Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Organizer

CIFR’s online LEA MOE Organizer is designed to provide SEA and LEA users with a comprehensive overview of LEA MOE federal regulations and resources to support understanding and implementation. Users can easily navigate the graphical interface for information and relevant tools and resources from technical centers and OSEP on topics such as:

• Eligibility (budget) and compliance (expenditure) standards
• Calculating exceptions and adjustments
• Calculating LEA MOE using any of the four methods
• Freed-up funds
• Federal reporting requirements

Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Calculator

Developed by CIFR, this calculator enables SEAs and LEAs to determine whether the LEA MOE eligibility (budget) and compliance (expenditure) standards have been met by any of the four methods permitted by IDEA (i.e., total local funds, total state and local funds, local funds per capita, and state and local funds per capita). The calculator assists users in identifying the appropriate comparison year and amount and accounts for exceptions and adjustments from current and past years.

Developing Written Procedures for Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort

Developed by CIFR, this practice guide assists states in the development of written state-level procedures for monitoring LEA MOE requirements. It provides recommended components, key questions to consider, and sample text for states to adapt.

Key Differences between IDEA Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort and Excess Cost Requirements

IDEA contains two separate requirements to ensure that local educational agencies are funding special education programs sufficiently: maintenance of effort and excess cost. While the requirements have similarities, they are calculated differently. This document developed by CIFR and the National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI) describes key differences between the requirements and methods for calculating them.

Writing Exemplary Data Notes for Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Reduction Data and Coordinated Early Intervening Services Data

This practice guide was written to help states develop effective data notes to respond to any MOE Reduction and CEIS data quality inquiries. The document describes the value of well written explanations of data warnings, provides an overview of OSEP’s data-quality review process, and offers examples of both inadequate and exemplar data notes for several common warning messages.

Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort: Mechanics of the Revised Regulations

This presentation was provided by Steven Byrd, Management & Program Analyst at the U.S. Department of Education in 2015. CIFR staff produced it in video form to share. The information guides states through LEA MOE calculation scenarios that SEAs are likely to encounter while implementing the revised regulations released on April 28, 2015. The examples provided in this presentation are drawn directly from the regulations.

Recommendations for State Consideration When Implementing the 2015 IDEA Maintenance of Effort Regulations

This reference guide provides recommendations for an SEA to consider when implementing the July 2015 LEA MOE regulations. The document allows states to see at a glance what the new regulations mean for them and their LEAs in terms of possible revisions to state policies and/or procedures, training for SEA staff, and technical assistance for LEAs.

Quick Reference Guide on IDEA Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort

Developed by CIFR, in collaboration with the IDEA Data Center (IDC), this three-page quick reference guide assists states and stakeholders in better understanding the LEA MOE requirements stipulated in IDEA. The guide describes the consequences of failing to meet MOE, standards for calculations, allowable exceptions, and reporting obligations. It concludes with questions and additional resources for states to consider.

Crosswalk of Current IDEA Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Regulations with Prior Maintenance of Effort Regulations

This document shows the differences between the regulations that went into effect on July 1, 2015 and the ones that had been in place since 2006.

618 Data Pre-submission Edit Check Tool — Part B MOE and CEIS

This tool was developed by the IDEA Data Center (IDC), in collaboration with CIFR, to help states prepare their Part B MOE and CEIS data submission. States can use the tool to identify potential edit check errors or errors in subtotals or totals prior to submitting the data to OSEP.

Link > https://ideadata.org/resources/resource/162/618-data-pre-submission-edit-check-tool-part-b-moe-and-ceis

Collecting and Reporting the New Data Elements Related to the Local Education Agency Maintenance of Effort Provisions

This document discusses each of the four new data elements the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has added to the LEA MOE reduction and coordinated early intervening services data collection. Developed by the IDEA Data Center and CIFR, the resource reviews each new element, identifies actions the state educational agency may take to respond to each of the four data elements, and provides additional support as states prepare to collect and submit these data.

Link > https://ideadata.org/resources/resource/1572/collecting-and-reporting-the-new-data-elements-related-to-the-local

EMAPS User Guide: IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)

This user guide is intended to provide assistance to users of the EDFacts Metadata and Process System (EMAPS) for the IDEA Part B MOE reduction and CEIS reporting requirements. It demonstrates the steps necessary to enter the data and navigate in EMAPS.

