ab 114 transition workgroup survey results february 16, 2012

AB 114 Transition Workgroup Survey Results

February 16, 2012

Workgroup Participants:

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) California

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

Family SOUP

Team of Advocates for Special Kids (T.A.S.K.)

AB 114 TransitionInvitation to Obtain Parent Viewpoints

• Effective July 1, 2011, the California Legislature repealed the AB 3632 mandate. As a result, school districts are now responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities receive special education and related services to meet their needs according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.

• The California Department of Education (CDE) convened an AB 114 Transition Working Group of stakeholders for monthly meetings starting in August 2011 to assist school districts and other local education agencies with this transition. At the November 2011 meeting, participants encouraged parent groups to give a detailed presentation of parent viewpoints at a future meeting.

AB 114 Transition Survey Process

• Designed by four (4) co-sponsoring groups

• Five (5) additional groups volunteered to distribute survey to their members

• Workgroup utilized Survey Monkey templates

• Survey provided in both English and Spanish

• Launched February 2, 2012

• All responses received by Wednesday, February 8

• More than 500 families responded

• Survey Monkey compiled results (auditable/verifiable)

AB 114 TransitionSurvey Goals

• Data should reflect parent/caregiver perceptions• Stakeholder data should be used in assessing AB 114

transition & realignment impacts• Family member input should generate further discussion

and engagement

AB 114 Transition Presentation Intent

Our presentation today will:1. Report quantitative results of survey and synthesize

some of the quantitative data2. Invite your initial impressions, questions, feedback

regarding data3. State major themes of parents/caregiver responses4. Invitation to discuss, how to work together more

effectively for the benefit of our children within the limitations of the current AB 114 transition and IDEA

AB 114 Transition Basic Quantitative Data

(19 Survey Questions)

Question # 1:

During the 2010/11 school year did your child receiveany mental health supports or services authorized ordocumented in a written IEP team agreement?

Question # 1 results: 53% of respondents reported they have a child who received mental health supports or services through an IEP in 2010-2011.

284

164

2651

525 answered



Question # 2:

During the 2010/11 school year, did your child’s IEPprovide for the services of a psychiatrist to evaluate theneed for or prescribe medication, or to monitor your child’spsychiatric medication?

• Question # 2 results: Approximately 20.1% of respondents reported their child’s IEP provided for the services of a psychiatrist to evaluate the need for or to prescribe medication, or to monitor their child’s psychiatric medication.



Question # 3:

If your child had an IEP during the 2010/11 school year,have you been told that any of the mental health supportsor services described in that IEP will not be provided toyour child this year (in 2011/12) because a provider orfunding for a specific type of service is no longer availablefor your child?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Series1

523answered

130

246

32

121

Question # 3 results: 24% of respondents reported their child had an IEP in the 2010-11 school year, but have been told that IEP mental health supports or services would not be provided in 2011-12 because a provider or funding for that service was no longer available.



Question # 4:

Have school authorities told you of changes in CA laws orstate budget as a reason for specific changes this year tomental health supports or services described in your child’sIEP?

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0% Series1

521answered432applicable

109

309

1491

Question # 4 results: 20% of respondents reported school authorities have told them in person or in writing that changes in California laws or state budget were the reason for changes to mental health supports or services in their child’s IEP.



Question # 5:

Has your child’s school personnel advised or suggested toyou that schools can no longer provide the support of apsychiatrist to prescribe, monitor, or adjust medication inconnection with your child’s school program?

Question # 5 results: 14% of respondents reported that school personnel had informed them that their school could no longer support a psychiatrist to prescribe, monitor, or adjust medication in connection with their child’s IEP.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0% Series1

513answered

74

298

14

130



Question # 6:

Has your child’s IEP team addressed, to your satisfaction,concerns you have had about changes occurring this yearin regards to your child’s mental health support services?

Question # 6 results: 18% of respondents reported their child’s IEP team HAD addressed changes occurring in mental health support services to their satisfaction. 46% reported their child’s IEP team had NOT addressed changes occurring in their child’s MH support services to their satisfaction.

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0% Series1

525answered

96

237

40

145



Question # 7:

In regard to the 2010/11 school year, please rate on ascale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), how satisfied you are withthe effectiveness of school-related mental healthsupports/services your child received.

Question # 7 results:As to 2010-11 school year IEP services for their children, 26.8% were SATISFIED or VERY SATISFIED;51.8% were NOT SATISFIED or VERY UNSATISFIED.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Series1

472answered

5378

101124

129



Question # 8: In regard to the 2011-12 school year, please rate

on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), how satisfied you are with the effectiveness of school-related mental health supports/services your child has been receiving this year:

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Series1

460answered

6372

114

96

125

Question # 8 results:As to 2011-12 school year IEP services for their children, 28.3% are SATISFIED or VERY SATISFIED;46.5% are NOT SATISFIED or VERY UNSATISFIED.



Question # 9:

Have you or your child encountered barriers tocommunication with school authorities or others involved inIEPs and related mental health supports/service planning? If yes, please briefly describe.

Question # 9 results:41% of respondents reported that they or their child HAD encountered barriers to communication;37% reported they HAD NOT encountered barriers to communication.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0% 215193

4269

Series1

503answered



Question # 10:

If your child is not receiving mental health supports orservices through the IEP process, do you believe thoseservices may be necessary for your child to learn and

process?

Question # 10 results:48% of respondents believe that although their children are not receiving mental health supports/services through the IEP process, these supports may be necessary for their children to learn and progress.

