Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Tale of Two Studies
Thomas Parrish, Ed.D.
Fall ODE/COSA Special Education Conference for Administrators
October 5, 2007
Eugene, Oregon
Two Oregon Studies – Completed by AIR Summer of 2007: Special Education Funding In Oregon: An Assessment of Current Practice with Preliminary Recommendations
Fiscal and Operational Efficiency of Oregon’s Regional and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs
Special Education Funding in Oregon: An Assessment of Current Practice with Preliminary Recommendations
Thomas Parrish, Ed.D.
August 7, 2007
Salem, Oregon
Study Purpose and OverviewStudy Purpose and Overview
In the fall of 2006, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) contracted with Drs. Tom Parrish and Jenifer Harr from the Center for Special Education Finance of the American Institutes for Research (AIR)
The purpose of this study was to perform an initial assessment of and provide feedback on Oregon’s special education funding formula
Study Purpose and OverviewStudy Purpose and Overview This study attempts to assess and provide feedback
on Oregon’s special education funding formula
It was conducted through interviews, stakeholder meetings, review of prior reports, and analyses of state and federal data
It is also based on the knowledge of the research team about the history and context of special education finance policy across the nation
The recommendations in this report should be considered as areas possibly meriting further attention rather than a specific design for change
Study Purpose and OverviewStudy Purpose and Overview
We see the current study as a precursor to possible more intense and broader deliberation.
It is for others to decide whether the issues raised in this report are of sufficient concern to warrant further consideration.
We realize that a number of the areas delineated in this report may not be of sufficient concern or have the political capital needed to evolve into policy change.
Study Purpose and OverviewStudy Purpose and Overview
This report is divided into four sections:
An overview of the state’s special education funding formula,
A summary of the primary issues raised by interested and affected parties from across the state,
State and national analyses; and
A summary of observations and a discussion of topics for possible further consideration.
Overview of Oregon’s Special Overview of Oregon’s Special Education Funding FormulaEducation Funding Formula
Public education funding amounts in Oregon are based on average daily membership (ADM) counts of students in each district.
Special education students receive twice the per pupil funding provided for a non-special education student.
This “double weighting reflects a national study in 1988 that showed districts were on average spending about twice the norm for services to special education students” (Legislative Revenue Office, June 2006)
Overview of Oregon’s Special Overview of Oregon’s Special Education Funding FormulaEducation Funding Formula
In addition, two major adjustments may be applied:
1. Districts may receive approval from the ODE to qualify more than 11 percent of its students for the special education weight
2. A High Cost Disabilities fund for reimbursing districts when the State School Fund (SSF) expenditures for a given child are in excess of $30,000 for the fiscal year
Summary of Issues from Stakeholders
Two half day meetings were held in January of this year in Oregon to solicit feedback regarding special education finance issues in the state.
A broad range of issues evolved from these meetings
Special Education Revenue versus Expenditure Differentials
A major theme supplemental high cost revenues going to districts not fully spending their base revenues on special education
However, others argued that the formula was designed as a basis for determining revenues overall rather than an attempt to be prescriptive as to how funds should be spent.
Another respondent said that the fact that their special education expenditures substantially exceeded their revenues was a considerable problem for them.
The respondent noted that while their special education funding is growing their costs are increasing more
Variations in Service Provision
Substantial variation in the ways in which special education dollars are used among districts was noted
More specifically, concerns about a lack of consistency in high quality special education practice throughout the state was regularly emphasized
ESD Service Provision
The rising number and increasing cost of low incidence students seems to have exacerbated tensions in district/regional service provider relations.
ESDs were said to be faced with rising caseloads and more complex student needs, while facing mounting pressures from districts to reduce the costs
Several respondents called for bolstered support for regional programs
Other Topics
While a few respondents suggested change, the predominant opinion seemed to favor the single weight concept
There seemed to be some differences of opinion about the desirability of raising the 11% cap - the state special education identification rate now exceeds 13 percent
The Children’s System Change Initiative was mentioned as the source of some concern.
At of the completion of this study, the Governor had issued an executive order that all agencies including school districts and ESDs meet to resolve these issues.
