traviscountymodelcourtforchildren&families ...€¦ · !|page!! 2! i.! introduction!...

Travis County Model Court for Children & Families

Report and Recommendations from the

Education Advocacy Pilot

August 2013

| P a g e

1

STANDING MEMBERS OF THE MODEL COURT EDUCATION COMMITTEE Erica Brewington, Education Specialist, CPS Region 7, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Edna Butts, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Austin Independent School District Kathleen Christensen, Vice President, Student Support and Success Systems, Austin Community College Sherry DiMarco, Social Worker/At-‐Risk Specialist, Region 13 Education Service Center Heather Dooley, Social Worker, Travis County Office of Child Representation Lori Duke, Clinical Professor, Children’s Rights Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law (Committee co-‐Chair and Report Author) Helen Gaebler, Senior Research Attorney, William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law, The University of Texas School of Law (Committee Co-‐Chair and Report Author) Linda Kokemor, Executive Director, Settlement Home Beverly Reeves, District Ombudsman, Austin Independent School District Key Richardson, Program Director, CASA of Travis County Christina Sauceda, Case Worker Manager, Crossover Unit and JPO Assistant Unit, Travis County Juvenile Probation Department Jeanne Stamp, Senior Program Coordinator, Homeless Education Office, Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Texas The Committee would like to thank the Austin Independent School District staff and administration and the volunteers and supervisors at CASA of Travis County for their willingness to participate in the Education Advocacy Pilot and for their ongoing technical assistance throughout the life of the project. Thank you also to Therese Edmiston, UT Law ’13, for excellent research assistance. Finally, whereas the Pilot was designed and implemented by the Committee as a whole, any errors contained in this report are the authors’ alone. Question regarding the report or the pilot should be directed to Helen Gaebler at [email protected].

| P a g e

2

I. Introduction

The Travis County Model Court for Children and Families is a Multidisciplinary Community Initiative started in September, 2008, to help facilitate systemic improvement of the court and child welfare systems. Much of the work of the Model Court is undertaken through annual initiatives. The Education Initiative was one of three Model Court projects selected for 2011-‐2012 and later approved to continue a second year to implement the Education Advocacy pilot.

The Education Initiative was charged with seeking ways to improve education outcomes, stability, and school experience for youth in Travis County who are under the care of Child Protective Services. Mirroring the national data, Travis County’s foster youth frequently experience significantly poorer educational outcomes than the general child population. For example, foster youth tend to have lower high school achievement (58.8% versus 17.5%), a lower graduation rate (36.1% versus 66.8%), and a higher dropout rate (33.2% versus 10.4%).1 Educational challenges are not unique to foster youth, but these children often face numerous additional hurdles when trying to succeed academically, including multiple placement and school changes, therapeutic or other needs that must be addressed during school hours, missing school to visit with parents or siblings, and a chaotic educational history prior to entering foster care in the first place. Indeed, Travis County’s foster youth who are in care between 7th and 12th grades will experience, on average, nine different home placements (triggering multiple school changes) over those five years.2

To successfully implement any education reform requires the support and partnership of all of the systems involved with these children. Working by committee, the Education Initiative convened stakeholders from across the child welfare and educational spectrum,3 to discuss key educational issues negatively affecting our youth in care. Identifying specific outcome goals, the committee next designed and implemented a pilot to try and address these issues. This report provides a summary of the work of the Education Initiative, including findings and recommendations from the Education Advocacy pilot.

II. Pilot Design and Implementation

During the committee’s initial discussions, members identified specific hurdles they had personally observed relating to children transitioning to new schools, including, timely enrollment and transfer of records; early assessment of any unmet needs, including both academic and extra-‐curricular; ensuring the accurate and timely flow of information to all relevant parties; and credit recovery. Four outcome goals emerged from these discussions, providing the basis on which to design the pilot:

1 Data is from 2008-‐2009 PEIMS. See Education Unplugged: Students in Foster Care, CLE Presentation by Joy Surratt Baskin, Director, Texas Association of School Boards Legal Services, May 21, 2013. As used here, “academic achievement” is defined as “Distinguished,” “Recommended,” or “Minimum/IEP.” The data above identifies the relative percentage of youth achieving the minimum/IEP standards. See also, Improving Education Outcomes for Children in Child Welfare, PolicyLab Research Institute, Evidence to Action Brief, Spring 2013 (presenting data from the Children Stability and Well-‐Being study), http://policylab.us/images/pdf/PolicyLab_CSAW_Brief_Final.pdf. 2 Id. 3 While individual membership on the committee varied over the two years, the following organizations were consistently represented by one or more active participants: Child Protective Services (CPS), Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), Austin Independent School District (AISD), Children’s Rights Clinic (CRC), Office of Child Representation (OCR), Travis County Juvenile Probation, Settlement Home, Austin Community College, The Charles Dana Center at the University of Texas, and The William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law.

| P a g e

3

• Improve communication among the Court, CPS, and Schools. • Ease enrollment / transition periods. • Promote stable enrollment. • Ensure educational success is a priority throughout a child’s time in care.

In light of the frequent and serious complaints regarding credit recovery and the negative impact of lost credits on overall academic progress and graduation rates, the committee chose to focus the pilot on children who were at least 12-‐years old when the CPS petition was filed. Other pilot eligibility criteria included: (1) enrollment in AISD following the initial placement after removal, (2) legal representation by CRC or OCR, and (3) naming CPS as temporary managing conservator of the child.4

The scope of the pilot was limited to 10-‐20 participants due to resource constraints, including the additional burden to CASA from early appointment and AISD’s capacity to perform need assessments for all pilot participants. Two additional unanticipated constraints further limited the pilot’s scope. First, many children who might otherwise have qualified for the pilot were not enrolling in AISD facilities at the time of their initial placement.5 Second, both the Office of Child Representation and the Children’s Rights Clinic accepted fewer new cases than anticipated. In the end, seven youth were accepted into the pilot over a period of six months.

The pilot was designed around a series of interventions intended to provide the student with enhanced educational support and advocacy. The idea was to bring greater accountability and oversight to some of the processes and resources that already formally exist, but perhaps are less than fully implemented in current practice.

