Download
1 / 61
610 likes | 744 Views
Ensuring Educational Success for Children and Youth in Foster Care NAEHCY Pre-Conference November 5, 2011. Outline for Presentation. Child Welfare 101 Overview of Blueprint for Change: Education Success for Children in Foster Care (Goals 1 through 8)
E N D
Ensuring Educational Success for Children and Youth in Foster Care NAEHCY Pre-Conference November 5, 2011
Outline for Presentation Child Welfare 101 Overview of Blueprint for Change: Education Success for Children in Foster Care (Goals 1 through 8) School Stability and Continuity (Goals 1&2) McKinney-Vento Act Fostering Connections Act Case Scenarios Tools and Resources
Who are the children and youth in out-of-home care? Approx. 800,000 youth a year (1% of all US youth); over 500,000 on any day. Disproportionately children of color 71% school age; 29% under age 5 20,000-25,000 young people emancipate from the foster care system each year 3
The Whirlwind of Out-of-Home Care Removed from home/parents/siblings May not have had chance to say goodbye Uncertain about where parents/siblings are Living with strangers In strange house/room/bed Different customs/routine Other children in home Few or none of your possessions Lucky to have trash bag of belongings Uncertainty about future Where will I live? Will I return home? Where will I go to school?
How the Child Welfare System Works:FROM CPS INTAKE THROUGH TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PERMANENCY PLAN Intake Permanency Planning Assessment 72 hours Shelter Care Hearing 30 days Dependency Case Conference 45 Days 1st Set Fact-Finding DependencyPetition Placement Options: Return to parent(s) Receiving Home Care Assessment Center Family Foster Care Licensed Relative Care Unlicensed Relative Care Crisis Residential Center Therapeutic Foster Care Hospitalization Group Care Preadoptive Home 75 Days Fact-Finding Dependency Established by trial or agreement Disposition Hearing Return Home Guardianship Third Party Custody 6 Months Review Hearing Dependency Guardianship Long Term Foster Care (Youth ages out of system) 12 Months Permanency Planning Hearing Parents Relinquish Termination Trial Parental Rights Terminated Dependency Dismissed Case Closed Adoption Guardianship Dependency Guardianship Long Term Foster Care (Youth ages out of system)
Some Important Distinctions • Child Welfare system involvement • Court Involvement • Entry into state custody and placed in out-of-home care
“Child welfare system involvement” • Report of abuse • Investigation • Child welfare agency finding • Unsubstantiated • Substantiated
Court Involvement • Removal of children (or sometimes not) • Filing of a petition (emergency or non-emergency) • Preliminary Protective Hearing (Initial hearing) • Adjudicatory hearing • Dispositional hearing
Once a case exists • Review hearings: at least once every 6 months • Permanency hearings: minimum of once every 12 months • Must establish what the permanency plan for the child is at each hearing • Must make a finding that reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan have been made
Permanency Options • Reunification • Adoption • Legal guardianship • Another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA)
Studies across the country, show children in foster care are struggling academically Approximately 54% of young adults discharged from care have completed high school. Fifteen-year-olds in out-of-home care were about half as likely as other students to have graduated high school 5 years later, with significantly higher rates of dropping out (55%) or incarcerated (10%). Midwest Study showed youth in foster care on average read at only a seventh grade level after completing 10th or 11th grade. Two to four times more likely to repeat a grade. Only 2% obtain bachelor’s degree. 13
What are the educational experiences of students in out-of-home care? Of more than 1,000 foster care alumni surveyed in a Casey Family Programs national study, 68% attended 3 or more elementary schools; 33% attended 5 or more. One study showed that over two thirds of children in care changed schools shortly after initial placement in care. A University of Chicago study found that, by the 6th grade, students who had changed schools 4 or more times had lost approximately one year of educational growth. A New York study found 42% of children did not start school immediately upon entering care; half of those did not start due to lost or misplaced records. In a national study of 1,087 foster care alumni, youth who had even one fewer placement change per year were almost twice as likely to graduate from high school before leaving care. 14
Examples of the Barriers to Educational Achievement for Children in Care Lack of placement stability Delayed enrollment Children with special education needs do not access/receive services Over-representation in alternative education Confusion about legal rights
Blueprint for Change: Education Success for Children in Foster Care 8 Goals for Youth Benchmarks for each goal indicating progress toward achieving education success National, State, and Local Examples
Stakeholders: Those who affect the lives of children in foster care and must be involved in any reform • Family • Children, youth & alumni • Caregivers including parents, foster parents and relatives • Child Welfare • Caseworkers • Child Welfare Agencies • Education • Teachers & school staff • School systems • Court • Judges & Magistrates • Attorneys for all parties • Guardians Ad Litem • Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA volunteers) • Special advocates • Tribal partners • Policymaker • Advocates • State or federal legislative staff
How To Use the Blueprint Tool for direct case advocates- to enhance the education opportunity and achievement for children they serve. Guide system reform efforts; identify strengths and areas that need improvement Starting point for cross system collaboration; identify what each stakeholder can do to address particular issues
Goals for Youth Goal 1: Remain in the Same School Goal 2: Seamless Transitions Between Schools Goal 3: Young Children Are Ready to Learn Goal 4: Equal Access to the School Experience Goal 5: School Dropout, Truancy, and Disciplinary Actions Addressed Goal 6: Involving and Empowering Youth Goal 7: Supportive Adults as Advocates and Decisionmakers Goal 8: Obtaining Postsecondary Education
Goals 1 & 2 EDUCATION LAW McKinney-Vento Act CHILD WELFARE LAW Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 How do these laws overlap?
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. §11431 et. seq. Rights - • “School of Origin” • Transportation (districts split if disagree) • Immediate enrollment • Eliminates typical obstacles (records, immunication requirements) • McKinney-Vento liaisons and state coordinators
Children in Foster Care and Eligibility for McKinney-Vento • Currently, some children who are, or who have been, in out-of-home care are eligible for the benefits of the McKinney-Vento Act. • Children living in emergency or temporary shelters • Youth who have run away from foster placements and are living in a homeless situation. • Youth who have been abused or neglected and are living in a homeless situation, but have not been placed in the custody of the child welfare system. • Youth who have aged out of foster care and are living in a homeless situation, but have not graduated from high school. • The definition of children eligible under the McKinney-Vento Act includes children “awaiting foster care placement.”
Definitions of “AFCP” (Spectrum) • When child is in foster care they are not “awaiting foster care placement” and therefore are not McKinney eligible • Children in foster care in certain particularly unstable placements (such as shelter placements) are considered McKinney eligible • All children pre-adjudication or disposition are considered McKinney eligible • Children in placements expected to last less than 6 months • All children pre-finalization of permanency plan (e.g. adoption; guardianship) are McKinney eligible • All children in foster care are McKinney eligible
State examples of McKinney application • Delaware defines “awaiting foster care placement” as all children in foster care. • Massachusetts and Connecticut have reached state level agreements between their education and child welfare agencies to include certain children in foster care under McKinney Vento. • Other states and local jurisdictions have chosen to have informal policies to determine when a child in foster care is eligible under McKinney Vento.
Creating State Foster Care/Education Policies • Some states continue to debate which children in care are eligible under McKinney’s “awaiting foster care placement” and others have limited eligibility to certain subset of children in care • However, almost all agree that similar protections are NEEDED for all children in care. • Many states have sought other means of establishing these McKinney-like protections for all children in care. (Example: California AB 490- Jan. 2004) • Now with Fostering Connections, a new wave of state foster care/education legislation is underway
Foster Care and McKinney-Vento What we know: • Many children in the foster care system are being served under McKinney-Vento, but the numbers and the child’s situation vary by state. • All children in foster care need the kinds of protections provided in McKinney-Vento • McKinney-Vento is not currently designed to serve all youth in the foster care system
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 • Amends Title IV (Parts B and E) of the Social Security Act • Broad-reaching amendments to child welfare law; requires court oversight • Important provisions promoting education stability and enrollment for youth in care • Changes child welfare law, but cannot be fully realized without collaboration from education system
Appropriateness and Proximity The child’s case plan must include “assurances that the placement of a child in foster care takes into account the appropriateness of the current educational setting and the proximity to the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.” 42 U.S.C.A. 675(1)(G)(i)
School Stability The child’s case plan must include “(I) an assurance that the state [or local child welfare agency] has coordinated with appropriate local education agencies … to ensure that the child remains enrolled in the school in which the child was enrolled at the time of placement” 42 U.S.C.A. 675(1)(G)(ii). Unless moving is in the child’s best interest – in which case – go to part II (immediate enrollment).
ACYF-CB-PI-10-11 July 9, 2010 – Program Instruction Education Stability Plan must be a written part of the case plan, reviewed every 6 months. Agency could invite school personnel, agency attorneys, guardians ad litem, youth, etc. to discussions about the education stability plan. Agency is encouraged to develop standard and deliberate process for determining best interest and properly documenting the steps taken to make the determination.
Key Questions to Consider When Making a Best Interest Determination How long is the child’s current placement expected to last? What is the child’s permanency plan? How many schools has the child attended over the past few years? How many schools has the child attended this year? How have the school transfers affected the child emotionally, academically and physically? How strong is the child academically? To what extent are the programs and activities at the potential new school comparable to or better than those at the current school? Does one school have programs and activities that address the unique needs or interests of the student that the other school does not have? Which school does the student prefer?
Key Questions to Consider When Making a BI determination cont…. How deep are the child’s ties to his or her current school? Would the timing of the school transfer coincide with a logical juncture such as after testing, after an event that is significant to the child, or at the end of the school year? How would changing schools affect the student’s ability to earn full credits, participate in sports or other extra-curricular activities, proceed to the next grade, or graduate on time? How would the length of the commute to the school of origin impact the child? How anxious is the child about having been removed from the home and/or any upcoming moves? What school do the child’s siblings attend? Are there any safety issues to consider?
ACYF-CB-PI-10-11 July 9, 2010 Program Instruction Examples of Best Interest Factors: Child’s preference Safety of the child Appropriateness of current educational programs in current or other school and how the schools can serve the child’s needs (including special education) COST SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR!
Transportation The term foster care maintenance payments includes “reasonable travel for the child to remain in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.” 42 U.S.C.A. 675(4)(A). July 2010 Program Instruction reiterates previous guidance that Title IV-E administrative costs can be used for school transportation.
Transportation: Considerations Permissible use of Administrative Costs or Foster Care Maintenance Payments (only applies to IV-E eligible children in care). Can be paid to child’s provider or separately to the transportation provider. Some children may already be receiving transportation from other sources (M-V, IDEA, etc.) State match required. Reimbursement to foster care provider or caretaker, transportation provider, etc. Extracurricular transportation, school meetings, etc.
Enrolling in a New School If remaining in the same school is not in the best interest of the child, the child’s case plan must include “(II) … assurances by the State agency and the local education agencies to provide immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school, with all of the education records of the child provided to the school.” 42 U.S.C.A. 675(1)(G)(ii).
Enrollment In New School Issues • How are immediate and appropriate defined? • Requires collaboration between school and child welfare agency. • How to ensure records follow student?
State Implementation of Education Provisions of Fostering Connections • Many states have or will pursue legislation or other policy changes to be in compliance with Fostering Connections • Provides an opportunity to incorporate some of the known strengths of McKinney-Vento into child welfare/education state policy; such as: • Creation of a liaison or key point of contact in both child welfare and education agencies • Requirement for education agency to coordinate • Consider state funding streams to support school of origin transportation for children in foster care who are not McKinney eligible • Creation of protocols for best interest determinations as well as process for dispute resolution • Identifying role of the court in these processes given the children in care are court involved.
Fostering Connections Myths • Children in foster care won’t be MV eligible anymore, now that there is Fostering Connections. • False. Children in foster care can be eligible under both laws. McKinney eligibility is determined by state interpretation of MV and AFCP • Children in foster care don’t need MV eligibility anymore, now that there is Fostering Connections. • False. MV provides far greater rights and protections for eligible children, so the greatest protection for children in foster care is eligibility under both.
Fostering Connections Myths, cont… • Child welfare agencies and advocates now get to determine which children are eligible under MV. • False. MV eligibility is still determined in the same way it has always been for all MV eligible students. Child welfare agencies are now focused on best interest determinations as well, as it relates to FC, but these determinations do not replace the MV eligibility process in place in states. Child welfare advocates views on best interest should be factored into MV eligibility determinations.
Fostering Connections Myths, cont.. • Now that there is Fostering Connections, child welfare agencies automatically take the place of the parent when making education decisions for the child. • False. Nothing about Fostering Connections changes the role of parents to be involved in education decisions for the child. The parent’s role in MV decisions, before and after Fostering Connections, may be impacted by statute or court determination.
Fostering Connections Myths, cont… • Children in foster care who are eligible under MV now must have transportation costs to remain in their home school covered under IV-E child welfare dollars. • False. Children in care eligible under MV who require transportation to remain in their same school are still entitled to transportation by the school in accordance with MV, although child welfare agencies should collaborate to support those efforts as much as possible. All children in foster care are not eligible under IV-E, making MV support for transportation costs even more critical for those children.
How Can Fostering Connections Helps McKinney Vento Liaisons? For Children in Care who are McKinney-Vento eligible: • Requires child welfare agencies to focus on education stability for children care, including court oversight to ensure accountability • Child welfare agencies are a partner to the liaisons in ensuring school stability • Requires child welfare agencies to consider proximity to the child’s home schools when making living placement changes- which may decrease school mobility • Opportunity to further stabilize children who fluctuate between foster care involvement and homeless situations.
How can McKinney Vento liaisons help with Fostering Connections Implementation? For children in care who AREN’T McKinney Vento eligible • While not part of official MV duties, you could be the critical link between child welfare and your school or district • Implementation of FC in your school or district can be benefited from successes learned from MV implementation • Enrollment protocols and record transfer policies • Best interest determinations; dispute resolution • Transportation arrangements or agreements • Helping to implement Fostering Connections for children in foster care, including use of IV-E maintenance dollars to support transportation needs, could help stabilize the child in a more permanent (non MV eligible living placement) and avoid a move to a temporary (MV eligible) placement.
Case Example: RICKY Fourteen-year-old Ricky and his 8-year-old sister Tracey have been in the custody of the Department of Human Services for several years, placed in the same foster home. Two weeks ago (October 15th), Ricky’s foster family contacted his case worker to inform her they could no longer have Ricky in their home. With little time to find an alternate placement, the case worker has secured a space for Ricky in the Capital City Youth Center. It is unclear how long Ricky will remain at Capital City, although his permanency plan calls for adoption. A court hearing is scheduled for next month.