Other Topics
Fiscal burden of increased accountability
Loss of high quality paraprofessionals due to NCLB “highly qualified” requirements
Insufficient instructional space
Findings from State Data: Special education revenue (state and federal) versus expenditure differentials
State and federal special education revenues ($499 million) supported 93 percent of special education spending ($538 million) in 2003-04
The lowest to highest revenues per special education student across districts runs from $2,742 to $16,071 in 2003-04
This spread is surprisingly large given the relatively straightforward and consistent way that special education is funded in OR
Limiting the analysis to districts with 100 special education students or more, special education revenues per student still range from $4,357 to $9,567
State Special Education Revenues in Relation to Expenditures
Districts in which Exp Exceed Rev by $500 per SE Student
48(24% of Districts)
(50% of SE students)
Districts in which Rev Exceed Exp by $500 per SE Student
73(37% of Districts)
(20% of SE students)
Other Districts77
(37% of Districts)(29% of SE students)
Oregon Special Education Expenditures in Relation to Revenues, 2003-04
* Three districts not included in these percentages as they had no special education students in 2003-04.
Findings from State Data: Special education revenue (state and federal) versus expenditure differentials
Rev per SE Stu*
Exp per SE Stu Difference % Spec Ed
% Poverty**
Avg # SE Stu
A B C D E F G
Districts with < 930 SE students $7,244 $6,854 $390 14% 48% 191
Districts with > 930 SE students $7,387 $8,071 $ (684) 13% 41% 2,161
All Districts in Oregon Sorted by Count of Special Education Students, 2003-04
* Revenues include state base, cap waivers, high cost , and federal IDEA funds.** Poverty in for 2005-06 school year; the average for each category is unweighted.
Findings from State Data: Percentage shares from alternative special education revenue sources
In reviewing these data, it is important to keep in mind the relative size of these various state special education funding sources
State SE Revenues Total Revenues % Share
Basic Allocation $294,088,701 89.8%
11 % Waiver $21,467,801 6.6%
High Cost Funds $11,993,975 3.7%
Total $327,550,477 100%
Percentage Share of State Special Education Revenues by Source, 2003-04
Findings from State Data: 11 Percent Funding Cap
Of the 191 districts in Oregon showing at least one student enrolled in special education in 2005-06, only 33 show special education enrollments at 11 percent or less
These districts represent about 12 percent of the state’s total K-12 school enrollment.
The national and state average percentages of students in special education have not been around 11 percent since the late 1980s.
Findings from State Data: 11 Percent Funding Cap
Under the waiver process, special education students in excess of the allowable 11 percent can be counted under certain conditions for full or partial weights
Relatively few concerns regarding the 11 percent cap were expressed at the two stakeholders meetings
As it does not appear to be a major point of contention, there may be little need to change it
Findings from State Data: High Cost Disability Funds
High cost disability grant provisions are commonly found among states
Only four percent of total special education revenues in Oregon are from “high cost” funding
Approved claims in 2003-04 were only funded at 70 percent. On the one hand, given the high threshold ($30,000) and the effort needed to file these claims, one might argue for greater reimbursement
For example, keeping the current threshold of $30,000 for eligibility, expenditures exceeding that amount up to $40,000 per student might be reimbursed at a rate of 80 percent and recalibrated to 90 percent for claims in excess of that amount
Findings from State Data: High Cost Disability Funds
One way to more fully fund this program would be to impose similar requirements to the 11 percent cap waiver provision, where districts are ineligible for supplemental revenues if their base revenues exceed spending
The rationale for applying this type of provision to the 11% but not the high cost adjustment is unclear
Continuing the practice of counting ESD expenditures on behalf of the district in these calculations and not ESD revenues is also open to question
Findings from State Data: Variations in Service Provision
Variations in special education service provision were raised as a major concern
These variations seem linked to the
– fiscal flexibility mentioned above,
– varying local attitudes toward special education, and the
– inability in some areas of the state to fully secure related service staff
The multi-year special education census database includes variables for recording related services provided to special education students by individual district
Findings from State Data: Variations in Service Provision
While these data may not be fully comparable due to lack of full or consistent implementation, in their current form, they seem to provide clear evidence of substantial service disparities
If these data can not be fairly compared due to differing reporting practices by localities, perhaps they should be dropped
From a differing point of view, if uniform recording of student-level service information is possible perhaps fuller implementation should be pursued
The degree to which various special education services are being provided across the state could provide important adequacy and equity of service measures
Findings from State Data: Variations in Service Provision
As an alternative to the service data, the exhibit below explores possible service variations as reflected by the number of special education students to special education teachers and instructional aides. While variation is observed, it appears within a reasonable range
Cascade Central Columbia Eastern Lane Northwest Southern WillametteState-wide
SE Stu/ SE Tchr 27.6 25.6 29.2 33.6 31.9 26.6 30.2 29.3 29.1
SE Stu/ SE Aide 18.3 15.8 18.4 11.7 22.5 15.0 18.0 12.8 16.2
Number of Special Education Student per SE Teacher and Aide by Region, 2005-06
NOTE: The data above reflect the total number of special education students divided by total staff, aggregated up from the district. They do not reflect class size or teacher or aide caseload as some special education students do not receive direct services from a special education teacher or aide. Nor do they include any ESD or regional personnel that may be providing services.
