorporated recording of transition meetings held into its monthly statewide and CFC level statistical reports. This measure is very strict. It only counts specific events recorded. If SE eligibility was determined but a meeting was not recorded it is not counted. Effective with third quarter of FFY 07/SFY 08, the proportion of transition meetings held for children exiting the program at age 3 is one of the 10 measures for which incentive funding is granted to the top 12 performing CFCs each quarter. The proportion of children who have SE eligibility determined when they leave the program at age 3 also remains a measure that carries incentive funding.

Incentive funding provides a positive reward to agencies that perform well. There are also negative consequences to doing poorly in the transition process relative to the rest of the state. Local determinations are set based on a scorecard. A CFC receives a point if their average rank for all 10 incentive measures overall puts them in the bottom five of 25, indicating weak performance overall. Two of the 10 measures relate to transition. Reflecting the IICEI's special concern about transition and concern about poor performance and limited improvement relative to other measures, the bottom five CFCs in terms of recording transition meetings are given another negative mark against them. A CFC can receive no more than one point to be determined in substantial compliance. A score of four or more puts them in the lowest group.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part C / Effective Transition

Indicator 8: 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:

  1. IFSPs with transition steps and services;
  2. Notification to LEA, if child potentially eligible for Part B; and
  3. Transition conference, if child potentially eligible for Part B.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B) and 1442)

Measurement

  1. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C who have an IFSP with transition steps and services) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C)] times 100.
  2. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C and potentially eligible for Part B where notification to the LEA occurred) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.
  3. Percent = [(# of children exiting Part C and potentially eligible for Part B where the transition conference occurred) divided by the (# of children exiting Part C who were potentially eligible for Part B)] times 100.

FFY: 2006 (2006-2007)
Measurable and Rigorous Target:

  • 100 percent of children leaving Part C will have transition steps and services in their IFSP.
  • The LEAs will have been notified of 100 percent of the children exiting Part C that are potentially eligibility for Part B.
  • A transition conference will be held for 100 percent of the children who leave the Part C program at age 3 and whose families have consented to participate in a meeting.

FFY 06/SFY 07 Transition Performance
Documented Within Cornerstone Data System & Other Means

All
Terminations 1
Transition Steps
Documented
% With Steps 2
8ASteps 15,840 15,840 100.0%

FFY 06/SFY 07 Transition Performance
Documented Within Cornerstone Data System & Other Means

Terminations 3
Past 30 Months
Not SE 4
Elig./Avail.
Potentially
Eligible
Referrals % With
Referral
8BReferrals 11,961 1,925 10,036 9,376 93.4%

FFY 06/SFY 07 Transition Performance
Documented Within Cornerstone Data System & Other Means

8CMeetings Terminations
Past 30 Months
Not SE
Elig./Avail.
Potentially
Eligible
Transition
Meetings
% With
Meetings
System
Reasons
Meetings
Held Excl.
Family Reasons 5
State Totals 11,961 1,925 10,036 8,308 81.8% 330 96.1%

1 For transition steps documented all terminations are counted, regardless of age or termination reason.

2 During all of FFY 06/SFY 07, all IFSPs included language indicating the family attests that transition steps were included in the process. Training has reinforced the importance of including transition steps in every IFSP. Due to this requirement, it is assumed that 100% of IFSPs include transition steps. Notations in Cornerstone provide additional documentation of the inclusion of transition steps. Monitoring visits also check for the inclusion of transition steps in individual IFSPs.

3 For referrals and meetings held, terminations limited to cases closed after a child is at least 30-months old.

4 "Not special education eligible" includes deaths, moves out of state, unable to locate and cases closed as no longer being eligible for EI/plan of care complete. Although, in many of these cases referrals may have been made and transition meetings may have been held.

5 During the year, ISBE began to pilot the distribution of child find data forwarded by EI to school districts. The pilot included Chicago Public Schools and a number of other districts. For this reporting period it is assumed that child find information on 100% of children over 30-months old was forwarded on children in Chicago. We did not attempt to sort out the other districts in the pilot. For FFFY 07/SFY 08 the program will cover all children statewide.

