CADRE Resources

Dispute Resolution Database Structure and Elements

by Drs. Howard and Judy Schrag

Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act includes a number of procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of parents and their child with a disability, as well as give families and schools a mechanism for resolving disputes. Procedures to handle disputes including complaints, mediation requests and due process hearings have been developed by each state along with policies designed to insure the presence of the safeguards.

With policies and procedures in place, most states developed tracking systems to ensure that alternative dispute resolution procedures were implemented and completed in a timely manner. These tracking systems have been developed and maintained using a variety of media. Many states started with paper files, with most gradually moving toward the use of computer systems to maintain their records.

During 1999, CADRE in cooperation with NASDSE conducted a national screening of the current status of alternative dispute resolution data collection procedures carried out within the states. Following the screening, a more in-depth study of state dispute resolution data collection procedures was conducted within ten states.

In general, the sampled states have developed logging procedures within each formal dispute resolution process to follow the cases through the process. However, none of the ten sampled states had a case management system that integrates or goes across all three formal procedures (i.e., complaints resolution, mediation, and due process). The availability of such information would provide excellent management information for decision-making within the SEAs.

To help facilitate the development of dispute resolution case management database systems, CADRE and NASDSE formed a design team for the purpose of determining the data elements that would best be considered for inclusion in such a database system. Participants from Illinois, Texas, Indiana, Maine, Idaho, and Washington State provided design team input to establish a comprehensive list of data elements and suggestions regarding its structure. The following provides the information developed by the database design team.

Database Structure

It is probably best to think of structuring the dispute resolution system database as a relational database. However, newer software, such as Microsoft’s Access, can also provide object management and utilization -- a feature with nice benefits for dispute resolution systems. Thinking of the database as relational requires that we identify linking variables (in Green) that can be used to structure the database. Older database structures may require placing all of the variables in the same database structure as a single record and, consequently, not need linking variables. It is preferable to move to newer software when possible.

At the present time, some states collect the SSN for their students and keep it in a master file along with additional student information. Because it is a unique number, it works well as a linking variable if most of the students have obtained their SSN. Some states do not collect SSNs; however, they do assign a unique number to the student when they enroll in the public school system. This unique number can also be used to link files.

For states that have neither of the above, linking can be accomplished in at least two other ways. A log of dispute resolution cases can be kept that assigns a unique number to each child entering the dispute resolution system along with identifying information such as gender, address, date of birth, etc. When a new case enters the system, the log can be searched to determine if the child has a previous entry in the log and, consequently, has a unique identifier number already assigned. If so, it can be used. If not, a new one can be assigned and recorded in the log. This approach works well when more than one person, program, or agency enters cases into the database.

A second way of linking students without assigned numbers is to use the DOB and last name as linking variables in the database. This procedure will link almost all students correctly, with the exception of twins or students with the last name who were born on the same day. To prevent this linking problem, the first name can also be used as a link. Using name fields introduces the possibility of keying errors and different versions of the first name. A few well-designed queries can overcome this problem most of the time.

If one reviews the variables listed in the Master Dispute Resolution System Variables (Table 7) below, there are some variables that are related to the case and will most likely not change over the life of the case. Such variables can be placed in the Complainant part of the database (Table 1 below). Once these variables are keyed or loaded into the table, they can be used to form the entire case and some of the variables (in Green) can be used to link to other tables.

Table 1. Variables that most likely will not change and can be placed in the Complainant table in the Database.

Complainant Information

Student’s First Name

Student’s Last Name

Student’s DOB

Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number

Students Category

Parent/Guardian Salutation

Parent/Guardian Name

Parent/Guardian Street Address (line 1)

Parent/Guardian Street Address (line 2)

Parent/Guardian City

Parent/Guardian State

Parent/Guardian Zip Code

Parent/Guardian Telephone

Parent/Guardian Fax Number

Complainant Salutation

Complainant Name

Complainant Street Address (line 1)

Complainant Street Address (Line 2)

Complainant City

Complainant State

Complainant Zip Code

Complainant Telephone

Complainant Fax Number

Systemic Dispute Party

District/Agency

Table 2 below contains the variables that some State Education Agencies may be able to obtain by linking to other files or databases to automatically populate and update these variables in the dispute resolution database. In most SEAs, there is an established mailing list of Superintendents, Directors of Special Education, and LEA Representatives that the database can automatically obtain and thus eliminate the need to enter the information.