Early Appointment: Attorney ad Litems (AALs) were to request CASA appointment for pilot-‐eligible cases within 1-‐2 days of the ex parte hearing. The goal was for CASA to be appointed within 2-‐3 days of the ex parte hearing. This is up to two weeks earlier than CASA typically is assigned to cases under current practice. The hypothesis was that early appointment would provide additional oversight during the important transitions that occur, or should occur, in the first few days that a child is moved to a new placement.

Enhanced Communication: As quickly as possible, but at least within one week of CASA’s appointment, CASA was to provide the school counselor with a copy of the Court Order appointing CASA and contact information for all advocates involved in the case. Also within this same time frame, CASA was to confirm the transfer of previous school records, including any special education records. For their part, OCR and CRC were to notify AISD’s foster liaison as soon as a child was accepted into the pilot. The AISD foster liaison, in turn, was to notify the assigned school counselor that the child was enrolled in the pilot and provide information about the pilot protocols and

4 Because of the difficulty identifying pilot eligible youth, eligibility was expanded to include court ordered services (COS) cases. The time period for accepting youth into the pilot was also expanded from three to six months. 5 Several theories for this were considered by the committee, including that older children may enter care with more serious needs and, as a result, be more likely to be placed in therapeutic settings, which typically operate their own charter school. A second alternative is that a shortage of foster homes for this age group in Austin means that more of the youth are being placed in foster homes or with relatives living outside AISD.

| P a g e

4

expectations. The hypothesis was that establishing relationships and identifying lines of communication early would facilitate more complete and better-‐informed information sharing.

Needs Assessment Referral: Within two weeks of CASA’s appointment, the assigned CASA was to request an in-‐school needs assessment of each pilot participant. Though not formally a Child Study Team (CST) referral, as that term is used in AISD, the goal was for this team of school-‐based professionals to undertake a multi-‐factor review of the student to identify any existing unmet needs and to formulate a plan for addressing these needs. The hypothesis was that performing an early needs assessment would identify unmet needs and academic gaps, and allow the school and CPS to initiate quickly and proactively the supports needed to help the child find educational success.

In addition to these specific interventions, CASA supervisors and volunteers were offered two hours of training on the pilot protocols, AISD resources and procedures (including how to access Gradespeed), and general educational advocacy practice tips. Trainers included representatives from Disability Rights Texas, AISD, Settlement Home, CRC, and CPS. The training also went over two new checklists created to help CASA track each student’s academic progress and to assist with identifying continuing gaps or unmet needs. (Copies of the Protocols, Checklists, and Educational Resource Lists are attached at Appendix A.)

III. Methodology

Quantitative and qualitative data was collected at the end of the 2012-‐13 academic year to assess whether pilot protocols were followed and to evaluate any outcomes. CASA supervisors and volunteers were asked to collect case file data and to complete surveys. They also participated in a group discussion to assess the pilot and possible future recommendations. The school counselors assigned to the children were asked to respond to a survey with questions about their contacts with CASA and the child’s academic progress. Because some of the children in the pilot attended multiple schools, the pilot included a total of nine school counselors, eight of whom returned the survey. The findings described below are summarized from the CASA surveys, the CASA meeting, and the counselor surveys. (Copies of the CASA and School Counselor surveys are attached at Appendix B.)

Unfortunately, the limited size of the pilot undermines any opportunity to extrapolate from the quantitative data to larger findings. A second limit to the data is the fact that the students enrolled in the pilot were not necessarily “typical” of the children involved in Travis County CPS cases. Although selected in the order in which they appeared on the CPS docket, only three of the children in this pilot enrolled in a new school (two of them at secured facilities) at the time the CPS case commenced. The other four children remained in their prior school setting, at least initially, thereby limiting enrollment-‐type issues requiring attention.

Notwithstanding these limits, the data displays some trends that are of interest for designing future studies. The information gathered from the related surveys and interviews provides additional supporting descriptive evidence.

| P a g e

5

IV. Findings

Seven children ranging from sixth to twelfth grade met the eligibility criteria. For one of these children, the CPS case was dismissed at the initial (262) hearing, thus only limited data is available from the days leading up to this hearing.

Months in Pilot Program

Grade Level Placement(s) Number of Schools Attended

#1 4 Sixth Grade • Placed with relative • Moved to foster home

1

#2 3 High School • Placed with foster home • Moved to fictive kin • Moved in with mother after aging out of care

1

#3 8 High School • Placed with fictive kin • Moved to shelter • Moved to foster home • Moved to respite home • Moved to RTC • Moved back to initial placement (fictive kin)

3

#4 8 High School • Placed with fictive kin • Moved to relative

1

#5 6.5 High School • Detained at secure facility • Moved to RTC

2

#6 3.5 High School • Remained with parents

1

#7 1 High School • Detained at secure facility

2

Goal #1: Early Appointment

The education pilot protocols instructed the AALs to request CASA appointment for education-‐pilot eligible cases within 1-‐2 days of receiving the ex parte appointment order. The goal was for CASA to be appointed within 2-‐3 days of the ex parte hearing.

| P a g e

6

FINDINGS: In only three of the seven cases did the AALs request CASA appointment within 1-‐2 business days of the ex parte hearing. For the other cases, the AALs requested CASA appointment relatively quickly, or on average 2.83 business days after the ex parte hearing. Also, for five of the seven cases, CASA was appointed within the desired 2-‐3 day time frame. For the other two cases, CASA was not appointed until 8 business days after the ex parte hearing.

AAL request for CASA appointment-‐ # of business days after the ex parte hearing

CASA appointment-‐ # of business days after the ex parte hearing

CASA appointment-‐ # of business days before the 262 hearing

#1 2 3 2 #2 3 3 4 #3 3 3 4 #4 5 8 3 #5 2 2 4 #6 unknown 8 0 #7 2 2 4 Average 2.83 4.14 3.00

Number of Business Days AFTER the Ex Parte Hearing

Number of Business Days BEFORE the 262 Hearing

0

2

4

6

8

10

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Average

AAL Request for CASA

CASA Appointment

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Average

AAL Contact

CASA Appointment

| P a g e

7

School counselors were asked whether CASA’s early appointment had affected the timing of their first meeting with the child. Of the eight counselors, one indicated that CASA’s early appointment affected the timing, while the other seven said that early appointment did not affect the timing. These seven counselors had already met with the children prior to CASA’s appointment or have a regular practice of meeting with at-‐risk students. One counselor indicated CASA’s early appointment did encourage an earlier meeting with the child. This counselor typically meets with students by request only, and CASA requested a meeting shortly after appointment.

