Background Dispute Resolution Options Congress appropriated $12.8 billion in federal funds under Part B of IDEA for fiscal year 2019. Under IDEA, Education awards funds to state educational agencies (SEA), which provide these funds to local educational agencies (LEA). SEAs also monitor Part B implementation by the school districts. As a condition of receiving IDEA funds, states are required to have policies and procedures in effect that are consistent with IDEA requirements, including requirements related to procedural safeguards and due process procedures. IDEA requires states to make dispute resolution options available, which parents may use to resolve disagreements regarding a school district’s decisions related to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child with a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. These options include: Mediation. Mediation is a confidential, voluntary process in which a trained, qualified, and impartial mediator, paid for by the SEA, works with the parents and school district to try to reach an agreement about the IDEA-related issue in dispute. Mediations can be initiated by either the parent or the school district to resolve any dispute related to IDEA, including matters that arise before filing of a due process complaint. If agreement is reached through the mediation process, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement. Due process complaint. A due process complaint is a request for a formal due process hearing. A due process hearing is conducted before a qualified and impartial hearing officer and involves presentation of evidence, sworn testimony, and cross-examination. It often involves attorneys and expert witnesses, and thus may be more costly than other dispute resolution options for all parties involved. Because a due process hearing is a formal proceeding, it may be more adversarial in nature than other dispute resolution options. Either party can appeal a hearing officer’s decision by bringing a civil action in any state court of competent jurisdiction or in a U.S. district court. Not all due process complaints result in a due process hearing. For example, some due process complaints may be withdrawn by the parents or not meet the requirements for a filing a complaint under IDEA regulations. In addition, in some cases, the parents and school district may resolve the complaint through alternative means, such as mediation. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization added the requirement for a resolution meeting to the due process complaint process to try to resolve the issues in a parent’s due process complaint collaboratively before the parties may proceed to the formal and often costly due process complaint hearing procedure. A resolution meeting must take place within 15 days of a parent filing a due process complaint and before any due process hearing involving a hearing officer, unless both parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or agree to use the IDEA’s mediation process. Settlement agreements reached through resolution meetings must be in writing and are legally binding. State complaint. An individual or an organization, including one from another state, may file a complaint with the SEA alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of Part B of IDEA or its implementing regulations. Once the SEA receives such a complaint, it must engage in specified procedures to resolve the complaint, including conducting an on-site investigation, if the SEA determines that it is necessary. Generally, the SEA must issue a written decision within 60 calendar days unless exceptional circumstances warrant an extension or the parties agree to extend the timeline to engage in an alternative dispute resolution procedure. The SEA’s written decision must include findings of fact and conclusions and the reasons for the SEA’s final decision. The state’s complaint procedures must include steps for effective implementation of the SEA’s final decision, including any corrective actions to achieve compliance, if needed. IDEA also requires school districts to provide parents with a procedural safeguards notice, which explains all of the procedural safeguards available to them under IDEA. Education and State Responsibilities under IDEA Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) administers IDEA, and is responsible for data collection and monitoring, among other responsibilities. Data collection. Under IDEA, SEAs are required to annually report to Education data on the use of mediation and due process procedures. Specifically, SEAs report data to OSEP, including the total number of: mediation requests received, mediation agreements reached (related to a due process complaint or not related to a due process complaint), due process complaints filed, resolution meetings that result in a written settlement agreement, and due process hearings conducted. Each state also reports data on the timely resolution of state complaints and timely adjudication of due process complaints. According to Education officials, all dispute resolution data are aggregated at the state level and Education does not collect dispute resolution data at the school or district level. According to Education officials, Education’s collection of state-level dispute resolution data is consistent with the manner in which grant awards are made for Part B of IDEA. Because states are the grantees, it is the states that report data to Education. Education’s monitoring. IDEA requires Education to monitor SEAs to ensure they meet program requirements. According to Education officials, Education uses multiple methods to monitor states’ implementation of IDEA, including reviewing data submitted by the states in their state performance plans and annual performance reports, conducting on-site monitoring visits to some states each year, and following up on concerns raised via customer calls and letters. Based on its monitoring and review of state dispute resolution data, among other information, Education is required under IDEA to annually determine whether each state meets the IDEA requirements or needs assistance or intervention. Education’s technical assistance. In addition to providing technical assistance to states, Education provides technical assistance to parents and the general public through its Parent Training and Information Centers (PTI) and CADRE. PTIs are designed to help parents of children with disabilities participate effectively in their children’s education. Education’s technical assistance covers a range of topics, including IDEA dispute resolution options. States’ responsibilities. While Education monitors states, IDEA requires states to monitor and conduct enforcement activities in their school districts. States are also responsible for investigating state complaints and producing reports with the results of their investigation, as well as providing mediators as needed to mediate disputes between school districts and parents. States may also provide other support and direct services such as training and technical assistance among other activities. Dispute Resolution Options Were Used About 35,000 Times Nationally and Use Varied Across School Districts with Different Characteristics Due Process Complaints Were the Most Commonly Used Dispute Resolution Option, and Disputes Were Most Frequently Related to Evaluations, Placement, Services and Supports, and Discipline For the 6.8 million students from ages 3 to 21 who were served under IDEA Part B in school year 2016-17, there were a total of 35,142 mediation requests, due process complaints filed, and state complaints filed nationwide. Over about the last decade, this total decreased by about 2 percent, according to data from the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). In addition, the mix of dispute resolution options used has changed. Since school year 2004-05, the number of due process complaints declined, while the number of mediation requests increased. However, due process complaints still made up more than half the total number of dispute resolution options used in school year 2016-17 (see fig. 1). Due process complaints. While the overall number of due process complaints has declined since school year 2004-05 (from 21,118 to 18,490) the percentage of fully adjudicated due process hearings (i.e., due process complaints that went all the way through the hearing process and a hearing officer rendered a decision) has declined more sharply. In school year 2004-05, about 35 percent of all due process complaints were fully adjudicated; in school year 2016-17, 11 percent were fully adjudicated. Due process complaints may not be fully adjudicated for several reasons. For example, complaints may be withdrawn by the filer, dismissed by the hearing officer, or resolved through other means, such as a resolution meeting or an agreement to try to resolve the dispute through mediation. CADRE’s data show that resolution meetings were held less than half the time due process complaints were filed in 6 of the 12 school years between 2005-06, the first year resolution meetings were used, and 2016- 17. When resolution meetings did occur, they resulted in resolution agreements less than 30 percent of the time in 10 of these 12 years. Mediation. According to CADRE, mediation is viewed as less adversarial than due process hearings, in part, because parties work together to try to reach an agreement. CADRE also reports that mediation is generally believed to be less costly than due process hearings because it typically requires less time and may require less involvement from attorneys and other experts. The number of mediation requests increased from school year 2004-05 to 2016-17 as Education and the states encouraged dispute resolution options that stakeholders told us were less costly and confrontational. In school year 2016-17, there were 11,413 mediations requested, the largest number of requests from school year 2004-05 to 2016-17. In addition, mediation requests resulted in mediation meetings at least 60 percent of the time in each of these school years. Those meetings resulted in agreements at least two-thirds of the time in every year but one (see fig. 2). Furthermore, more than half of the mediation meetings held stemmed from due process complaints that had been filed, which suggests that parties involved in the complaints may have been using mediation meetings to try to avoid a due process hearing. State complaints. State complaints were the least commonly used dispute resolution option. There were 5,239 state complaints filed in school year 2016-17, down from 6,201 in school year 2004-05 (see fig. 3). On average, from school year 2004-05 to 2016-17, approximately two-thirds of complaints filed resulted in the state issuing a report, and about two-thirds of those reports included findings of noncompliance with some aspect of IDEA on the part of the school district. According to state officials we spoke with, a state that receives a complaint will issue a report unless the filer withdraws the complaint, the state determines that the complaint is not about an issue covered under IDEA, or the complaint is resolved through other means. The rate at which all three dispute resolution options were used varied widely across states. Some states and territories had much higher rates of dispute resolution activity than others. In school year 2016-17, due process complaints were generally used at a higher rate nationwide than mediation requests and state complaints, according to CADRE data (27.2, 16.8, and 7.7 per 10,000 IDEA students served, respectively). However, the rate of due process complaints filed in states ranged from a high of 252.1 in the District of Columbia to a low of fewer than 1 per 10,000 IDEA students served in Nebraska, respectively. Similarly, some states had much higher rates of mediation requests and state complaints filed than others. Within states, the mix of dispute resolution options used also varied. In some states, due process complaints were used much more frequently than mediation requests and state complaints, while other states saw mediation requests or state complaints used most frequently. According to state officials, Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) staff, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agency staff, and other stakeholders we interviewed, parents most commonly engage in IDEA dispute resolution because of concerns they have about the evaluations, placement, services and supports, and discipline related to the educational services their child receives. For example, a dispute related to placement may arise if a parent wants their child to spend more time in a regular education classroom as opposed to a self-contained classroom with only special education students. A parent might also object if a school district wants to place their child in an alternative school. On the other hand, some parents may seek an out-of-district placement for their child if they feel that more services will be available. A dispute over services may center on a parent asking for services for their child that the school district refuses to provide, or a parent believing that the school district is not providing services that are included in their child’s individualized education program. Research we reviewed generally supported what stakeholders told us were the main causes of disputes, although discipline issues were not reported as frequently. Other issues that led to disputes less frequently, according to those we spoke with, included, lack of progress on the part of the student, parental participation in decision making, transition services, and other accommodations for students. Dispute Resolution Activity Varied Based on the Income Level and Racial/Ethnic Characteristics of Districts in Selected States When we analyzed five states’ dispute resolution data we found that dispute resolution activity varied based on districts’ income levels. In general, a greater proportion of very high-income districts had dispute resolution activity, and these districts also had higher rates of dispute resolution activity than very low-income districts (see fig. 4.) This pattern was mostly consistent for all three types of dispute resolution options. Specifically, Mediation requests and due process complaints: In all five states, a greater proportion of very high-income districts tended to have mediation or due process activity than very low-income districts. Similarly, very high-income districts generally had a higher rate of such activity than very low-income districts. (See app. III for data on the individual states.) State complaints: A greater proportion of very high-income districts had state complaint activity in four of the five states. In addition, very high-income districts also had a higher rate of state complaints compared to very low-income districts in three of the five states. (See app. III for data on the individual states.) When we looked at districts’ racial and/or ethnic characteristics in our five states, we found that a smaller proportion of very high-minority districts had dispute resolution activity than very low-minority districts, but generally had higher rates of activity (see fig. 5, and app. III for data by state). We also analyzed the results of initiated disputes by districts’ income level and racial and/or ethnic characteristics—meaning the percentage of disputes that resulted in a meeting or an agreement for mediation requests, adjudication for due process complaints, and a report with findings for state complaints. As shown in tables 1-3, there was no consistent pattern in the results of dispute activity for all three types of disputes across districts with different income levels and racial/ethnic characteristics. Education and State Efforts Are Designed to Help Parents Who May Face Challenges Parents May Face Challenges Using IDEA Dispute Resolution Options Stakeholders we interviewed identified several types of challenges parents may face in using IDEA dispute resolution options, such as the cost of attorneys for due process hearings. Cost and Availability of Attorneys and Expert Witnesses While parents may hire an attorney to help with dispute resolution, stakeholders consistently told us the cost of attorneys and expert witnesses was a significant barrier to parents’ ability to use the due process complaint option in particular—especially low-income parents. Parents are not required to use an attorney at a due process hearing, but stakeholders told us that prevailing is difficult without legal representation and expert witnesses to testify on the parents’ behalf. An Education official told us that school districts may provide a list of free and low-cost attorneys to parents. According to stakeholders we interviewed, in some cases, Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&A)— which are funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—provide legal services to parents at no cost, or refer clients to other attorneys. In general, however, very few attorneys will work on a pro-bono basis to handle IDEA dispute cases, according to stakeholders. Further, under IDEA, a court may award parents reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if they prevail in a due process hearing; however, parents cannot recoup expert witness costs regardless of the outcome. Also, if parents do not prevail at a due process hearing, they may be responsible for the school district’s legal costs in addition to their own, which can be a disincentive to going through a hearing. Education regulations allow parents to be accompanied and advised in due process hearings by individuals with special knowledge about children with disabilities, and according to IDEA regulations, whether those individuals can legally represent them is determined by state law. According to Education officials, bringing non-attorneys to support them may help reduce costs. However, the school district is likely to still have legal representation. The amount of direct legal services P&As provide varies across, and even within, states. P&A staff we interviewed in one state told us that their attorneys in one city spend most of their time assessing parents’ cases, reviewing documentation, giving advice, answering questions, and conducting training for parents, but little time participating in actual hearings. In contrast, the P&A attorneys we spoke with in another city in the same state said that 50 to 70 percent of their work is direct representation at hearings. Staff at other P&As we spoke with work primarily on cases that fall within their priority areas or cases they believe will have wide-reaching or systemic effects. The availability of attorneys can also be a challenge. According to stakeholders we interviewed, some areas, particularly rural ones, may have fewer available attorneys. However, Education officials told us that school districts in rural or sparsely populated areas may be more likely to have an incentive to resolve a dispute before it goes to a due process hearing because smaller school districts are unlikely to have in-house attorneys, and hiring an attorney is expensive. Other Factors Affecting