SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 236 (Eduardo Garcia) - Special education programs: Family Empowerment Centers on Disability

Bill Summary:

This bill provides for the establishment of additional Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) by giving priority to applicants for grants in regions of the state that do not have a FEC. This bill also provides a cost-of-living adjustment and increases base funding once there is an FEC in each of the 32 regions in the state.

Fiscal Impact:

• While the provisions of the bill are subject to an appropriation, this bill would result in annual cost pressure of about $4.8 million on federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds (for a program total of about $7.6 million) to expand the number of FECs from 14 to 32 across the state. These costs could increase, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, with any cost-of-living adjustments that are provided.
• This bill would also result in ongoing General Fund costs of $160,000 for the CDE to hire one staff member to administer the new requirements of the program, and one-time General Fund costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to develop a new template to collect data and to develop or update a uniform data collection system.
• There could be ongoing General Fund costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the FEC Council to contract for an annual, independent program evaluation.

Background:

Existing law requires CDE to award grants to establish an FEC in each of the 32 regions in the state established under the Early Start Family Resource Centers to the extent that funding is available. The law requires a minimum base rate allocation of $150,000 for each FEC and establishes an allocation mechanism that is determined according to school enrollment of the region served.

Grant applicants, in order to be eligible to receive funding, must meet the following organizational requirements:

1. Be a nonprofit charitable organization organized under the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Be staffed primarily by parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities and by adults with disabilities.
3. Have as a majority of board members of each center, parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities who have experience with local or regional disability systems and educational resources. Existing law requires additional members to include persons with disabilities and representatives of community agencies serving adults with disabilities, and other community agencies.
4. Demonstrate the capacity to provide services in accordance with the family support guidelines developed by the Early Start Family Resource Centers, and Parent Training Information Centers.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires the CDE, by January 1, 2020, to give priority to applicants for grants to FECs in regions of the state that do not have a FEC. This bill also requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to determine, by February 15, 2021, additional criteria on the basis of which to give priority, and requires the CDE to give priority in that manner once it is determined by the SPI.

This bill establishes a new formula for awards beginning with the start of the fiscal year after an FEC has been established in each of the 32 regions established under the Early Start Family Resource Centers, which increases the minimum base rate from $150,000 to $237,000 for each center. This bill requires the funding to be based on school enrollment (one part of the existing and new formula) to be annually increased using the cost-of-living adjustment for the local control funding formula.

This bill requires the CDE to assess the center’s eligibility for continued funding, following the initial awarding of a grant, and also modifies and expands the existing conditions that grant recipients must meet, as specified.

This bill modifies the duties of the council relative to assessment and evaluation of service delivery and management to instead require an outside entity to perform an annual, independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the services and include an evaluation of the prescribed data points. This bill also deletes the requirement to develop uniform tracking and data collection systems, and to establish outcome-based evaluation procedures and processes.

This bill requires the CDE, by June 30, 2021, to develop or update a uniform and coordinated tracking and data collection system, and establish or update outcome-based evaluation procedures and processes, for use by FECs to demonstrate the center’s ability to meet the grant eligibility requirements. This bill prohibits the tracking and data collection system from being duplicative of, and requires it to interface with, existing special education data systems.

This bill requires CDE, by June 30, 2021, to develop a data collection template for use by centers, as specified, and requires CDE to provide guidance to centers on how to define and report data. The bill also requires CDE to consult with the FEC Council on the development of the data collection template.

This bill requires CDE, by June 30, 2021, inform parents of children with disabilities of the availability of FEC services by including in its notice of procedural safeguards information on the purpose of centers as well as the website address of its website that lists contact information for the centers, and include the information described above on all of the CDE’s translated versions of its notice of procedural safeguards and on a sample notice of procedural safeguards that it is required to maintain on its website.

This bill deletes existing requirements related to providing information about family empowerment centers with procedural safeguards, and modifies existing legislative intent relative to ensuring that students are provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to specify FAPE is to be in the least restrictive environment.

Related Legislation:

AB 2704 (O’Donnell, 2018), similar to this bill, would have provided for the establishment of additional FECs by giving priority to applicants for grants in regions of the state that do not have a FEC. AB 2704 failed passage in this Committee.

Staff Comments:

Existing law provides for the establishment of 32 FECs across the state to the extent that funding is available. The last FEC was added in 2008, leaving the network at its current size of 14 centers. Each of the existing 14 FECs is funded at a base amount of $150,000, plus an additional amount based on their region's total school enrollment. The total for all 14 grants is $2,644,000. This funding level has not changed since 2001.

This bill requires a cost-of-living adjustment that is provided pursuant to the local control funding formula for the enrollment-based portion of grant awards, beginning in the 2021-22 fiscal year. This bill increases the grant’s base rate from $150,000 to $237,000 but only after a FEC is established in each of the 32 regions of the state.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Connie Leyva, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 236 Hearing Date: June 19, 2019

Subject: Special education programs: Family Empowerment Centers on Disability.

SUMMARY

This bill, subject to an appropriation, requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to give priority to applicants for grants to Family Empowerment Centers on Disability (FEC) in regions of the state that do not have a FEC, provides a cost-of-living adjustment, and increases base funding once there is a Family Empowerment Center in each of the 32 regions in the state.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires CDE to award grants to establish FEC in each of the 32 regions in the state established under the Early Start Family Resource Centers. Existing law requires CDE, in the first year of operation, to award these grants by February 15, 2002, and in subsequent years, to the extent funding is available, by February 15 of that year. (Education Code § 56402)
   
2. Requires a minimum base rate allocation of $150,000 for each FEC and establishes an allocation mechanism that is determined according to school enrollment of the region served. (EC 56406)
   
3. Requires grant applicants, to be eligible to receive funding to establish FEC, to meet the following organizational requirements:
   
   1. Be a nonprofit charitable organization organized under the Internal Revenue Code.
      
   2. Be staffed primarily by parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities and by adults with disabilities.
      
   3. Have as a majority of board members of each center, parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities who have experience with local or regional disability systems and educational resources. Existing law requires additional members to include persons with disabilities and representatives of community agencies serving adults with disabilities, and other community agencies.
      
   4. Demonstrate the capacity to provide services in accordance with the family support guidelines developed by the Early Start Family Resource Centers, and Parent Training Information Centers. (EC § 56404)
      
4. Requires the California Department of Education to issue requests for proposals, select grantees, and award grants by February 15, 2002. Existing law requires grants to be based upon a formula that does the following:
   
   1. Establishes a minimum base rate of $150,000 for each center to provide the basic services and serve parents and guardians of children and young adults from age 3-18 years, and to those young adults from age 19-22 years who had an individualized education plan prior to their 18th birthday.
      
   2. Establishes an allocation mechanism that is determined according to school enrollment of the region served.
      
5. Requires each grant applicant to demonstrate all of the following:
   
   1. That the need for training and information for underserved parents and guardians of children and young adults with disabilities in the area to be served will be effectively met.
      
   2. That services will be delivered in a manner that accomplishes all of the following:
      
      1. All families have access to services regardless of cultural, linguistic, geographical, socioeconomic, or other similar barriers.
         
      2. Services are provided in accordance with families’ linguistic and cultural preferences and needs.
         
      3. Services are coordinated with the existing family support organizations within the region.
         
      4. Promotes positive parent and professional collaboration with local educational agencies, special education local plan areas, and other community agencies. (EC § 56406)
         
6. Requires, as a condition of receipt of funds, each Family Empowerment Center on Disability that receives a grant to do all of the following:
   
   1. Provide training and information that meets the training and information needs of parents and guardians of children and young adults with disabilities living in the area served by the center, particularly those families and individuals who have been underserved.
      
   2. Work with community-based organizations and state and local agencies serving children with disabilities.
      
   3. Train and support parents and guardians of children and young adults with disabilities, as specified. (EC § 56408)
      
7. Establishes a statewide Family Empowerment and Disability (FEC) Council composed of the executive directors for the FECs, and authorizes membership to also include the Executive Director or representative from the Family Resource Centers and from the federally funded parent centers. Existing law requires the council to, at a minimum, do all of the following:
   
   1. Provide central coordination of training and information dissemination, content, and materials for FECs.
      
   2. Develop a technical assistance system and activities in accordance with a plan developed in conjunction with the directors of the FECs.
      
   3. Ensure that a periodic assessment and evaluation of the service delivery and management of each FEC conducted by FEC directors and includes on the assessment and evaluation team at least one parent advocate from another region.
      
   4. Assist each center to build its capacity to serve its geographic region.
      
   5. Develop uniform tracking and data collection systems, which are not duplicative and interface with existing special education data systems, to be used by each FEC.
      
   6. Establish outcome-based evaluation procedures and processes to be used by the California Department of Education (CDE).
      
   7. Conduct media outreach and other public education efforts to promote the goals of the FECs.
      
   8. Support and coordinate system change advocacy efforts at the local, state, and national level. (EC § 56410)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

Priority for funding

1. Requires the CDE, by January 1, 2020, to give priority to applicants for grants to FECs in regions of the state that do not have a FEC.
   
2. Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to determine, by February 15, 2021, additional criteria on the basis of which to give priority, and requires the CDE to give priority in that manner once it is determined by the SPI.
   
   
   

New funding rate

1. Establishes a new formula for awards beginning with the start of the fiscal year after a Family Empowerment Center (FEC) has been established in each of the 32 regions established under the Early Start Family Resource Centers, which increases the minimum base rate from $150,000 to $237,000 for each center.
   
2. Requires the funding based on school enrollment (one part of the existing and new formula) to be annually increased using the cost-of-living adjustment for the local control funding formula.
   

Eligibility for continued funding

1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to assess the center’s eligibility for continued funding, following the initial awarding of a grant, at a minimum as follows:
   
   1. For a FEC established during or after the 2020-21 fiscal year, the CDE is to assess the center’s eligibility every five years after the center is established.
      
   2. For a FEC established before the 2020-21 fiscal year, the CDE is to assess the center’s eligibility during the 2022-23 fiscal year, and every five years thereafter.
      
2. Requires assessments to be based on a center’s demonstrated ability to meet the requirements described in # 7.
   

Conditions for grant recipients

1. Modifies and expands existing conditions that grant recipients must meet as follows:
   
   1. Modifies the requirement to work with community-based organizations to specifically include community advisory committees.
      
   2. Modifies the requirement to train and support parents to better understand the nature of the disability and their child’s educational and developmental needs to specifically include the benefits of inclusion in a least restrictive educational environment.
      
   3. Adds the requirement, subject to the availability of resources and upon parental consent, attend individualized education program development meetings that include parents and personnel responsible for assessing student eligibility for special education and early intervention services.
      
   4. Adds the requirement to submit data annually, in accordance with the data template established by the CDE (see # 11), by a date selected by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). This bill requires the SPI to select the date by June 30, 2022.
      

Family Empowerment and Disability Council

1. Modifies the duties of the council relative to assessment and evaluation of service delivery and management to instead require an outside entity to perform an annual, independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the services and include an evaluation of the data points listed in # 10.
   
2. Deletes the requirement to develop uniform tracking and data collection systems, and to establish outcome-based evaluation procedures and processes (see # 10).
   

Data

1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), by June 30, 2021, to develop or update a uniform and coordinated tracking and data collection system, and establish or update outcome-based evaluation procedures and processes, for use by Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) to demonstrate the center’s ability to meet the grant eligibility requirements. This bill prohibits the tracking and data collection system from being duplicative of, and requires it to interface with, existing special education data systems.
   
2. Requires CDE, by June 30, 2021, to develop a data collection template for use by centers that includes but is not limited to all of the following:
   
   1. The number of parent trainings provided by the center including but not limited to trainings on individualized education programs (IEP) and least restrictive educational environments.
      
   2. The number of IEP meetings attended by personnel of a center.
      
   3. The disability categories of children and young adults served by the center.
      
   4. Demographic information, including the preferred language, of families served by the center.
      
   5. The nature of disagreements between parents and schools or school districts, and the manner in which these disagreements were resolved with the assistance of the center.
      
   6. Parental satisfaction with services provided by the center.
      
3. Requires CDE to provide guidance to centers on how to define and report data.
   
4. Requires CDE to consult with the FEC Council on the development of the data collection template.
   

Notification

1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), by June 30, 2021, to both of the following:
   
   1. Inform parents of children with disabilities of the availability of Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) services by including in its notice of procedural safeguards information on the purpose of centers as well as the website address of its website that lists contact information for the centers.
      
   2. Include the information described above on all of the CDE’s translated versions of its notice of procedural safeguards and on a sample notice of procedural safeguards that it is required to maintain on its website.
      
2. Deletes existing requirements related to providing information about family empowerment centers with procedural safeguards.
   

Miscellaneous

1. Modifies existing legislative intent relative to ensuring that students are provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to specify FAPE is to be in the least restrictive environment.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) were established by the Legislature in 2001 to help families of children and young adults with disabilities, ages 3-22, navigate the special education system, which for many families is a daunting task. Parents often face this challenge shortly after their children are diagnosed with complex conditions, and after being told that they must obtain services as quickly as possible to maximize the benefits of intervention.

FECs guide parents through this process by offering a wide range of services, including parent-to-parent mentorship programs, consultations on individualized education programs, and trainings that inform parents about their children’s disabilities. By supporting family engagement, FECs not only help ensure that children gain access to the educational resources they need; they also help reduce costly legal conflicts between parents and school districts.

The services provided by FECs are valuable in California, where the scope of the need for special education services is great. Nearly 12 percent of students in the state are enrolled in special education, and the proportion of special education students requiring more intensive and complex educational plans has increased over the past decade. A 2015 report released by the Statewide Task Force on Special Education shows that California has struggled to meet these demands: on average, only 60 percent of students with disabilities graduate from high school and the achievement levels of students with disabilities in California rank among the lowest in the nation.

Because families represent an important source of support for children with disabilities, the Task Force asserts that family engagement must play a key role in statewide efforts to improve special education. Specifically, the report states that California must invest in providing the ‘help, guidance, and training that parents and family members need in order to become active and constructive educational partners.

Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) fulfill this role. However, the availability of FEC services falls short of the need in California. Although the original intent of the law was to establish 32 centers throughout the state, there are currently only 14 centers and many high need areas lack access to FECs. In addition, funding levels have not changed since 2001, resulting in a funding stream that has not kept pace with increasing demand for FEC services or cost-of-living increases.

AB 236 will support the critical work of FECs and improve their ability to act as a resource for statewide efforts to improve special education. This bill expands the FEC network to high need and underserved regions of the state, provides a one-time adjustment to increase the base grant from $150,000 to $237,000, and improves coordination between California’s Department of Education and FECs through the development of a uniform and rigorous data collection, tracking, and reporting system.”

1. Family Empowerment Centers. Statute calls for the establishment of 32 FECs across the state; the last center was added in 2008, leaving the network at its current size of 14 centers. Each of the existing 14 FECs is funded at a base amount of $150,000, plus an additional amount based on their region's total school enrollment. The total for all 14 grants is $2,644,000. This funding level has not changed since 2001.
   
   This bill requires a cost-of-living adjustment that is provided pursuant to the local control funding formula for the enrollment-based portion of grant awards, beginning in the 2021-22 fiscal year.

In addition, this bill increases the grant’s base rate from $150,000 to $237,000 but only after a FEC is established in each of the 32 regions of the state.

Further, this bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to give priority to applicants in the regions that do not currently have a FEC, beginning January 1, 2020.

1. Standardization of data. Existing law requires local control and accountability plans (LCAPs) to address parental involvement, and requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to establish parent advisory committees and English learner parent advisory committees to provide input during LCAP development. According to CDE and the Statewide Special Education Task Force report, efforts to improve special education similarly require input from parents and families but formal, state-mandated mechanisms similar to those implemented for general education do not exist.
   
   As is noted in the Assembly Education Committee analysis of this bill, FECs are ideally structured to facilitate parental engagement in efforts to identify and resolve local challenges in special education. However, the Statewide Special Education Task Force report highlights challenges in data collection and analysis that need to be addressed before Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) can fulfill this role. Although existing law includes accountability measures, such as the development of a uniform data collection system, it does not specify what happens with this data after it is reported to California Department of Education (CDE), or how it will be used outside of providing a general assessment of the function of FECs.
   
2. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, this bill would impose:
   
   1. Ongoing annual costs of about $5 million in federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding to provide increased grants for 32 FEC. Costs will change annually with the cost-of-living adjustment. These funds would be shifted from existing IDEA funds.
      
   2. Ongoing annual General Fund (GF) costs of about $150,000 for the CDE to hire one staff member to administer the new requirements of the program.
      
   3. Ongoing annual GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the FEC Council to contract for an annual, independent program evaluation.
      
   4. One-time GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to develop a new template to collect data and to develop or update a uniform data collection system.

SUPPORT

Family Empowerment and Disability Council (sponsor)

Riverside County Office of Education

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 236

Author:(Eduardo Garcia and O'Donnell)

As Amended Ver:March 20, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Requires the establishment of new Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) with priority given to high need regions, establishes increased funding levels awarded to each center, and establishes new requirements for data collection and reporting to improve coordination between the California Department of Education (CDE) and FECs.

Major Provisions

1. Requires CDE to give priority to new FEC grant applicants from underserved or high-need regions, as determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
2. Establishes an increase in the minimum base rate awarded to each center, from $150,000, to $237,000 and establishes an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
3. Requires CDE to develop a data collection template for use by FECs, and to provide guidance to FECs on how to define and report data.
4. As a condition of the receipt of funds, requires FECs to:
   1. Provide training and information to parents on the benefits of inclusion in a least restrictive environment for children with disabilities.
   2. Attend individualized education program (IEP) development meetings, subject to the availability of center resources and upon parental request.
   3. Submit data annually, in accordance with CDE's template.
5. Requires the Family Empowerment and Disability Council (FEDC) to ensure that an outside entity performs an annual, independent evaluation of the effectiveness of services provided by FECs, including an evaluation of the metrics listed in CDE's data collection template.
6. Requires CDE, by June 30, 2021, to inform parents of the purpose of FECs in its notice of procedural safeguards, and to include a link to its webpage that lists contact information for each FEC.

COMMENTS:

Family Empowerment Centers support children with disabilities and their families. FECs were established in 2001 by enactment of SB 511 (Alpert), Chapter 690 in an effort to help families of children with disabilities, ages 3-22, navigate the special education system and gain access to accurate information, specialized training, and peer-to-peer support. The centers are nonprofits staffed and run primarily by parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities. Although SB 511 called for establishment of 32 centers across the state, the last center was added in 2006, leaving the network at its current size of 14 centers. The missing 18 centers leaves families in large regions of the state, including several densely populated areas such as Alameda County and portions of Los Angeles County, without access to the services provided by FECs.

According to the Author:

"Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) were established by the Legislature in 2001 to help families of children and young adults with disabilities, ages 3-22, navigate the special education system, which for many families is a daunting task. Parents often face this challenge shortly after their children are diagnosed with complex conditions, and after being told that they must obtain services as quickly as possible to maximize the benefits of intervention. By supporting family engagement, FECs not only help ensure that children gain access to the educational resources they need; they also help reduce costly legal conflicts between parents and school districts.

AB 236 will support the critical work of FECs and improve their ability to act as a resource for statewide efforts to improve special education. This bill expands the FEC network to high need and underserved regions of the state, provides a one-time adjustment to increase the base grant from $150,000 to $237,000, and improves coordination between California's Department of Education and FECs through the development of a uniform and rigorous data collection, tracking, and reporting system."

Arguments in Support:

The California School Boards Association writes, "The services provided by FECs are valuable in California, where the scope of the need for special education services is great. Nearly 12 percent of students in the state are enrolled in special education, and the proportion of special education students requiring more intensive and complex educational plans has increased over the past decade. AB 236 will support the critical work of FECs and improve their ability to act as a resource for statewide efforts to improve special education."

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Ongoing annual costs of about $5 million in federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding to provide increased grants for 32 FECs and the FEDC. Costs will change annually with COLA. These funds would be shifted from existing IDEA funds, as described below.
2. Ongoing annual General Fund (GF) costs of about $150,000 for the CDE to hire one staff member to administer the new requirements of the program.
3. Ongoing annual GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the FEDC to contract for an annual, independent program evaluation.
4. One-time GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to develop a new template to collect data and to develop or update a uniform data collection system.

VOTES:

ASM EDUCATION: 6-0-0

YES: O'Donnell, Kiley, Kalra, McCarty, Smith, Weber

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 18-0-0

YES: Gonzalez, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Diep, Eggman, Fong, Gabriel, Eduardo Garcia, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

UPDATED:

VERSION: March 20, 2019

CONSULTANT: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000713

Date of Hearing: April 3, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 236

Author:(Eduardo Garcia) – As Amended Ver:March 20, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires establishment of new Family Empowerment Centers (FECs), increases funding levels for each center, and creates new requirements for data collection and reporting to improve coordination between the California Department of Education (CDE) and FECs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Increases the minimum base rate awarded to each center, from $150,000, to $223,000, beginning with the 2019-20 fiscal year, and requires CDE to award and prioritize grants for underserved or high-need regions of the state.
2. Establishes, beginning with the 2020-21 fiscal year, an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to funds allocated to each FEC based on school enrollment of the region served.
3. Increases funding for the Family Empowerment and Disability Council (FEDC) from $150,000 to $237,000 annually, beginning in the 2019-20 fiscal year.
4. Requires the FEDC to ensure that an outside entity performs an annual evaluation of FECs.
5. Requires CDE, by June 30, 2020, to develop a template for data collection and provide guidance to FECs on its use.
6. Requires CDE, by June 30, 2020, to inform parents of the purpose of FEC and include a link to its webpage that lists contact information for each FEC.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing annual costs of about $5 million in federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding to provide increased grants for 32 FECs and the FEDC. Costs will change annually with COLA. These funds would be shifted from existing IDEA funds, as described below.
2. Ongoing annual General Fund (GF) costs of about $150,000 for the CDE to hire one staff member to administer the new requirements of the program.
3. Ongoing annual GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for the FEDC to contract for an annual, independent program evaluation.
4. One-time GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, for CDE to develop a new template to collect data and to develop or update a uniform data collection system.

