Background
The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), funded a 5-year Center on Dispute Resolution for the purpose of providing information and assistance regarding the planning and implementation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures.
Phase 1 Study
Methodology
To assist in a comprehensive nationwide review of ADR strategies being used in the states, NASDSE, as a CADRE partner, obtained information during Year 1 from each state regarding ADR data gathered procedures, including complaints resolution, mediation, and due process hearings. For purposes of the Phase I Study:
-
Complaints resolution refers to the previous EDGAR requirement for states to maintain a state complaint system that has been incorporated into IDEA Regulations.
-
Mediation refers to the new voluntary mediation process that states must now have in place as a means of resolving disputes between school districts and parents of children with disabilities.
- Due process refers to the formal due process hearing on any matter with respect to the identification, evaluation, or placement of a child, or the provision of FAPE (free appropriate public education.
A questionnaire, contained 24 questions, was distributed to state contacts within state education agencies (SEAs) in three waves during February, March and April of 1999. All 50 states had responded by mid-May of 1999.
Results
Of the 50 states, 31 reported recording follow-up activity data for complaint resolution cases and nine reported measuring the impact of the complaint resolution process on individual cases. For mediation, six states conduct and record follow-up activities, seven capture impact data, and 29 measure satisfaction. For due process hearings, 17 record follow-up data, four obtain impact information, and six measure satisfaction.
Ten states that appeared to have the most advanced systems including data capturing and recording procedures were selected for a more in-depth Phase II review. Contacts with these states were initiated in June, July and August of 1999 to gather detailed information about procedures, database elements, numbers of cases, and software used.
Additional results of the Phase I study can be found in the Quick Turn Around Document "Dispute Resolution Activities State Data Collection" on this web site.
Phase 2 Study
Methodology
As stated earlier, the Phase 1 study was completed by all 50 states and returning by email, fax or regular mail. The responses were reviewed, and 10 states were selected as possibly having the most complete systems including follow-up, impact, and satisfaction data. The states included Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and Washington. Once selected, additional email and telephone contacts were made with the SEA contacts to obtain detailed organizational and procedural information, including data management software being used and the annual number of requests each year for the dispute resolution procedures.
Findings
Effectiveness and Impact
Although it was hoped tha