Link > https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/emaps-idea-part-b-moe-reduction-ceis-user-guide.pdf

Part B IDEA Data Processes Toolkit: Local Education Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Protocol

This protocol covers information about the LEA MOE data collection. States can use the protocol to work with their LEAs to document the local-level processes and procedures LEAs use to collect, validate, and report LEA MOE data to the state. The protocol is part of a larger Part B IDEA Data Processes Toolkit: https://ideadata.org/part-b-idea-data-processes-toolkit.

Link > https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-08/LEA%20MOE%20Process_0.docx

Part B IDEA Data Processes Toolkit: MOE and CEIS Protocol

This protocol covers information about the Section 618 MOE and CEIS data collections. State staff can use the protocol to document the state-level processes and procedures used to collect, validate, and report LEA MOE and CEIS data to OSEP. The protocol is part of a larger Part B IDEA Data Processes Toolkit: https://ideadata.org/part-b-idea-data-processes-toolkit.

Link > https://ideadata.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-08/MOE%20CEIS.docx

MOE Reduction Eligibility Decision Tree and Worksheets

The MOE Reduction Eligibility Decision Tree and Worksheets includes three documents to assist SEAs and LEAs with MOE reduction. First is a Decision Tree that guides SEAs and LEAs through a series of questions to determine an LEA’s eligibility to reduce MOE. The second document is an Excel-based worksheet that facilitates the calculation of the maximum allowable amount of funds for MOE reduction and CEIS for the LEAs. The third document is an Excel-based worksheet that facilitates the calculation of the maximum allowable amount of MOE reduction and CEIS for all the LEAs within the SEA.

Link > https://ideadata.org/resources/resource/1495/maintenance-of-effort-moe-reduction-eligibility-decision-tree

IDEA Data Training Modules

The IDEA Data Training Modules provide information on the required IDEA 618 data submissions and relevant APR indicators. The website contains eight training modules, three of which support the IDEA MOE reduction and CEIS data submission requirements. Module 1 provides users with an overview of EDFacts. Module 3 provides an overview of the MOE reduction and CEIS data submission. Module 6 provides an overview of the public reporting requirements related to the MOE reduction and CEIS data submission.

Link > https://ideadata.org/newdatamanagers/part-b

Letter to Lovato

This letter responds to questions about the use of MOE exceptions using examples of a provider who is a consultant and leaves the LEA. The letter explains that an LEA may take the exception under 34 CFR §300.204(a) for the voluntary departure, or departure for just cause, regardless of whether a special education teacher or related services provider is an employee of the public agency or an independent contractor.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/14-017166-nm-sea-lea-moe.pdf

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study: SPECIAL EDUCATION: More Flexible Spending Requirement Could Mitigate Unintended Consequences While Protecting Services

This document summarizes the findings of a 50-state survey, conducted by the GAO, of local and state special education directors on LEA MOE requirements. The summary reviews the challenges of districts in meeting MOE requirements and some of the unintended consequences of the MOE requirements including discouraging innovation and efficiencies and reducing general education spending.

Link > http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673183.pdf

Issuance of Guidance on the Final Local Educational Agency (LEA) Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Regulations under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

This question and answer document explains: (1) the eligibility standard; (2) the compliance standard; (3) the subsequent years rule; and (4) the consequences for an LEA’s failure to maintain effort. The document also describes the actions that SEAs and LEAs must take to meet the MOE eligibility and compliance standards, answers frequently asked questions about LEA MOE, and shares examples to facilitate and enhance SEA and LEA understanding of LEA MOE.

Link > https://osep.grads360.org/services/PDCService.svc/GetPDCDocumentFile?fileId=14178

Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 81, 34 CFR Part 300: Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities: Final Rule (MOE)

These LEA MOE regulations, effective July 1, 2015, consist of an analysis of comments to the proposed regulations, changes to and clarifications regarding requirements of LEA MOE, and an appendix of ten tables of examples for calculating LEA MOE.

Link > http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-04-28/pdf/2015-09755.pdf

Letter to a Chief State School Officer

This 2014 letter clarifies the level of effort an LEA must meet under IDEA regulations, in the year after it fails to maintain effort, is the level that would have been required in the absence of that failure and not the LEA’s reduced level of expenditures. It also provides examples of LEAs that meet and those that do not meet the MOE compliance and eligibility requirements. See §613(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/lea-moe-3-13-14.pdf

Letter to Carol Hokenson

This OSEP letter clarifies that district use of CEIS funds must be used to supplement state, local, and other federal funds, not to supplant those funds. It also answers a question about the allowance for reduction in MOE due to improved efficiencies of transportation costs with no reduction in special education and related services. The only exceptions and adjustments that apply to LEA MOE requirements are described in the regulations. See 34 CFR §300.202(a)(3) and 34 CFR §§300.204 and 300.205.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2013-1/hokenson01302013leamoe1q2013.pdf

Letter to Gonzales

This letter provides clarification and examples of permissible ways in which an LEA may use the voluntary departure exception when determining the amount it can reduce its level of effort (MOE). See 34 CFR §300.204(a).