Transition Steps - Indicator 8.A

Each IFSP in Illinois includes language that indicates transition steps have been developed and discussed during the IFSP meeting. Field staff and providers have been trained that this is a required element of the IFSP process. By signing an IFSP the family certifies that this took place. Thus, the state starts with the assumption that this has been done. However, there are several means of follow-up. The most complete of these is noting that steps have been developed in Cornerstone. Specific steps are to be written into the IFSP and reside in Cornerstone but in a text format that cannot be queried systematically.

During the report year the number of case closures for which documentation of transition steps could be verified in Cornerstone was 66.6%. This is slightly lower than was reported in the previous year but probably reflects a change in reporting, not an actual decline in compliance. Both the number of cases with referrals and the number of meetings held improved and there was increase emphasis on the need for transition steps, even at initial IFSP meetings. However, during the year the program was moving to eliminate one of two ways steps could be verified within Cornerstone. Having two places to record transition data was confusing and sometimes resulted in duplicate efforts. This change to the use of one form has been more successful in regards to recording referrals and meetings because it is centered on the transition tracking form process. Eventually the Cornerstone system will be rewritten to allow us to directly query transition steps but that is several years off. In the meantime the program will study a better way to document that transition steps have been included in plans.

In addition to steps to improve compliance and reporting centrally, the program also reviews case records for documentation of transition steps through its monitoring system.

The greatest issues with transition in general, and specifically with documentation of steps in Cornerstone, continues to be in Chicago. Chicago lags far behind the rest of the state at under half of all exits with verification of action steps in Cornerstone. The best performance is in the suburban areas, although downstate is not far behind them.

FFY 06/SFY 07 Step Documented by Area - Documented with Cornerstone Data System

Terminations Over 30 Mon. Eligibility Determined Steps Documented Transition Steps % w/Transition
Steps
#1 - ROCKFORD 531 294 55 349 65.7%
#2 - LAKE COUNTY 799 394 243 637 79.7%
#3 - FREEPORT 317 154 32 186 58.7%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL 796 386 154 540 67.8%
#5 - DUPAGE COUNTY 1,128 658 209 867 76.9%
#6 - N. SUBURBS 1,175 717 259 976 83.1%
#7 - W. SUBURBS 852 521 199 720 84.5%
#8 - S.W. CHICAGO 628 227 128 355 56.5%
#9 - CENTRAL CHICAGO 750 348 113 461 61.5%
#10 - S.E. CHICAGO 749 199 35 234 31.2%
#11 - N. CHICAGO 1,621 430 373 803 49.5%
#12 - S. SUBURBS 934 414 84 498 53.3%
#13 - MACOMB 337 181 46 227 67.4%
#14 - PEORIA 489 270 182 452 92.4%
#15 - JOLIET 1,281 599 355 954 74.5%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON 588 247 136 383 65.1%
#17 - QUINCY 189 81 37 118 62.4%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD 306 181 35 216 70.6%
#19 - DECATUR 341 172 86 258 75.7%
#20 - EFFINGHAM 347 163 44 207 59.7%
#21 - METRO E. ST. LOUIS 629 284 107 391 62.2%
#22 - CENTRALIA 330 193 28 221 67.0%
#23 - NORRIS CITY 169 89 35 124 73.4%
#24 - CARBONDALE 142 55 29 84 59.2%
#25 - MCHENRY 412 234 49 283 68.7%
STATEWIDE 15,840 7,491 3,053 10,544 66.6%
Chicago 3,748 1,204 649 1,853 49.4%
Suburban Cook 2,961 1,652 542 2,194 74.1%
Collar Counties 4,416 2,271 1,010 3,281 74.3%
Downstate 4,715 2,364 852 3,216 68.2%

