CADRE Resources
Background/Introduction
California currently serves approximately 638,000 students through special education, up from 553,000 in 1995.
During that same period of time, the number of formal dispute resolution activities, including mediation, due process
hearings, and compliance complaints has doubled. The resulting expense to districts and the state has been considerable,
dollars that could otherwise be applied to instruction. Further, the existing infrastructure for resolving disputes
is overwhelmed, such that the timely resolution of disputes, consistent with legal mandate, is increasingly difficult
to achieve. With the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, and the state's response to the reauthorization, the potential
for increased dispute activity is considerable as parents and special educators make meaning of the new laws. Clearly,
alternative methods of dispute resolution will be necessary to help ensure that disputes are resolved at the local
level whenever possible, and in a timely manner consistent with legal timelines.
For the past five years, the California Legislature has authorized CDE Special Education Division, to allocate
$100,000 per year to promote ADR statewide. To date, the division has awarded approximately 100 grants to SELPAs
across the state. The average grant was $5,000. Based on a recent survey of ADR grant recipients, CDE has identified
eight effective ADR programs in the state. Relative to the state's total investment over the past five years, the
average cost per functioning programs is $62,500. Given the legal expense associated with due process hearings
and complaint investigations, the money is well spent. (SELPA directors report that it can cost between $35-50,000
to successfully defend a due process hearing and can be considerably more if they loose. This is in addition to
the state's expense of administering the process, reflected in the current contract with McGeorge.) Still, the
relatively small number of functional programs relative to the number of ADR grants made to date, points out the
need for a more effective dissemination model. An understanding of program factors that increase the probability
of effective implementation and the nature of CDE support for ADR program development must be reevaluated in light
of the new ADR survey data.
ADR Survey Results - Common Threads
The ADR survey data was self-reported by SELPA directors, either in writing or by interview. Based on responses
from SELPAs who have received an ADR grant, the following SELPAs have been identified with effective programs.
Contra Costa, Solano, El Dorado, Riverside, Butte, Placer/Nevada, Sonoma and San Luis Obispo. By far, the most
effective program reported was in Contra Costa. Last year, the ADR coordinator facilitator resolved 189 disputes.
Due process hearings dropped from 18 in 1996-97 to 11 during 1997-98. While the number of resolved disputes varies
significantly across the effective 8, it is clear that all 8 see the value of dedicating staff to this specific
purpose. Given the observation that the cost of litigating a single due process hearing is $35 - 50,000, resolving
only one such case through ADR financially justifies the state's investment. More importantly, local solutions
lead to more expedient service for individuals with disabilities and help to maintain relationships between parents
and school district personnel, a positive influence in reducing the number of repeat filings.
Another common thread involves the use of ADR teams to assist in the resolution of disputes. Typically, these teams
are regional in nature, with membership composed of people from outside the LEA in dispute. The "effective
8" report the importance of being perceived as being impartial by disputing parties. The "effective 8"
also report the importance of having process and content expertise on ADR teams. Impartiality and Expertise = Trust.
These data reflect the use and importance of parent volunteers, and that the quality of volunteers was a key to
ADR success. Quality of ADR team participants, both volunteer and professional, is promoted by effective training
that includes listening skills, ADR methodology, and state and federal law.
A Model for Success
Although the ADR survey was a limited inquiry of grant recipients, it is clear that there are common elements present
in effective programs that may not be consistently present in areas where programs have not developed to date.
It is likely that there are other factors common to the "effective 8" that are not evident in the survey
results, simply because the survey did not ask the right questions. A deeper conversation with representatives
from the "effective 8" could surface other key factors to successful implementation.
It is also clear from a review of grant recipients who do not report effective programs that a one time, $5,000
grant was inadequate support in itself, if ADR implementation (as opposed to mere awareness) was the goal. The
data supports the need for a larger, long-term system of support to ensure ADR program implementation. Research
on effective implementation emphasizes the need for training on any new innovation to include theory, modeling,
guided practice and ongoing sustained support. Clearly, a new model must include comprehensive training that incorporates
all of these components.