Even though the school counselors generally did not find that CASA’s early appointment changed the timing of their meetings with the children, they nonetheless believed that CASA’s early appointment was useful to their work with the children. Of the eight school counselors, six found early appointment useful in working with the child, while only two did not. These two counselors were not benefitted by CASA’s early appointment, however, because the children transferred to these schools after the commencement of the CPS case and CASA’s appointment

.

DISCUSSION: Despite CASA’s appointment occurring more quickly than is typical, the CASA supervisors and volunteers felt that their appointment did not occur far enough in advance of the 262 hearing to adequately prepare or make a difference at that pivotal hearing regarding educational issues. Only one CASA supervisor believed she was appointed far enough ahead of the 262 hearing to provide helpful placement recommendations at that hearing. The other CASAs indicated that earlier appointment, such as appointment on the date of the ex parte hearing, would allow CASA more time to visit the child and present recommendations for both living and school placements at the 262 hearing. The school counselors do not seem to believe that early appointment changes the timing of their meetings with the child, but do find early CASA appointment useful to their work with the child and specifically noted the added benefit of having more people actively advocating on behalf of these children. Presumably, the counselors too would support earlier appointment, such as appointment at ex parte.

CONCLUSIONS: Earlier appointment, ideally at the ex parte hearing or as early as possible in advance of the 262 hearing, would allow CASA to investigate and recommend alternative school placement options, including to stay in the home school, or to assist with school records and credits transfer if the child is to be moved to a new school. A major concern expressed with earlier CASA appointment, however, is the added strain imposed on CASA staff and volunteer capacity. A second concern is the lack of placement

Did CASA's early appointment benefit your work with the

child?

Yes (6)

Did CASA's early appointment affect the cming of your first

meecng with the child?

Yes (1)

| P a g e

8

information that is available or communicated by the agency on which to base any enhanced educational focus at this early stage. Obtaining information about educational options for a particular placement is complicated by the fact that the child placing unit (CPU) does not have educational information mapped to placement options. Simply put, CPU cannot search for a foster home in a particular school attendance zone. Another complication is that when children are placed with relatives, those relatives may not know which school the child will attend. At the ex parte hearing, then, a judge approves or makes placement decisions that will necessarily impact education options. Since only the CPS caseworker and department’s attorney are present at this stage, it is nearly impossible for ad litems to impact placement and educational decisions until the full adversarial hearing. If there is better information about school boundaries for particular placements, early appointment of CASA and AALs can explore and advocate on the child’s behalf around this issue

Goal #2: Enhanced Communication

The education pilot protocols instructed CASA to maintain regular contact with the counselor and to provide the counselor with a list of child welfare contacts. The goal was for CASA to contact the school counselor within one week of appointment.

FINDINGS: Most of the CASA supervisors and volunteers indicated on their surveys or at the meeting that they maintained contact with the school counselor. All but one CASA indicated that s/he provided a list of child welfare contacts to the school counselor. In contrast, five of the eight school counselors said they had not received any list.

CASA also were asked whether the protocols led them to have earlier contact with the school personnel. Only one CASA indicated that her contact with the school was earlier in this case than was typical for her other work. A second CASA had no basis of comparison, since this was her first case. The other CASA did specifically indicate whether their first school contact was made earlier in this case than in other cases. Since all of the CASA were appointed early (pre-‐262 hearing) in the pilot, it is likely that initial school contacts were also earlier than is typical for non-‐pilot cases. What is not known for five of the CASA volunteers is whether the contact was undertaken any faster following the date of appointment than in past cases.

| P a g e

9

Date of First CASA Contact with Counselor

Number of Other Dates of Contact with Counselor(s) or School(s)

List of Child Welfare Contacts Provided to Counselor? (CASA/ Counselor)

#1 4 business days after CASA appointment.

At least 2 other dates of contact. Yes / No

#2 Data unavailable. Frequent contact with counselor and principal.

Yes / Yes

#3 Data unavailable. Frequent contact with counselors and administrators at all schools.

Yes / First school Yes, Second school No




At least 1 other date of contact. No / First school No, Second school Yes



Average 7.75 business days after CASA appointment.

At least 5 other dates of contact.

0

5

10

15

20

#1 #4 #5 #6 Average

Total Number of CASA Meecngs/Calls with School

Number of Dates of Contact

0

5

10

15

20

#1 #4 #5 #6 Average

CASA's First Contact with School Counselor

Number of Days Aner Appointment

| P a g e

10

DISCUSSION: On average, CASA contacted school counselors within about one week of appointment, as per the education pilot protocols. Most volunteers also maintained frequent contact with the school counselors. The school counselors found this contact to be useful, particularly when the counselors were unsure of the CPS process or contacts. For example, one counselor indicated that CASA contact was useful given that the CPS caseworker assignment changed three times.

In contrast, some CASA supervisors and volunteers found the counselors were not always informed about the child’s academic performance and had better luck talking with teachers or administrators. For example, in one case when CASA called the school counselor to inquire about a child’s suspension and placement in the Alternative Learning Center (ALC), the counselor was unaware the school had taken these actions.

Finally, for all but one of the six cases, CASA reported providing a child welfare contact list; yet many school counselors reported that they did not receive this list. There are a number of possible reasons for this discrepancy. A few of the children changed schools, for example, and some CASA volunteers may have indicated that they provided the list even if it was provided only to the first school. Alternatively, some school counselors may not have realized what the list was when they received it or may have forgotten receiving such a list.

