Using Data to Improve Dispute Resolution System Performance CADRE Webinar May 18, 2011 Noon PDT 3 PM EDT.

Using Data to Improve Dispute Resolution System Performance

CADRE Webinar May 18, 2011

Noon PDT3 PM EDT

Quick Table 7 Data Comparison- Illinois, Washington, 50 States -

CADRE WebinarDick Zeller, CADRE

NOTE: The height of each bar cluster represents the total rate at which Due Process Complaints are filed.

The lower percent resolved through mediation for 2005-06 is the result of one large state reporting no mediation activity that year and the substitution of resolution meetings for DP-related mediation in a number of other states.

Data Review

Questions / Clarification

Illinois~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tracking the Elusive Resolution Meeting Timeline and Its Outcomes

Andy EulassDue Process Coordinator

Illinois State Board of Education

Resolution Process in IL

• Prior to March 1, 2011

– Hearing Officers charged with tracking and reporting resolution data

– Ongoing problems over time with parties failing to provide resolution data, while hearing officers had little or no authority to obtain resolution data from parties

Resolution Process in IL

• Following an OSEP verification visit in October 2010, IL has developed an ongoing process for monitoring the resolution process status for every due process case

• Using automated reminders, warnings and, as necessary, direct findings of non-compliance, IL has seen an increase in usable data concerning the resolution process

Resolution Process in IL• New procedures since March 1, 2011

– SEA, instead of hearing officers, now tracks all resolution data

– Conspicuous “flags” in each initial hearing packet attracting the attention of the parties to documents that describe the resolution process

– Inclusion of a new “Resolution Session Tracking Form” that provides parties with step-by-step instructions for getting the resolution process under way and reported to the SEA

Resolution Process in IL

• New procedures since March 1, 2011

– A separate reminder letter going to each party five days after the initial hearing packet asking them to make sure to schedule or waive the resolution, or to request mediation

– A “warning letter” issued to the LEA 3 days following the deadline for the initial resolution meeting advising the LEA to provide resolution meeting information or be subject to a finding of non-compliance

Resolution Process in IL

• New procedures since March 1, 2011

– Following final steps by the SEA (email, phone calls or letter) to secure the needed information, issuance of a formal letter of non-compliance if the LEA cannot provide adequate evidence of good-faith efforts to comply with the 15-day meeting requirement

Comparative Table 7 Resolution Data 2009-10 (all cases) Post 3/1/2011 cases

Total cases: 331 39*

Resolution Meetings 89 10

Full Resolution Agreements 39 4

Mediations (related to DP) 96 11

Mediations Agreements 70 6

Other Withdrawals** 107 7

*does not include 16 cases for which the resolution period is still pending

**withdrawals that do not appear attributable to the resolution or mediation process

What additional data we know using the new tracking process

• In addition to data that is utilized in Table 7, the new tracking process tells us also:

– Waivers of all dispute resolution: 0– Cases for which no data has been reported: 11– Cases for which findings have been rendered or

are pending: 8

What the new tracking process will tell us in the future (hopefully)

• Durability of agreements– Monitoring the recurrence of new DP or

complaint events following a resolution agreement

• LEA challenges to completing the process in a timely manner (scheduling, availability, etc.)

Illinois – New Tracking System

Questions / Discussion

Due Process Tracking in Washington State.

Pamela McPartlandDispute Resolution Coordinator

Special Education SectionOffice of the Superintendent of Public Instruction

State of Washington

Tracking Form

Section I

2011 SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESSHEARING DATABASE

• Initiate data collection on filing date

• Timeline based on who filed

• Tracks activity related to mediation or written complaints

• Tracks withdrawals and disposition

• Includes “ticklers” for timeline events

Case # Parent Name: Child’s Name Disability Category: Parent 2nd Last Name: Date of Request: Withdrawn?

ESD <File District Institution (if applicable): Dismissed? Presiding ALJ: Appeal? Date of Appeal:

Tracking Form Section II

Applies to written complaints and mediations as well as due process; tracks information on programmatic issues raised in complaint: child identification (disability), evaluation, placement

options, and types of service; also tracks issues by who prevails by issue (parent or district).

Tracking Form Section III

Third section applies to written complaints and due process complaints; tracks information on

procedural issues raised and outcomes/corrective actions required of the

district).

How the database is used• Summarizes required fields for Table 7.

• Gather and summarize other information:

If dismissal is filed by ALJ, the reason for dismissal

For withdrawals: resolution agreement, settlements after the resolution agreement timeline, mediation agreements, no agreements, and other.

Any additional information regarding agreements, or basis for dismissal, noted in our comments section.

ALJs provide information to parties that assists OSPI

in setting and tracking timelinesALJs communicate timelines and requirements by:

• Send an initial scheduling letter to both parties, specifying the time line requirements

• Require that the district provide the date for the resolution meeting

• Require that the parties inform the ALJ of any settlement as a result of resolution

• Require that other matters are reported including: district failure to convene a resolution meeting, parent’s failure to participate in resolution, waiver of the resolution process, or an agreement to mediate.

Planned Adjustments

• Specific resolution process tracking in addition to information provided by ALJs.

• Revise issues and outcomes to more accurately address current trends.

• Consider using form to assist in tracking corrective actions after a due process decision (currently require LEA to address through federal application.)

Using WA data with the Data Tool

• Compare our results to national trends when responding to Annual Performance Report.

• Use the “drill down” to examine how many cases resulted in agreement even if that agreement was not reached within the resolution timeline.

Washington State Due Process Tracking System

Questions / Discussion