Technical Assistance for Part C, Indicator 11

These questions are intended to help states begin an examination of problems in the timely completion of Due Process Hearings. While the questions focus on due process hearings, 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.

Resolution and Hearing System Oversight and Management

• Who oversees/manages the hearings system (e.g., State Lead Agency pool of hearing officers, contracted agency, State Office of Administrative Hearings)? How does this impact oversight of timelines?
• Is the due process hearings system a one or two tier system? How are appeals handled?
• How is the due process hearings system linked to other dispute resolution (DR) options in the State?
• Who is responsible for the resolution process? What guidance is provided to early intervention services providers?
• How are hearings results, etc., linked to the State’s general supervision process?

Resolution and Hearing Processes

• At what point do parents request a hearing? (DR options? Model forms? Repeat filings?)
• For States that have adopted the Part B due process hearing procedures - when is the hearing officer appointed (e.g., at filing, at the end of the resolution period)?
• What role does the hearing officer have in early intervention services provider-parent communications (e.g., during resolution period (for States that have adopted Part B due process hearing procedures), form letters/contact points, during mediation or settlement negotiations)?
• What types of issues are typically dealt with in hearings (e.g., procedural v. substantive, few v. many)?
• For States that have adopted the Part B due process hearing procedures - what guidelines exist for granting extensions? What are common reasons for extensions?
• How much time does a typical hearing process take from filing to decision/order?
• How much time does the typical hearing take (how many hours, days)?
• How are hearing decisions communicated (e.g., to family, to early intervention services provider, to State Interagency Coordinating Council, to the public, published on web, in what form, redacted display, summaries of issues)?
• Who is responsible for tracking corrective action and ensuring the hearing decision order is implemented?

Hearing Personnel and Support

• What Lead Agency staff are involved in preparing for and managing hearings? What are their roles?
• Who conducts hearings (e.g., attorneys, administrative law judges, former early intervention services provider administrators)?
• How many hearing processes are managed per hearing officer per year?
• What training/technical assistance support is available to hearing officers? What administrative support?
• What are the standards for hearing officer performance evaluation (e.g., timeliness, decisions reviewed/confirmed on appeal, stability/effectiveness of decisions, participant satisfaction)? How frequently is their performance evaluated?
• How are hearing officers compensated (e.g., per hour, per hearing, salaried)?

Data Management and Evaluation

• How are hearing processes tracked (e.g., what data elements, are data recorded throughout or as an after the fact report, how many and what milestones are recorded in the process, what reminders go to hearing officers regarding timelines)?
• Do you collect participant satisfaction or other data on due process hearing requests (e.g., processes, outcomes, effectiveness/stability of correction)?
• How often do you review the data you have? On timeliness? Process? Outcomes? Satisfaction?

Original Word Document

• 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 due process 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.

• Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE)
  
• The Regional Resource and Federal Centers Network
• The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC)