BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1517
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 13, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

               AB 1517 (Bill Berryhill) - As Amended:  April 29, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Education  
          Vote:10-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the State Department of Education (SDE),  
          subject to an appropriation, to administer a statewide program  
          of grant funding to establish alternative dispute resolution  
          (ADR) programs for special education, as specified.   
          Specifically, this bill: 

          1)Requires ADR programs to include all of the following: (a) an  
            advisory board; (b) an annual statewide conference for all  
            implementers of these programs; (c) criteria for awarding  
            grants, funding, data collection, and program evaluation; (d)  
            selection of recipients and allocation of funding; and (e)  
            selection of individuals to serve as mentors to support  
            implementers.  

          2)Requires funding for ADR programs to be first apportioned to  
            special education local plan areas (SELPAs) that received an  
            allocation from the 2009 Budget Act (earmarked for materials  
            and training for ADR programs) before they are apportioned to  
            SELPAs that did not receive this funding.  

          3)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), by  
            July 1, 2010, to submit to the Legislature a summary report  
            regarding ADR programs, including those SELPAs that received  
            funding from the 2009 Budget Act.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)GF/98 costs, likely between $100,000 and $300,000, to make  
            grant funding available to LEAs to establish ADR programs, as  
            specified.  The 2009 Budget Act allocates $300,000 in federal  








                                                                  AB 1517
                                                                  Page  2

            Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for 20  
            local ADR programs.  

          2)GF administrative costs, of at least $125,000, to the SPI to  
            complete a summary report of ADR programs, as specified.   

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background  .  The federal IDEA delineates rights and services  
            for persons with disabilities.  Specifically, IDEA entitles  
            every pupil with disabilities to a free and appropriate public  
            education (FAPE). Special education and related services are  
            provided as specified in a pupil's individualized education  
            program (IEP). The IEP is reviewed periodically between school  
            officials and the pupil's parents. If a dispute arises as to a  
            student's IEP, the state must offer the parents due process,  
            which provides for mediations and hearings before an  
            independent impartial hearing officer to resolve the dispute.

            Since the 1995-96 fiscal year, the state has allocated federal  
            IDEA funds for ADR programs to be administered at the local  
            level.  SDE administers this funding as a pilot program and  
            provides 20 local education agencies (LEAs) with grant funding  
            to establish ADR programs.  The pilot program authority is  
            established through the annual budget act in provisional  
            language.  As such, there are few requirements for LEAs  
            administering these programs.  

            In February 2009, the Public Policy Institute of California  
            (PPIC) issued a report entitled: Resolving Special Education  
            Disputes in California (Lipscomb).  According to this report,  
            "requests for dispute resolution in California totaled 3.9 per  
            1,000 special education students in 2007-08, one of the  
            highest rates in the country. Resolving disputes is critical  
            to effectively serving disabled children. Yet pursuing dispute  
            resolution can be costly and time consuming for both parties,  
            raising the possibility that due process is more accessible to  
            some Californians than to others."  Also, the report states  
            "Requests for dispute resolution in California are  
            concentrated in less than a third of school districts. Holding  
            constant other observable characteristics, requests initiated  
            by both parents and school districts are more common in  
            larger, densely populated districts."

            PPIC asserts that "California's pattern of settling most cases  








                                                                 AB 1517
                                                                  Page  3

            before hearings suggests that the dispute resolution process  
            operates efficiently. However, its high rate of dispute  
            requests is evidence that more could be done to resolve  
            disputes locally. School districts in many states, including  
            California, are developing ADR strategies that emphasize  
            non-adversarial environments."  This bill requires SDE to  
            administer ADR programs, as specified.  

           2)IDEA reauthorization related to due process hearings  .  When  
            IDEA was reauthorized in 2006, it required a 30-day resolution  
            period to be held at the school district level for  
            parent-filed cases before a special education hearing.  The  
            reauthorization also made it possible for a party to respond  
            to a complaint by challenging the complaint's sufficiency.  
            Additionally, the new law specifies, with limited exceptions,  
            that the complaining party must request a due process hearing  
            within two years of the date that the complaining party knew  
            or should have known about the alleged action that forms the  
            basis of the complaint. The previous version of IDEA contained  
            no time limitation, although prior state law provided a three  
            year deadline for filing complaints. In addition, the new law  
            enables the school district to obtain attorney's fees from  
            parents who file frivolous complaints.
           
          3)SB 63 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 73,  
            Statutes of 2005  , required SDE to contract with an outside  
            organization or state agency to ensure that mediations and due  
            process hearings are conducted impartially. Chapter 73 also  
            established various requirements for the agency with whom SDE  
            enters into an agreement to conduct mediation conferences and  
            hearings, in accordance with state and federal law data  
            requirements.  As of January 2006, the Office of  
            Administrative Law (OAL), under contract with SDE, has  
            provided these services for the state.  

            A December 2008 Bureau of State Audit report on the state's  
            mediation and dispute resolution  process conducted by OAL  
            finds the following: "We observed that in general, Education  
            oversees Administrative Hearings' execution of its interagency  
            agreement appropriately; however, Education could improve its  
            oversight in a few areas to ensure that Administrative  
            Hearings is meeting Education's established standards."

            The 2009 Budget Act allocates $10.73 million for the OAL  
            contract.    








                                                                  AB 1517
                                                                  Page  4


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081