CONCLUSIONS: Because of the challenges encountered in maintaining contact with the school counselors, CASA suggested that when its volunteers are assigned to children attending the same school, they work together to figure out which school staff member is best to contact. Alternatively, CASA would like to see one staff member designated as the foster contact at each school. AISD may want to consider appointing a counselor, social worker, or Communities in Schools staff to this role. The school counselors recommend that all parties, including the counselor, CASA, and CPS increase communication with the school regarding the child’s academic needs.

Goal #3: Early Needs Assessment

The education pilot protocols instructed CASA to request a “needs assessment” meeting and for AISD to undertake the needs assessment meeting in a timely manner. As the Education Advocate, CASA was tasked with monitoring implementation of any recommendations coming out of the assessment.

FINDINGS: In five out of the six eligible cases, CASA made a formal request to the school counselor to hold a “needs assessment” meeting. The meeting was to be structured similarly to AISD’s existing Child Study Team (CST) process, but without the formal reporting requirements triggered by CST meetings. The assessment was intended to provide an opportunity for CASA, school personnel, and possibly other child welfare advocates to discuss any existing unmet academic needs and to identify possible supports for the child, including tutoring or enhanced after-‐school activities.

| P a g e

11

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 Meeting requested?

Yes Yes Yes Yes No6 Yes

Meeting held?

No Yes Yes No No No

DISCUSSION: Three of the five requested needs assessments were never held. The CASA supervisors and volunteers described many school-‐based roadblocks to scheduling and holding these meetings. Regarding Child #1, for example, the school refused to hold a special meeting for a child with no special education needs. CASA believes this school may not have been notified about holding CST-‐style assessments for children in the education pilot program. Regarding Child #4, the counselors and assistant principal insisted to CASA that other interventions needed to precede a CST meeting. Finally, regarding Child #6, CASA requested and scheduled a needs assessment for May 2013, however, on the date of the meeting a disciplinary incident occurred and the meeting was cancelled following the child’s suspension from school.

A needs assessment was held for Child #2 and Child #3 (the children are siblings and attending the same school at that time, so a joint assessment was convened). Attendees included the CASA supervisor, CASA volunteer, school administrators, school counselors, a dropout prevention specialist, and a credit recovery instructor. Child #2 attended the assessment; Child #3 was absent from school and did not attend. For Child #2, meeting attendees discussed progress towards graduation. They planned her participating in the Twilight credit recovery program and online TAKS preparation. For Child #3, meeting attendees discussed school attendance, recommending participation in a truancy program or an alternative educational setting (i.e., credit recovery high school or GED program).

CASA felt the needs assessment was helpful for Child #2, but not for Child #3. The school did not enroll Child #3 in the truancy program before she was moved to a different placement and school district. CASA was also in the process of scheduling a special education assessment for Child #3 when she was moved to a new school.

CONCLUSIONS: School-‐based confusion and roadblocks prevented the early needs assessments from occurring in most of the pilot cases. CASA suggested that CASA representatives attend school staff trainings to provide information about CASA’s role, the benefit of early assessments to identify unmet needs, and planning other academic interventions for foster youth.

Goal #4: Enhanced Monitoring of Academic Progress

The education pilot protocols instructed CASA to monitor the child’s academic progress and provide regular updates to the Court, including notifying the Court of any outstanding academic concerns or continuing unmet needs.

6 A needs assessment meeting was not requested or held for Child #5 due to the temporary nature of his initial placements. Note, however, that “temporary” in this case meant remaining in a secure facility for approximately two months prior to being moved to the RTC where the child remained as of May 15, 2013.

| P a g e

12

FINDINGS: CASA supervisors and volunteers were instrumental in keeping the Court and the child advocates informed about academic progress and concerns. In court reports and other correspondence with child advocates, CASA provided substantive updates on the children’s struggles with attendance, grades, or discipline in school.

Attendance Grades Discipline Interventions #1 Some tardies Passing grades, but

missing assignments N/A Tutoring

#2 Some unexcused absences and tardies

Passing grades N/A Credit recovery program

#3 Frequent unexcused absences and tardies

Failing grades. At age 17, three credits out of twenty-‐two needed to graduate.

N/A GED program


Failing at least one class In-‐school suspension and sent to ALC for ten days

N/A

#5 Mandatory attendance at RTC school

Passing grades N/A Special education services


Failing grades Suspended Credit recovery program

Due to CASA’s ongoing monitoring of academic progress, most of the school counselors believed that participation in the education pilot had benefitted the child. Of the eight school counselors, five said pilot participation had benefitted the child, while three did not identify any specific benefit. The school counselors who found the pilot to be beneficial indicated that the pilot allowed the counselor to use CASA as a designated contact person regarding the child, and allowed the child to build relationships with supportive adults. The school counselors who did not find the pilot beneficial did not have contact with child advocates or CASA, or said the child was not enrolled in the school long enough to determine the impact of the pilot.

DISCUSSION: CASA had access to AISD’s electronic grade and attendance records system (Gradespeed). At the CASA meeting, CASA supervisors and volunteers said this was helpful in monitoring the children’s grades and daily attendance. Several CASA volunteers made special efforts to call the children or their placements to determine why they were frequently absent and to encourage better attendance. However, CASA described resistance both from the teenagers, who were reluctant to attend school, and from some of the placements, who were doubtful or unhelpful in identifying ways to improve attendance.

Did you find pilot parccipacon beneficial to the child?

Yes (5) No (3)

| P a g e

13

The pilot was CASA’s first experience accessing Gradespeed. The benefits from being able to monitor in real time grade and attendance information has led CASA to utilize Gradespeed in many of its cases.

CONCLUSIONS: CASA actively monitored the children’s academic progress, but found that its efforts to address observed concerns were often thwarted. Advocating for interventions at the school-‐level takes significant time and effort, and in some of the cases children were moved to different schools before the sought-‐after interventions could be instituted. In other cases, school personnel appeared to the CASA to be uninformed or unhelpful in identifying and implementing interventions. One suggestion for improvement came from a school counselor who suggested that CASA’s interventions might be more impactful if determined and discussed at a pre-‐enrollment meeting between CASA and the counselor (prior to the child enrolling in a new school). For its part, CASA suggested that educational interventions should not be limited to high school students, but should start at the elementary schools.

V. Recommendations

Drawing on the experiences of those involved in the education advocacy pilot and based on conversations and survey responses from CASA, school counselors, AALs, and individual committee members, the Education Initiative committee proposes the following recommendations for improving school outcomes for Travis County youth in care. While many more recommendations might be made following additional research and study, the following list identifies practices that, if they were in place could improve educational outcomes for foster youth in Travis County.

1. Designate campus-‐based “Champions” to facilitate faster and better communication. AISD and the other Travis County school districts should designate campus-‐based “champions.” These designees would serve as the primary point of contact for connecting case representatives with the appropriate individuals and resources within the school. The goal is to provide case workers, CASA, AALs, and others involved in the case with quick access to information and answers, when issues arise involving CPS-‐involved youth. Foster liaisons can provide assistance addressing educational barriers, but it would be even more helpful – both for school personnel as well as the case representatives -‐-‐ to have an individual familiar with CPS and Court procedures, who can facilitate information sharing even more quickly and with knowledge of the players and informal practices unique to each campus.

2. Increase real time access to educational records. CASA, AALs, CPS, and Caregivers should proactively utilize all available means for electronically monitoring a child’s attendance, grades, discipline, or other school related information. CASA’s use of Gradespeed in this pilot proved extremely useful in identifying problems early, which in turn can help to avoid larger crises down the road. For its part, AISD has an even more robust electronic database for its students which could provide case-‐involved individuals a more complete picture of the relevant educational issues. AISD and the other Travis County school districts should be encouraged to provide as much real time information to those working with these youth as permitted under FERPA or other applicable law.

| P a g e

14

3. Continue CASA’s early appointment and role as designated “Education Advocate.” Although the circumstances of the pilot-‐eligible cases did not involve the typical front end transitional issues, CASA’s role as the designated “Education Advocate” nevertheless played a helpful role in terms of bringing enhanced attention and monitoring to the educational issues that routinely come up in these cases. And just as providing a designated campus-‐based contact person would prove helpful to all parties in these cases, so too, the school counselors were overwhelmingly positive in their opinion that having CASA involved early and as the “designated” education point of contact was helpful to school personnel trying to navigate the court / CPS process from outside the case. So too, early appointment of CASA may prompt greater review of and encourage additional input into CPS’s initial placement decision-‐making.

4. Identify a process by which each school/district will perform an early needs assessment for any

CPS-‐involved youth. Unfortunately, the pilot failed to make much headway in terms of finding a way to effectively and proactively identify unmet educational needs. To do so requires a school district’s willingness to perform a needs assessment early and for all foster youth, even where no specific problems have yet been identified. In this instance, AISD was on board at the highest level with performing these assessments. Even so, campus-‐based resistance or misunderstanding of the nature or purpose of an assessment created barriers. Additional training and advanced communication might overcome some of the resistance, but limited resources and the often short timeframe in which to accomplish the assessment before a foster child moves on to another school creates significant hurdles that will need to be addressed. A recent educational pilot (the TRIO grant) implemented in select Houston schools utilized enrollment conferences, which may provide a more workable method for filling this same need. A report from this pilot is forthcoming and will deserve close review in terms of searching for processes that would work for the Travis County school districts. (A chart of foster youth education reform projects from around the United States, including websites and brief descriptions, is attached at Appendix C.)

5. Institute cross-‐training for educators and case personnel to identify areas of frequent concern and to ensure everyone working with the youth fully understands the CPS process. Training should involve anyone who works with or makes decisions involving this population of children, including school administrators, counselors, and school leadership. The Court can take a lead role in facilitating this training through CLE workshops and other training opportunities. Training should be made available to AALs, school personnel, CASA, and caregivers (including parents and relative placements).7

6. Provide a copier and printer in the courtroom waiting area to use to copy educational and other case related documents. The Court can play an important role in facilitating the exchange of information between the parties. Although some educational records can be retrieved electronically, most are still only available in paper format. The time and delay that often

7 CASA of Travis County, based on its work with the Education Advocacy Pilot, has started to offer its volunteers and staff more intensive training around education advocacy and available school resources. A copy of the training power point is attached at Appendix D.

| P a g e

15

accompanies the exchange of information can slow down the entire process of monitoring a child’s academic progress. Absent up to date and readily accessible education portfolios, it is essential that the parties be able to exchange information quickly at every face-‐to-‐face meeting.

7. Provide a copy of the court order appointing CASA the Education Advocate to the relevant Foster Liaison for the district where the youth is enrolled in school. The value of having the Court automatically transmit a copy of this order to the foster liaison for the relevant school district cannot be overestimated. The Court’s direct involvement in this initial step would send a significant message to the school district that the Court and CASA will be closely monitoring the child’s academic progress and that cooperation between the schools and the case-‐related players is to be expected.

8. Sharing of Information and Resource Guides. Create an electronic database of resources in Travis County related to educational advocacy and resources. The Texas Education Agency, Austin Independent School District, and the Supreme Court Children’s Commission are all working on creating databases of educational training materials, foster liaison guides, and CPS/court-‐related information. The Model Court should be part of this conversation to help ensure that the resources contain a full range of information related to CPS/Court processes and to help craft a process for disseminating information.

VI. Conclusion & Next Steps

The Model Court’s Education Initiative launched with the broad charge to “review current practices,” “identify best practices,” and “explore possible recommendations for achieving each child’s full educational potential and improving his/her overall educational experience.” The four goals, listed above, formed the basis for exploring these questions. Findings from the Education Advocacy Pilot indicate that at least two of the four goals were met, in part, namely enhancing communication between the parties and making education a priority throughout a child’s time in care. The other two goals proved elusive and remain a continuing source of concern for the typical foster youth.

Perhaps the key lesson learned over the past two years is that educational reform must be addressed simultaneously by all of the involved stakeholders; there can be little forward movement without widespread substantive buy-‐in. The pilot highlights where more work and attention is needed. Moving forward, the Model Court can play a critical role in prompting and facilitating active discussion around these issues, bringing together non-‐traditional partners and working across school districts. The overwhelming response from those involved with the pilot is that these issues may be addressed most successfully on an individual basis rather than through rigid top-‐down processes, building trust and creating personal relationships that allow for quick and creative responses tailored to each student’s unique circumstances.

| P a g e

16

APPENDIX A

EDUCATION PILOT PROTOCOLS

I. Selection Procedures A. Eligibility

a. At least 12 years old b. TMC petition (for at least the first month) c. AISD enrolled following initial post-‐petition placement d. CRC or OCR representation e. Judge Davis and Judge Byrne dockets

NOTES: Begin pilot on September 17, 2012 and close pilot as soon as 20 youth selected At end of first month, determine whether need to expand to include CS cases Close pilot enrollment after three months, by December 17, 2012, even if 10 kids not yet selected

B. Assignment a. Immediately following ex parte hearing, AAL will determine if the child is potentially eligible for pilot: i. At least 12 years old

ii. TMC petition iii. Is enrolled in AISD school

b. As soon as school location is determined (goal is 24-‐48 hours), AAL will email CASA (Key Richardson) and file expedited request with the Court for the immediate appointment of CASA as GAL. c. As soon as expedited request for CASA is filed, AAL will also notify OPR re: need for parental consent form to be completed NOTES: Goal is for child to be identified for pilot and CASA appointed within 48-‐72 hours of initial ex parte hearing. Early appointment and involvement of CASA can bring heightened attention to avoid some of the most common problems that arise with a child’s initial transfer into a new school/district.

II. CASA A. Initial Contacts

a. As quickly as possible upon receipt of appointment order, contact should be attempted with:

| P a g e

17

i. School Counselor ii. CPS Caseworker iii. Edna Butts, AISD Foster Liaison at [email protected]

b. As quickly as possible, but at least within a week of CASA’s appointment, CASA will

communicate (phone, email or meeting) with School Counselor to: i. provide a copy of the Court Order appointing CASA ii. provide contact information for child welfare advocates: CPS, CASA, AAL

(caregiver information will be provided at time of enrollment) iii. confirm whether previous school records, including a request for any special

education records, have been received and child successfully enrolled / attending classes

iv. identify any initial concerns or unmet needs at this time, including: credit retrieval, after school needs, appropriate grade level skills, IEP.

c. As quickly as possible, but at least within a week of CASA’s appointment, CASA should confirm with the school and placement and notify CPS if deficiencies are noted:

i. Child is enrolled and attending classes ii. Education Portfolio is initiated or, where previous Portfolio exists (or should

exist due to previous placement), is being updated iii. All records, including special education, have been requested and, if not yet

received, evidence that CPS is diligently pursuing record transfer

NOTES: Primary goal is to have CASA involved with the school as soon as possible, so as to have an additional monitoring of the CPS/School efforts to enroll the child quickly, appropriately, and with the fewest delays possible.

Secondary goal is for CASA to assist in ensuring the school has appropriate contact information for all of the people involved in the child’s case. Accurate contact information will ensure that all of the relevant persons are contacted for school meetings/functions and also that school personnel will have updated information to monitor who is meeting with the child. New contact information will be provided, as needed, to the School Counselor.

B. Progress Monitoring a. For at least the initial month of child’s enrollment, CASA will contact the School

Counselor (or primary teacher) on a frequent basis with the goal to monitor child’s progress/transition and to identify early any unmet needs or where child would benefit from additional support (i.e., tutoring? after school activities?)

b. Within two weeks of CASA’s appointment, CASA will make a formal request at the school for a Child Study Team (CST) evaluation.

| P a g e

18

c. Where unmet needs have been identified as part of the CST evaluation, the CASA should confirm that the school/CPS have a plan of action in place to address the child’s needs and should monitor the timely implementation of such plan. CASA should notify the Court at the next hearing of undue delays in implementation – if they are continuing.

d. Where a child is progressing well and no unmet needs have been identified, the CASA should nevertheless continue to contact the School Counselor at least one time per month, including in advance of each court hearing, for updates on the child’s academic progress and to identify early any possible concerns or emerging needs

C. Court Reporting a. As part of its routine court reporting functions, CASA should notify the Court of any

outstanding academic concerns, unmet needs, ongoing implementation delays, or other concerns that arise in the academic setting.

b. At least two weeks in advance of each court report (not including the 14 day report), CASA will request from the School Counselor (or primary teacher) a brief narrative update regarding the child’s observed progress and overall academic well-‐being. In addition, CASA will obtain the information detailed in the Court Report Checklist, including attendance, updated grade information, and behavioral concerns, if any.

c. When requested information is unavailable or not timely received, CASA should also document that fact.

NOTES: For purposes of data collection and final reporting, it is important that CASA attempt to obtain the same information for all of the pilot participants and to document that information. For example, if a child has no absences for a particular time period, CASA should document “0” absences for that child on the data collection form, even if that information is not also included in the court report submitted during that time period. Likewise, if requested information is not received (or not available) that should be documented to help in identifying possible weaknesses in the current process.

| P a g e

19

Education Checklist: Or, have I asked these questions?

Enrollment/Attendance Is child enrolled? Do records need to be transferred?

o Have they been requested? o Are there special education records?

Have the records been received? Monitor Attendance

o Attendance history? o Reasons for absences? (court-related, discipline-related, etc.?)

Communication Distribute contact list (phone/email): CASA, CPS, AAL, teacher/administration Obtain log-in information for gradespeed and distribute to CASA, CPS, AAL and foster parents

Educational Progress Monitor homework (ongoing problems?) / grades / test scores Interview parents about child’s educational history Request needs assessment

o Remedial needs? o Credit recovery? o Post-graduate counseling? o Afterschool assistance?

Special education needs? o Written request for testing? o Testing? o Results? o ARD scheduled? o IEP from previous school?

Disciplinary Actions (formal and informal) Disciplinary History Current Behavioral Concerns

Monitor corrective actions taken by school personnel o Appropriate? o Proportionate? o Effective?

Education Portfolio Identify missing information Inform Caseworker / foster parent of needed updating

Educational Stability Monitor efforts to keep child in same school / district Explore options for new placement, if needed, in same school / district Transportation needs?

| P a g e

20

!!

Court Report Checklist: Or, have I obtained this Information?

