U.S. Department of Education Finds Utah at Fault for 11 Counts of Noncompliance with IDEA
The issues relate to early‑intervention services, monitoring and improvement, data systems, fiscal management, and dispute resolution
March 25, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released its Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) report for Utah’s Part C early‑intervention system. The document is blunt. OSEP found 11 areas of noncompliance.
What OSEP Found
OSEP’s DMS review covered early‑intervention services, monitoring and improvement, data systems, fiscal management, and dispute resolution.
The report concluded that Utah’s Baby Watch Early Intervention Program (BWEIP) is not compliant with IDEA requirements across all of these areas. Key findings include:
Provision of Early Intervention Services
1.1 OSEP finds that the State cannot ensure that all early intervention services as identified on the IFSPs of infants and toddlers with disabilities are individualized to meet the needs of the child and family as determined by the IFSP team, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.343, and 303.344(d), and that early intervention services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families in a timely manner as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e).
1.2 OSEP finds that the State does not ensure a timely comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation and assessment of each child under the age of three who is referred for evaluation or early intervention services under IDEA Part C and suspected of having a disability, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1435(a)(3), 1436(a)(1), 1436(a)(3), 1439(a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.24(a) and 303.321.
1.3 OSEP finds that the State does not ensure that Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) include all the required content listed in 20 U.S.C. § 1436(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.344(d).
Monitoring and Improvement
2.1 OSEP finds that the State is not timely identifying noncompliance when monitoring EIS programs or providers, as required by 34 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1442, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.708.
2.2 OSEP finds that the State is not verifying that the EIS program or provider is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data and information as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(e).
2.3 OSEP finds that the State does not make annual determinations about the performance of each EIS program in the State, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(d)(2), 1434, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700(a)(2) and 303.703(b).
Data
3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed system to collect valid and reliable data to report annually to the Department under 34 C.F.R. § 303.702(b)(2) Indicator 1, established by the Secretary for the State performance plans, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a)(3)(A) and (b), 1435(a)(15), 1437(b)(4), 1442, Sections 616 and 618 (as modified by IDEA Section 642), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.124, 303.224, and 303.701(c).
Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility
4.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to meet the requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, to ensure fiscal compliance with the Statewide system of payments policy requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.520 through 303.521.
4.2 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure fiscal compliance with Federal fiscal requirements, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, 303.226 and 303.501, and 2 C.F.R. §§200.403 and 200.303.
Dispute Resolution
5.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a Statewide system that includes written procedures for the timely administration of complaints through mediation, State complaint procedures, and due process hearings consistent with the IDEA regulations in 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(e), 1439(a)(1) and (a)(8), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.430(a), 303.431, 303.432 through 303.434, and 303.435 through 303.438.
5.2 OSEP finds that the State’s procedural safeguards and prior written notice form are inconsistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.400 and 303.421(b)(3).
What Happens Next
OSEP gave Utah concrete deadlines. For example, regarding individualized services, the state must submit a corrective action plan by June 23, 2026, that includes a “root‑cause analysis of how the State funding structure impacts the level of early intervention services provided in the State” and steps to mitigate those effects. Evidence of implementation is due no later than March 25, 2027. Similar timelines apply to other findings. The state must revise policies, improve data collection, train staff and demonstrate that local programs correct noncompliance.
Given the absence of mainstream news coverage and ED press releases, parents and advocates will need to monitor these deadlines themselves. You can read the full report on the U.S. Department of Education’s website.
Why This Matters for Families
Early‑intervention services set the foundation for infants and toddlers with disabilities. When services are delayed or inadequate, children can miss critical developmental windows. The DMS report makes clear that Utah’s system isn’t meeting federal standards, but it also offers a roadmap for improvement. Families should not have to dig through federal documents to learn whether their state is following the law. Yet, until news outlets start covering these reports, and ED and the state education agencies issue press releases or other alerts, that may be the reality.