California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U. S. Department of Education.
Family Participation Fund
The Family Participation Fund (FPF) was developed to meet the need for fiscal resources to help encourage and support meaningful family/consumer involvement in education-related local, regional, or statewide decision-making activities, events, and groups. The intent of this activity is to build partnerships that reflect the diversity of our population and that are aligned with state reform mandates and initiatives. Between 2000 and 2011, approximately 12,000 requests for financial support were funded.
Until July 2011, FPF was administered through the California Association of Family Empowerment Centers (CAFEC, online at www.cafec.org), which works as a center of information, technical assistance, and systems change advocacy for the statewide network of local FECs (Family Empowerment Centers). The FPF is now being administered through WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention, online at http://www.calfedc.org/family-participation-fund.html. CAFEC is continuing to direct family members to the new WestEd website from the FPF’s former homepage.
Due to a contracting delay at the state level, CAFEC was unable to receive FPF funds for the second half of the 2009-10 fiscal year. Because of this interruption, the FPF was not able to support FPF activities during this period and distributed only half of the typical number of stipends for the fiscal year as a whole (842 stipends in 2009-10, compared to 1,653 in 2008-09). Though full funding was restored in the 2010-11 fiscal year, this interruption appears to have impacted the FPF’s relationship with previous stipend recipients, distributing only 904 stipends to a more-limited group of FPF recipients.
Stipends were distributed in 26 of California’s 58 counties, 80% of which were distributed in the counties of Los Angeles (476), San Diego (90), Sonoma (88) and San Francisco (67).
| County | Number of Stipends Distributed |
|---|---|
| Alameda | 7 |
| Butte | 2 |
| Calaveras | 1 |
| Contra Costa | 15 |
| El Dorado | 1 |
| Fresno | 33 |
| Los Angeles | 476 |
| Modoc | 9 |
| Mono | 5 |
| Napa | 1 |
| Orange | 8 |
| Placer | 11 |
| Riverside | 6 |
| Sacramento | 17 |
| San Bernardino | 9 |
| San Diego | 90 |
| San Francisco | 67 |
| Santa Barbara | 5 |
| Shasta | 4 |
| Siskiyou | 2 |
| Sonoma | 88 |
| Stanislaus | 2 |
| Sutter | 2 |
| Trinity | 15 |
| Ventura | 6 |
| Yuba | 6 |
| Unknown | 17 |
Stipend Distribution
The break in FPF service early 2010 does appear to have impacted who is accessing FPF stipends and what meetings they attended. Because no FPF stipends were distributed during the second half of the 2009-10 school year, it is more useful to compare stipend distribution between the 2008-09 year and the 2010-11 year to understand these impacts.
| 2008-09 ~ 1,653* stipends | 2010-11 ~ 904* stipends | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| Special Education | 1063 | 65% | 847 | 94% |
| General Education | 572 | 35% | 56 | 6% |
To encourage special and general education collaboration, FPF has supported the parents and family members of students with disabilities in participating in a wide variety of meeting types, including those with focus specifically on general education topics. In the past, roughly a third of stipends have supported these activities, but in the 2010-11 year, the share of general education-focused meetings dropped to only 6%.
| 2008-09 ~ 1,653* stipends | 2010-11 ~ 904* stipends | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| Community Advisory Council (CAC) | 845 | 52% | 800 | 91% |
| English Learner Advisory Council (ELAC) | 131 | 8% | 37 | 4% |
| Compensatory Education Advisory Council (CEAC) | 59 | 3% | ||
| District Advisory Council | 294 | 18% | ||
| Special Education Multicultural Advisory Committee (SEMAC) | 45 | 3% | ||
| Voces Unidas | 83 | 5% | ||
| Other Advising Body Meeting | 31 | 2% | ||
| Other Board/Council Meeting | 85 | 5% | ||
| Other Meeting | 62 | 4% | 42 | 5% |
Looking specifically at meeting type, it is clear that FPF stipends were distributed primarily to support participation in Community Advisory Councils (CACs), parent-professional partnership bodies that meet to advise Special Education Local Planning Areas (SELPAs). This has always been a large component of FPF’s work in California, making up 52% of stipends in 2008-09, as opposed to 91% in 2010-11. Also interesting is the similarity in volume of CAC-related stipends distributed, with 845 in 2008-09 and 800 in 2010-11. This may indicate continuing stipend recipients are parents from around the state who, by continuing to work with CACs despite not receiving FPF support, never lost contact with CAFEC and thus could be alerted when funding was restored.
Surveys of FPF Stipend Recipients
Recipients of FPF stipends are asked to complete a survey and submit it with their invoice. The survey collects demographics information and asks each recipient to respond to five items about their experience at the meeting they attended and if the stipend was adequate. Recipients are informed that survey responses have no bearing on stipend eligibility.
| 2008-09 | 2010-11 | |
|---|---|---|
| I learned valuable, useful information at the meeting. | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| The meeting will make a positive difference in the lives of children with disabilities. | 4.3 | 4.1 |
| I felt that I was an effective participant at the meeting. | 4.2 | 4.1 |
| I felt that other people at the meeting valued my participation. | 4.2 | 3.9 |
| The financial support of attending the meeting met my needs. | 4.1 | 3.7 |
Participants were also asked to rate each of five questions on a five-point scale from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 5 (“agree strongly”).
- The recipients responded with high ratings to the first three questions, with a 4.0 or higher in every category. These related more to the value of the meetings.
- Recipient responses averaged 3.9 on others valuing their participation, down from 4.2 in 2008-09. There were a number of responses in the range of 1 to 3, which corresponded with comments describing conflicts with school district officials.
- Recipients responded with a 3.7 on whether the stipend met the recipients needs. While this has always tended to be the most modestly rated of the five questions, the average response dropped considerably from 4.1 in 2008-09.
Demographics
Survey responses demonstrated a considerable demographic shift in stipend recipients which also appears to be related to the break in funding in the 2009-10 school year, particularly noticible as decreases in the numbers of low-income and African American recipients. While there were some small trends in the ethnicity of recipients observed year to year (an ever-increasing number of Latino and Asian recipients), there was no evidence that these changes were starting to happen in surveys collected in the first half of the 2009-10 school year.
The surveys also allow reporting on an explicit CalSTAT project measure, a target that 70% of stipends go to households with less than $30,000 in annual income (green in the charts below). CAFEC had never pursued this goal as an explicit policy as they had always met this target in the past. That may no longer be the case, as the percentage of stipend recipients in the targeted income range has fallen nine percentage points from 77% in 2008-09 to 67% in 2010-11.
While there could be any number of reasons for these shifts, it is possible FPF stipend recipients with smaller incomes may have had greater difficulty receiving notification of the restoration of funding.
| 2008-09 ~ 1,228 recipients | 2010-11 ~ 314 recipients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| $10,000 or Less | 624 | 52% | 94 | 30% |
| $10-19,000 | 177 | 14% | 59 | 19% |
| $10-19,000 | 130 | 11% | 57 | 18% |
| $10-19,000 | 85 | 7% | 39 | 12% |
| $10-19,000 | 94 | 8% | 22 | 7% |
| $50,000 or More | 108 | 9% | 43 | 14% |
- The largest difference between 2008-09 and 2010-11 was the number of recipients reporting annual household incomes of less than $10,000. Before the gap in funding, there were 634 recipients in this range (52%), compared to 94 (30%) when funding returned.
- While FPF stipend recipients continue to generally have modest incomes, the average recipients were definitely more affluent in 2010-11 than in the past.
Survey respondents have been more likely to leave the income question blank than other questions, but this trend also increased considerably. In 2008-09, 1,373 surveys were collected, and 145 recipients left the income question blank (10%). In 2010-11, 467 surveys were collected but, 153 recipients left this question blank (33%).
These changes in income demographics were paralleled by changes in the ethnicity of FPF stipend recipients, most substantially involving African American families. African Americans have historically received about half of FPF stipends (574 recipients, 45% in 2008-09). This changed in 2010-11, when only 50 survey respondents identified themselves as African American (12%). When looking at the historic overlap of income and ethnicity, low-income African American parents appear to be the main population who are no longer receiving stipends; of the 634 recipients who reported incomes below $10,000 per year in 2008-09, 463 were African American (73%).
- While Latinos are now the largest group of recipients (48%), it wasn’t because more Latinos were accessing FPF funds (294 in 2008-09, 208 in 2010-11). This was true of other ethnic groups which became a larger ratio of stipend distribution as well.
- The drop in Asian or Pacific Islander recipients from 104 to 24 is notable, as well.In the past, survey comments have documented Asian stipend recipients being very active on behalf of Cantonese families of students in San Francisco Unified, especially around language-barrier issues. Such comments did not appear in surveys collected in 2010-11.
| 2008-09 ~ 1,284 recipients | 2010-11 ~ 428 recipients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| African American | 574 | 45% | 50 | 12% |
| Asian or Pacific Islander | 104 | 8% | 24 | 6% |
| Caucasian/White | 292 | 23% | 134 | 31% |
| Latino/Hispanic | 294 | 23% | 208 | 49% |
| Other Ethnicities | 20 | 2% | 12 | 3% |
Representative comments in response to the following open-ended survey questions are summarized below.
“Please describe what discussions/decisions you influenced at this meeting.”
“I asked about specific IEP goals for assistive technology and what options are available and which schools to look into for my son.”
“I advised the district on how they can help my son with support at school.”
“I invited CAC members to attend the ability awareness fairs in our district for purpose of hosting their own.”
“I chair the CAC meeting.”
“I was able to grasp how important it is to be organized when you have a special needs child.”
“Discussing new district policy of “inclusion at every school” and other placement issues, and national inclusive schools week, and our annual report to the board of education.”
“We talk about charter schools not wanting our students. We talk about AP job description. We talk about the feeding and drinking of our cerebral palsy students.”
“We discussed the professional development planned for teachers and principals and the redesign of the special education department.”
“The administrator/speaker believed that the district is one of the best districts in facilitating services. I let them know how school administrators neglect their responsibilities in favor of school over student support.”
“That many schools will not give the students a behavior plan. So when they do have behavior issues, they put them out of their school. Many of these students have been to 5 to 6 schools and no staff has put a behavior plan in the student’s IEP. The school needs training on these issues of being accountable for these students’ needs.
"What kind of additional support/training would help you participate more effectively?"
“Legal training. Public speaking training. Understanding school district budgets.”
“I think parents need to know their educational rights, the services that are offered and school responsibilities to the students.”
“We need more money so parents can go to at least 3 meetings a month. That way we can tell more parents about the problems our students are having and get other parent’s feedback.”
This document was developed for CalSTAT by the SPDG Evaluation Team of Cheryl “Li” Walter, PhD, and Alan Wood.
CalSTAT (California Services for Technical Assistance and Training), at Napa County Office of Education, is a special project of the California Department of Education, Special Education Division. Visit CalSTAT at http://www.calstat.org.
“California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA).
“This project is supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.”
