• Facebook
  • OSPI on Twitter
  • OSPI Medium
  • OSPI LinkedIn
  • OSPI YouTube
  • OSPI on Flickr
  • Subscribe to OSPI GovDelivery

You are here

Home » Student Success » Special Education » Program Improvement » Washington Integrated Sub-recipient Monitoring

Washington Integrated Sub-recipient Monitoring

Contact Information

Special Education


We conduct reviews of special education programs in Washington school districts. The term school districts (also called local education agencies, or LEAs) includes Educational Service Agencies and Charter Schools. Our primary focus is on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all students with disabilities.

Washington Integrated System of Monitoring (WISM) is designed to:

  • Promote special education program effectiveness, and
  • Ensure we meet our state supervision and oversight requirements for special education programs under state and federal law.

1. Pre-award

The pre-award involves the single Federal Fund Application. School districts are required to complete the application to receive their federal special education allocation. The application must address the critical connections between the budget matrices, assurances, and LEA/ESA spending plans for Sections 611 and 619 funds, in order to be approved.

Pre-award FAQ

The Federal Fund Application is a grant package that the local education agency (LEA) is required to complete to receive its federal special education allocation.

To receive the July 1 Spending Start Date, the LEA must complete and submit to OSPI Special Education by July 1 at 5:00 p.m.:

Note: the LEA must not have any outstanding required reports/documents due to the Special Education office.

To receive the September 1 Spending Start Date, the LEA must complete and submit by September 1 at 5:00p.m:

Note: the LEA must not have any outstanding required reports/documents due to the Special Education office.

  • the IDEA Part B Sections 611 and 619 budgets,
  • all applicable sections of Pages 1-6, and
  • a signed copy of the district's Assurances.
  • the IDEA Part B Sections 611 and 619 budgets
  • all applicable sections of Pages 1-6, and
  • a signed copy of the district's Assurances.

For application guidance, please download/watch the online IDEA Tutorial for iGrants Form Package 267

For budget, assurances, fiscal requirements, or iGrants assistance:
Contact Cyndie Hargrave at cynthia.hargrave@k12.wa.usor 360-725-6075.

For child find or general supervision:
Contact Jennifer Story at jennifer.story@k12.wa.usor (360) 725-6075.

Once the Federal Fund Application has been submitted, OSPI starts the review process. The OSPI reviewer will either approve the application, or follow up with the LEA if there are any questions.

If LEAs do not complete their application on time, they will not have access to their federal special education allocation and they will receive a budget start date of the date the application (and all required components) is submitted to and approved by OSPI.

    2. Determinations

    OSPI is required to make annual "determinations" on school districts' overall compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Section 616(a), CFR 300.600 & 300.602, and WAC 392-172A-07012.)

    Determinations FAQ

      1. Meets Requirements
      2. Needs Assistance
      3. Needs Intervention
      4. Needs Substantial Intervention

      Washington uses the federally required criteria for calculating district determinations:

      1. Audit results - Did the Local Education Agency (LEA)/Educational Service Agency (ESA) resolve all special education audit findings?
      2. Timely correction of non-compliance - Did the LEA/ESA correct all issues of non-compliance as soon as possible but no later than one year from identification? Note: the correction of non-compliance is completed by the LEA/ESA through iGrants Form Package 442, verified by the local Educational Service District (ESD), and validated (approved) by OSPI.
      3. Timely submission of data reports - Did the LEA/ESA submit all of the required special education reports timely and accurately?
      4. Performance on the State Performance Plan (SPP) compliance indicators - Did the LEA/ESA demonstrate substantial compliance on Indicators B-4B (Suspension/Expulsion Rates by Race/Ethnicity), B-9 (Disproportionate Identification in Special Education), B-10 (Disproportionate Identification in Specific Disability Categories), B-11 (Timely Initial Evaluations), B-12 (Timely Part C to Part B Transition), and B-13 (Secondary Transition IEP Components)?
      5. Performance on the SPP results indicators - Did the LEA/ESA demonstrate substantial performance on Indicator B-14C (Postsecondary Engagement Rates)?
      6. Significant Disproportionality - Did the LEA/ESA receive a designation of Significant Disproportionality?