0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%

Series1

503answered

249

38 40

186



Question # 11:

What kind of health care, insurance, if any does your childhave?

Question # 11 results:Medi-Cal: 29.4%Healthy Families: 5.1%Private health insurance: 62.2%No coverage: 3.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Series1

473answered

144

25

305

16



Question # 12:

Have you been told that some mental health services canbe provided to your child, but only if you allow the schooldistrict to bill Medi-Cal or other insurance?

Question # 12 results:18% of respondents reported they were told that mental health services could be provided by their child’s school only if they allowed the school to bill Medi-Cal or another insurance plan.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%Series1

477answered

87

291

3862



Question # 13:

Has your child been denied any mental health supportservice such as day treatment or family counseling, dueto his or her current lack of Medi-Cal coverage?

Question # 13 results:14% of respondents reported their children had been denied mental health supportive services (such as day treatment or family counseling) due to lack of Medi-Cal coverage for their children.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%Series1

475answered

68

231

58

121



Question # 14:

Have you been asked to provide consent for the schooldistrict to bill Medi-Cal or other insurance for mental healthsupports or services that are included on an IEP?

Question # 14 results: 20% of respondents reported they had been asked to provide consent for the school district to bill Medi-Cal or other insurance for services included in their child’s IEP.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%Series1

95

256

3684

470answered



Question # 15:

If you answered “Yes” to Question # 12, did the consentform advise you that billing Medi-Cal or other insurancefor IEP services could affect “caps” (maximum amountsallowed) for health care services or costs for privateinsurance?

Question # 15 results:Of those who had been asked to provide consent for their child’s school to bill Medi-Cal or other insurance, only 2% (9/97) reported they had been informed this could affect maximum amounts allowed (“caps”) for health care services or private insurance costs.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0% Series1

373answered

9 50

86

228



Question # 16:

Does your child receive mental health services that requireresidential (out-of-home) placement through his or her IEP?

Question # 16 results:14% of respondents reported they have a child who receives residential services through his/her IEP.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%Series1

470answered68

318

977



Question # 17:

Have you been told that your child could no longer haveresidential services due to a change in the law?

Question # 17 results:4% (19/479) of respondents reported their children could no longer receive residential services due to a change in the law.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0% Series1

463answered19

199228

18



Question # 18:

If you answered “yes” to Question #17: Did you receivewritten notice (“Prior Written Notice”) from school or CMHwith reasons why a change to your child’s residentialplacement is needed?

• Question # 18 results:21% of responding parents (4 of 19) whose child lost residential placement reported that they received a written notice (“prior written notice”) from the school or county mental health department with reasons why a change to the child’s residential placement was needed.

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Series1

354answered4

39 11

300



Question # 19:

If on Question # 7 or # 8, you rated you satisfaction as “1”(very unsatisfied), “2” (not satisfied), or “3” (not sure orneutral), briefly comment on the reasons for dissatisfactionor misgivings about ERMH services or supports your childhas received.

Note: A space to type in brief comments was provided in theanswer portion of every question. We will give examples from the major themes reflected in the numerous comments received.

Question #19 ResultsInitial Thoughts, Questions, Impressions…

What are your initial impressions, questions, and feedbackon this data?

Comments Sent In By Parents: Major ThemesThemes from the comments parents and caregivers typedin as part of the survey.

AB 114 Transition

Overview of Themes from Parent Comments

1. Gratitude (when MH services help the child)

2. Not receiving adequate amount of accurate information on MHS

3. Lack of understanding of IDEA

4. Pain, anguish, frustration, anger

5. Insufficient supervisory attention to whether teacher or MHS provider is up to the responsibility

AB 114 Transition Survey

Discussion, Questions, Answers, & Feedback

Wrapping Up: Slides 1 - 8


Wrapping Up: Slide 1 of 8The Workgroup participants thank the CDE for including usin the planning process and for allowing us to present oursurvey results.

We would also like to thank the other organizations which volunteered to distribute the survey: California Alliance of Child and Family Services; California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies; Family Resource Networks of California; Family & Youth Roundtable; and United Advocates for Children & Youth. Special thanks to the California Academy on Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, whose president and president-elect gave us valued input in the course of review of the data received in the survey.


Wrapping Up: Slide 2 of 8

Whether or not a district or a Special Education Local PlanArea (SELPA) is directing information to families aboutAB 114 transitions, families by and large do not feel wellinformed.



Families report throughout the survey that they have beenreceiving verbal and written communication about mentalhealth services for their children in connection with the AB 114 transition at a very low rate.



Families are anxious about what is to come.



We know that many families view getting their children’s special education needs met by the school systems, as needlessly adversarial experiences. That is not news, but it is borne out by the survey responses.



Our survey suggests a comparatively low proportion ofstudents currently receiving special education services arereceiving Medi-Cal benefits. If this is correct, families willneed linkage to other resources that can replace some ofthe former AB 3632 services.



While this Workgroup conducted a quick survey administeredby non-research analysts (amateurs), conclusions point to theneed for further studies to be conducted by professionalresearchers.



The changing of the guard (from County Mental HealthDepartments to the California Department of Education), aswell as service providers, provides a great opportunity forimproving the culture of special education services andschool systems’ partnerships with families.

AB 114 Transition Workgroup Survey Results

Thank you for your interest in our survey.

Family SOUP

Team of Advocates for Special Kids (T.A.S.K.) (include logo)

http://www.dredf.org/donate.shtml

ab 114 transition workgroup survey results february 16, 2012

Documents

transition survey results

transition survey process

survey monkey templates

results auditableverifiable

current ab

school year

special education

related services