It has long been the policy of the New York State Education Department (“NYSED”) to encourage school districts to first consider any appropriate in-state residential placement options before considering residential options that may be located in other states.
In theory, this sounds like a perfectly sound policy. After all, what loving parents would ever intentionally choose to have to travel hundreds, if not thousands of miles to visit their child? In addition, all things being equal, it certainly makes logical sense to try to keep New York State tax dollars and funding within the state.
The problem, of course, is that all things are not equal. Despite the increased incidence of autism in the general population and the sheer number of people in New York State who require a quality residential placement, New York State has far too few appropriate residential options to meet what is a growing, if not exploding demand. Increasingly, because of the evident shortage of quality residential options within the state, New York families have had to turn to quality residential facilities in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Idaho and other states. And, truth be told, many of these placements occurred in the past with the express blessing and approval of NYSED, which then arranged significant reimbursement funding for the sending school district.
This school year, however, we noticed that New York school districts were becoming increasingly resistant to out of state options, even if the out of state option was previously chosen by the same school district, and even where there was no clinical reason warranting a change in placement. We believe we have uncovered the source of this unhelpful change in direction.
In April of 2011, James P. DeLorenzo, NYSED’s Statewide Coordinator for Special Education, issued an 8 page, highly intimidating memorandum warning that school districts that insist on placing students in out of state facilities “ … are [depending on certain factors] at risk of receiving either partial state reimbursement … or no state reimbursement” and that “this would result in the … sending school district accepting full responsibility for the education and maintenance costs for the student’s placement.” School districts, however, do not face any draconian financial consequences if they happen to choose an in-state residential facility. That certainly makes the “choice” easier, doesn’t it?
Parents should take note of any planned placement change that seems designed for administrative expediency rather than to meet the clinical needs of the child. As always, it is important to nip these kinds of problems in the bud with the assistance of counsel before the placement change is scheduled to take effect.