      Review the Determinations Rubric for a list of the criteria.

      • Districts and ESDs will be notified of the district's determination level through a hard-copy letter mailed to the district on or around November 1.
      • Districts may request a review and reconsideration if their level is incorrect due to OSPI error. Requests must be received no later than November 15.

      See the Technical Assistance and Enforcement Actions document for an overview of available supports for each Determination Level.

      Yes. Additional risk factors include (but are not limited to):

        1. new sub-recipient status,
        2. history of non-compliance,
        3. new personnel in key positions, and
        4. volume or size of the award and LEA/ESA.

        3. Systems Analysis (on-site visits or off-site desk reviews)

        Not every school district will be selected for a Systems Analysis. If selected, the school district will be chosen for either an on-site visit OR off-site desk review. Both on-site visits and off-site desk review follow the same sequence of events, and the scope of the review is the same.

        Systems Analysis FAQ

        Systems analysis follows a checklist aligned with the federal monitoring checklist (OSEP's Critical Elements Analysis Guide, or CrEAG). It includes:

        System-Level Review (4 Critical Elements)

        1. Data Verification - Does the LEA or ESA have a data system that is reasonably designed to collect and report data that are valid, reliable and reflect actual practice and performance?
        2. Fiscal Accountability - Does the LEA or ESA have procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that funds are budgeted and expended in accordance with federal requirements?
        3. Dispute Resolution - Does the LEA or ESA have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to implement the dispute resolution requirements of IDEA?
        4. Monitoring Priority Areas - Includes: Child Find; Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Discipline; Transition (early childhood and post-secondary); and Disproportionality

        Student-Level Review - Confirmation of services delivered based on a properly formulated IEP that is developed as a result of a comprehensive evaluation.

        Notification Letter and Documentation Request: The district is sent a letter from OSPI with the date of review and request for advance documents.

        Conference Call: OSPI contacts the district prior to the on-site visit or off-site review to discuss the process, answer emerging questions, etc.

        Student Records Review: OSPI reviews a representative sampling of currently enrolled students receiving special education and related services.

        File selection considerations include (but are not limited to):

        • safety net applications
        • discipline/disproportionality flags
        • non-public agencies
        • educational institutions, such as group homes, juvenile detention centers

        Opening Session

        • Review scope of visit and on-site schedule; discussion of district demographics, program services, and community partnerships.
        • May be coordinated with OSPI Consolidated Program Review Schedule.

        Concurrent On-Site Monitoring Activities

        • Focus Group
        • Interviews
        • Site Visits
        • Student Level Data Reviews

        School Building Visits

        • To informally observe service delivery
        • To interview educators responsible for provision of specially designed instruction.

        District Briefing(s)

        • Informal opportunity to communicate about visit progress, confirm next day's activities, follow-up on emerging questions, etcetera.

        Summary Session

        • Informal summary of pre-visit and on-site activities; discussion of post-visit activities, final report development, and timelines.

        Follow-Up Inquiries

        • May be needed on fiscal, compliance, and/or performance data collection(s), reporting, and analysis.

        Peer Review Activities

        • Preliminary results of student file review confirmed to ensure inter-rater reliability.

        Report Development

        • Written report with appended Required Action Tracker is issued using the Washington's CrEAG Report Tool.
        • Final report briefing through K-20 or conference call (at district request)

        4. Close-out

        Close-out is a series of reporting identified in the Federal Fund Application (and is individualized based on district activities such as Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS), required corrective action, etc.). The focus is the essential connections between an LEA's spending plans and budget matrices, and what impact the implementation of those have on outcomes for students with disabilities.

        Close-out FAQ

        Minimum requirements include:

        • The LEA/ESA maintains timely, accurate, and comprehensive fiscal and programmatic records pertaining to budgets, expenditures, compliance, and student outcomes.
        • The LEA/ESA completes and submits an Expenditure Report (F196).
        • Maintenance of Effort compliance.