1

ND Community CallSalmon CommunityNovember 4, 2015

2

Agenda

• Welcome

• What’s New at NDTAC?

• What’s on Your Mind?

• Recent TA Requests

• Federal Monitoring

• Upcoming Events

3

Roll Call

Welcome

4

What’s New at NDTAC?

5

The National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC)

ED:

• Earl Myers – Federal Program Manager, Part D

AIR:

• David Osher – Principal Investigator, NDTAC

• Simon Gonsoulin – Director, NDTAC

• Yoni Farber – Deputy Director, NDTAC

• NDTAC State Liaisons

– Lauren Amos (Salmon)

– Katie Deal (Teal)

– Liann Seiter (Gold)

– Allie Brawley

6

Key Contractual Changes

• Toll-Free Hotline: 1 (877) 784-4255

• Workbooks of LEA and School-Level Data (e.g., Civil Rights Data Collection)

• National Surveys of Title I, Part D Programs

– types and characteristics of programs and services funded

– whether and how program outcomes and impact are being measured

– gaps in services

– how SEAs are making grant allocation decisions

– what tests are used as pretesting and posttesting instruments

– common coordinator questions (e.g., how other states fund at-risk programs, annual count methods, and frequency of subgrantee monitoring)

7

Key Contractual Changes (Cont’d)

• Build SEA/SA/LEA capacity to provide PD to facility teachers and other staff to improve the quality of instruction, reentry planning, and student outcomes:

– assess PD needs

– gauge capacity to provide PD

– consult on approaches that best meet facilities’ needs

– provide PD activity resources

– embed supplemental PD materials for coordinators in future TA resources (e.g., PowerPoint slides with presenter notes for written products)

8

Key Contractual Changes (Cont’d)

• Offer one instead of three topical call series per fiscal year

• Speak at up to 12 external conferences

– Contact NDTAC as soon as possible if you would like us to present on a TIPD related topic at your State conference

• National conference convened at AIR

• Conduct webinars on the federal monitoring process to support preparedness for review

• Form a planning committee of nine coordinators to design and pilot test a new extranet site to support state plan development and review

9

Key Contractual Changes (Cont’d)

• Convene a state planning webinar for planning committee members in 2016 and for all coordinators in later years:

– explain the state plan template and peer review process

– share sample state plans

– suggest elements states might modify

– respond to frequently asked questions.

• Create annotated examples of good state plans

• Provide a mechanism for states to submit drafts to other states for critical peer review

10

Current questions and needs from community members

What’s on Your Mind?

11

Current Questions and Needs

• Drafting formal agreements

– Looking for templates and/or examples

• Ensuring needs of SPED youth are met

– What are programs doing to address SPED?

– Working with small districts with facilities in their boundaries

• Others?

12

POLL: What topics would you like to hear about in upcoming topical calls?

• Collaboration: Collaboration with TIPA partners; hearing the intersection between TIPA/TIPD from Federal program managers (could also be a topic on a quarterly call with Earl)

• Equity: Equal access / special populations

• Graduation: Improving graduation rates

• School discipline: Review/coordination of school discipline policies/procedures to decrease the number of school suspensions/expulsions

• Transition: Successful transition of youth

13

POLL

What other topical series topics should we consider?

14

Recent TA Requests

15

Recent TA Requests

• Request: How frequently should post tests be administered?

• Response:

– Statute, non-regulatory guidance, and the CSPR reporting requirements are virtually mute on the topic of testing frequency

– CSPR/reporting requirement is to report the most recent pre-post test results for all students who are enrolled for 90 days or longer.

– Applies to ALL long term students who benefit from TIPD funds

– Requirement is not about the frequency of the testing; decision is up to the state/facility based on the recommendations of the particular test

  Situations Post test required?Pre-Post Test Results Reported to

ED?Your Responses

AStudent just entered juvenile corrections

(JC)Not applicable  Not applicable

Correct-posttest not applicable at this point

B Student is exiting after 90 days in JC.Yes—in order to meet

the reporting requirement

 Yes—student enrolled 90 days or more

A test result is expected; when the test is administered is dependent on

the test recommendations.  If the student has more than 1 post-test

after the 90 day mark, report on only the most recent one.