ESD/District Tensions
It is not clear to what extent the issues are with the ESD structure per se, or more specifically pertain to Regional and/or EI/ECSE programs
They may be tied to overall concerns that regional funding has not increased in accord with their rising counts of students
However, we are also aware that the multi-tiered education provision system in Oregon is an issue of recurring discussion in the Legislature
The Gibson Consulting Group concluded that “ESD services allow the state’s education system to operate more efficiently”
Findings from State Data: ESD/District Tensions
However, the Gibson Report spends relatively little discussion (if any) on the fact that Oregon has 20 ESDs set within a system of nine regional providers for low incidence services
In addition, the potential divisiveness the state’s current system of multiple regional structures may complicate making a rational and coherent case to the Legislature about the state’s special education needs
It may be easier for legislators to look to local districts as having the primary responsibility for educating students in special education and therefore as being the most logical entity to which to direct special education support
The degree of regional overlay to district-level support may need to be simplified and the required funding for the system overall more logically linked.
Summary of Observations and Recommendation Topics
Funding Formula Strengths:
– A clear advantage of the Oregon single-weight special education funding formula is that it is simple and straightforward. Nearly 90 percent of state special education funding is distributed through this mechanism
– Additional strengths associated with such a straightforward system are that it is easily understood, treats districts the same for special education
purposes (and is in that sense, equitable), is reliable, and is easy to maintain with a low reporting burden
Misalignment between special education revenues and expenditures per student
The degree of variation in revenues and spending for special education in Oregon is fairly extreme
The fact that this disproportionately affects the largest districts of the state is also a concern
One possible recommendation is to disregard the disparities based on the premise that the formula is designed as a basis for allocating revenues rather than a prescription for expenditures
This seems problematic in the face of – substantially rising high need and high cost
populations, and– the fairly substantial funding disparities seen
across districts in funding and in services
This picture of surplus funding also likely complicates arguments for more funding for the state’s Regional Programs
Misalignment between special education revenues and expenditures per student
A minor change that might be enacted to partially address these concerns is prohibiting districts from receiving additional funds through waivers and the high cost fund if they already show special education surpluses
Other possible approaches to easing these disparities would be to factor in cost-of-education indices in establishing funding levels for individual districts
Last, the state could consider a more cost-based approach to funding.
This would require eliminating the single weight altogether and moving toward a formula like percentage reimbursement, or perhaps some other form of service-based cost calculation
Variations in the provision of special education services
Concerns regarding service variations were clearly expressed by both advisory groups and appear substantiated by the service data for 2005-06 in the state’s multi-year special education census database
The state is commended for collecting, compiling, and disseminating these data (with instructions and appropriate caveats regarding its use and confidentiality) in the form of a CD to public agencies
As noted in the instructions, “We believe the real value of these data is looking at trends of your agency over time with aggregate groups”
Variations in the provision of special education services
However, if it is important for agencies to look at these data and also for the state to examine them
Perhaps the best way to demonstrate the importance of these data is to use them as a basis for setting service benchmarks for the state
These could indicate a reasonable range regarding the percentage of students commonly receiving certain services across the state and other indicators of special education resource levels
Multiple layers of regional oversight and administration
It may be time for the state to consider simplification of the state’s system of regional special education service provision
One possible approach would be for a redefined set of core services for Regional Program to be funded separately by the state, with most other regional and ESD special education services being provided on a fee-for-service basis
This would greatly simplify the existing system, should clearly convey district responsibility for the students they enroll, would allow them to purchase regional and other cooperative services to the extent they consider them cost effective, and would provide a more coherent and unified picture in regard to an overall statewide appeal for special education support
Study of the Fiscal and Operational Efficiency of Oregon’s Regional and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs
Prepared by:
American Institutes for Research
Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D.
Fiona K. Innes Helsel, Ph.D.
Jenifer J. Harr, Ph.D.
Research Questions
How could EI/ECSE and Regional services providers work together to ensure that the “system” of EI/ECSE and Regional services is operating efficiently and effectively for children and the ODE?
How might the ODE maximize its use of the Early Childhood/Regional network to implement statewide initiatives?
Are the EI/ECSE and Regional services providers efficient in how they provide services? What factors drive the efficiency of EI/ECSE and Regional operations and program?
