OSEP developed a series of monitoring protocols as part of its system of Differentiated Monitoring and Supports (DMS). This webpage houses the protocols for ensuring compliance with the fiscal requirements of Part C of the IDEA and related statutes and regulations. Protocols related to CIFR’s scope include:

The Fiscal C Checklist Reviewing Methods and Fiscal C Systems Payment Monitoring Protocol examine whether the methods that a state uses to establish financial responsibility for the provision of Part C services are consistent with IDEA fiscal requirements.

The Fiscal Part C SLOR Introduction provides an overview of OSEP’s review process for the state’s general supervision system and single line of responsibility related to the use of Part C funds.

The Fiscal Part C SLOR Protocol examines how the statewide system implements fiscal elements of the single line of responsibility under IDEA Section 635(a)(10) and other requirements.

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.

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.

EDGAR has been updated to provide states with the authority to subgrant (34 CFR §76.50). This guide references previous Consolidated Appropriations Acts as the authorizing authority and will be updated when more information becomes available.

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 “other State-level activities” funds under 34 CFR §300.704(b)(1) may be used, in combination 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. OSEP explains that the authority in 34 CFR §300.704(b)(4)(xi) is limited to schools and LEAs identified for improvement on the sole basis of assessment results for the subgroup of children with disabilities (see update below). The letter clarifies that funds reserved for other state-level activities are not subject to the commingling or state-level supplanting restrictions described in 34 CFR §300.704(d).

Important update: Following the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December of 2015, 34 CFR 300.704(b)(4)(xi) was revised to remove the term “sole.” It now applies to action taken “on the basis of” consistent underperformance of the children with disabilities subgroup. As a result, earlier guidance relying on the “sole basis” standard is outdated.

For questions about the allowable uses of other state-level activities funds, contact your state’s CIFR TA Liaison or reach out to CIFR.

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 OSEP 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.