Parents’ Willingness and Ability to Initiate Dispute Resolution According to stakeholders, many parents feel they are at a disadvantage in a conflict with the school district due to an imbalance of power and so may be reluctant to engage in dispute resolution and take on the associated costs when they feel they are unlikely to prevail. Stakeholders also said that some parents who live in less populated and more rural areas may be reluctant to initiate dispute resolution out of concern for their privacy and because, for example, in these communities they and their children are more likely to see the teachers, principals, and district officials at the grocery store or at church, which may be awkward. Furthermore, these families may have no other educational options in the area to turn to if the dispute becomes too contentious. In some cultures, according to stakeholders, it is less common to challenge an authority figure, such as a school district official or teacher. In addition, according to stakeholders, parents may fear the school district will retaliate against their children or them if the parents initiate a dispute, such as by threatening to stop providing services. Stakeholders also told us that they are aware of cases in which the school district has called the state’s child protective services agency in what they believe was retaliation for parents bringing a dispute against the district, and that parents who are undocumented may fear that raising a dispute might result in unwanted attention from immigration officials. Further, according to stakeholders, some parents face other challenges, such as language barriers, difficulty obtaining time off from work, transportation, or internet access that could affect their use of IDEA dispute resolution and their ability to take advantage of resources, such as IDEA dispute resolution training, workshops, and online information. Education Funds Technical Assistance Providers That Explain Dispute Resolution Processes to Parents Education and SEAs provide technical assistance to support parents’ understanding of their rights under IDEA and to facilitate their use of dispute resolution options. According to stakeholders we interviewed, the area of special education in general and the federal law, IDEA, are complicated, and parents often do not understand the IDEA dispute resolution process. Education supports several efforts to help parents understand and use dispute resolution options afforded to them under IDEA. Procedural safeguards notice. To receive IDEA funds, states must ensure school districts notify parents of their rights under IDEA, including the right to initiate dispute resolution about the educational services provided to their child. School districts must provide a notice, referred to as a procedural safeguards notice, to parents that explains their rights under IDEA. According to Education officials, to help states meet their IDEA requirements, the agency developed a model notice, which states can, but are not required to, have school districts use to notify parents of their rights under IDEA. States may also develop their own procedural safeguards notice as long as it includes all the information required under IDEA. Technical assistance. Education established and funds different types of technical assistance centers that provide information, training, workshops, and advocate services, and collect and disseminate data on dispute resolution, among other activities. Specifically, Education officials reported that Education provided about $21 million to the network of Parent Training and Information Centers (PTI), about $2.9 million to the network of Community Parent Resource Centers, and $750,000 to CADRE in fiscal year 2019. In addition, Education’s technical assistance centers collaborate with P&As in some cases. Further, P&A staff we interviewed in some of our selected states told us they conduct trainings for advocates to attend meetings with parents, other attorneys working on special education issues, community organizations and agencies, and parents. Education officials told us that, in the past, the agency has facilitated meetings between PTIs and P&As, to improve collaboration between these organizations. According to Education officials, these meetings resulted in informal agreements between PTIs and P&As. In addition, Education’s Center for Parent Information and Resources, the national technical assistance center to the PTIs, provides resources on its website to help parents learn about their rights and the procedural safeguards notice they receive from schools. For example, the center’s website contains an explanation of the procedural safeguards notice and online training on procedural safeguards, among other issues. The website also provides contact information for the PTI(s) in each state. Further, CADRE, part of Education’s technical assistance and dissemination network, has developed concise, easy-to-read materials that it distributes to parent centers and others to help them understand the procedural safeguards and how to resolve disputes with school districts. Stakeholders we interviewed told us that parents often do not understand IDEA dispute resolution procedures, but that PTI staff are available to explain them, discuss the procedural safeguards notice, and offer other assistance at no cost to the parents. According to stakeholders, the IDEA procedural safeguards notice is usually a lengthy document that uses complex, legal language and that parents say the notice is hard to understand. Education officials told us their model notice is complex in part because it must reflect all the applicable provisions of the IDEA statute and regulations. To help parents understand the notice and their dispute resolution options, the PTIs in our selected states offer a variety of assistance, such as staffing telephone helplines, meeting with parents in person, offering workshops and training for parents, and developing or making available easy-to-read documents and other resources. PTI staff can also attend mediation meetings with parents and help parents write state complaints, including parents for whom English is not their first language. In addition, PTI staff told us they try to help specific populations, including parents who are not native English speakers, understand and navigate the dispute process. In some cases, PTI staff will attend mediation meetings with