The Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction Eligibility Worksheets, developed by the IDEA Data Center, includes two documents to assist SEAs and LEAs/ESAs with MOE reduction. The first is an Excel-based worksheet that facilitates the calculation of the maximum allowable amount of MOE reduction and CEIS for the LEA/ESAs. The second document is an Excel-based worksheet that facilitates the calculation of the maximum allowable amount of MOE reduction and CEIS for all the LEAs/ESAs within the SEA.
This U.S. Department of Education web page contains resources pertaining to the three OSEP-administered IDEA formula grants that are awarded annually to provide services to 1) infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, 2) preschool children ages 3-5, and 3) special education for children and youth with disabilities.
The site includes Part B and Part C grant award letters, annual grant application templates, application instructions and procedures, public participation topic briefs, and checklists.
This OSEP letter addresses how population and poverty allocations are calculated for a State Department of Juvenile Services that provides educational services to children statewide and for a School for the Blind. OSEP explains that the SEA must first determine these institutions to be eligible for funding under 34 CFR 300.705. OSEP concludes awards to eligible institutions would be calculated as they are for all subgrantees under this section – using a base payment, a payment based on population, and a payment based on poverty. OSEP further explains how population and poverty would be calculated for each institution.
OSEP developed a series of monitoring protocols as part of its system of Differentiated Monitoring and Supports (DMS). This webpage lists the protocols for ensuring compliance with the fiscal requirements of Part B of the IDEA and related statutes and regulations.
The Fiscal LEA MOE Monitoring Protocol addresses three specific components of LEA MOE: (1) the compliance standard, (2) the eligibility standard, and (3) the reporting requirements.
The Fiscal CEIS Monitoring Protocol addresses three specific components of voluntary CEIS: (1) funding reservation, (2) authorized use of funds for CEIS, and (3) tracking and reporting.
Developed in collaboration with OSEP and the Office of General Counsel, this guide from CIFR outlines key differences between contracts and subgrants for Part C, highlights questions for states to consider as they determine whether to pursue subgranting, and describes the initial steps of planning and decision-making.
This OSEP letter addresses the use of state set-aside funds under Part B of the IDEA for professional development related to Louisiana’s Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) Initiative. OSEP explains that under 34 CFR §300.704(b)(4)(i), (iii) and (viii), state set-aside funds can be used for support and direct services, which may include assisting LEAs in providing positive behavioral interventions.
This OSEP letter addresses whether state set-aside funds under 34 CFR §300.704 can be used, in conjunction with other state and federal funds, to provide technical assistance to schools and LEAs identified for corrective action or improvement under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), due to their failure to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). OSEP notes that the authority under 34 CFR §300.704(b)(4)(xi) is limited to schools and LEAs identified for improvement on the sole basis of the assessment results for the disaggregated subgroup of children with disabilities. The letter discusses other relevant provisions and confirms that funds reserved by a state under 34 CFR §300.704(b)(1) can be used without regard to the prohibitions on commingling or state-level supplanting, as described in 34 CFR §300.704(d).
This OSEP letter responds to a question about the use of state set-aside funds under Section 619 of the IDEA for a statewide training system for early childhood teachers and care givers. OSEP concludes that funding the project with state set-aside funds would not be inconsistent under Section 619(f)(5) because the project would be supplemented with other funds and is a part of a statewide, coordinated services system designed to improve results for children and families. It notes that the total amount used under Section 619(f)(5) may not exceed one percent of the amount received under Section 619 for the fiscal year.
[Note: Since this letter’s publication in 2001, the regulations have changed. Section 619(f)(5) is now Section 619(f)(4).]
This OSERS letter responds to questions about the consequences of MOE failure under Part C of the IDEA. It explains the state must pay back the amount by which it failed to maintain effort, that the state may not decline to draw down all of its federal IDEA Part C award funds to offset the amount of the failure, and that repayment must be made with non-federal funds or federal funds for which accountability to the federal government is not required.
Please also see Letter to Wilden.
This web-based resource is designed to assist lead agencies in establishing a process for annually collecting and tracking the budgeting and expenditures of state and local funds to determine if MOE is met for IDEA Part C. The resource provides an overview of the IDEA regulatory requirements for MOE, steps for developing a methodology for calculating and tracking MOE, answers to critical questions, and links to resources including an Excel-based MOE calculator.
This product was jointly developed by the Early Childhood Technical Assistance (ECTA) Center, the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy), and the IDEA Infant & Toddler Coordinators Association.