COMMENTS:

1. Family Empowerment Centers. FECs were established in 2001 to help families of children with disabilities navigate the special education system by providing information, specialized training and peer-to-peer support. The centers were also tasked with other duties, including helping improve collaboration between schools and parents of children with disabilities. The centers are nonprofits staffed and run primarily by parents, guardians and family members of children and young adults with disabilities.

Legislation authorizing FECs called for 32 centers across the state; however, the network currently has 14 centers, with the last center added in 2006. Several large regions of the state do not have centers, including population-dense counties like Alameda County and portions of Los Angeles County. In some cases, FECs serve parents from their regions and regions without a center.

1. Family Empowerment and Disability Council. Current law requires the FEDC to perform various duties, including the development of a technical assistance system, a uniform tracking-and-data-collection system, and periodic evaluation of service delivery. Current law allocates $150,000 in IDEA funding to support this work.
2. IDEA Funding. Total federal IDEA funding in the 2017-18 school year to California was about $1.25 billion, with the majority provided for local assistance (about $1.1 billion). The state dedicates $2.8 million in IDEA annually to FECs. This bill would shift $5 million in IDEA local assistance funding to the FEC program, bringing total IDEA funding for the program to about $8 million. The CDE indicates it is not authorized to use any more federal funding for state administration of special education programs, which is why the state administration costs of this bill are supported with General Fund.
3. Prior and Related Legislation. AB 2704 (O’Donnell), of the 2017-18 session, was very similar to this bill. The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 511 (Alpert), of the 2000-01 session, required CDE to establish FECs in each of 32 Early Start regions in the state, established the FEDC, allocated a base grant of $150,000 to each FEC, established an allocation mechanism determined according to school enrollment of the region served, required FECs to collect specified types of data, and specified certain responsibilities for the FEDC.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 13, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 236 (

Author:Eduardo Garcia) – As Introduced Ver:January 18, 2019

SUBJECT: Special education programs: Family Empowerment Centers on Disability

SUMMARY: Requires the establishment of new Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) with priority given to high need regions, establishes increased funding levels awarded to each center, and establishes new requirements for data collection and reporting to improve coordination between the California Department of Education (CDE) and FECs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to ensure that children and young adults with disabilities are provided a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible, in accordance with their needs and capabilities.
2. Requires CDE to give priority to new FEC grant applicants from underserved or high-need regions, as determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
3. Establishes an increase in the minimum base rate awarded to each center, from $150,000, to $223,000, beginning with the 2019-20 fiscal year.
4. Establishes an annual cost-of-living adjustment to funds allocated to each FEC based on school enrollment of the region served, beginning with the 2020-21 fiscal year.
5. Requires CDE to develop a data collection template for use by FECs, and to provide guidance to FECs on how to define and report data, which shall include, but not be limited to:
   1. The number of parent trainings provided by an FEC, including, but not limited to trainings on IEPs and LREs.
   2. The number of IEP meetings attended by FEC personnel.
   3. The disability categories of children and young adults served by an FEC.
   4. Demographic information, including preferred language, of families served by an FEC.
   5. The nature of disagreements between parents and schools, and the manner in which those disagreements were resolved with FEC assistance.
   6. Parental satisfaction with FEC services.
6. As a condition of the receipt of funds, requires FECs to:
   1. Provide training and information to parents on the benefits of inclusion in a least restrictive environment for children with disabilities.
   2. Attend individualized education program (IEP) development meetings, subject to the availability of center resources and upon parental request.
   3. Submit data annually, in accordance with CDE’s template, by a deadline specified by the SPI no later than June 30, 2020.
7. Requires the Family Empowerment and Disability Council (FEDC) to ensure that an outside entity performs an annual, independent evaluation of the effectiveness of services provided by FECs, including an evaluation of the metrics listed in CDE’s data collection template.
8. Requires CDE, by June 30, 2020, to inform parents of the purpose of FECs in its notice of procedural safeguards, and to include a link to its webpage that lists contact information for each FEC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires establishment of FECs in 32 Early Start regions across the state (EC 56402).
2. Requires a minimum base rate allocation of $150,000 for each FEC and establishes an allocation mechanism that is determined according to school enrollment of the region served (EC 56406).
3. Requires FEC grant applicants to demonstrate that their region has a need for training and information for underserved parents of children and young adults with disabilities (EC 56406).
4. Requires FEC grant applicants to demonstrate how they will accomplish the following: provide services regardless of cultural, linguistic, geographical, socioeconomic, or other barriers; provide services in accordance with a family’s linguistic and cultural preferences and needs; coordinate with existing family support organizations in their region; promote collaborative relationships between parents and local educational agencies and special education local plan areas (EC 56406).
5. Requires FEC grant recipients to provide the following services: provide training and information that meets the needs of parents of children and young adults with disabilities in the region served; collaborate with community-based organizations and state and local agencies serving children with disabilities; help parents better understand the nature of their children’s disabilities and educational and developmental needs; train parents to communicate effectively with special education providers; participate in the development of individualized education programs; gather information about the range of programs and services available to support children and young adults with disabilities; participate in school improvement and reform activities; and advocate for children’s needs while promoting positive interactions between parents and school staff (EC 56408).
6. Requires the FEDC to consist of an executive director from each FEC and allocates $150,000 to support the council’s work (EC 56410).
7. Requires the FEDC to accomplish the following: provide central coordination of training and information dissemination for FECs; develop a technical assistance system and activities in accordance with a plan developed by FEDC members; ensure performance of a periodic assessment of service delivery and management for each FEC; assist FECs as they build their capacity to serve their regions; develop uniform data collection and tracking systems that interface with, and do not duplicate, existing special education data systems; establish outcome-based evaluation procedures for use by CDE; conduct media outreach and other public education efforts to promote the goals of FECs; and support and coordinate system improvement efforts at a local, state, and national level (EC 56410).
8. Requires CDE to include, on the sample procedural safeguards maintained on its website, a link to a webpage that lists FECs (EC 56415).
9. State and federal law require LEAs to take any action necessary to ensure that in an IEP team meeting, the parent or guardian understands the proceedings at a meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents or guardians whose native language is a language other than English.
10. State and federal law define “consent” in special education proceedings as situations in which the parent or guardian has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in his or her native language, or other mode of communication. State and federal law also require that proposed assessment plans be provided to parents “in the native language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. The author’s office states: “Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) were established by the Legislature in 2001 to help families of children and young adults with disabilities, ages 3-22, navigate the special education system, which for many families is a daunting task. Parents often face this challenge shortly after their children are diagnosed with complex conditions, and after being told that they must obtain services as quickly as possible to maximize the benefits of intervention.

FECs guide parents through this process by offering a wide range of services, including parent-to-parent mentorship programs, consultations on individualized education programs, and trainings that inform parents about their children’s disabilities. By supporting family engagement, FECs not only help ensure that children gain access to the educational resources they need; they also help reduce costly legal conflicts between parents and school districts.

The services provided by FECs are valuable in California, where the scope of the need for special education services is great. Nearly 12 percent of students in the state are enrolled in special education, and the proportion of special education students requiring more intensive and complex educational plans has increased over the past decade. A 2015 report released by the Statewide Task Force on Special Education shows that California has struggled to meet these demands: on average, only 60% of students with disabilities graduate from high school and the achievement levels of students with disabilities in California rank among the lowest in the nation.

Because families represent an important source of support for children with disabilities, the Task Force asserts that family engagement must play a key role in statewide efforts to improve special education. Specifically, the report states that California must invest in providing the ‘help, guidance, and training that parents and family members need in order to become active and constructive educational partners.’

FECs fulfill this role. However, the availability of FEC services falls short of the need in California. Although the original intent of the law was to establish 32 centers throughout the state, there are currently only 14 centers and many high need areas lack access to FECs. In addition, funding levels have not changed since 2001, resulting in a funding stream that has not kept pace with increasing demand for FEC services or cost-of-living increases.

AB 236 will support the critical work of FECs and improve their ability to act as a resource for statewide efforts to improve special education. This bill expands the FEC network to high need and underserved regions of the state, provides a one-time adjustment to increase the base grant from $150,000 to $223,000, and improves coordination between California’s Department of Education and FECs through the development of a uniform and rigorous data collection, tracking, and reporting system.”

Family Empowerment Centers support children with disabilities and their families. FECs were established in 2001 by enactment of SB 511, in an effort to help families of children with disabilities, ages 3-22, navigate the special education system and gain access to accurate information, specialized training, and peer-to-peer support. The centers were also tasked with promoting collaborative relationships between schools and parents of children with disabilities, collaborating with state and local agencies and community-based organizations serving children with disabilities (including Early Start Family Resource Centers, which support families and children with disabilities who are ages 0-3), and advocating for children in a manner that promotes alternative dispute resolution. The centers are nonprofits staffed and run primarily by parents, guardians, and family members of children and young adults with disabilities. An FEDC report on FEC activities for the 2016-17 fiscal year shows that FECs served families of children with a variety of disabilities. The highest reported disability category was ASD (38 percent), followed by speech or language impairment (12 percent) and intellectual disability (12 percent).

Although SB 511 called for establishment of 32 centers across the state, the last center was added in 2006, leaving the network at its current size of 14 centers. The missing 18 centers leaves families in large regions of the state, including several densely populated areas such as Alameda County and portions of Los Angeles County, without access to the services provided by FECs. The adjacent table lists counties that do not currently have access to an FEC. According to the FEDC, the existing FECs are struggling to meet demand for their services, in part because they are serving parents not only from their regions, but from surrounding regions that currently lack a center. All twelve FECs responding to a survey about challenges they face indicated that limited funding prevents them from providing critical services to families, including parent trainings, sibling support, outreach, and peer-to-peer mentorship programs. In particular, more than half of respondents indicated that limited funding makes it difficult for them to hire and retain long-term, experienced employees because they cannot offer benefits or competitive pay.

Special education in California. Federal law mandates that states provide students with disabilities with access to special education services, and organizes disabilities into thirteen classifications that cover a broad range of conditions: specific learning disabilities; speech or language impairments; autism; other health impairments (includes students with chronic or acute health problems, such as heart conditions or diabetes); intellectual disability; emotional disturbance; orthopedic impairment; hard of hearing; multiple disabilities; visual impairments; deaf; traumatic brain injuries; and deaf and blind.

When children are three years of age and older, they may enter the special education system when local education agencies (LEAs) determine that their needs cannot be met in general education programs. In this case, LEAs refer students for professional evaluation to determine if they qualify for special education. If the evaluation indicates that a student has a disability, and that the disability interferes with his or her education, the LEA is legally obligated to provide the student with special education services. Students identified as qualifying for special education receive an IEP—a written legal document developed by a team of stakeholders, including a student’s family—that outlines the students’ educational goals and the services that will be provided to meet those goals. For students requiring other special accommodations to facilitate their participation in school activities (e.g., wheelchair ramps or blood sugar monitoring), Section 504 plans may be added to, or replace, an IEP.

According to CDE, in 2015-16 there were 734,000 children in California with disabilities, of whom 662,000 were enrolled in grades K-12, representing roughly 11% of K-12 enrollment. A 2016 report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) states that the composition of this student population has changed in recent years. Specifically, although the most common disabilities in 2015 were specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, and other health impairments—which together constituted about 73% of all students with disabilities—the number of students diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has increased substantially over the last decade. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), in 2011-12, children with ASD accounted for approximately 10 percent of students with disabilities. Although the increase in ASD prevalence reflects national trends, the increase in California has outpaced the national average: from 2001-02 to 2013-14, the number of ASD cases in California increased 5.4 times, whereas nationally, the number of cases increased 4.2 times.

Navigating services and programs presents challenges: ASD as an example. Particularly in the case of disabilities that affect a wide range of physical and/or cognitive functions, students with disabilities may require highly individualized, coordinated systems of support, both within and outside the classroom. For example, according to Autism Speaks (the nation’s largest advocacy organization for persons with ASD), adequate intervention for children with ASD often involves varying degrees of support from numerous providers, including occupational therapists, speech therapists, special education teachers, paraprofessionals, neurologists, pediatricians, and psychologists. Autism Speaks also states that for many parents, the complexity of coordinating among multiple programs, which may be managed through different agencies and organizations, presents a daunting challenge that many find overwhelming.

According to a 2015 report by the Statewide Task Force on Special Education, providing services at the youngest age possible maximizes the long-term benefits of intervention for children with disabilities, whether they have ASD, general developmental delays, hearing impairments, or a variety of other disabilities. The report states that “many potential disabilities, previously undetected disabilities, and mental health issues can be identified, prevented, corrected, or resolved…through early intervening services when those services are provided at very early ages.” However, the complex steps involved in identifying, diagnosing, and obtaining services for a child’s disabilities can delay the timing of interventions. In the case of ASD, findings from a 2016 study in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics suggest that families struggle to obtain early diagnoses and coordinate early interventions for their children. The authors report that ASD identification is 30% lower among 4-year-olds than among 8-year-olds, prompting them to suggest that opportunities to diagnose are being missed in younger age groups. National data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) support this conclusion: in 2011, more than a third of parents reported that their children were not diagnosed with ASD until they were 6 years of age or older.

Student performance metrics highlight problems with the special education system. Significant achievement gaps exist between students with disabilities and their general education peers. LAO notes that while performance on standardized tests (including those specifically designed for students with disabilities) has improved over the past several years, a majority of students still fail to meet state and federal achievement expectations. Specifically, only 60 percent of these students graduate on time with a high school diploma, and about two–thirds are engaged productively after high school (with about half enrolled in an institute of higher education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year after high school). In addition, in 2018, the recently-implemented California School Dashboard revealed that most school districts categorized as requiring state support for improvement—more than 150 districts, or nearly 18 percent of all districts in California—were identified on the basis of underperformance of students with disabilities.

Thousands of complaints made against schools each year. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to make the following dispute resolution options available to consumers of federally-funded special education services: mediation (which does not require a decision by a judge and is also referred to as “alternative dispute resolution”), written state complaint, and due process complaint. When parents and districts disagree on matters relating to special education, including student eligibility for services or the design of a student’s IEP, parents have the right to resolve their disagreements with the district using a system called “due process,” which is intended to allow both parties to reach resolution without the need for legal representation. This system provides parents with a progressive series of options for resolving their complaints. At the least intensive end of the spectrum, parents and districts settle their disagreements using a resolution session, which typically involves only parents and the district and may result in the production of a settlement that does not become binding until three days post-session. If parents do not feel that their complaints can be resolved with a resolution session, they may request mediation, mediation and a hearing, or a hearing without mediation. In mediations, a mediator from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) will try to help both parties reach a binding agreement. If parents and districts cannot reach an agreement via mediation, or if the filing party does not wish to go to mediation, the case will go to hearing. In this scenario, an OAH judge specializing in special education law will decide the outcome of the case. According to OAH, parents most commonly request mediation and a hearing, while “hearing only” is the least common type of due process request.

Data from OAH indicates that the total number of special education cases filed due to disputes between families and schools has increased over the past decade, from 2,748 complaints in the 2006-07 fiscal year to 4,694 complaints in the 2016-17 fiscal year. In 2017, the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education reported that between 2004-05 and 2014-15, California was among seven states that accounted for 82 percent of all special education due process complaints filed in the nation.

The 2016-17 FEDC report states that two-thirds of 232 parent respondents indicated that they had a disagreement with a school or a district about their child’s IEP, 80 percent of whom believed that their FEC’s involvement helped them resolve the disagreement. Nearly 60 percent of respondents indicated that they used alternative dispute resolution.

Standardization of FEC data needed. With enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which placed greater control for education spending at the local level, Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP) were put in place to create a mechanism for assessing effective expenditure of funds. The importance of parent involvement in efforts to improve local educational systems was formally recognized by inclusion of parent and community engagement as one of eight state priorities that must be addressed as local educational agencies (LEAs) develop their LCAPs. Specifically, LEAs are required to establish parent advisory committees and English learner parent advisory committees that will provide input during LCAP development. According to CDE and the Statewide Task Force report on special education, efforts to improve special education similarly require input from parents and families, but formal, state-mandated mechanisms similar to those implemented for general education do not exist.

