State Data Management Systems A NASDSE/CADRE Partnership Session D 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

1. State Data Management Systems A NASDSE/CADRE Partnership Session D 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Thursday, November 30, 2000 National Symposium on Dispute Resolution in Special Education Dr. Howard L. Schrag Dr. Judy A. Schrag Hschrag@prodigy.net Education and Human Services Group

2. SEA Management Tool for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) • Session Agenda: • Phase I – National Study of State (ADR) Practices • Phase II – In-Depth Study of 10 States • Phase III – Determining the Data Base Structure and Elements – Design Team Work • Phase IV – Pilot in Selected States • Phase V – National Study

3. Background • Formal dispute mechanisms within IDEA since 1975. • Congress added mediation in 1977 in recognition of need for additional, less contentious ADR procedures. • States must offer mediation at least whenever a due process hearing is requested, but may not deny or delay a parent’s rights to a due process hearing.

4. Phase I – National E-Mail Survey of all States: • Formal Complaints: • 48 – Collect information regarding the numbers and locations of complaints made to the SEA. • 42 – Collect data regarding the type of issue(s) contained in the formal complaint.

5. 35 – Gather information regarding complaint resolution activities carried out by the SEA. • 31 – Gather information regarding follow-up activities. • 9 – Gather information regarding the impact of complaint resolution.

6. Mediation Procedures: • 48 – Collect information regarding the numbers and locations of mediation requests received. • 37 – Collect information regarding the type of issue(s contained in the mediation request. • 27 – Retain information about the types and nature of mediation agreements.

7. 29 – Gather information regarding satisfaction from the parent and/or the school personnel concerning their mediation experience. • 6 – Gather information regarding follow-up activities to implement the mediation agreement (e.g., questionnaire at the conclusion of mediation or random contacts following mediation).

8. 7 – Retain information regarding the impact of the mediation agreement after it has been carried out (e.g., whether original dispute concern was resolved). • Due Process: • 48 – Gather data on the numbers and locations of due process hearing requests to the SEA.

9. 43 – Retain information regarding the type of issue(s) contained in the due process hearing requests. • 48 – Maintain data regarding the numbers and locations of due process hearings completed. • 47 – Retain information about the hearing officer’s decision.

10. 47 – Collect information regarding follow-up activities that have occurred within school systems as a result of the due process hearing officer’s decision. • 6 – Gather satisfaction information from the parent and/or school personnel regarding the due process hearing experience. • 4 – Collect information regarding the impact of due process hearing decision.

11. Other ADR Activities: • Advisory Opinion (e.g., Massachusetts) • Pre-Appeals (e.g., Iowa) • Early Assistance Program (e.g., Montana) • Peer Mediation (e.g., Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, and Nebraska).

12. Conciliation (e..g, Minnesota and Nebraska). • Ombudsemen, School-level Mediation, IEP Meeting Facilitators, and Fact Finding Panels (e.g., Oregon). • Advisory Rulings (e.g., Maine). • Cooperative Teaching Models for Developing Problem Solving Skills (e.g., Alabama).

13. Conflict resolution workshops (Iowa). • Statewide dispute resolution network (e.g., California).

14. Early ADR Data Efforts State Department of Education Division of Special Education Department of Justice Mediation MIS Due Process Hearings MIS Complaints MIS

15. Early State Department of Education Division of Special Education Mediation MIS Due Process Hearings MIS Complaints MIS

16. Typically, SEAs have a staff member in charge of complaints management, mediation, and due process—or contract for such services. • The staff member or contractual entity may not be the same. • There usually is a database for each of each of the three ADR procedures. • In almost every state, the three databases or systems are not integrated.

17. Phase II – In-Depth Study of 10 States • Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming and Washington • Findings: • There is no consistent agreed-upon method of collecting or reporting information regarding ADR approaches.

18. Tracking systems/dispute resolution files range from hardcopy paper files to database management software. • Software range from tables in word processing applications, spreadsheets, databases, and call center software. • States are using software available on servers and personal computers. Microsoft Office Suite is the most frequently used software.

19. There is a wide variety of field/variable 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. • There appear to be a core set of data elements that all systems are gathering under different field names and different formats.

20. Sampled states have developed logging procedures within each formal ADR process and follow the cases through that formal process. • None of the 10 sampled states had a case management system that integrates or goes across all three formal ADR procedures.