Attendance Update o Excused!Absences?!o Unexcused!Absences?!o Tardies?!

!! !!!!!!!!Question:!!For!a!child!with!repeated!absences!and/or!tardies,!do!we!know!why?!!!! !!!!!!!!For!example:!!Family!circumstances?!!Transportation?!!!Illness?!!!CourtBrelated?!

Academic Progress Update o Grades!(if!available)!o Test!Scores!(if!available!–!STARR!/!Assessment!Testing!only)!o Homework!update!(is!it!getting!completed?!!Timely?!!Concerns?)!

! !!!!!!!!Question:!!Is!child!remaining!at!(or!exceeding)!grade!level!or,!where!indicated,!are!remedial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!interventions!proving!effective?!!!

Behavioral Update o Formal!Disciplinary!Actions?!o Informal!Disciplinary!Actions?!o Other!Behavioral!Concerns?!

! !!!!!!!!Question:!!Has!child!experienced!disciplinary!actions,!either!formal!or!informal,!since!last!! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!reporting!period?!!Do!interventions!appear!proportionate?!!Appropriate?!!Effective?!

! !!!!!!!!Question:!!Are!problems!escalating!/!evolving?!!How!does!child!respond!to!intervention?!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!Are!child’s!behaviors!inconsistent!with!his/her!peer!group?!

Needs Assessment Update o Special!Education!update!(meetings?!actions?!changes?)!o After!School!Activities!update!(participating?)!o Other!services!currently!in!place:!!Tutoring!!/!Credit!recovery!/!!TAG!/!etc.!

!! !!!!!!!!Question:!!Where!the!initial!needs!assessment!has!indicated!unmet!needs,!is!the!action!plan!being!! !! !! !!!!!!!!implemented!timely!and!effectively?!!Does!the!child!continue!to!experience!unmet!!needs!and,!if!so,!what!! !!! !!!!!!!!more!is!being!done!to!address!those!needs?!!Please obtain updates at each court reporting period. While some information may be available online, contact should also be attempted with school personnel to assess the child’s overall academic well-being. Where efforts to obtain information on a child are unsuccessful or the information is not available, please also document that fact on the data collection form.

| P a g e

21

Education Pilot Resource List

Local Resources:

Edna Butts Director, Intergovernmental Relations & Policy Oversight Austin ISD 512-414-3960 [email protected]

Erica Brewington Education Program Specialist 512-834-3831 512-968-4705 (cell) [email protected] Ian Spechler Disability Rights 512-407-2713 512-771-7225 (cell) [email protected] AISD Website: http://www.austinisd.org/

AISD School Boundaries: https://access.austinisd.org/school_boundaries/index.php

AISD bus finder: http://archive.austinisd.org/schools/bus/busstop.phtml

Capitol Metro Routes: http://www.capmetro.org/

Gradespeed: https://gradespeed.austinisd.org/pc/

Additional Services (youth services mapping): http://ysm-austin.org/

Helpful Links:

http://www.disabilityrightstx.org/resources/education

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/PDF/TheTexasBlueprint.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law.html

| P a g e

22

Austin – Area School District Liaisons for Children in Conservatorship of the State

School District

Name Position Phone Email

Austin ISD Edna Ramon Butts

Director, Intergovernmental Relations & Policy

512-‐414-‐3960

[email protected]

Del Valle ISD

Rocky Zepeda District Coordinator for At-‐risk Student Services

512-‐386-‐3121

rzepeda@del-‐valle.K12.tx.us

Eanes ISD Bill Becthol

Asst. Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

512-‐732-‐9020 x 20401

[email protected]

Hays ISD Charlotte Winkelmann

Director of Guidance, College & Career Readiness

268-‐2141 x 8251

[email protected]

Lago Vista ISD

Beth Mohler Director of Special Education

512-‐267-‐8300 x1502

[email protected]

Lake Travis ISD

Becky Burnett Asst. Superintendent for Student Support Services

512-‐533-‐6464

[email protected]

Leander ISD 01/05/12 None designated at this time.

Spoke to Renee Williams.

Manor ISD Becky Rivera Director of Student & Family Support Services

(512) 278-‐4096

[email protected]

Pflugerville ISD

Victoria Esparza-‐Gregory

Social Worker Lead 512-‐594-‐1953

Victoria.Esparza-‐[email protected]

Round Rock ISD

Laura Segers Director, State & Federal Programs

512-‐464-‐5466

[email protected]

| P a g e

23

APPENDIX B CASA Questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to answer the following questions about your participation in the Travis County Model Court’s Foster Education Pilot. We appreciate all that you have done to make this pilot a success and for the work that you undertake on behalf of the children who benefit every day from CASA’s involvement and advocacy.

As the pilot’s designated “Education Advocate,” we want to learn as much from you as we can about your experience implementing the pilot protocols. We are interested in hearing what worked, but also what did not work. We are especially interested in learning how you think a pilot such as this one could be improved. What more could be done to promote educational success for these children? And how can the non-‐school players, i.e., CPS, CASA, attorneys, and caregivers, advocate more effectively in the school setting?

We will have the opportunity to speak more fully when CASA joins with members from the Model Court Committee on May 16th for an open discussion around these issues and for a final pilot wrap-‐up. So that we can prepare for this meeting, we ask that you take some time to answer the following questionnaire with information specific to your pilot case. Only after we look at how each case fared can we summarize the lessons learned from this process.

All information gathered in connection with this pilot will be treated as confidential and will be de-‐identified to the extent any of the information is used in our final report.

I am available to answer any questions and am happy to go through the questionnaire in person or by phone, if that would be easier. You can reach me directly at 512-‐232-‐5439.

We ask that you complete and return this questionnaire not later than May 12. Completed forms can be submitted by email ([email protected]) or fax (512-‐232-‐0705).

Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance with this project. We hope to see you at the final wrap-‐up on May 16.

Helen Gaebler Model Court Education Committee Co-‐Chair Senior Research Attorney, William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law University of Texas School of Law

| P a g e

24

I. Background

a. How long have you volunteered with CASA? _____________________________________

b. Do you have other experience working/advocating in the school setting? Please describe.

c. Have you participated in education advocacy training (CASA or otherwise)? Please describe.