C

Student is 60 days in JC and at the point where the LEA is to report to SEA for

CSPR

Optional for facility/state

Not reported in CSPR—student is enrolled  for less than 90 days

The state/facility may elect to test more frequently, but the data is not

required for reporting to ED

D

Student is 90 days in JC and at the point where the LEA is to report to SEA for

CSPR

Yes-in order to meet the reporting requirement

Yes—student enrolled 90 days or more

Assuming you mean a student who is exactly at the 90 day mark, the general requirement is that they

should be included.

E

Student is 6 months in JC and at the point where the LEA is to report to SEA

for CSPR

Yes—the test should have been

administered between 90 days and 6 mos  at least once in order to

meet the reporting requirement

Yes—enrolled 90 days or more

The test may have been administered once or 2 times between 90 days and 6 mos—the test day would depend on the test being used.  The most recent

result should be reported.

F

Student is, say, 14 months in JC and at the point where the LEA is to report to

SEA for CSPR

Yes—the test should have been

administered between 90 days and 14 mos*  at least once in order to meet the reporting

requirement

Yes—enrolled 90 days or more, but need to decide what reporting period to

include the different results in

If a test is administered more than once—use the most recent result

 

*This student is likely crossing over 2 reporting periods—Appendix E in

CSPR guide

G

Student is, say, 14 months in JC, is at the point where the LEA is to report to

SEA for CSPR, and student will be released in one more month

Yes—the test should have been

administered between 90 days and 14 mos  at least once in order to

meet the reporting requirement

Yes—enrolled 90 days or more, but need to decide what reporting period to

include the different results in

If a test is administered more than once—use the most recent result

 

*This student is likely crossing over 2 reporting periods—Appendix E in

CSPR guide

17

POLL

What tests are your subgrantees using for pre-post testing for the

CSPR?

18

Recent TA Request

• Request: When a facility closes do we need to adjust the LEAs grant

application?

• Response:

– Its funding and resources should be reallocated to another program that meets

the requirements of Subpart 2 within the same LEA per the non-regulatory

guidance on uses of Subpart 2 funds

– Alternatively, SEAs can elect to reallocate the funds to another LEA entirely

– Unlike S1 subgrants, S2 subgrants do not need to be based on the count.

SEAs have more discretion under S2 to redirect the funds to another LEA that

is in greatest need

– Ideally, the receiving LEA should amend their application to reflect how the

additional funds will be spent so that the program can be monitored accordingly

19

TA Questions: Annual Count (1)

1. Should youth be adjudicated or court ordered in order to be counted as delinquent on the annual count?

2. Can our state change their Subpart 2 annual count window to maximize numbers?

3. The annual count generates a lot more funds for Subpart 2 short term facilities in my state, is there a way to more evenly distribute funds to long term facilities?

20

Who Is Included in LEA’s Delinquent Count?

• Per the statute (Subpart 3: Sec. 1432: Definitions), youth who are delinquent have been adjudicated to be delinquent or in need of supervision.

• The count is based on an eligible facility’s October caseload. Any child or youth residing in an eligible institution may be counted if the youth:

– Is 5-17 years old during the count window and

– Has not also been counted in the State agency (SA) annual count or other Title I funding stream count.

• NDTAC’s annual count toolkit includes a requirements checklist to help you determine count eligibility for LEAs/SAs, facilities, and children/youth, as well as the count window.

21

TA Questions: Annual Count (2)

1. Should youth be adjudicated or court ordered in order to be counted as delinquent on the annual count?

2. Can our state change their Subpart 2 annual count window to maximize numbers?

3. The annual count generates a lot more funds for Subpart 2 short term facilities in my state, is there a way to more evenly distribute funds to long term facilities?

22

LEA / Subpart 2 Annual Count: Count Window

September

S M T W T F S1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

October

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

November

S M T W T F S

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

• An LEA’s S2 count window can start as early as September 2nd or as late as October 31st. • The window must be for 30 consecutive days and at least one day of that window must be in

October. • The SEA may set the window for all LEAs, or it may allow LEAs and facilities to choose their

windows independently.

23

TA Questions: Annual Count (3)

1. Should youth be adjudicated or court ordered in order to be counted as delinquent on the annual count?

2. Can our state change their Subpart 2 annual count window to maximize numbers?

3. The annual count generates a lot more funds for Subpart 2 short term facilities in my state, is there a way to more evenly distribute funds to long term facilities?