Table 2. Variables that may be loaded automatically form other software files.

VARIABLE

District/Agency

LEA Representative’s Salutation

LEA Representative’s Name

LEA Representative’s Street Address (line 1)

LEA Representative’s Street Address (line 2)

LEA Representative’s City

LEA Representative’s State

LEA Representative’s Zip Code

LEA Representative’s Telephone

LEA Representative’s Fax Number

LEA Superintendent Salutation

LEA Superintendent’s Name

LEA Superintendent’s Street Address (line 1)

LEA Superintendent’s Street Address (line 2)

LEA Superintendent’s City

LEA Superintendent’s State

LEA Superintendent’s Zip Code

LEA Superintendent’s Telephone

LEA Superintendent’s Fax Number

LEA Sp. Ed. Director ‘s Salutation

LEA Sp. Ed. Director ‘s Name

LEA Sp. Ed. Director ‘s Street Address (line 1)

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s Street Address (line 2)

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s City

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s State

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s Zip Code

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s Telephone

LEA Sp. Ed. Director’s Fax Number

Some of the variables identified will be used with all types of disputes, while others will be unique to one or two types of dispute resolution. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 below provide a listing of the variables and their use with the various types of dispute resolution. Programmers may want to place the variables that apply to all dispute resolution types in one database table and the variables that are unique to a process in separate tables such as displayed below.

A simpler approach would be to include all of these variables in one database table and use separate forms to enter the three types of dispute resolution information. One could also create one entry form for these variables that is laid out so that entry for each unique dispute process has its own section. SEAs will find that the way they have structured the systems to work will impact who enters the data. In addition, the database will need to be structured to interface with the dispute resolution system components as the SEA has designed and implemented them.

Table 3. Variables used to document all dispute resolution processes.

Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number

Names and address that may change over time

Type of Dispute Resolution Process

Disposition of Case

Disposition Notes

Case archived

Dispute Statement

First Issues Involved

Issue One Prevailing Party

Second Issues Involved

Issue Two Prevailing Party

Third Issues Involved

Issue Three Prevailing Party

Fourth Issues Involved

Issue Four Prevailing Party

Corrective Action(s) Information

Corrective Action 1

Follow-up date – Action 1

Date of Projected Completion

Date Corrective Action 1 completed

Corrective Action 2

Follow-up date – Action 2

Date of Projected Completion

Date Corrective Action 2 completed

Corrective Action 3

Follow-up date – Action 3

Date of Projected Completion

Date Corrective Action 3 completed

Corrective Action 4

Follow-up date – Action 4

Date of Projected Completion

Date Corrective Action 4 completed

Outcome

Consumer Satisfaction First Attempt (Mail or Phone)

Consumer Satisfaction Second Attempt (Mail or Phone)

Consumer Satisfaction Third Attempt (Mail or Phone)

Consumer Satisfaction Results

Table 4. Variables used to document the Complaints process.

Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number

Date Complaint Received

Held in Abeyance

60 Day Deadline Date

Time extension Date

Deadline Date for Additional Information from Complainant

Date LEA Notified

Date LEA to Respond

Date LEA Response Received

Findings

Date Written Decision Sent Complainant

Initiation of Enforcement Procedures

Enforcement Notes

Table 5. Variables used to document the Mediation process

Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number

Mediation Request Type

Mediation Status

Parent/Parties Offered Mediation by SEA

Parents/Parties Accept/Reject Mediation

Date Parent Accept/Reject. If accept, date signed Agreement to Mediate

LEA/Parties Accept/Reject Mediation

Date LEA/Agency Accept/Reject. If accept, date signed Agreement to Mediate

Meeting to Encourage Mediation

Mediator Assigned or Selected by SEA

Date Mediator Selected

Parties Notified of Mediator Appointment

Request Another Mediator

Alternate Mediator

Parties Notified of Alt. Mediator Appointment

First Mediation Date

Attendees of First Meeting

Length of First Meeting

Second Mediation Date

Attendees of Second Meeting

Length of Second Meeting

Third Mediation Date

Attendees of Third Meeting

Length of Second Meeting

First Mediation Cancelled

Second Mediation Cancelled

Third Mediation Cancelled

Receipt of Written Agreement

Written Mediation Agreement

Mediation Signed

Date Agreement Mailed to Parties

Table 6. Variables used to document Due Process Hearings.

Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number

Representative’s Salutation

Representative’s Name

Representative’s Street Address (line 1)

Representative’s Street Address (line 2)

Representative’s City

Representative’s State

Representative’s Zip Code

Representative’s Telephone

Representative’s Fax Number

Initiation of Enforcement Procedures

Enforcement Notes

Hearing Request Filed

Procedural Safeguards Statement Provided Including Free/low-cost Sources of Advise

Hearing Officer Assigned

Parties Notified of Hearing Officer Appointment

Request Another Hearing Officer

Alternate Hearing Officer Selected

Parties Notified of Alt. Hearing Officer Appointment

Alternate Hearing Officer Assigned

Hearing Extension Granted

Pre-hearing Conference Scheduled

Pre-hearing Held

Disclosure Date Established

Hearing Date(s) Scheduled

First Continuance Requested

First Continuance Granted

First New Hearing Date(s) Scheduled

Second Continuance Requested

Second Continuance Granted

Second New Hearing Date(s) Scheduled

Third Continuance Requested

Third Continuance Granted

Third New Hearing Date(s) Scheduled

Fourth Continuance Requested

Fourth Continuance Granted

Fourth New Hearing Date(s) Scheduled

Hearing Held

Decision Issued

Findings of Fact & Decision

Date Decision Mailed to Parties

Clarification of Decision Requested

Clarification Issued

Clarification Denied

Clarification

Facts to SAP

SEA Appeal Received

SEA Extension Granted

SEA Decision

SEA Decision

SEA Decision Sent To Parties

Administrative Record Received

Appealed to Court

Reasons Appealed to Court

Parties Prevailing in Court Appeal

Several possible database structures have been discussed. One of the easiest relational databases to design and implement is illustrated below (Display 1). The linked variables are show by arrows. Please note that all of the variables have not been recorded in the Display. The illustration was designed only to provide an overview of the database structure and its linkages.

Display 1. Structure for a simple dispute resolution relational database.

Student & Parties Address Table
Student’s First Name
Student’s Last Name
Student’s DOB				Case Information
Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number				Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number
Students Category				Type of Dispute Resolution Process
Parent/Guardian Salutation		LEA Address Information Source		Disposition of Case
District/Agency		District/Agency		Disposition Notes
More variables ….		LEA Representative’s Salutation		Addresses and Names of Parties that may change over time
		LEA Representative’s Name		Dispute Statement
		LEA Representative’s Street Address (line 1)		First Issues Involved
		LEA Representative’s Street Address (line 2)		Issue One Prevailing Party
		LEA Representative’s City		More variables ….
		LEA Representative’s State
		LEA Representative’s Zip Code
		LEA Representative’s Telephone
		LEA Representative’s Fax Number
		More variables ….

Database Variables

Table 7 was designed to provide further definition of the variables and some indication of the purpose for gathering them. Some of the variables can be automatically loaded from other databases or tables, and some can be automatically calculated. Each SEA and/or contractor(s) will have its own procedures used to provide the dispute resolution processes. The uniqueness of each system will need to be considered while developing the dispute resolution database. The list of data elements below can be used as a starting point from which data elements can be eliminated and added as needed. We have included some optional variables as the end of the table that some SEAs may want to use with their dispute resolution database.

Table 7. MASTER DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM VARIABLES

VARIABLE	SUGGESTED FORMAT	DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEMS USING VARIABLE	DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF VARIABLE
Student’s First Name	Text	All	Identify Subject of Dispute Resolution Activity and linking to other databases.
Student’s Last Name	Text	All	Identify Subject of Dispute Resolution Activity and linking to other databases.
Student’s DOB	Date (mm/dd/yy)	All	Identify Subject of Dispute Resolution Activity and linking to other databases.
Student’s SSN, ID#, or Case Number	nnn-nn-nnnn	All	Identification and linking to other databases.
Students Category	Number or Alpha code	All	Identify disability involved: 1=MR, 2=SLD, 3=Autism, 4=EC, 5= DD,6=disputed…X=unknown
Parent/Guardian Salutation	Text	All	Options such as Mr. and Mrs.; Mr.; Mrs.; Dr.; etc. used to print letters.