Special‑education clinicians urge LAUSD to analyze fiscal and service impacts of SEIU agreement’s subcontracting provisions

Several clinicians, providers and parent-advocates told the Los Angeles Unified School District board on June 5 that a tentative agreement between LAUSD and SEIU Local 99 could disrupt the district’s current nonpublic agency (NPA) and nonpublic school (NPS) model for delivering behavioral supports to students with disabilities.

Michelle Hyde, a board‑certified behavior analyst speaking for the California Association for Behavior Analysis, told the board the agreement’s subcontracting provisions could "undermine the special education infrastructure in the LA and surrounding areas," and she argued that NPAs and NPSs provide sustained clinical supervision, individualized behavior-plan implementation and data-driven supports that a reassigned district paraeducator cannot replicate.

Doug Mose, a clinical psychologist who identified himself as representing the Autism Business Association and the Stepping Stones Group, said his coalition transmitted a financial analysis to the district’s independent analysis unit estimating that bringing NPA services fully in‑house would cost LAUSD about $170,000,000 more per year—roughly 26 cents of every dollar the coalition says the district has committed to saving under its fiscal stabilization plan. Mose asked the board to withhold any final action on implementation until the district provides three items: a formal fiscal impact analysis of the subcontracting provision, a legal opinion from district counsel on LAUSD’s obligations under IDEA, and a structured stakeholder process with providers and families.

Jacqueline Chavez, a clinical supervisor at the Center for Behavioral Educational and Social Therapies and a parent, told the board that district-assigned paraeducators are reassignable by administrators and do not provide the one-to-one clinical supervision that MPA-assigned behavior technicians do; she asked the board to explain how the agreement will preserve outcomes for students with significant needs.

Why it matters: Public commenters said the proposed change could reduce clinical oversight for students with disabilities and materially increase district costs. Commenters asked for verifiable fiscal and legal analysis and for a stakeholder process before implementation.

What the board heard: Requests from commenters that the board delay implementation and commission (1) a formal fiscal impact analysis, (2) a legal opinion regarding IDEA obligations, and (3) a structured stakeholder engagement process. The transcript does not record a staff response or a board commitment to those specific requests at the meeting.