Families of students with disabilities have reported waiting without acknowledgment or follow-up from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) after staffing reductions and regional-office closures in 2025. Their accounts describe a harder-to-navigate federal complaint process, but the available evidence does not establish a national average wait or how long disability complaints take now.
That distinction matters: recalling employees does not, by itself, show that the federal complaint system is working as before. The central accountability question is whether the Education Department can demonstrate that families receive timely, meaningful reviews—and explain the costs and consequences of the choices that interrupted that work.
Restoring staff did not answer what happened to enforcement
In March 2025, the department placed 299 of OCR’s 575 employees on paid administrative leave and closed seven of its 12 regional offices. OCR enforces federal laws barring discrimination in education, including discrimination based on disability. The laws it enforces cover more than 70 million students, according to the Government Accountability Office, the federal watchdog.
The department recalled employees affected by the reduction-in-force in December 2025 and rescinded those actions in early January 2026. Those steps matter, but they do not establish whether the closed offices reopened, how cases were reassigned or whether complaint processing returned to its previous condition. Current staffing levels and office locations are not established in the available reporting.
The Education Department told GAO that OCR kept up with its workload and fulfilled its mission without the employees affected by the March action. It said recalled employees would help enforce existing complaints. That account should be tested against what families experienced, not treated as proof that access to enforcement remained intact.
From March through September 2025, OCR received more than 9,000 discrimination complaints and reported resolving more than 7,000. GAO found that about 90% of those resolutions were dismissals. Those figures cover discrimination complaints overall—not disability complaints alone—and do not show how many cases received substantive investigation.
Advocates described another measure of the system: whether families heard anything back. Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy at The Arc of Texas, told PBS News that parents reported waiting without feedback or requests for more details. Those accounts do not quantify delays nationwide. They do show the practical problem when a family cannot tell what is happening after submitting a complaint.
For families, silence can make rights harder to use
A federal complaint is one possible route when conversations with teachers, principals, district leaders or state officials do not resolve a concern. OCR investigates civil-rights complaints. The Education Department’s Office of Special Education Programs has a different role: it oversees state reviews and supports and monitors special-education implementation. The two offices’ functions are related, but not interchangeable.
The distinction matters when a family is trying to secure a disability accommodation or challenge discrimination. Without confirmation, follow-up or a clear decision, parents may struggle to know whether a complaint is being considered, what information is needed or what other steps remain available. The reporting describes families who received no acknowledgment or little contact, not a measured national pattern of specific wait times.
Colleen Potts, a supervising attorney at Disability Rights Texas, said her team stopped receiving acknowledgments after OCR’s Dallas office closed. She also said she directed attorneys not to spend time and resources filing OCR complaints. The reporting presents those as separate details; it does not establish that one caused the other. Potts also described uncertainty about where complaints went, underscoring how an office closure can make the process harder for families and advocates to navigate.
The burden of finding another route is not evenly distributed. Denise Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, said families whose complaints are dismissed or unanswered may have to pursue state remedies or hire an attorney, if they can afford one. A process that formally remains open can still be difficult to use when families cannot get a response and the alternative may require legal help.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
Liz Piñón’s experience is also a reminder that federal enforcement was not flawless before the cuts. OCR rejected her complaint about her daughter’s access to a school cheerleading team in July 2024, before the staffing reductions. Piñón nevertheless described the office as providing an additional layer of rights-related guidance and technical assistance. Her case does not establish discrimination; it illustrates why a federal channel can matter even when it does not give a family the outcome it sought.
The cuts need a public accounting, not just a reversal
GAO found that the Education Department had not demonstrated that it accounted for all potential costs and savings from the reduction and reorganization. The watchdog recommended that the department estimate and document them. Education disagreed, arguing that the recommendation was moot because it had rescinded the reduction-in-force actions; GAO maintained its recommendation.
GAO estimated up to $38 million in salary and benefits paid from March through December 2025 to OCR staff who were not working during the period it examined. It said other costs were unknown. That is an estimate of personnel costs, not a finding that the cuts saved or wasted a particular net amount. But it sharpens the question behind the department’s efficiency rationale: officials should show what they counted, what they did not, and how they weighed the consequences for enforcement.
The Education Department’s account is that OCR met its workload during the staffing disruption and that recalled staff would help address existing complaints. In April 2026, Education Secretary Linda McMahon described departmental changes as necessary for accountability and efficiency. Those statements explain the administration’s rationale, but families’ reports and GAO’s finding on incomplete cost accounting make transparent measures essential to evaluating the choices.
The system had weaknesses before the cuts. In 2025, only 21 states met federal special-education requirements, according to the PBS account. Texas, placed on a five-year corrective action plan after a federal investigation in 2018, met those requirements for the first time in years in 2025 after federal monitoring and corrective action. That example does not prove every federal intervention works. It does show why state-level enforcement cannot simply be assumed to replace federal oversight when state compliance is at issue.
In June 2026, the Education Department announced that the Justice Department would take a larger role in civil-rights investigations. The available reporting does not specify the new division of responsibilities, resources or procedures. Without those details, families cannot know whether the shift strengthens the route to enforcement or adds another point of uncertainty.
Officials should publish current staffing and office information, explain where complaints from the closed offices went, and report how many complaints received substantive investigation or other meaningful review. They should also report disability complaints and their outcomes separately, and complete the cost-and-savings analysis GAO recommended. Rescinding the staff actions reversed one decision; whether students can secure a meaningful federal review remains the test.