or provide interpreters for non-English speaking parents. PTI staff are also available to help parents who have lower levels of formal education or who have disabilities, which stakeholders identified as other factors that could affect parents’ use of dispute resolution options. States Also Provide Technical Assistance and Training to Help Parents Use Dispute Resolution Options Our five selected states provide technical assistance and training to help parents understand and use dispute resolution options, including how to file a state complaint. State officials in some of our selected states said they make available plain language documents that can supplement the legally required procedural safeguards notice. For example, all of the states created a parents’ rights handbook and several have one- or two- page documents describing the IDEA dispute resolution processes that they make available on the state’s public website (see fig. 6 for an example of such a document). In addition, the states we contacted post information about IDEA on their websites in multiple languages. For example, one state’s parents’ rights handbook is available in English and 11 other languages. Regarding the cost of due process hearings discussed earlier, one state we contacted provides information about free and low-cost services along with the state’s parents’ rights booklet, and several states include contact information for the PTIs and sometimes P&As in their booklet. State officials we interviewed also said their states offer telephone helplines that parents can call with questions about their dispute resolution options and the processes involved. Some state officials told us they have staff available by phone to explain the dispute options to parents, including to parents who do not speak English or have lower levels of formal education. One state has a phone line that connects parents to an early resolution specialist who will try to help parents resolve the dispute before a formal complaint becomes necessary. Officials in one state told us that the state has installed voice interpretation technology for its helpline so that parents who need assistance with hearing or speaking can communicate with staff. Some states also employ staff who can serve as interpreters to better assist non-English speaking parents. Officials in some states told us that staff answering the helpline are available to answer questions about dispute resolution documents for parents who have difficulty reading. In addition, some of the states we contacted said they made requesting mediation and/or filing state complaints easier by posting the required initiation forms on their websites. According to staff from one state, after the state posted its state complaint form online, the number of complaints doubled in 5 years. Further, some of our selected states provide training and technical assistance to school districts, parent advocate groups, and parents related to accessing IDEA dispute options. One of our selected states uses 16 regional support teams to provide training and technical assistance to school districts. Another state conducts parent training jointly with the Education-funded PTI in the state. We have previously reported on other efforts some states have taken to help parents understand their dispute rights and reduce the need for parents to initiate formal disputes. For example, some states have offered conflict resolution skills training to school district staff and parents, and support facilitated IEP meetings, among other initiatives. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this product to the Department of Education for review and comment. We received written comments from Education, which are reproduced in appendix I. Education also provided technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Education Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology This report examines the use of dispute resolution options available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In particular, this report examines (1) how often IDEA dispute resolution options are used, and whether use in selected states varies across school district-level socioeconomic or demographic characteristics; and (2) what challenges parents face in using IDEA dispute resolution options and how Education and selected states help facilitate parents’ use of these options. To address our first objective, we obtained publicly available dispute resolution data at the national and state levels and collected and analyzed data on the number and types of dispute resolution options used from selected states at the school district level. To address how often dispute resolution options are used, we reviewed and analyzed publicly available data from the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) from school years 2004-05 to 2016-17, the most recent data available when we conducted our analysis. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing knowledgeable CADRE staff and comparing CADRE data to other publicly available data. In addition, we interviewed staff at Parent Training and Information Centers (PTI) funded by the Department of Education (Education) and Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agencies funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state educational agency (SEA) officials in our five selected states to determine the reasons parents use dispute resolution. We also interviewed various national organizations that advocate for parents and local educational agencies (LEA) and SEAs. To determine whether the use of dispute resolution options varied by socioeconomic or racial and/or ethnic characteristics, we analyzed dispute resolution data we collected at the LEA level from five states for school year 2017-18, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. We selected these states—Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—based on a combination of criteria including the amount of dispute activity within the state (that is, the number of mediations, due process complaints, and state complaints); the large number of LEAs in the state with highly homogenous student populations to allow us to compare across LEAs with different student populations; the large number of IDEA-eligible students in the state; and the states’ ability to provide reliable LEA level data on disputes. We used Education’s Common Core of