My question is very broad because I believe that we all have somewhat different monitoring processes for ESEA requirements but I am hoping you will be able to chime in to share what you do in your state. 

In Wisconsin, our current consolidated monitoring process for ESEA grants has two tiers: universal and intensive. Universal has a focus on all LEAs annually and includes items such as allowed costs, TI ranking and serving, private school consultation, supplement not supplant, etc. Intensive focuses on a selected group of LEAs based on a risk assessment. We review items including OMB fiscal requirements such as time and effort and cash management as well as ESEA requirements such as school improvement plans, evidence-based strategies; and then the more technical items like the agreements with Head Start, etc. We have received feedback from our stakeholders that the intensive monitoring process is incredibly burdensome and the preparation is very time consuming. They have suggested adding in another tier to the monitoring process that would be less intensive, focus more on technical aspects (i.e. review of the requirement family engagement policy), and could perhaps be on a five-year cycle. I wondering if any of you have a rubric, decision-making process, or guiding principles your agency uses to determine how you will monitor each ESEA requirements (desk review only, documentation review plus a conversation during an on-site monitoring visit, etc.). For example, you may ask for a written assurance for a requirement annually, but then follow up during a desk review or an on-site monitoring visit to ensure that the requirement was met.

My question is this…..What factors did you consider when determining if the requirement could be met through a desk review or if you needed to have a conversation with the LEA in order to get more information during an on-site visit?

Shelly Babler
Assistant Director
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction