Figure 1

The title of Figure 1 is Organization of Special Education in California

The figure displays the mental health service activities conducted by and the role in mental health service funding of the California Department of Education, referred to herein as Education, the State’s 133 special education local plan areas, called SELPAs, and the State’s 1,436 local educational agencies, known as LEAs, related to the special education of children in California. The figure illustrates the flow of activities conducted and the roles in funding from Education to the SELPAs to the LEAs.

The box at the top of the figure identifies Education. Education conducts activities including ensuring that state policies and procedures are consistent with the requirements of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to herein as IDEA; ensuring that SELPAs and LEAs have established and implemented policies, procedures, and practices required by IDEA through compliance reviews; providing guidance to SELPAs regarding special education program requirements; and investigating compliance related complaints against SELPAs or LEAs. Education’s role in funding includes distributing state and federal funding to SELPAs based on average daily attendance, and retaining a portion of general special education funding to support administrative activities.

The box in the middle of the figure identifies SELPAs. There were a total of 133 SELPAs in California reported as of October 2015, although this number will vary over time. SELPAs ensure LEAs adhere to federal and state requirements. SELPAs can also be involved in local dispute resolution and some may provide mental health services to students eligible for special education. SELPAs allocate funding to LEAs based on local developed and approved plans and may retain a portion of general special education funding to support administrative activities.

The box at the bottom of the figure identifies LEAs. There were a total of 1,436 LEAs in California reported as of October 2015, although this number will vary over time. Each LEA conducts activities including identifying and assessing children who may need special education, determining eligibility for special education, developing individualized education programs for eligible students, and ensuring all special education and related services that students require are provided to them. LEAs receive federal and state funding based on allocation decisions made by Education and the SELPAs.

The sources for the information contained in this figure are California State Auditor analysis of Title 20 United States Code sections 1411, 1412, 1413, and 1415; Title 34 Code of Federal Regulations.

Figure 2

The title of Figure 2 is Key Responsibilities Under State Special Education Law Before and After Assembly Bill 114 Took Effect

As explained in the text of the report, AB 114 shifted responsibilities for certain special education tasks, including some individualized education program, referred to as IEP, related tasks. This figure lists eight of those tasks and identifies whether the local educational agency, known as an LEA, the county mental health department, or both agencies were responsible for completing those tasks prior to AB 114. The figure then lists the agency currently responsible for the task following the enactment of AB 114.

The figure shows that three tasks were the responsibility of LEAs both before and after the enactment of AB 114. These consist of determining special education eligibility, performing non-mental health related assessments, and convening the IEP team.

Three tasks were the sole responsibility of county mental health departments prior to the enactment of AB 114 but afterwards shifted to LEAs. These tasks involve performing mental health related assessments, recommending the mental health services that students receive as part of their IEPs, and providing the mental health services on the IEPs.

One task that was the responsibility of both county mental health departments and LEAs prior to the enactment of AB 114 but afterwards shifted solely to LEAs pertains to participating in IEP team meetings.

The other task listed in the figure describes LEA’s prior responsibility to refer students to the county for mental health related assessments. This task no longer exists following the enactment of AB 114 because AB 114 shifted responsibility for conducting these assessments to the LEAs themselves.

The sources for the information contained in this figure are California State Auditor analysis of California Education Code sections 56330, 56322, 56340, 56345; California Government Code section 7572; Chapter 43, Statutes of 2011; and Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 60045.

Figure 3

The title of Figure 3 is Total Number of Students with a Mental Health Service in an Individualized Education Program at Four Special Education Local Plan Areas for School Years 2010-11 Through 2014-15

The figure uses bar graphs to illustrate for each special education local plan area, referred to as a SELPA, the number of students with a mental health service in their individualized education program, referred to as an IEP, between the school years 2010-11 through 2014-15.

The figure shows that at Mt. Diablo Unified School District, the total number of students with a mental health service in an IEP was 748 in school year 2010-11, before Assembly Bill 114, referred to as AB 114, took effect. The number of students in school year 2014-15, after AB 114 took effect, was 745. The number remained fairly constant in the intervening years.

At Long Beach Unified School District, the total number of students with a mental health service in an IEP was 853 in school year 2010-11, before AB 114 took effect. This number rose to 1,101 in school year 2011-12, after AB 114 took effect, but then decreased in each subsequent year and returned to a similar level of 855 by school year 2014-15.

At Riverside County SELPA, the total number of students with a mental health service in an IEP was 1,261 students in school year 2010-11, before AB 114 took effect. This number increased each year after AB 114 took effect, with the largest increase occurring in school year 2012-13. There were 3,146 students with a mental health service in school year 2014-15.

Finally, at South East Consortium for Special Education, the total number of students with a mental health service in an IEP was 991 in school year 2010-11, before AB 114 took effect. This number increased slightly in the years after AB 114 took effect, resulting in 1,312 students receiving a mental health service in school year 2014-15.

The source for the data in these graphs is California State Auditor analysis of data from the California Department of Education's (Education) California Special Education Management Information System and data from Education's California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System.

Figure 4

The title of Figure 4 is The Rate at Which Students at Four Special Education Local Plan Areas Retained Mental Health Services in the Following School Year

This figure shows a line graph for each of the four special education local plan areas, referred to as SELPAs, which we reviewed. These SELPAs are Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Long Beach Unified School District, Riverside County SELPA, and South East Consortium for Special Education. The graphs display the trend in the number of students who retained a mental health service on their IEP from one school year to the next school year. The trends are depicted for each SELPA by three student groups, those receiving a mental health service in school year 2009-10, in 2010-11, and in 2011-12, resulting in three lines per graph. The first line shows the change in number of students from school year 2009-10 to 2010-11, both before Assembly Bill 114, referred to as AB 114, took effect. The second line shows the change in number of students from 2010-11, before AB 114 took effect, to 2011-12, after AB 114 took effect. The third line shows the change in number of students from 2011-12 to 2012-13, both after AB 114 took effect. In all four graphs, the slopes of the lines representing the number of students who retained a mental health service remain consistent for all three groups, which suggests that the rate at which students retained mental health services on their IEP from one school year to the next did not change after the enactment of AB 114.

The source for the data in this graph is California State Auditor analysis of data from the California Department of Education's California Special Education Management Information System.

Figure 5

The title of Figure 5 is The Rate at Which Students at Four Special Education Local Plan Areas Retained Mental Health Services in the Following School Year

The title of Figure 5 is Example of Student Who Received Additional Services Outside The Individualized Education Program.

The figure consists of two images, one listing the mental health services a student received in the 2010-11 school year and the other listing the services the student received in the 2012-13 school year. The images depict that services can be provided by the county mental health department, referred to as the county, the local educational agency, referred to as the LEA, or the LEA’s contractor.

The first image shows that in school year 2010-11, the student’s individualized education program, referred to as IEP, consisted of services provided by the county, including individual counseling and guidance and group counseling and guidance, as well as services provided by the LEA or its contractor, including individual counseling and group counseling. The student also received additional services not contained in the IEP from the county, including treatment planning, assessment, crisis intervention, case management, medication management, face-to-face activity, and collateral services. According to state regulations, collateral services are provided to a significant support person in the beneficiary’s life for the purpose of meeting the needs of the beneficiary in terms of achieving the goals of their client plan. Collateral services may include consultation and training of the significant support persons to assist in better utilization of specialty mental health services by the beneficiary and to assist in better understanding of mental illness, and family counseling with the significant support persons.

The second image shows that in school year 2012-13, the student’s IEP contained only services provided by the LEA or its contractor, not the county, which included individual counseling and group counseling and guidance. The student also continued receiving services from the county outside of the IEP, which included group treatment, medication management, record review, case management, and individual treatment. Overall, the figure illustrates that students received services from the county outside of the IEP both before and after the enactment of AB 114.

