Oct. 7, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) report for Massachusetts. OSEP identified six areas of noncompliance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C requirements.
Three findings remained open when OSEP issued the report. OSEP closed the other three after reviewing changes Massachusetts submitted during the monitoring process. The open findings concern state oversight, identification of noncompliance and parental consent to use public benefits or private insurance.
What OSEP Found
OSEP interviewed Massachusetts Department of Public Health staff in March 2026. It also reviewed state documents and publicly available information, and sought feedback from parents, members of the public and local staff.
The following excerpts describe the six areas.
1.1. Responsibility for Monitoring
“The State’s general supervision system does not include oversight of contracted organizations to ensure compliance with IDEA Part C, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434 and 1435(a)(10), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.708.”
1.2. Identification of Noncompliance
“The State’s general supervision system does not consistently ensure accurate and timely identification of noncompliance as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.702.”
2.1. Parental Consent for Use of Public Benefits or Private Insurance
“The State is not in compliance with the IDEA Part C parental consent requirements for use of public benefits or private insurance to pay for Part C services consistent with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1432(4)(B), 1435(a)(10), 1439, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.7, 303.414(b), 303.520 and 303.521.”
3.1. Procedural Safeguards Notice
“The State has not established or adopted procedural safeguards consistent with the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.400(a).”
3.2. State Complaint Model Form
“The State’s model complaint form does not indicate that use of the form—or any additional information it requests—is optional, and it includes fields that exceed the complaint content required under 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.434(b). Further, the State’s written procedures require complainants to send a copy of the complaint to the Early Intervention Division and simultaneously provide a copy to the ‘other party,’ rather than forwarding a copy to the public agency or EIS provider serving the child at the time the complaint is filed with the lead agency, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.434(d).”
1.3. Timely Implementation of Due Process Hearing Decisions
The report labels this finding “1.3” and cites “300.700.” These appear to be typos for “3.3” and “303.700.”
“The State has not ensured that hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there was no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1439(a)(1), 1442, 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, 303.437, and 300.700 through 303.708.”
What Happens Next
According to the report, Oct. 7, 2026, OSEP closed findings 3.1, 3.2, and the finding labeled 1.3.
OSEP set deadlines for Massachusetts to submit corrective-action documents by Jan. 7, 2027, for the open findings. Evidence of implementation is due as soon as possible, but no later than Oct. 7, 2027.
What This Means for Families
This report gives parents more ammunition to bring to meetings. Keep in mind that it doesn’t prove that every early intervention provider violated IDEA or that every child was denied services.
Massachusetts’ April 2013 payment policy required parental consent to use public benefits or private insurance. It also said the state would provide services parents had approved in their child’s plan even when they declined that use. Yet the state’s forms didn’t let parents approve one funding source and decline the other:
“OSEP found that the State’s “Consent to Access Insurance” form combines consent for public benefits and private insurance and does not provide an option for separate informed consent for families. . . .
“Both the web-based form in EICS and the State’s Universal IFSP consent form to access insurance include a single signature line that authorizes the State to access public and/or private insurance without clearly distinguishing between the two sources of insurance and does not provide parents the opportunity to separately consent to or decline insurance sources separately. As a result, when a parent consents to one type of insurance, the consent also applies to the other insurance and when a parent chooses to decline consent, the parent declines consent for both public benefits and private insurance.”
OSEP also found that Massachusetts lacked a consistent process for checking reports and data to determine whether IDEA requirements were met. Collecting information isn’t the same as using it to identify and correct violations.
The same concern applies to shared policies. OSEP warned that a finding against one program could leave others using the same noncompliant policy.
Families shouldn’t have to report the same violation one child at a time before the state checks how far it reaches.