The Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs  (OSEP) is responsible for administering IDEA. Education’s system for monitoring state compliance with IDEA has been  evolving for more than 5 years. To Monitor Compliance with IDEA, Education Uses a Risk-Based System That Relies Upon State-Provided Information

Education uses a risk-based system to focus its monitoring efforts, but  some data it uses are weak. However, some of the data are not uniformly measured or are  difficult for states to collect. Education has identified areas of IDEA  noncompliance through these screens. Education identified a total of 253 noncompliance findings  in 30 of the 31 states visited during this period, with an average of  approximately 8 findings per state. Our analysis showed that 52 percent of  the findings involved state failures to directly ensure that students were  receiving required special education services. The remaining 48 percent of Education’s findings were for compliance  failures that we classified as procedural in nature, that is, activities that  did not directly provide or immediately facilitate a service to students. The department has also made limited use of sanctions to  address longstanding issues with noncompliance, but in these cases, too,  resolution has been protracted. State  officials commented, and Education officials confirmed, that this standard  1-year timeframe for correction may not, in some cases, provide an  adequate period of time in which to implement a remedy and demonstrate  its effectiveness. To Effect Compliance, Education Typically Provided Technical Assistance and Required State Correction Plans, but Most Cases of Noncompliance Remained Open for Years without Resolution

To resolve the deficiencies identified in 30 of the 31 states visited from  1997-2002, Education offered technical assistance to states and required  them to develop corrective action plans and submit them to the  department for approval. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Education    develop and provide states with additional guidance for collecting and  reporting three measures that Education considers key to positive  outcomes for students with disabilities: early childhood transitions,  post-secondary transitions, and parental involvement;    expedite the resolution of noncompliance by improving response times  throughout the monitoring process, particularly in reporting  noncompliance findings to states, and track changes in response times  under the new monitoring process;  impose firm and realistic deadlines for states to remedy findings of  noncompliance; and    when correction of noncompliance is expected to take more than  1 year, make greater use of Education’s authority to initiate compliance  agreement proceedings rather than imposing special conditions on  grants. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

As requested, our review focused on the Department of Education’s  monitoring of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part  B, those aspects of the law that regulate the provision of services to  disabled school-aged and preschool children. While in each state, we analyzed state monitoring documents and met with  officials at states’ Departments of Education, including the State Directors  of Special Education and members of their staff responsible for  monitoring efforts. We interviewed these officials about their experiences  with Education’s monitoring processes and gathered information about  the systems used by their states to monitor local compliance with IDEA.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures the education of the nation's disabled children. As a condition of receiving IDEA funds, states must provide educational and related services that facilitate learning to students with disabilities based on their individual needs. The Department of Education (Education) is responsible for ensuring state compliance with the law. In recent years, questions have been raised about Education's oversight of IDEA. GAO agreed to determine how Education monitors state compliance with IDEA for children aged 3-21, the extent and nature of noncompliance found, and how Education has ensured that noncompliance is resolved once identified. GAO analyzed Education monitoring documents, interviewed state and federal officials, and visited 5 state special education offices.

What GAO Found

To monitor compliance with IDEA provisions that affect children aged 3-21, Education annually reviews special education data submitted by all states and uses a risk-based approach to identify those states in need of further inspection. This monitoring system relies upon collaboration with states, as each state is responsible for assessing and reporting its performance on the provision of special education services. However, some of the data used by Education, such as information about how parents are included in their children's education and students' experiences after they leave school, are weak in that they are not uniformly measured or are difficult for states to collect. In states Education visited for further inspection from 1997-2002, the department identified roughly equal amounts of noncompliance for failing to adequately provide services to students as noncompliance for not adhering to IDEA's procedural regulations, according to GAO analysis. Education found a total of 253 compliance failures in 30 of the 31 states visited during this period, with an average of approximately 8 across the 30 states. GAO found 52 percent of compliance failures to be directly related to providing student services, for instance counseling and speech therapy. The remaining 48 percent involved a failure to meet certain IDEA procedural requirements. Once deficiencies were identified, Education has sought resolution by providing states with technical assistance and requiring them to develop corrective action plans that would ensure compliance within 1 year. However, GAO found that most cases of noncompliance had remained open for 2 to 7 years before closure, and some cases still remain open. GAO's examination of Education documents showed that a considerable amount of time elapsed in each phase of the correction process, including Education's issuance of noncompliance findings and approval of correction plans. On occasion, Education has also made use of sanctions to address longstanding issues with noncompliance, but in these cases, too, resolution has been protracted. States expressed concerns about the standard 1-year timeframe Education imposes for correction, and Education officials acknowledged that it is sometimes not feasible for states to remedy noncompliance and demonstrate effectiveness in that length of time.