OMB #1820-0678

1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR OMB APPROVAL UNDER THE

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Complaints, Mediations, and Due Process Hearings

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances necessitating information collection.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P. L. 108-446) directs the 

Secretary of Education to obtain data on the dispute resolution process described in 

Section 615 of the law. Specific legislative authority in Section 618 of IDEA requires 

that:

“(a) IN GENERAL- Each State that receives assistance under this part, and the Secretary

of the Interior, shall provide data each year to the Secretary of Education and the public on 

the following:

(1)(F) The number of due process complaints filed under section 615 and the 

number of hearings conducted.

(H) The number of mediations held and the number of settlement agreements 

reached through such mediations”.

In addition to the specific data requirements described in Section 618, Section 

616(a)(3)(B) of IDEA identifies the dispute resolution process as a monitoring priority. 

The law states specifically that:

“(3) MONITORING PRIORITIES- The Secretary shall monitor the States, and shall 

require each State to monitor the local educational agencies located in the State (except the 

State exercise of general supervisory responsibility), using quantifiable indicators in each 

of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to 

adequately measure performance in the following priority areas:

(B) State exercise of general supervisory authority, including child find, effective 

monitoring, the use of resolution sessions, mediation, voluntary binding 

arbitration, and a system of transition services as defined in sections 602(34) and 

637(a)(9)”.

The data collection form provides instructions and information for States when submitting 

their dispute resolution data. The form collects data on the number of written, signed 

complaints; mediation requests; and hearing requests and the status of these actions 

initiated during the reporting year with regards to children served under Part C of IDEA. 

The purposes of these data are to: (1) assess the progress, impact, and effectiveness of 

State and local efforts to implement the legislation and (2) provide Congress, the public,

and Federal, State, and local educational agencies with relevant information. These data 

are used for monitoring activities, planning purposes, congressional reporting 

requirements, and dissemination to individuals and groups.
OMB #1820-0678

2

2. Use for which the information is gathered.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) uses the information collected on this 

form to monitor States to ensure compliance with the Federal statute and regulations, 

including the State’s Annual Performance Report under each State’s Performance Plan 

required by Section 616 of the IDEA, to assist in establishing programmatic priorities, and 

to disseminate data to Congress and the public.

The Part C Dispute Resolution data are also used by OSEP, State agencies, university

researchers, and advocates to examine patterns over time with regards to the provision of 

services for children with disabilities under IDEA. 

3. Use for improved information technology. 

OSEP will collect the Part C Dispute Resolution data electronically through the EDFacts

Metadata and Process System (EMAPS) from State agencies. EMAPS is an established 

submission system that State agencies have been using to submit information to the 

Department for several years. EMAPS allows each State agency to provide the Part C 

Dispute Resolution data in the non-proprietary, electronic formats that could be generated 

through automated processes within the State agency. The EMAPS Part C Dispute 

Resolution form includes a number of data edits to improve data entry validity. For 

example, as States enter their data, the edits flag relationships between the counts reported 

that are impossible (e.g., situations where 10 reports were issued with findings of 

noncompliance, as reported in Row 1.1(a), but only a total of 5 reports were issued, as 

reported in Row 1.1). The use of the spreadsheet with built-in edits reduces the number of 

follow-up contacts with the States after the data are submitted. Additionally, the EMAPS 

form auto-calculates totals and subtotals where appropriate to minimize reporting burden 

on the State. Finally, the form provides space for States to comment on their data, for 

example providing additional information about how the data were aggregated, what 

changes were made to these procedures since the last data report, how changes in state 

policy or legislation affect the data, or other issues the State believes are applicable to the 

data collection. 

4. Efforts to identify duplication.

The information requested does not represent any duplication in content, reporting, or 

performance requirements beyond those imposed under the statute. This information is 

available only from State agencies. 

5. Small businesses.

The information requested does not involve the collection of information from entities 

classified as small organizations.

6. Consequence of less frequent collection.

An annual data collection is necessary to comply with statutory requirements. P.L. 108-

446, Section 618(a) requires: "Each State that receives assistance under this part, and the 

Secretary of the Interior, shall provide data each year to the Secretary..." 
OMB #1820-0678

3

7. Special circumstances.

There are no special circumstances associated with this data collection.

8. Federal Register notice/consultation outside the agency.

Comments will be solicited through the IDEA NPRM at the same time this collection is 

pending at OMB.

9. Payments or gifts to respondents.

No payments or gifts are provided to respondents for completing this information request.

10. Assurance of confidentiality.

No assurance of confidentiality is provided to respondents. However, no individually

identifiable information is requested. 

11. Questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions or requirements of a sensitive nature contained in the form.

12. Estimate of respondent burden.

The estimate of burden is based on informal feedback received from data managers about 

their experience with the previous data collection for Part C Dispute Resolution data (i.e., 

Table 4). The estimate of total respondent burden is based on 56 reporting entities1. Note 

that it is not possible to estimate an exact burden amount for each State because States 

vary in their methods for collecting and aggregating these data, in the number of children 

they serve (and, consequently, the number of complaints received), and the sophistication 

of their data systems. In making these estimates, we assumed that most States directly

collect all dispute resolution data and already have systems in place for reporting these 

data. 

In order to calculate burden, OSEP estimated the average number of hours required per 

State. The total burden for all States was calculated by multiplying the average number of 

hours by 561(56 multiplied by average State burden). For State agencies, the estimated 

average burden is 60 hours per State agency, representing a total burden estimate of 3,360 

hours. At the time that this collection was introduced, most States reported that they

expected the required number of hours needed to produce these data to decline as systems 

were expanded to collect all required data elements, personnel were trained on reporting 

these data, and edits were implemented to automate data cleaning. 

OSEP estimated respondent costs as $20 per hour. As indicated above, the estimated total 

number of burden hours is 3,360. Therefore, the total estimated cost to the respondents is 

$67,200.

 

1

56 reporting entities refer to: 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas.
OMB #1820-0678

4

13. Estimate of costs to respondent.

There are no additional costs other than the cost burden identified in 12. 

14. Estimate of costs to the Federal Government.

OSEP estimates the cost of maintaining and updating the database for the Part C Dispute 

Resolution data collection to be $41,000 in contractor data services. 

15. Reasons for program changes or adjustments.

Slight adjustments were made to the instructions of this data collection form to clarify the 

process for submitting the data via EMAPS. We anticipate no change in the response 

burden associated with these adjustments to the data collection. 

16. Plans for tabulation and publication.

OSEP will tabulate and display the information submitted by States in a variety of ways. 

The primary vehicles for distribution are the Secretary's Annual Report to Congress (P.L. 

108-446, Section 664(d)(2)) and publication of these data on the Internet. OSEP also 

plans to use these data for state monitoring. Occasionally, the data may be summarized 

and presented at conferences, in ad hoc reports or articles submitted for publication, and in 

speeches by senior officials. The data also will be used by the Center for Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE), in their work under a cooperative 

agreement with OSEP to assess the need for and development of technical assistance 

materials and guidance on dispute resolution, as well as to contribute to a national dispute 

resolution database.

17. Display of OMB expiration date.

The OMB expiration date will be displayed on the form.

18. Exceptions to the certification statement.

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This collection of information does not permit the use of statistical methods in submission of data 

to the Department of Education.