Research Questions
What might EI/ECSE and Regional services providers do differently to improve their program and fiscal efficiencies?
How could EI/ECSE and Regional services providers be held more accountable for their own efficiency?
Are the current methods that the ODE uses to collect data sufficient or are there better ways to collect data and determine performance measures?
Study Approach
Performing extant document review and data analysis
Gathering stakeholder input
Conducting site visits
Conducting phone interviews
Site Visits
In consultation with the ODE, the study team conducted site visits to:
Region 1/Service Area 1 (Umatilla-Morrow ESD)
Region 4/Service Area 4 (Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD)
Region 8/Service Area 8 (Northwest Regional ESD)
The ODE selected these sites because they operated both EI/ECSE and Regional programs, and because they had variation in terms of urbanicity
Focus Groups
Focus groups were conducted with administrative and fiscal staff, service providers, members of the LICC and the RAC, and parents
These groups were convened separately to allow for candid responses, with one set of groups convened for the EI/ECSE program and the other set for the Regional program
Generally, the questions were organized around a number of themes such as organizational structure, services, fiscal resources, accountability, and networks
Phone Interviews
Phone interviews were conducted with all non-visited EI/ECSE (N=6) and Regional (N=5) programs
Each phone interview lasted about one hour and generally included one or two key representatives from each program
Findings: Overall Strengths
A non-exhaustive list includes:
Programs employ a well-qualified and hard-working staff
Programs use supervisors that have disability-specific knowledge and skills
Programs are of high quality
Programs are proud of their work and the services they provide
Programs solicit feedback from families to be responsive to needs (even though resources are not always available to meet those needs)
Parents generally express satisfaction with services
Overarching Findings: Funding and Resources
Funding formula for EI/ECSE program is relatively straightforward
Funding formula for Regional program more complicated
Overarching Findings: Administrative Structure
Contractors appear to function somewhat independently rather than as part of a clearly defined statewide system of service
The number of layers in the system may place the State’s early intervention and special education system as a whole at a competitive disadvantage for supplemental support in the State Legislature
Recent reports showing a considerable number of school districts in the State receiving special education revenues substantially exceeding expenditures likely contribute to this
Overarching Findings: Travel Time
Providers in both special education programs noted driving time as an efficiency concern
Although more prevalent in rural locations, providers all around the State mentioned this as an issue
These issues are further exacerbated by the shortage of special education service providers
The more that regions can share and learn from each other to share creative alternatives for serving remote populations, the more efficient the State system as a whole
Overarching Findings: Staff Shortages
Staff shortages in key skill areas were identified as problematic by individuals in all of the Regional and EI/ECSE programs throughout the State
These figures suggest that although service providers in Oregon may be feeling somewhat over-burdened, when compared to other states Oregon seems to fair rather well
However, this does not mean that the therapist shortage in OR is not real
Overarching Findings: Technical Assistance from the ODE and Communication with the ODE
Themes emerged with regard to technical assistance provided by and communication with ODE
Foremost was the perception that the ODE functions as a compliance rather than a support agency
At the same time, program staff recognized that the ODE has been barraged with federal requests
Also, staff were informed a few years ago about the need for a change of roles for the ODE.
