Operations Work Group

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Via Polycom

In attendance: Jim Donoghue, Faye DeSmit, Tim Glenn, John Lee, Kirby Leland, Lisa Lohman,

Meredith MacQuigg, Michelle Tressel, Toni Van Cleve, Cindy Weigel and Amy Williamson

Item / Notes
  1. Support Service Codes
Brief Background:
  1. Attention Deeand Toni: There are a few more codes that need finalization.(Attached). Please send to Michelle or bring to the meeting your answers. Once we have heard from everyone, we will review the findings at an upcoming meeting.
  2. It is not anticipated that this agenda item will be addressed by the entire group at this meeting.
Action Requested: Several questions have come in from the data entry personnel about these codes. Let’s identify any remaining issues this month so we can draw closure to this at our April meeting. / Toni, Jim and Dee proposed some changes to the support service codes which appear on the most current draft document dated March 2010.
The goal is to have the new codes in place for July 1, 2010.
Post-meeting notes:
  • Is VS only a code for Part C or is it for both Part C and Part B?
  • If these changes of codes will be rolled out on July 1, then the training for the data entry personnel needs to be scheduled for June.

  1. Preparing to Rewrite IMS
Brief background: The Operations Work Group will be asked to make a decision about each of the following:
  1. Associated Children
  • For this item, there are two documents that you are asked to read prior to the meeting: Pages 1-3 of document Associated Children Button and Staff Demographic; All pages of Further Information on Associated Children Button.
  • Currently, there is a button in IMS “Associated Children” which allows data entry personnel to see which children are “associated” with the same adult. (Go to Adult Relationship screen to see this button.)
  • The web IEP is not set up to associate children.
  1. Evaluator on Staff Demographic screen
For this item, there is one document that you are asked to read prior to the meeting: Pages 4 – 6 of document on Associated Children button and Staff Demographic.
Usage data will be shared at the meeting.
  1. 3 Fields on District Profile (Per Pupil cost, Van route, Pool/Non Pool)
For this item, there is one document that you are asked to review prior to the meeting: Pages 1-2 of document Usage of IMS Fields in District Profile, Building Profile, Service Location
  1. 2 Fields on Building Profile (Van Route, Grades)
For this item, there is one document that you are asked to review prior to the meeting: Pages 3-4 of document Usage of IMS Fields in District Profile, Building Profile, Service Location
  1. (Other) Agencies screen
2000+ records in the file; no record was updated in the last year
Additional information will be provided at the meeting
  1. Funding Source on Service Locations screen
For this item, there is one document that you are asked to review prior to the meeting: Pages 3-4 of document Usage of IMS Fields in District Profile, Building Profile, Service Location
  1. Child Not Attending in State
All child data will be “contained” in web IEP or web IFSP databases. If a child is not attending in state, will someone be entering the IEP?
  1. Child Changes, Not Through IEP
This is about adding the capability for data entry personnel to correct information that was on an IEP (e.g. DOB). We need to know specifically what fields can and cannot be changed by a data entry person. (Maybe it would be better to identify if there are fields that can’t be updated in that manner.)
  1. Different Types of Districts
(See attached) The Center needs to have the definition columns only verified
Action Requested: Decision / Associated Children
  • This button helps AEAs/districts when the schools aren’t informed by move-ins, for example, that other children in the family are in special education.
  • At some point in the future, could a search be built into IMS, for data entry personnel, that would allow a search by student and/or parent?
  • The Operations Work group voted to eliminate the Associated Children button in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
Evaluator on Staff Demographic screen
  • The Operations Work group voted to eliminate the field “Evaluator” in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
District Profile: Per Pupil Cost, Van Route, Pool/Non Pool
  • The Operations Work Group voted to eliminate the fields “Per Pupil Cost” and “Van Route” in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
  • The Operations Work Group voted to maintain/keep the field “Pool/Non Pool” in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
Building Profile: Van Routes, Grades
  • The Operations Work Group voted to eliminate Van Route in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
  • The Operations Work Group voted to maintain/keep the field “Grades”. In order to bring more uniformity to the field, the data will be populated from the DE. Amy will research this to see what type of field it needs to be.
(Other) Agencies
  • The Operations Work Group voted to eliminate the Other Agencies screen in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
Funding Source
  • The Operations Work Group voted to eliminate Funding Source in the new version of Iowa IDEA.
Child Not Attending in State
  • There needs to be a method which will allow data to be entered into the system for students who are residents in the state and attending out of state.
  • Initial discussion identified Count data and SPP/APR data as needing to be entered initially.
  • John and Amy will come up with a proposal for the fields for which they need data. David Happe will be consulted as a process for entering data for these students may need to also need to be included in the procedures manual.
Child Changes, Not Through IEP
  • The Bureau of Early Childhood is looking at a process to have personally identifiable data (e.g. name, DOB) changed without creating another IFSP.
  • The question came up about whether, for those non-consequential corrections, if the IEP or the data needs to be corrected.
Different Types of Districts
  • Part C will use the same or similar to the definitions for districts that Part B uses.
  • Refer to document posted with this agenda.

  1. Race/Ethnicity Data Import
Brief background: Amy asked in February that this item be added to an upcoming agenda.
Action Requested: Decision /
  • Amy reported on some areas where the change to the new race/ethnicity codes went well and where some improvements are needed.
  • The directors would like to import Race/Ethnicity into IMS from EASIER up to 3 times a year.
  • This will also be an opportunity to clean up the state ID match.
  • Business rules will need to be written so the web IEP can be programmed.
  • The timelines for making changes to web IEP have not been identified.

  1. Resident District in IFSP
Brief background: In order to bring the web IFSP in line with how Part C defines Resident District, it will be necessary to rewrite parts of the web IFSP. More information will be share at the meeting, including a recommendation.
Action Requested: Decision /
  • The programming of these changes is projected to take 160 hours.
  • Domicile district needs to be added to the web IFSP.
  • The Center is to go ahead with the changes to bring the web IFSP in alignment with the definition of resident district. This will include the addition of domicile district.
  • Cindy will let the Center know if domicile district needs to be on any output other than the IMS data summary.

  1. Web IFSP and Medicaid
Brief Background: Both the web IFSP and IEP are requiring that the Medicaid Parent Authorization release form be generated IF there is a Medicaid number, regardless of eligibility. (Children’s eligibility can be “activated” at any time, based on the file IMS receives from DHS.)
For the Part B students, it was decided that if a student has a Medicaid number and is going to receive an eligible service, someone from the IEP team should ask that the Medicaid Parent Authorization release be signed, in the event that the student becomes Medicaid eligible anytime during the year.
In the web IFSP, questions are being raised about whether or not a Medicaid Parent Authorization form must be generated if there is a Medicaid number.
Action Requested: Decision /
  • The Work Group discussed identified what the issue is. A Medicaid number won’t be available in the web IFSP until the child has a record in IMS.
  • It can be assumed that all IFSP children will receive at least one eligible service; minimally, service coordination.
  • Cindy will contact the liaison group on how this process is going to be addressed in practice.

  1. Follow-up from Previous Meetings
  2. CRI
Toni, Kiersten and Dee: examples of when an amendment would be needed for a CRI change reason and examples when a CRI change reason would not need an amendment
Amy and Meredith: survey data entry personnel to find out how they are using CRI
  1. Disability Autofilling
Amy is researching this.
  1. Basis for Enrollment: Amy and John will take a look at what questions can be answered with Basis for Enrollment data. This might result in 2-3 additional fields.

Information

Dates of Upcoming Meetings

Date / Time
4/22/10 / 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM
5/27/10 / 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM
6/24/10 / 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM

1