CAPSES Position on Oversight and Review of Nonpublic Agency (NPA) Services

Introduction

California’s system for overseeing Nonpublic Agencies (NPAs) and related school support organizations no longer reflects the realities of how special-education services are delivered.^[1]

NPAs provide targeted, specialized supports essential to implementing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), including speech therapy, behavioral intervention, occupational therapy, and counseling. Although NPAs operate as vendors contracted by LEAs, they are currently regulated as if they were fully nonpublic schools. This mismatch creates unnecessary inefficiencies and confusion, particularly regarding the role of Individual Service Agreements (ISAs), the correct contract format to use, and the boundaries of NPA oversight.

Drawing on field feedback, formal review findings, and validation from the California Special Education Nonpublic School and Agency Study (WestEd, commissioned by the California Department of Education), CAPSES finds that the state’s oversight approach suffers from three interrelated weaknesses:

1. A lack of parity: providers performing equivalent work under different contracts are held to inconsistent standards.

   
   

2. A lack of understanding: CDE reviewers often apply school-based metrics to student service models.

   
   

3. A lack of modernization: statutes and processes have not kept pace with today’s contracting and funding structures.

   
   

While WestEd correctly identified misalignment between the Education Code and certification processes, CAPSES members emphasize that the deeper issue is the need for CDE to evolve its oversight system, to recognize what NPAs actually do, evaluate them fairly, and extend the same baseline expectations to all organizations providing special-education services and supports.

The Problem

Problem 1: Oversight Misalignment

Education Code § 56366 requires Individual Services Agreements (ISAs) when NPAs deliver IEP-specified services. However, CDE reviewers often extend this requirement to services outside the IEP, applying standards intended for nonpublic schools. NPAs provide discrete, related services, rather than full educational programs, yet are reviewed as if they operate schools.

Simultaneously, many districts now contract directly with school support organizations which may be funded through general education budgets, grants, or foundations. These providers perform similar functions but operate outside NPA oversight, credentialing, or fiscal review. The result is unequal treatment: NPAs face intensive regulation, while comparable providers face little or none. Oversight reform must therefore focus on creating meaningful standards of service so students benefit, not simply reducing requirements.

Problem 2: Duplication of Oversight

LEAs already contract, credential-check, and monitor NPAs, often for services provided in LEA-run classrooms. CDE certification duplicates LEA requirements without adding accountability or providing focused guidance on the provision of specific NPA services.

In practice, SELPAs and LEAs frequently require the same information to appear in multiple documents: the IEP, master contract, and ISA. Some districts go further by demanding ISAs for services already covered under a contract or for group services (e.g., speech therapy) delivered under the master contract. This level of duplication creates a significant administrative burden for both school support organizations and LEAs, with little impact on compliance outcomes.

Problem 3: ISA Confusion

Statute (EC §56366(a)(2)(B)) is clear that non-IEP services shall not be included in Master Contracts or ISAs, yet CDE reviewers continue to demand them.

The role of ISAs in NPA compliance remains poorly defined and inconsistently applied. During reviews, CDE staff frequently cite NPAs for noncompliance for not having ISAs for every student, even when services fall outside ISA scope and even when reviewers know it is the LEAs’s responsibility to provide them in the instances they are required. For example, when NPAs provide trial services before an IEP is updated, reviewers have still required ISAs. Similarly, some SELPAs insist that every classroom-wide service have an ISA, despite the law specifying ISAs as individualized, IEP-driven contracts. These inconsistencies leave NPAs vulnerable during reviews, despite adhering to the actual legal framework.

Such interpretations disregard statutory intent and expose NPAs to findings that exceed their legal obligations. CAPSES urges CDE to clarify ISA rules and train reviewers accordingly.

Problem 4: Lack of Coordination and Understanding

Oversight inconsistencies stem largely from inadequate training and communication within CDE. Reviewers often provide conflicting or incomplete guidance, while inter-agency coordination with CDE, SELPAs, and LEAs remains limited. In the absence of coherent state direction, local entities have developed divergent expectations, creating uneven compliance standards statewide.

CDE must strengthen staff expertise and cross-agency collaboration so that NPAs are reviewed based on their actual role and responsibilities, not outdated assumptions.

Problem 5: Ineffective Oversight and Emerging Funding Gaps

Despite these burdens, NPAs continue to provide quality service and have worked collaboratively with LEAs. WestEd reported that no NPA certifications were revoked and no major noncompliance findings were issued in the past five years.

At the same time, a growing share of caseload staffing, behavioral, and counseling services are being provided. These services often bypass NPA credentialing and quality safeguards, raising concerns about consistency, equity, and student protection.

An evolved oversight system must both streamline NPA reviews and ensure that all services provided to students with disabilities, regardless of funding source or contract type, meet the same state standards.

CAPSES Position

Oversight of special education service providers must be both consistent and aligned with function.

CDE should modernize its systems so that:

●      NPAs are reviewed according to their actual vendor role, with expectations distinct from those for nonpublic schools, and

●      All organizations providing services to students with disabilities, whether through an NPA certification, direct LEA contract, or alternative funding source, are held to consistent standards of credentialing, safety, and accountability.

Every service delivered to a student receiving special-education support should meet equivalent state expectations for quality and compliance. CDE must lead this modernization by establishing coherent standards, equipping reviewers with appropriate training, and aligning oversight with today’s educational landscape.

Recommendations

1.    Establish a Unified Accountability Framework.All organizations providing services or supports to students with disabilities should be governed by consistent state standards equivalent to NPA certification requirements, ensuring quality, credentialing, and student protection across funding streams.

2.    Require Master Contracts for All Special Education Service Providers.Any entity delivering special education or related services, whether or not the service is explicitly listed on the IEP service page, should operate under a Master Contract (MC) structure. This ensures transparency, consistent fiscal oversight, and a common baseline of accountability for all student supports.

3.    Revise Education Code to Create a Distinct, Tiered Certification Pathway.Update Education Code to differentiate between nonpublic schools, NPAs, and other contracted special education service organizations, with clear definitions, credentialing expectations, and monitoring responsibilities.

4.    Publish Statewide ISA and Contracting Guidance.Clarify when ISAs are required (for IEP-driven services) and when other vendor agreements apply, while maintaining that all services delivered to special education students (inside or outside the IEP) remain accountable to state standards.

5.    Train and Equip CDE Reviewers.Require CDE to develop and implement training for reviewers and regional teams to ensure consistent understanding of service delivery models, contracting pathways, and compliance obligations.

6.    Integrate Oversight into LEA Fiscal Monitoring.Shift duplicative CDE review functions to focus on LEA fiscal monitoring of contracts, ensuring compliance is tracked where service relationships are managed.

7.    Monitor Funding Shifts and Equity Impacts.Examine the growing use of general education, foundation, or grant funding to provide special education-related services outside the NPA structure. Ensure that these funding streams meet equivalent standards for student safety, qualifications, and service quality.

8.    Implement WestEd Study Recommendations.Adopt findings from the California Special Education Nonpublic School and Agency Study (CN-220271) as part of comprehensive reform, emphasizing interagency coordination and accountability.

Conclusion

California’s oversight model must evolve to match today’s service environment.

Students with disabilities receive support through diverse contractual and funding arrangements, yet only some providers operate under formal NPA standards. This uneven system creates inequities in accountability and perception.

CAPSES calls on the California Department of Education to establish parity across all providers of special-education services, ensuring that:

●      NPAs are reviewed with an accurate understanding and fairness; and

●      Every organization serving these students, regardless of contract type or funding source, is held to consistent, modernized standards for quality, credentialing, and accountability.

A unified, informed, and equitable oversight framework will protect students, support LEAs, and recognize NPAs as the professional partners they are in fulfilling California’s commitment to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

^[1]   school support organizations refer to agencies that contract with schools to provide student services not specified on an individual IEP/ISA including: behavioral support, related service caseload staffing, IEP consulting and evaluation, and others.