CADRE Resources
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 that more data regarding impact and effectiveness of ADR approaches could be gathered, it was found that in both the Phase I and Phase II studies, there are no consistent agreed-upon methods of collection or reporting this information. This is an area needing further definition and development within the states.
Database Software Utilization
Interviews with the ten state found that tracking systems/dispute resolution files are being kept on media ranging from hardcopy paper files to database management software. The software involved ranges from tables in word processing applications, to spreadsheets, to databases, and call center software. Some applications have been developed by public and private vendors, while most SEAs have developed their own tracking systems and are using software available to them on their servers and personal computers. The Microsoft Office Suite is the most frequently used software.
Within the Phase II states, a review of the data elements placed in the database structure (tracking systems) revealed a wide variety of field names with many different allowable entries within the same field. A few databases have restricted codes that are allowed within a field with precise meanings (e.g., Illinois due process hearing database). There does appear to be a core set of data elements that all systems are gathering under different field names and different formats.
Number of Cases of Formal Dispute Resolution:
In an attempt to identify the extent and type of dispute resolution used, each of the 10 SEA contacts was asked to provide the number of complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearing requested on an annual bases for the last three years. Some of the SEAs were able to provide data on a fiscal year basis, while others provided data on an annual calendar year basis. Table 1 below provides an overview of the dispute resolution request during calendar year 1998 or fiscal year 1997-98.
Table 1. Complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearings requested during calendar year1998 or fiscal 1997-98.
The number of dispute resolution procedures requested in Table 1 above have been converted to percentages in Table 2 below. Because of the small numbers involved, Wyoming and to some extent Idaho percentages should be used with extreme caution. The addition or subtraction of a few cases in any of the dispute categories within these two smaller states can substantially change the percentages.
In Table 2 below it can be noted that Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee have a comparatively low percentage of ADR cases that request a due process hearings. Illinois, Alabama, and Texas have a higher percentages of ADR cases that request due process hearings.
Table 2. The percentage of complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearings requested during calendar year 1998 or fiscal 1997-98.
Table 3 below provides the following information for the Phase II states: total school population, total special education population, numbers of annual formal disputes filed, formal disputes filed per 10,000 students with disabilities, and the percent of the school-age population living in poverty. To some extent, the level of poverty may influence the extent that due process is requested. Several SEA contacts reported insufficient legal aid for low-income families. Many other factors also impact the filing of requests such as the legitimacy of the dispute or willingness to resolve issues prior to formal filing.
Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced dispute resolution data systems.
** Source ñ Twentieth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
In addition, the 10 Phase II states were compared to the nation to determine if they provided a good ethnic representation of the nation and could be used to make a national estimate of dispute resolution procedures requests. It was found that by eliminating two of the 10 states (Oregon and Tennessee) and adding Massachusetts, a sample that closely fit the national total population ethnic profile could be formed (Table 4). This new sample represented 24.18 percent of the total U.S. population. Ethnicity was used because social-economic factors reportedly impact the utilization of dispute resolution services, especially due process hearings that cost and usually necessitate representation by an attorney. Children and families within minority groups may use due process hearings less often than complaints and mediation. The sample, while not a perfect match, does have about the same percent (72.96% verses 72.70%) of whites represented in it. Table 4 below provides a comparison of the nine states in the sample and the national ethnic profile.
Table 4. National and Sample Ethnic Profile*
Table 5 below provides a summary of the dispute resolution cases for the sample described above. A total of 4,280 cases were filed/requested during the 12-month periods reported by the sample states. Individuals may simultaneously file/request ADR procedures, consequently the number of cases should not be construed to represent the number of individuals involved. Cases can also represent more than one individual.
Table 5. Complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearings requested during the calendar year 1998 or fiscal 1997-98 for the national sample.
The national sample represents 25.4 percent of the national special education population. Using this percentage it can be estimated that about 16,850 ADR cases were filed nationally during a twelve-month period covering part or all of 1998. This figure should be used with caution because any aberration in a large state such as New York or California could substantially change the actual count. In addition, there are differences within the states regarding the emphasis placed on ADR procedures. For example, some states are emphasizing and using less formal procedures to a larger extent than others. However, as indicated above, the sample does represent actual counts from states containing 25.4 percent of the United States school age population with disabilities. If there are no significant aberrations in other states, this sample provides a reasonable estimate of the cases filed/requested and logged by SEAs throughout the nation.
Summary
The Phase I study conducted as a part of NASDSEís subcontract with CADRE was a national screening of the current status of ADR data collection procedures carried out within the states. Following the completion of the Phase I study, a more in-depth study of state ADR data collection procedures was conducted within ten states. Information was gathered within both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies using email and telephone interviews.
Results of the Phase 2 study indicated that ADR procedures were found to be consistent across the ten sampled states. Some states have developed pre-filing processes in an attempt to resolve disputes prior to more formal procedures.
In general, the sampled states have developed logging procedures within each formal ADR process to follow the cases through that formal process. However, none of the ten sampled states have a case management system that integrates or goes across all three formal ADR procedures (i.e., complaints resolution, mediation, and due process). The fact that this linkage is missing makes the measurement of effectiveness of ADR procedures difficult. The availability of such information would provide excellent management information for decision-making within the SEAs.
Both the findings of the Phase l and Phase 2 studies indicated a general lack of impact and effectiveness data being gathered by SEAs. Again, this is missing and essential management information data.
Data gathered during the Phase 2 study showed a range of formal disputes filed during a 12-month period per 10,000 students with disabilities from 10.2 percent (Wyoming) to 39.9 percent (Washington State). With acknowledged limitations, an estimate was made that there were 16,850 ADR requests filed across the nation within the 12-month period covering part or all of 1998 (fiscal or calendar year).
Future work
to be conducted by NASDSE and CADRE will focus on ultimately measuring
effectiveness and impact of ADR procedures through a sample of states
using well defined criteria.