It is SED's intent to provide new sites with a total of three years of funding in an effort to support new site
implementation in a comprehensive manner. The current design calls for one year of planning grant support ($5-7000
range), followed by two years of more substantial funding. Implementation funding will need to be sufficient to
support quality training, program advertisement, local awareness activities, participation in mentoring activities
including an annual statewide ADR conference, and infrastructure to facilitate local dispute resolution data collection
which will be standardized across the state for all ADR sites. (Currently, where any local data is collected, definitions
and methodology vary substantially). Standardized data collection will allow for meaningful program evaluation,
which will inform future state level efforts. Implementation funding is projected to be in the $18-20,000 per year
range. Mentor team funding is intended to support regional and statewide dissemination activities. The mentor teams
provide the ongoing, sustained support component for the new sites. Mentor funding is also projected to be in the
$18-20,000 per year range.
During the planning year, funds are distributed as grants. During implementation and mentor years, funding is intended
to distributed in the form of contracts, since the division intends to stipulate certain deliverables including
local dispute resolution data collection and reporting.
The proposed model is designed to grow ADR availability exponentially. After new ADR sites have operated successfully
for at least two years, they then become eligible to be mentors for other new sites. As the pool of eligible mentor
teams grows, the ability to effectively support more new ADR sites across the state also grows. The need to increase
funding, over time, to support increased capacity is anticipated.
Action Plan
December 1998
Convene a meeting of representatives from the existing ADR programs. The purpose of this meeting is to further
develop our understanding of common elements of the effective programs and to further develop and refine a long-term
strategy for the development of network of ADR programs statewide. This steering committee is envisioned as developing
into a statewide ADR advisory council as the initiative grows.
This meeting also provides an opportunity to seek commitment from these folks to provide mentoring/ dissemination
support for new programs. Limited funding to support dissemination is currently in place with augmentation being
sought. The "effective 8" will also help to refine the RFP/application for LEAs seeking support for ADR
program development.
January 1999
Distribute invitations to apply for planning grants to 6 targeted LEAs where both the demonstrated need and capacity
for ADR program development exist. Consideration was also given to distributing ADR development geographically.
(Targeted LEAs have all expressed a commitment to locally fund a .5 FTE staff person (minimum) for the duration
of the implementation funding cycle.) The LEAs need not be limited to SELPAs, but are intended to be larger than
an individual school district. County offices or school district consortiums could also be eligible to apply. By
targeting areas that have some current volume of formal CDE complaint activity, it is hoped that ADR might, over
time, help to diminish the rate of formal complaints and due process cases.
The planning grants will be used to support teams convening for a two day ADR program planning event to be held
April 19-20 (described below). Planning teams from the targeted LEAs will convene with mentor teams and consultants
from CDE SED to develop draft implementation plans.
March 1999
Award planning and dissemination grants for 1998-99:
Dissemination Grants = 6 grants totaling approximately $56,000
=
Planning Grants = 6 grants totaling approximately $44,000
TOTAL: = $100,00
April 1999
Convene ADR Planning Conference with all grant recipients to assist in the development of comprehensive implementation
plans for the targeted new ADR sites. The conference is designed to facilitate planning, and at the same time,
build three way partnerships between mentor teams, planning teams, and the CDE consultants who will be attached
to these teams. The consultant role will be to facilitate data collection, contract management, and broker CDE
SED technical assistance resources as appropriate for the duration of the funding cycle.
May 1999
Targeted teams finalize implementation plans, secure appropriate local approvals, and submit to CDE SED for funding
approval by 5/31/99. Mentor plans are also finalized in May with submission dates to CDE SED by 5/31/99 as well.
June 1999
Plans are reviewed for funding approval pending state budget adoption. It is intended that funding be made available
as soon as possible thereafter to allow for training activities to take place as soon as possible.
For more information contact: Sam Neustadt
