Skip Navigation

Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 10

Use of the resources included on this site does not guarantee that the State’s performance or determination status under section 616(d), will improve for the next APR reporting period. Please note that State examples have not been vetted by OSEP for legal sufficiency.

Continuing work with each State’s Regional Resource Center (RRC) and the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) is encouraged in order to further determine the nature of the technical assistance required to address areas in which the State needs assistance.

States may want to contact the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), an OSEP funded center, for additional technical assistance on this indicator.

Investigative Questions for Part C, Indicator 10

These questions are intended to help states begin to examine problems in the timely completion of written State Complaints. While these questions focus mostly on the written State Complaints process, lasting solutions and the capacity of families and early intervention services providers to reach effective agreements and to deal with conflict early requires a broader framework. CADRE’S approach to technical assistance and improvement is systemic – focusing on all dispute resolution areas and emphasizing early resolution and conflict management processes.

System Oversight and Management

  • Who oversees/manages the complaint system? How?
  • How is the State’s complaint system linked to other dispute resolution (DR) options in the State?
  • How are complaint findings, etc., linked to the State’s general supervision process?

Complaints Process

  • How does a parent get to the point of filing? (Other DR options? Model forms? Repeat filings?)
  • How are State/early intervention services program-parent communications managed during the investigatory process (e.g., form letters to speed/ease communications, specified contact points, early resolution period)?
  • How do you manage timeline extensions?
  • What is the State’s process for reviewing draft reports and obtaining approval to issue the final decision?
  • How are the State’s written complaint reports communicated (e.g., to the complainant, to early intervention services provider, published on web, in what form, redacted display, summaries of issues)?
  • How much time does a typical complaint take from filing to completion of report?
  • Do the State’s complaint procedures include an appeals process? If so, how does the State manage that process?
  • What mechanism is in place to ensure that corrective action required as a result of a complaint investigation is implemented?

Complaint Investigators and Support

  • Who conducts investigations (e.g., State lead agency staff, contracted personnel, contracted organization)?
  • How specialized are investigators (e.g., complaints specialists v. staff with other duties, former early intervention services program administrators, attorneys)?
  • How many complaints are investigated per investigator per year?
  • What training/TA support is available to investigators? What administrative support?
  • What mechanisms are in place to support investigators in working through complex issues that could potentially delay decisions?
  • What are the standards for investigator performance evaluation (e.g., timeliness, report quality, stability/effectiveness of corrections, participant satisfaction)? How frequently is their performance evaluated?

Data Management and Evaluation

  • How are complaints tracked (e.g., what data elements, is data recorded throughout or as an after the fact report, how many and what milestones are recorded in the process, what reminders go to investigators regarding timelines)?
  • What types of issues are addressed/most prevalent in complaints?
  • Do you collect participant satisfaction data on complaints (e.g., process, outcome, effectiveness/stability of correction)?
  • How often do you review the data on timeliness? Process? Outcomes? Satisfaction?

Original Word Document

Tools and Resources

  • Instructions for completing Table 4.
  • The Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) works to increase the nation’s capacity to effectively resolve special education disputes, reducing the use of expensive adversarial processes. CADRE works with state and local education and early intervention systems, parent centers, families and educators to improve programs and results for children with disabilities. To learn more about CADRE and to access technical assistance and products visit this site.
  • The Dispute Resolution System Integration and Performance Enhancement (DR SIPE) tool developed by CADRE is designed to assist states wishing to improve their dispute resolution system using a systematic, data guided process for managing and improving dispute resolution programs and practices. 
  • Table 4 Error Checker (Part C) to support States’ efforts in reporting accurate dispute resolution data. CADRE Resources  Update will be posted as soon as it is available.

Explore resources described in the document, “At a Glance OSEP Technical Resources for State Improvement”

  • This document provides information about resources that can assist states in improving their performance on the SPP dispute resolution indicators. The document describes technical assistance products and services available and how to contact technical assistance providers with expertise in IDEA dispute resolution processes.

Find examples of State practices for resolving IDEA State complaints

  • The RRFC Network provides a forum for States to share information about the IDEA dispute resolution processes. The RRFC Network website includes documents submitted by States including model forms, guidelines, manuals, and procedures.
Back to top