Referral to LEA - Indicator 8.B

During FFY 06/SFY 07 Illinois utilized, and continued to improve, its transition tracking form that goes from the CFC to the LEA at referral and returns to the CFC when the eligibility determination process is concluded. During the reporting year the EI program transferred child find information on all children reaching 27 months or starting EI older than that to ISBE. The computer programs utilized by EI produced a matching school district number for 99% of children. Non-matches are primarily due to very bad address data or address so new the computer programs do not recognize them. The program has worked with the field and with ISBE to refine the process and Cornerstone entry to address increasingly minor address and school district number problems. The Part C/Part B data sharing process supplements the transition tracking form process but it guarantees 100% or required child find referral get to the LEA. During FFY 06/SFY 07 ISBE piloted the process, starting with 25 school districts and increasing that number throughout the year. For FFY 07/SFY 08 they are sending the detail to all school districts.

Of the 25 school districts in the pilot the most important was Chicago Public Schools, the home of approximately 25% of all children in EI. Utilizing the Cornerstone data system we find documentation of referral to an LEA for 87.4% of children leaving care over 30-months of age who were potentially eligible. However, we know that the Chicago Public Schools received referral information for all children who exited from the four Chicago CFCs. Regardless of how bad an address is, if it is a child in Chicago the referral is to the Chicago Public Schools. Adjusting for Chicago the referral rate was 93.6%. Actual performance was better than this because a conservative approach was taken by not sorting out other districts in the pilot. All non-Chicago regions cover multiple school districts and the matching process was not as accurate early in the year. It would have required a great deal of sorting to assure accuracy for referrals to the other school districts.

Since the data sharing process is universal for FFY 07/SFY 08, it will be possible to refer 100% of children to their LEA for transition. However, the EI program will continue to press CFCs to fully comply with referral rules and to document their actions in Cornerstone. Although, the greatest focus will be on holding and documenting transition meetings, since we do not have a supplemental means of assuring that meetings are held but we can assure that the LEA receives referral information.

Based on the documentation by area, it is good the ISBE data-sharing pilot included Chicago. Chicago has traditionally been the weakest area in the state for transition measures and that continued in the report period. Two CFCs were below 70% and two were slightly above 80%. Outside of Chicago only one CFC was below 80%. Many were above 90%.

Of those instances where referrals were not documented in Cornerstone, 72.7% were recorded as due to family reasons. This will not be a valid excuse in FFY 07/SFY 08. Late in the reporting year guidance was given to CFCs that when a family denied a referral they should still send a transition tracking form but only with the same child find elements sent from EI to ISBE and a note that the family had denied permission to transfer additional information. Going forward that should be recorded in Cornerstone.

A closer look at instances where referrals were not documented found that a significant number entered care within three-months of turning three.

FFY 06/SFY 07 Referrals to LEA by Area
Documented with Cornerstone Data System

CFC # & Name Terminations
Over 30 Mon.
Not Available
or Eligible
Possibly
Eligible
Referral
Made
% Referrals
Documented
#1 - ROCKFORD 401 57 344 326 94.8%
#2 - LAKE COUNTY 595 96 499 454 91.0%
#3 - FREEPORT 237 39 198 166 83.8%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL 591 75 516 480 93.0%
#5 - DUPAGE COUNTY 894 124 770 722 93.8%
#6 - N. SUBURBS 921 110 811 772 95.2%
#7 - W. SUBURBS 703 95 608 553 91.0%
#8 - S.W. CHICAGO 473 115 358 294 82.1%
#9 - CENTRAL CHICAGO 605 71 534 440 82.4%
#10 - S.E. CHICAGO 498 143 355 214 60.3%
#11 - N. CHICAGO 1,185 214 971 640 65.9%
#12 - S. SUBURBS 668 86 582 461 79.2%
#13 - MACOMB 247 34 213 211 99.1%
#14 - PEORIA 371 54 317 300 94.6%
#15 - JOLIET 984 191 793 674 85.0%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON 425 59 366 356 97.3%
#17 - QUINCY 137 36 101 96 95.0%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD 259 31 228 199 87.3%
#19 - DECATUR 263 33 230 225 97.8%
#20 - EFFINGHAM 248 53 195 178 91.3%
#21 - METRO E. ST. LOUIS 471 77 394 365 92.6%
#22 - CENTRALIA 240 37 203 194 95.6%
#23 - NORRIS CITY 127 11 116 112 96.6%
#24 - CARBONDALE 106 31 75 68 90.7%
#25 - MCHENRY 312 53 259 246 95.0%
Statewide 11,961 1,925 10,036 8,746 87.1%