As parent-staffed centers with strong ties to their local special education agencies, FECs are ideally structured to facilitate parental engagement in efforts to identify and resolve local challenges in special education. However, the Statewide Task Force report highlights challenges in data collection and analysis that need to be addressed before FECs can fulfill this role. Although SB 511 implemented accountability measures—namely the development of a uniform data collection system—to ensure that FEC services could be monitored across the network of centers, it did not specify what would happen to these data once they were reported to CDE, or what the utility of these data would or should be, outside of providing a general assessment of FEC function. Furthermore, the FEDC, comprised primarily of executive directors from each of the 14 FECs, states that in many cases, centers are unable to allocate sufficient resources from their limited funding to pay for the software and staff time needed to accomplish intensive data collection. The council also states that specific guidance from CDE would help centers identify the types of measures needed to assess statewide and local issues in special education. This bill addresses these issues by increasing the base grant from $150,000 to $223,000, and by requiring CDE to generate a data collection template for use by FECs.

Prior and related legislation. AB 2704 (O’Donnell) of the 2017-18 Session would have required the establishment of new Family Empowerment Centers (FECs) with priority given to high need regions, establishes increased funding levels awarded to each center, and establishes new requirements for data collection and reporting to improve coordination between the California Department of Education (CDE) and FECs. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 217 (Portantino and Roth) of this Session would establish the Special Education Early Intervention Grant Program, through which $4,000 would be allocated to LEAs for each 3 and 4 year old child with exceptional needs who is enrolled in transitional kindergarten, a California state preschool program, a federal Head Start program, or any other early education preschool program.

AB 428 (Medina) of this Session would require that special education funding rates be equalized to the 95^th percentile, creates a funding mechanism for state support of special education preschool, establishes a high cost service allowance to provide supplemental funding on the basis of the number of students with severe disabilities, and changes the calculation of the declining enrollment adjustment that it is based on school district, rather than SELPA, enrollment.

AB 3136 (O’Donnell) of the 2017-18 Session would have required that special education funding rates be equalized to the 95^th percentile and created a funding mechanism for state support of special education preschool, after the LCFF is fully funded. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 312 (O’Donnell) of the 2017-18 Session would have required that special education funding rates be equalized to the 90^th percentile and created a funding mechanism for state support of special education preschool, after the LCFF is fully funded. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 884 (Beall), Chapter 835, Statutes of 2016, requires CDE to include in its sample procedural safeguards, maintained on its website, a link to the CDE webpage that lists Family Empowerment Centers.

SB 354 (Portantino) of the 2017-18 Session would have required LEAs to communicate in the native language of a parent during the planning process for an IEP, and provide a student’s parent with a copy of the completed IEP and other related documents in the native language of the parent within 30 days of the IEP team meeting. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated:

I cannot support this bill. Current law requires that non-English speaking parents understand their child's IEP, and in fact gives parents the right to have an interpreter present at their child's IEP meetings. To the extent that this is not sufficient, I think the remedy is best handled at the local school district.

SB 511 (Alpert) of the 2000-01 Session required CDE to establish FECs in each of 32 Early Start regions in the state, established the FEDC, allocated a base grant of $150,000 to each FEC, established an allocation mechanism that is determined according to school enrollment of the region served, required FECs to collect specified types of data, and specified certain responsibilities for the FEDC.

Argument in support. Family Resource Navigators, an agency in San Leandro that supports families of young children with medically complex conditions, states: “Alameda is a densely populated, physically large, highly diverse and multi-lingual county, and there is a desperate need to have multilingual and multi-cultural support on the IEP process for families. Families (especially those who are recent immigrants or who don’t speak English as a first language) are confused and frustrated in navigating the special education system. They don’t know their child’s rights, or even how to start the evaluation process for their child. Parents are often overwhelmed by the IEP process, and don’t know how to partner effectively with their school district. An FEC would provide peer support and mentoring to help families understand, connect to, and advocate for special education services. This is a vital need in our county. Our agency currently offers this kind of multi-lingual, multi-cultural support to families of younger children and medically complex children through grants from Early Start, Alameda County California Children’s Services, and Alameda County First Five/Help Me Grow. However, we still receive 80 to 120 calls per month from families looking for trainings, workshops, and peer assistance on the IEP process. They come to our agency because there is no place else to go. Right now, we don’t have the funds to serve these families, and we have no place to send them to get this service. An FEC would fill this huge gap and help families partner more effectively with their districts to educate their children.”

Recommended amendments. Staff recommends that this bill be amended as follows:

1. Change the grant amount from $223,000 to $237,000, to reflect an updated cost of living adjustment.
2. Maintain a requirement that, for support of the FEC Council, CDE contract with an outside entity experienced with developing a statewide technical assistance disability network, and increase the grant amount from $150,000 to $237,000.
3. Require that the Council coordinate and participate with the CDE in activities aligned with improvement activities within the state system of support.
4. Move implementation dates back by one year to reflect the same implementation timeframe developed for AB 2704 of the 2017-18 Session.
5. Other technical changes and conforming changes.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

All Things Are Possible, Inc.
Alpha Resource Center of Santa Barbara
Angel View, Inc.
Association of Regional Center Agencies
California School Boards Association
Coalition For Adequate Funding For Special Education
Community Access Center
Desert Arc
Desert Sands Unified School District
Disability Rights California
Early Start Family Resource Network
Educate. Advocate.
Empower Family California
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Family Empowerment Disability Council

Family Focus Resource & Empowerment Center
Family Resource Centers Network of California
Family Resource Centers Network of Los Angeles County
Family Resource Network
Inland Regional Center

Mcclaney Family Resource Center
Molina Healthcare, Inc.
Napa County SELPA
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Palm Springs Unified School District
Parents Helping Parents
Personalized Arrangements for Living Support
Plumas Rural Services
San Mateo SELPA
Santa Barbara County SELPA
SELPA Administrators of California
Special Kids Connect
Support For Families of Children with Disabilities
Sutter County SELPA
Task Team of Advocates for Special Kids
Tehama County SELPA
United Cerebral Palsy of the Inland Empire

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087