In addition, from our review of the mental health services students received through an IEP, we determined that the services received can change over time based on the student’s need for the services. Therefore, changes in the overall number of services this student received do not necessarily reflect a failure of any agency to provide an adequate level of service to the student.

The source of the information contained in this figure is California State Auditor's analysis of student records from a local educational agency within the South East Consortium for Special Education and patient records from the Santa Clara County Department of Behavioral Health Services.

The source for the data in this graph is California State Auditor analysis of data from the California Department of Education's California Special Education Management Information System.

Figure 6

The title of Figure 6 is Example of Individual Educational Program Educational Setting Page From Mt. Diablo Unified School District.

This figure displays an excerpt of an actual Educational Setting section of a student’s individualized education program, referred to as an IEP, for Mt. Diablo Unified School District. The section begins with general information about the student, such as the student’s name and details about the school of attendance. The section contains the question, “All special education services provided at the student’s school of residence?” with the option for the IEP team to respond yes or no and to provide the rationale for the response. This example lists a response of “no” with the reason stated as “the student’s unique educational and behavioral needs cannot be met at her school of residence.” Following that response, the section includes a space to fill in the percent of time that the student spends outside the regular class, extracurricular, and non academic activities, for which this example identifies 100 percent. The next space identifies the percent of time that the student is in the regular class, extracurricular, and non academic activities”, which this example lists zero percent. The page then provides space for the IEP team to identify the percentage of time a student placed outside of the general education classroom will not participate in the regular class and extracurricular and non-academic activities and the reasons why. In this example, the IEP team identified the percentage of time as 100 percent and included the reason being because “the student receives educational benefit from accessing her education through the residential program.”

The source of the information contained in this figure is a student file at Mt. Diablo Unified School District.

Figure 7

The title of Figure 7 is Budgets, Revenues, and Expenditures for Restricted Mental Health Funding at Four Local Educational Agencies.

This figure displays four bar graphs, one for each of the local education agencies, referred to as LEAs, which we reviewed. Each graph shows the LEA’s budgeted expenditures, actual revenue received, and actual expenditures, for each fiscal year from 2010-11 through 2014-15. Expenditures may be higher than revenues for some years because LEAs can carry over unspent federal mental health funding for a limited time period and unspent state mental health funding indefinitely. Also, LEAs may transfer less restricted funding and spend that funding as mental health funding.

The graph for Mt. Diablo Unified School District, referred to as Mt. Diablo, shows that in fiscal year 2010-11, the LEA budgeted and received approximately the same amount of funding, but spent considerably less than this amount. In contrast, Mt. Diablo budgeted more in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 than it received or spent. Mt. Diablo’s budgeted expenditures for these fiscal years were significantly higher than its actual revenues and expenditures because the district budgeted revenues along with its prior unspent revenues to arrive at budgeted expenditure amounts. The graph shows that in 2012-13 and 2014-15, Mt. Diablo’s budgeted expenditures, actual revenue received, and actual expenditures were approximately equal.

The graphs for Long Beach Unified School District and East Side Union High School District show that these LEAs’ budgeted expenditures, actual revenue received, and actual expenditures were relatively equal during each of the five fiscal years.

The graph for Murrieta Valley Unified School District, referred to as Murrieta Valley, shows that the LEA did not budget any expenditures for its restricted mental health funding for fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Murrieta Valley’s director of special education stated that in 2010-11 the district’s special education local plan area was responsible for managing the district’s mental health funding, and therefore the district did not develop a budget for this funding. She further stated that in 2011-12, the district used other resources to provide mental health services to students instead of its mental health funding because the district was concerned that the dedicated mental health funding would not be permanent. Murrieta Valley’s revenue received in fiscal year 2011-12 was higher than its actual expenditures. For fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15, its budgeted expenditures, revenue received, and actual expenditures were approximately equal.

The source of the information in this figure is California State Auditor analysis of district mental health budget, revenue, and expenditure reports for fiscal years 2010-11 through 2014-15.