FFY 06/SFY 07 Referrals to LEA by Area
Documented with Cornerstone Data System
Totals

Grouping Terminations
Over 30 Mon.
Not Available
or Eligible
Possibly
Eligible
Referral
Made
% Referrals
Documented
Chicago * 2,761 543 2,218 1,588 71.6%
Suburban Cook 2,292 291 2,001 1,786 89.3%
Collar Counties 3,376 539 2,837 2,576 90.8%
Downstate 3,532 552 2,980 2,796 93.8%

FFY 06/SFY 07 Referrals to LEA by Area
Documented with Cornerstone Data System

Terminations
Over 30 Mon.
Not Available
or Eligible
Possibly
Eligible
Referral
Made
% Referrals
Documented
Chicago Adjustment * 11,961 1,925 10,036 9,376 93.4%

* Accounts for 100% compliance in Chicago due to DHS/ISBE Data Sharing Agreement Pilot, will cover entire state for FFY 07/SFY 08

Transition Meetings - Indicator 8.C

As with transition steps and referrals to school districts, the EI program takes a more aggressive approach in monitoring performance than is required by federal guidelines, although we report it both ways. In this case, the monthly statistical report produced on the statewide and CFC levels measures transition meetings held and does not exclude meetings not held due to family reasons. This measure carries incentive funding for the top performing 12 of 25 CFCs each quarter. For FFY 06/SFY 07 81.4% of cases that left the program at 30-months or older can demonstrate that transition meetings were held. Removing instances where the reason was related to family issues the percentage improves to 95.6% [1-(375/(10,036-1498)).

As with the other two transition measures, there is reason to believe actual performance was better, even when family issues are involved, but documentation remains a problem. The program has seen some improvement since it made this a performance contracting measure that carries incentive funding. The closer working relationship between school districts and CFCs also is fostering improved performance. This improvement stems from the data sharing process and the associated increased pressure school districts feel from ISBE to perform. This means that both Part C and Part B have systems in place to create incentives and disincentives to follow transition rules.

For the year, only a few CFCs were able to document that at least 95% of transition meetings were held when you include family delays. When family delays are removed from the equation three downstate CFCs showed documentation for 100% of potentially eligible children and most were over 95%. Of the four larger geographic groupings, only Chicago fell below 95%. They came in at 94.0%. The lowest percentage was CFC 10 (Southeast Chicago) at 85.0%.

Aside from family reasons for meetings not being held, the most common theme for failure to hold a meeting for a potentially eligible child was that they child entered service late, often within three-month or less of turning three.

FFY 06/SFY 07 Transition Meetings Held by Area
Documented with Cornerstone Data System