24

Section M-1 of Nonregulatory Guidance

The SEA has the option of awarding subgrants to eligible LEA s by formula or through a discretionary grant process. If an SEA chooses to award Subpart 2 subgrants on a discretionary basis, it may establish criteria or priorities or both, consistent with State requirements for awarding grants.

If an SEA distributes funds through a formula, it may allocate funds proportionately among the eligible LEAs based on each LEA ’s proportionate share of children in correctional facilities or delinquent institutions. In either case, the SEA must develop procedures for determining and notifying LEAs within the State that they are eligible to receive Subpart 2 funds.

25

TA Questions: Neglect Programs (1)

1. Do most States use TIPD for their neglect programs?

2. Do other States using TIPA for their neglect programs also not report data for the CSPR?

26

States Using TIPD for Neglect Programs

27

States Using TIPD for Neglect Programs

Number of StatesAverage Number of Neglect Programs

Subpart 1 only 8 6

Subpart 2 only 17 32

Both Subparts 6 17

No Neglect Programs 21 n/a

28

TA Questions: Neglect Programs (2)

1. Do most States use TIPD for their neglect programs?

2. Do other States using TIPA for their neglect programs also not report data for the CSPR?

29

Part D Part A

Funds may be used for a broader purpose than comparable services in a State or local neglect

program.

Funds are used within a local neglect facility to provide comparable

services.

Do Other States Using TIPA for Their Neglect Programs Also Not Report Data for the CSPR?

30

Do Other States Using TIPA for Their Neglect Programs Also Not Report Data for the CSPR?

• To our knowledge, there is no CSPR data collection for TIPA.

• Neglect programs that only receive TIPA funding should not be included in the TIPD section of the CSPR.

• However, if programs receive both TIPA and TIPD funds, only the students who benefit from the TIPD funding should be reported in the CSPR.

• This information is available in more detail in the CSPR Instructional Guide (http://www.neglected-delinquent.org/resource/instructional-guide-reporting-title-i-part-d-data-cspr-sy-2013-14).

31

Federal Monitoring

32

• Revised Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) Monitoring Plan for Homeless and Neglected or Delinquent Education Programs released in October 2015

Federal Monitoring

33

Federal Monitoring

Monitoring indicators:

• Used by ED to determine degree of implementation of federal

programs and activities administered by SEAs in three areas:

I. Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

II. Instructional Support

III. Fiduciary

• Criteria ensure consistent application of standards across

monitoring teams and states

• Provide guidance for all states re: purpose and intended

outcomes of monitoring by describing what is being

monitored and providing criteria for judging the quality of

implementation (acceptable evidence)

34

OSHS FY 2015 and FY 2016 Monitoring Schedule

State Date On-site or Remote Note

Arizona March 24-26, 2015 Remote

Maryland April 13-16, 2015 On-site

Nevada May 4-6, 2015 Remote

Pennsylvania June 2-4, 2015 On-site

Washington June 8-10, 2015 Remote

Connecticut September 22-24, 2015 On-site

Minnesota December 8-10, 2015 Remote EHCY only

Alabama January 12-14, 2016 Remote EHCY only

Utah February 9-11, 2016 Remote South Carolina March 15-17, 2016 On-site

West Virginia April 19-21, 2016 On-site

Indiana May 11-13, 2016 Remote

Minnesota TBD Remote TIPD only

Alabama TBD Remote TIPD only

35

Resources

Federal monitoring:– Salmon Community Call Recording (Adobe Connect)

– NEW!!! FY2015-16 OSHS Monitoring Plan for Homeless and Neglected or Delinquent Education Programs (WORD), ED

– Title I, Part D SEA Monitoring Presentation (PDF), ED

– FY2015 Grantee Monitoring Reports: Maryland (PDF)

– FY2015 Grantee Monitoring Reports: Pennsylvania (PDF)

• Subgrantee monitoring:– Tips for Subgrantee Monitoring, NDTAC

– 2014-15 topical call series on subgrantee monitoring tools, NDTAC

36

Upcoming Events

37

Upcoming Events

Community calls

• February 2016

• July 2016

Other events – TBD

• Topical calls

• Webinars

• Conference

• Quarterly call with ED

Other events in the community?