21. Table 1. Complaints filed, medications requested, and due process hearing requested during calendar year 1998 or fiscal 1997-98. State Complaints Mediations Due Process Total Alabama 33 19 60 112 Idaho 10 16 19 45 Illinois 173 208 427 808 Indiana 128 46 71 245 Michigan 220 29 98 347 Oregon 62 38 56 156 Tennessee 127 67 69 263 Texas 399 508 383 1,400 Washington 60 153 149 362 Wyoming 4 5 2 11 TOTALS 1,316 1,087 1,344 3,747

22. Table 2. The percentage of complaints filed, mediations requested, and due process hearings requested during calendar year 1998 or fiscal year 1997-1998. State Complaints Mediations Due Process TOTAL Alabama 29.5% 17.0% 53.6% 100% Idaho 22.2% 35.6% 42.2% 100% Illinois 21.5% 25.6% 53.0% 100% Indiana 52.2% 18.8% 29.0% 100% Michigan 63.4% 8.4% 28.2% 100% Oregon 39.7% 24.4% 35.9% 100% Tennessee 48.3% 25.5% 26.2% 100% Texas 7.3% 52.3% 40.4% 100% Washington 16.6% 42.3% 41.2% 100% Wyoming 36.4% 45.5% 18.2% 100% TOTALS 26.8% 32.8% 40.5% 100%

23. There was a range of formal disputes filed during a 12-month period per 10,000 students with disabilities from 10.5% (Wyoming) to 40.3% (Washington State).

24. Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced dispute resolution data systems. State Total School Total SpecEd # Formal Formal % Population Population Disputes Disputes/ Poverty Filed 10,000 Students with Disabilities Alabama 780,999 84,440 112 13.2 24.1 Idaho 256,946 19.989 45 22.5 13.1 Illinois 2,240,179 220,648 806 36.4 16.2 Indiana 1,083,588 115.629 245 21.2 13,0 Michigan 1,849,721 161,511 347 21.5 17.7 Oregon 591.538 56,338 156 27.7 12,8 Tennessee 953,463 109.981 263 23.9 19.3 Texas 3,879,307 386,842 1,400 36.2 24.924

25. Table 3. Characteristics of the 10 states with advanced dispute resolution data systems (Cont.). State Total School Total SpecEd # Formal Formal % Population Population Disputes Disputes/ Poverty Filed 10,000 Students with Disabilities Washington 1,047,085 89,825 362 40.3 12.8 Wyoming 313,685 10,490 11 10.5 26.5

26. 9 States were studied that have the same ethnic mix as the nation: • Alabama Michigan Texas Massachusetts • Illinois Washington Wyoming Indiana • Idaho • The nine states represent 25.4% of the national special education population. • It is estimated that about 18,500 ADR cases were filed nationally in 1998.

27. Phase III – Determining the Database Structure and Elements – Design Team Work Illinois Bobbie Reguly Texas Emi Johnson Indiana Becky Bowman Maine Michael Opuda Idaho Larry Streeter Washington Sandy Grummick CADRE Philip Moses WRRC Richard Zeller

28. ADR Database Structure and Elements • Database Structure • Relational Database – Identity linking variables that can be used to structure the database. • Microsoft’s ACCESS can provide object management and utilization.

29. Database Variables: VARIABLE SUGGESTED FORMAT DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM USING VARIABLE DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF VARIABLE Parent/Guardian Zip Code Number All Use to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them. Parent/Guardian Telephone Number All Use to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them. Parent/Guardian Fax Number Number All Use to identify student's parent/guardian and communicate with them. Complainant Salutation Text All Options such as Mr. and Mrs.; Mr.; Mrs.; Dr.; Gentlemen; etc. used to print letters. Complainant Name Text All Use to identify person (other than parent) or entity bringing dispute and communicate with them. Complainant Street Address (line 1) Text All Use to communicate with identify person (other than parent) or entity bringing dispute.

30. Database Applications to the System: • Generate letters. • Provide alert notices. • Track the progress of individual cases (open). • Provide information to answer inquiries. • Analyze the effectiveness of ADR procedures. • Identify trends within and across ADR procedures. • Analyze various ADR issues.

31. Phase IV – Pilot in Selected States Phase V – National Study Things to Do Things to Do