Terminations
Over 30 Mon.
Not Available
or Eligible
Possibly
Eligible
Not Documented
For Family Reasons
Not Documented
For System Reasons
% of Mtgs
Documented1
#1 - ROCKFORD 401 57 344 21 7 97.8%
#2 - LAKE COUNTY 595 96 499 43 16 96.5%
#3 - FREEPORT 237 39 198 30 7 95.8%
#4 - KANE-KENDALL 591 75 516 67 38 91.5%
#5 - DUPAGE COUNTY 894 124 770 76 13 98.1%
#6 - N. SUBURBS 921 110 811 47 16 97.9%
#7 - W. SUBURBS 703 95 608 64 15 97.2%
#8 - S.W. CHICAGO 473 115 358 84 7 97.4%
#9 - CENTRAL CHICAGO 605 71 534 100 28 93.5%
#10 - S.E. CHICAGO 498 143 355 121 35 85.0%
#11 - N. CHICAGO 1,185 214 971 365 23 96.2%
#12 - S. SUBURBS 668 86 582 116 23 95.1%
#13 - MACOMB 247 34 213 4 - 100.0%
#14 - PEORIA 371 54 317 32 2 99.3%
#15 - JOLIET 984 191 793 138 30 95.4%
#16 - BLOOMINGTON 425 59 366 63 31 89.8%
#17 - QUINCY 137 36 101 5 - 100.0%
#18 - SPRINGFIELD 259 31 228 22 19 90.8%
#19 - DECATUR 263 33 230 4 6 97.3%
#20 - EFFINGHAM 248 53 195 19 1 99.4%
#21- METRO E. ST. LOUIS 471 77 394 40 3 99.2%
#22 - CENTRALIA 240 37 203 5 - 100.0%
#23 - NORRIS CITY 127 11 116 6 3 97.3%
#24 - CARBONDALE 106 31 75 11 2 96.9%
#25 - MCHENRY 312 53 259 15 5 98.0%
Statewide 11,961 1,925 10,036 1,498 330 96.1%

FFY 06/SFY 07 Transition Meetings Held by Area
Documented with Cornerstone Data System

Terminations
Over 30 Mon.
Not Available
or Eligible
Possibly
Eligible
Not Documented
For Family Reasons
Not Documented
For System Reasons
% of Mtgs
Documented1
Chicago 2,761 543 2,218 670 93 94.0%
Suburban Cook 2,292 291 2,001 227 54 97.0%
Collar Counties 3,376 539 2,837 339 102 95.9%
Downstate 3,532 552 2,980 262 81 97.0%
1

%of meetings documented = [1 - (Meetings Not Documented for System Reasons/(Possibly Eligible - Meetings Not Documented for Family Reasons)]

Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that occurred for FFY 06/SFY 07:

The Illinois Early Intervention Program demonstrated progress across all three transition indicators

  • Transition steps are indicated in all IFSP, as documented by parent signature, up from 71.8 percent of transition reported for FFY05/SFY06, as documented in the Cornerstone system.
  • Notification of LEAs of children potentially eligible for Part B services increased from 78.5 percent in FFY05/SFY06 to 93.4 percent in FFY06/SFY07, with 100 compliance expected in the upcoming year.
  • The percent of children exiting Part C and potentially eligible for Part B that had a transition conference increased from 77.8 percent in FFY05/SFY06 to 96.1 percent in FFY06/SFY07.

This progress can be attributed to the efforts of both Part B and Part C to address data sharing and training issues to ensure that appropriate child find and transition steps are taken.

  • A statewide transition system, including a data sharing agreement between the ISBE and DHS, has been fully implemented. Home address coding and other data issues have been resolved, resulting in near statewide compliance.
  • The use of transition tracking form has resulted in better communication about the transition process and documentation of its outcomes.
  • STARnet and the Early Intervention Training Program staff continued to provide statewide training to both Part C and Part B regarding the transition of children from early intervention services into early childhood special education services.
  • ISBE and EI Bureau staff continue to work cooperatively to address issues relative to transition. Recent efforts include the development of a family transition workbook which will be available for distribution to families in January 2008

Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines / Resources for FFY07-10/SFY 08-11

The following constitutes the entire improvement plan in the SPP as of February 1, 2008. Also, although it is not considered an improvement activity, the program will reinforce that it considers any instance where a potentially eligible child's SE eligibility is not determined to be a negative outcome, even if it is for family reasons, and that we will treat them as such in performance contracting.