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/12-013724r-nm-gonzales-lea-moe-9-7-12.pdf

Letter to Boundy

This letter clarifies that the level of effort that an LEA must meet in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level that it should have met in the prior year, and not the LEA’s actual expenditures. NOTE: This clarification also withdraws the 6/16/11 MOE letter to Bill East, NASDSE, not to be confused with any other letter to East.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep-04-04-2012.pdf

Letter to Gill

This 2011 letter clarifies that the regulation stating that for any fiscal year for which the allocation by an LEA under IDEA exceeds the amount that the LEA received for the previous fiscal year, the LEA may reduce the level of expenditures otherwise required by IDEA by not more than 50 percent of the amount of that excess does not restrict the MOE reductions that may be made because of the five exceptions. See 34 CFR §300.205(a) and 34 CFR §300.204.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2011-1/gill010611bmoe1q2011.pdf

Letter to Anonymous

This letter clarifies timing issues that might arise between the preparation of an LEA budget and the most completed audited financial statements and/or most recent official child count. NOTE: Relates to the eligibility standard for determining MOE.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2010-2/redacteda062810moe2q2010.pdf

Letter to Andrejack

This letter to the Michigan Department of Education addresses three IDEA fiscal topics, two of which are MOE and CEIS. The MOE question relates to the relationship of MOE to significantly reduced property tax revenues and the lack of MOE waiver opportunities for LEAs. OSEP responded that although there are no MOE waivers, there are circumstances in which LEAs may reduce MOE.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2010-2/andrejack060110useoffunds2q2010.pdf

Letter to Michelson and Mayes

This 2009 letter provides a response to questions about IDEA Part B and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) guidance around LEA MOE reduction. The letter clarifies that if an LEA is identified as having significant disproportionality, the LEA will not be able to reduce local MOE. See 34 CFR §300.646.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2009-4/michelsonandmayes111309moe4q2009.pdf

Letter to Harris

This letter explains that an LEA may not take an LEA MOE adjustment if it has a determination other than “meets requirements.”

Link > https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2009-4/harris103009statedeterminations4q2009.pdf

Dear Colleague Letter [LEA MOE Adjustment]

This letter addresses the possibility of taking an LEA MOE adjustment due to increased IDEA Part B funds resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The letter notes that IDEA requires states to make annual determinations about the performance of LEAs and if the SEA determines that an LEA does not meet the requirements of Part B, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from taking the LEA MOE adjustment.

Link > https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/091021.html

Letter to Kennedy

This OSEP letter to the fiscal/policy advisor to the Greater California Special Education Fiscal Support Alliance discusses the relationship between MOE and Excess Cost. The letter also addresses the intentional use of the term “education” as opposed to “special education and related services” in the regulations and the inclusion of both special education and regular education expenditures in MOE calculations.

Link > http:/cifr.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/09-017975r-CA-Kennedy-ExcessCostMOE-9-25-09.pdf

Funds for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Made Available Under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009

This 2009 guidance provides information related to Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This guidance relates only to ARRA funds, which have long since been expended.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b.pdf

Letter to Plagata-Neubauer

This letter provides clarification to several questions regarding the calculation of excess cost. The minimum average amount must be computed separately for children with disabilities in elementary school and secondary schools.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2008-2/plagataneubauer040808fiscal2q2008.pdf

Letter to Copenhaver

This letter responds to questions about federal Impact Aid and Medicaid funds and how they relate to LEA MOE.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2008-1/copenhaver012408methods1q2008.pdf

Letter to Baglin

This OSEP letter provides clarification on several questions about MOE, in particular SEA obligations around LEA MOE and reimbursement of funds to the federal government.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2006-3/baglin072606moe3q2006.pdf

Letter to White

This letter describes the four exceptions for an LEA to reduce its level of expenditures using local, or state and local, funds below those for the preceding fiscal year. The letter further clarifies that Part B of the IDEA does not permit an LEA to reduce its level of expenditures if the decrease is due to a reduction in the rate that an LEA pays for retirement contributions on behalf of its employees. There must be an actual departure (voluntary or for just cause) of special education or related services personnel. Note: the regulations have been revised at least once since the references in the document and therefore while the information is still relevant, the regulation numbers may not still be accurate.

Link > http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2003-3/white080103moe3q2003.pdf