For EI/ECSE, the ODE essentially serves as the district/superintendent
Service Areas would benefit from additional guidance to ensure less variation
Overarching Findings: Parent Support, Information and Resources, and Involvement in Services
Parents and program staff alike appeared to agree that parent support is generally lacking
What exists seemed most often formed by the parents themselves
Parents reported that they wanted more formal and informal networking opportunities
Formal opportunities could be facilitated by program staff by offering parents the option to waive their rights to confidentiality
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Child Find, Child Identification, and Ease of Finding Services
Oregon hovers below two of its neighboring States, as well as the average State, in terms of the percentage of children ages birth through two identified for intervention services
However, Oregon’s identification rate of 1.78% exceeded its 2005-06 target of 1.55%, as outlined in its SPP
In addition, Oregon has narrower eligibility criteria as compared to other states
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Child Find, Child Identification, and Ease of Finding Services
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
2002 2003 2004 2005
OREGON
AVERAGE STATE
CALIFORNIA
IDAHO
NEVADA
WASHINGTON
Percentage of the residential population ages birth through 2 identified for IDEA Part C early intervention services, 2002-05, Oregon, average State, and neighboring States
SOURCE for national and State identification rates: Based on data derived from the www.IDEAdata.org
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Child Find, Child Identification, and Ease of Finding Services
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
2000 % rate 2005 % rate
Area 1 (Eastern)
Area 2 (Central)
Area 3 (Southern)
Area 4 (Cascade)
Area 5 (Willamette)
Area 6 (Multnomah)
Area 7 (Lane)
Area 8 (NW Region)
Area 9 (Clackamas)
Statewide
EI/ECSE identification rates by Service Area, 2000 and 2005 (as a % of the population ages birth through 4)
SOURCES: EI/ECSE counts: Multi-Year Database, Oregon Special Education Census Data, 1996-2005. Version 8.1, Fall 2006, Oregon Department of Education, Office of Student Learning and Partnerships. Population counts: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis web page: “Forecasts of Oregon's County Populations by Age and Sex, 2000 – 2040” at http://www.oea.das.state.or.us/DAS/OEA/docs/demographic/pop_by_ageandsex.xls
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Services in the Natural Setting
Since 2002 the ODE has identified the provision of EI services in natural environments as a key performance indicator
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Space for Service Provision
ECSE programs in Oregon need greater stability of location to realize potential impact
However, building or securing more segregated settings may not be the answer
Expansion in the number of stable integrated settings available to ECSE children combined with greater stability in center space is needed
A clear part of the solution seems to be to add provisions that will lead to more ECSE slots in community-based preschools
EI/ECSE Program Context and Findings: Billing for Medicaid
As currently structured, Medicaid billing was viewed by staff in several Service Areas as not as productive as it might be
Sometimes a serious diversion of valuable and scarce therapist time from the provision of direct services
Medicaid likely is an important revenue source, but to heighten efficiency in implementation it should be designed to maximize resources and to minimize cost
A more streamlined system for Medicaid billing is needed that allows these funds to be claimed as efficiently as possible
Regional Program Context and Findings: Context to Findings
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Cascade
Central Oregon
Columbia
Eastern Oregon
Lane
Northwest
Southern Oregon
Willamette
Statewide
*As reported on the state's special education census database, 2005-06
Note: Best viewed in color.
Percentage of the special education population receiving regional services, statewide and by Region, 2001-02 to 2005-06
SOURCE: Multi-Year Database, Oregon Special Education Census Data, 1996-2005. Version 8.1, Fall 2006, Oregon Department of Education, Office of Student Learning and Partnerships.
Regional Program Context and Findings: Updating the Regional Service Model
The current program model may be somewhat outdated
This plays out in the area of ASD where the focus is on evaluation and consultation
The counts of students receiving regional services other than ASD increased by less than 2 percent between 2004 and 2006, while students with autism receiving regional ASD services increased on average nearly 30 percent
Regional Program Context and Findings: Reconsideration of Regional Service Eligibility
Two main issues:
Districts have the option to identify a child as regionally eligible or not
Districts can potentially identify the more high need children as “regional” children and opt to keep the children with more mild disabilities as district children
Regional Program Context and Findings: Clarifying Identification of Core Services
The flexibility to identify children as regionally eligible creates somewhat of a tension between many districts and Regional programs
Programs are faced with increased counts of low-incidence students with more complex needs and district pressure to reduce the costs for services
The regional management team has been working to develop a set of core services that all Regional programs will offer
Overall Recommendations
1: Seek greater alignment with K-12 special education funding
2: Streamline regionalization
3: Ease the EI/ECSE and Regional Service big process while fostering competition in provision
4: Streamline data collection requirements and standardize record keeping
5: Develop State benchmarks, goals, and objectives
6: Address the statewide therapist shortage
7: Rethink Medicaid billing
Recommendations Specific to EI/ECSE Services
1: Adjust EI/ECSE funding
2: Address space issues
3: Seel ways to increase services in natural settings
4: Enhance public outreach
5. Bolster EI/ECSE parent support
Recommendations Specific to Regional Programs
A system of regional support for low incidence special education conditions is vital for the state
However, exactly what the current system is responsible for has lost some of its initial design and definition
It is also physically and conceptually detached from the rest of the state’s special education system
Recommendations Specific to Regional Programs
We recommend that a task force of district and regional providers for the state as a whole re-define the exact set of functions that regional programs across the state will be uniquely qualified to provide
Funding for these core services should be tied to K-12 special education funding so that the amount allocated for regional provision is a cost-based extension of the state’s overall K-12 special education allocation
Conclusion
Overall, we were quite impressed by what we heard and saw.
Everyone we met in accord with this study were very forthcoming in regard to what they believed was working, as well as sharing areas in which they thought greater efficiencies could be realized
We concur with the current emphasis on developing a single state vision and greater cohesion and service comparability across the state