  • The program will continue to include performance on special education eligibility determination on its monthly statistical reports and will continue to grant quarterly incentive funding to the top 12 of the 25 CFCs on this measure.
    (No Change)
  • The program will add performance on the recording of transition meetings held on its monthly statistical reports effective February 2007.
    (New item)
  • The program will add quarterly incentive funding to the top 12 of the 25 CFCs in terms of transition meetings recorded within the Cornerstone data system effective with payments for the 3rd quarter of FFY 07/SFY 08.
    (New item)
  • Competing tables intended to track aspects of transition will be combined into a unified transition table effective July 2008.
    (Timeline change)
  • All CFCs that have 100% performance for a six-month period on which a quarterly incentive is based will receive incentive funding, even if that means more than 12 CFCs will receive funding.
    (No change)
  • Effective September 1, 2005, a transition tracking form will be required to be sent by Child and Family Connections offices to LEAs with other transition paperwork. The form will improve two-way communication and help both parties keep better track of a child's progress through the process.
    (No change)
  • No later than January 2006, the program will add a new element to its client data system to record school district number for each child. This will help facilitate the transfer of transition information to ISBE and LEAs
    (No change)
  • Effective July 2006 school district numbers of each child's residence will be found via an automated geocoding process. The program will work with ISBE to improve the geocoding process and will utilize feedback from ISBE to improve coordination and results.
    (Updated to better reflect improved cooperation and coordination at both the state and local levels)
  • Effective with July 2006, the Early Intervention program will produce a monthly report divided by school district number as follows: under age 1, 1-2, 24-26 months, and then by month through 36 months. ISBE will forward this report to LEAs for their planning purposes. The program will work with ISBE to improve the geocoding process and will utilize feedback from ISBE to improve coordination and results.
    (Updated to better reflect improved cooperation and coordination at both the state and local levels)
  • Effective July 2006, the Early Intervention program will forward to Part B/Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) the names and identifying information, including school district of primary residence, on all children who turn 27-months old or who's initial IFSP starts after 27-months of age. ISBE will sort the names and forward them to LEAs. . Sorting by school district will provide an effective way to sort this list and will provide ISBE with an effective means to track performance. The program will work with ISBE to improve the geocoding process and will utilize feedback from ISBE to improve coordination and results.
    (Updated to better reflect improved cooperation and coordination at both the state and local levels)
  • Effective July 2006, each month the Early Intervention program will forward to Part B/ISBE the names and identifying information on all children who had terminated from Part C whose information had been sent previously as being ready for the transition process. This will allow ISBE to send these updates to LEAs, to assess the performance of LEAs overall, and to follow-up when Part C did not think the eligibility process had been completed before the case had to be closed.
    (No change)
  • While the program hopes the plans outlined above will ensure compliance on all three measures. We will continue to review performance data on a monthly basis and regularly with ISBE and will introduce additional measures to improve compliance as needed.
    (No change)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TABLE 4 PAGE 1 OF 1

OMB NO.: 1820-0678

Office of Special Education Programs Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2006-07 form Expires: XX/XX/XXXX

STATE: IL - ILLINOIS

SECTION A: WRITTEN, SIGNED COMPLAINTS

  • (1) Written, signed complaints total 14 14 Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 should equal section 1.
    • (1.1) Complaints with reports issued 14
      • (a) Reports with findings 2
      • (b) Reports within timelines 9
      • (c) Reports with extended timelines 5
    • (1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed 0
    • (1.3) Complaints pending 0
      • (a) Complaint pending a due process hearing 0

SECTION B: MEDIATION REQUESTS

  • (2) Mediation requests total 2 2 Sections 2.1 and 2.2 should equal section 2.
    • (2.1) Mediations 2 2 Sections 2.1a and 2.1b equal section 2.1.
      • (a) Mediations related to due process 0
        • (i) Mediation agreements 0
      • (b) Mediations not related to due process 2
        • (i) Mediation agreements 2
    • (2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) 0

SECTION C: HEARING REQUESTS

  • (3) Hearing requests total 1
    • (3.1) Resolution sessions 0
      • (a) Settlement agreements 0
    • (3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) 1
      • (a) Decisions within timeline 1
      • (b) Decisions within extended timeline 0
    • (3.3) Resolved without a hearing 0