Data (CCD) to categorize each LEA in our selected states based on (1) income level, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch; (2) racial and/or ethnic makeup, as measured by the percentage of Black and/or Hispanic students; and (3) population density, as categorized by CCD. We used Education’s school year 2016-17 CCD data, which was the most recent data available at the time of our analysis. In some cases, states had not reported 2016-17 free or reduced-price school lunch data to CCD so we used CCD data from a previous year. We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them and (2) reviewing data reliability assessments of the data from other recent GAO reports. We assessed the reliability of dispute resolution data provided by the states by (1) performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) conducting interviews with knowledgeable agency officials and reviewing written responses to data reliability questions, and (3) reviewing existing information about the data and systems that produced them, where available. We determined that the CCD and data collected from the states were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We matched the LEA-level dispute data provided by our states to the LEA-level socioeconomic, race/ethnicity, and population density data from CCD to determine whether the frequency of use of dispute resolution options or the types of options used varied across LEAs with different characteristics. Because our analyses are at the LEA level, and not the individual student or family level, it is impossible to know with certainty whether the families using the dispute resolution options in our school districts match the categorization of the districts themselves. To address this concern to the greatest extent possible, we report on LEAs that are highly homogenous. These districts are those in which: 90 percent or more of the students were eligible for free or reduced- price school lunch (very low-income districts) compared to districts in which 10 percent or fewer of the students were eligible (very high- income districts), and 90 percent or more of the students were Black and/or Hispanic (very high-minority districts) compared to districts in which 10 percent or fewer of the students were Black and/or Hispanic (very low-minority districts). We conducted two separate analyses on the combined data. We analyzed and compared: 1. the percentage of all the “very low” districts in our data that had dispute resolution activity to the percentage of all the “very high” districts in our data with dispute resolution activity, as measured by whether the district had one or more mediation requests, due process complaints, or state complaints. We also conducted this analysis to compare the percentages of urban, suburban, and rural districts with dispute resolution activity. 2. the rate of dispute resolution activity in our “very low” districts and our “very high” districts, as measured by the number of mediation requests, due process complaints, and state complaints per 10,000 students served under IDEA. We also conducted this analysis for urban, suburban, and rural districts. This first analysis compared the percentages of school districts with different income and racial and/or ethnic characteristics that had at least one mediation request, due process complaint, or state complaint. In essence, it shows the differences in whether there is any dispute resolution activity in districts with different income and racial and/or ethnic characteristics, in our selected states. Because our analysis counts districts in which a single dispute resolution was initiated in the same manner as those with more activity, it is not potentially skewed by individual districts that may have unusually high or low levels of dispute resolution activity. To supplement this analysis, our second analysis compares the rate of dispute activity in these types of districts, which shows the magnitude of the various types of dispute resolution activity. Although we use this 90-10 threshold in the body of the report, we also conducted these analyses for districts where 75 percent or more of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 25 percent or fewer were not eligible. Similarly, we conducted our race/ethnicity analyses at this same level as well. These additional analyses can be found in appendix III. The results from our five states are not generalizable to all states. To address both research objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. We also reviewed Education documents, including its model Notice of Procedural Safeguards, PTI and CADRE documents, and relevant literature related to challenges parents face using dispute resolution. In addition, we interviewed Education officials about challenges families face in using dispute resolution options and Education’s efforts to assist families. We also interviewed PTI, P&A, and advocacy organization staff, and SEA officials from the five states from which we collected data. We conducted this performance audit from June 2018 to November 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix III: Additional Data Tables This appendix contains tables that show data based on analyses we conducted using dispute resolution data collected from five states– Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania–for school year 2017-18, and the Department of Education’s Common Core of Data for school year 2016-17. In some cases, states did not report free or reduced-price school lunch data for school year 2016-17. In those cases, we used the most recent year for which the state reported those data. The total number of local educational agencies and the total number of students served in our income analysis and our race/ethnicity analysis are slightly different. Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Contact Jaqueline M. Nowicki, Director, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Staff Acknowledgements In addition to the contact named above, Bill MacBlane (Assistant Director), David Barish (Analyst-in-Charge), and Linda Siegel made key contributions to this report. In addition, key support was provided by James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Holly Dye, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean McSween, John Mingus, Amy Moran Lowe, Moon Parks, James Rebbe, Kelly Snow, Joy Solmonson, and Greg Whitney.