A.

Funding Commitments for FY2006 and FY2005

B.

Update on Ministerial and Clerical Errors

C.

Training Update

D.

Summer Contact Procedures Ended September 12

E.

Two-in-Five Tool Update

F.

Invoicing Update

G.

Online BEAR Update

H.

Other

I .

General Questions Received by E-mail

1. If a service provider received funding but inadvertently failed to cash the check before it became stale and the school is not willing to redo the BEAR Form, what other action(s) can a service provider take to have payment reissued? Does a school have an obligation to assist the service provider in this instance?

2. The release of FY 2006 FCDLs decreased very noticeably in August in many states.  Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Vermont have received an average of 76% less funding in August for FY 2006 as compared to August of last year for FY 2005.  In fact, South Carolina and Montana didn't receive ANY funding for a majority of the waves this August ($0.00 in waves 17, 18 and 19), and as a result received over 90% less funding this August as compared to last August.  On the other hand, August 2006 funding in Texas, Arizona and Maine has actually outpaced their funding in August 2005 by as much as 8%.

Additionally, there are a number of FY 2006 applications in some of the affected states that have been classified as "Available for Quality Assurance" for over 2 months without any changes whatsoever.  Without any other explanation, it would appear that the Bishop Perry order has caused a dramatic shift in human resources.  When can we expect SLD to compensate for this imbalance and resume the processing of funding decisions to "pre Bishop Perry order" levels in all states?