II. Early Appointment As part of the pilot, the Court appointed CASA earlier in the process than is typical. CASA was the designated “Education Advocate” for purposes of this pilot, with the goal of connecting early with school personnel and monitoring the child’s progress over time.

a. How many days after CASA’s appointment were you (or the supervisor handling the case) able to connect with someone at the child’s school? Did you (or the supervisor) experience any challenges identifying the school counselor and making contact? Please describe.

b. Did CASA’s early appointment affect the timing of the first school contact regarding this child? In other words, did you (or the supervisor) have earlier contact with the school regarding this child than with other cases you have handled?

c. In terms of school advocacy, do you think CASA’s early appointment was helpful to the child?

c. What were some challenges that you (or the supervisor) maybe experienced with the early appointment?

| P a g e

25

III. Communication One goal of the pilot was to improve communication among the people involved in a child welfare case. This pilot attempted to increase communication and ensure that the relevant players were known to each other. The hypothesis is that increased communication leads to increased participation, early notice of potential problems, and can ease some of the hurdles that arise when coordinating across systems (i.e., courts, CPS, schools, caregivers, attorneys).

a. Did you provide the school counselor with a list of all the relevant players (i.e., CPS, Attorneys, Caregivers)? Did you have any need to update that list as players changed?

b. Do you think that you (or others involved with this case) were better apprised by the school about what was going on with the child than in other cases that you have handled? If yes, do you think that providing the contact list or the early communication with the school counselor played a role? If no, do you have a sense of why not?

c. Did you find the school counselor receptive to your efforts to increase communication? If no, do you have a sense of why not?

d. In your case, was the school counselor the most useful person to connect with early in the case? Would you have found it helpful to include other school personnel in that first round of contacts?

e. In addition to the school counselor, did you have the need or opportunity to speak with other school personnel in connection with this case? (Principal? Teachers?) Is this any different from other cases you maybe have handled?

| P a g e

26

IV. Needs Assessment As part of the pilot, AISD agreed to perform a needs assessment for each child to identify any unmet needs, academic and otherwise, that would act as a barrier to educational success. The goal was to focus on a child’s range of needs early in the enrollment process and to identify specific action steps to address these needs. Part of CASA’s “Educational Advocate” role was to request the assessment and monitor the follow up undertaken as a result.

a. Did AISD perform an early needs assessment for this child? If not, why not?

b. Did you receive notice of the assessment? Did you attend?

c. Did you find the needs assessment helpful in identifying unmet needs? Why or why not?

d. Who was responsible for monitoring/implementing recommendations coming out of the assessment? To your knowledge were the recommendations, if any, eventually implemented?

f. Please describe any delays or other problems that might have occurred either in scheduling/holding the assessment or in implementing any ensuing recommendations.

| P a g e

27

V. Other School-‐Related Issues The committee identified several areas of frequent concern for children involved with the child welfare system. Emphasizing continuous monitoring and targeted intervention, the pilot attempted to bring an early focus to potential concerns in these areas and to prompt specific action steps to address issues before they worsened, disrupting home placements and undermining the child’s school success and overall well-‐being.

a. Please identify which of the following issues, if any, were of concern in this case:

→Credit Recovery _____

→Special Education _____

→Academic Supports (i.e., tutoring) _____

→After School Activities _____

→Other School-‐Related Issues (describe):

b. For any of the specific issue areas identified, please describe how and to what extent the pilot may have helped (i) bring attention to the issue, (ii) identify tools or resources to address the issue, or (iii) provide the child with the actual support needed to address the issue. If you felt the pilot (through CASA’s early appointment, AISD’s needs assessment, or any of its other intended benefits) brought no additional support or focus, please note that as well.

Please provide your name in the event any follow up is needed.

NAME: ____________________________________________________________

THANK YOU!!!

| P a g e

28

School Counselor Questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to answer the following questions about your participation in the Travis County Model Court’s Foster Education Pilot. You have been asked to complete this questionnaire because one or more of the children on your roster participated in the Education Pilot during this school year.

With the school year drawing to a close, we are asking all counselors who worked with our participating children to answer a series of questions about their role in the pilot and their assessment of whether the added oversight and other supports helped to better served the needs of the children.

We are interested in hearing what worked, but also what did not work. We are especially interested in learning how you think a pilot such as this one could be improved. What more could be done in the school setting to foster successful school outcomes for these children?

Please answer each of the questions as fully as possible and feel free to attach additional pages as needed. All information gathered in connection with this pilot will be treated as confidential and will be de-‐identified to the extent any of the information is used in our final report.

I am available to answer any questions and am happy to go through the questionnaire in person or by phone, if that would be easier. You can reach me directly at 512-‐232-‐5439.

We ask that you complete and return this questionnaire not later than May 12. Completed forms can be submitted by email ([email protected]) or fax (512-‐232-‐0705).

Thank you, in advance, for your time and assistance with this project.

Helen Gaebler Model Court Education Committee Co-‐Chair Senior Research Attorney, William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law University of Texas School of Law

| P a g e

29

I. Background Please help us better understand your experience both as a school counselor and in working with children who are involved with the child welfare system.

a. How long have you worked as a school counselor?

b. How long have you worked in this school? (As a counselor or otherwise.)

c. Please describe any additional relevant work experience.

II. Early Appointment As part of the pilot, the Court appointed the child a guardian ad litem earlier in the process than is typical. This Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was the designated “Education Advocate” for purposes of this pilot and the person responsible for connecting early with school personnel and monitoring the child’s progress over time.

a. Did the early appointment of CASA affect the timing of your first contact regarding this child? In other words, did you have earlier contact regarding this child than is typical with other children with whom you work?

b. Did you consider this child’s situation and needs earlier than you might otherwise have done if CASA had not been early appointed?

| P a g e

30

c. Overall, did you consider CASA’s early appointment helpful to your work with this child?

III. Communication One goal of the pilot was to facilitate improved communication between the many people who are involved in any child welfare case. This pilot attempted to increase the total amount of communication, but also to ensure that the relevant players were known to each other. The hypothesis is that increased communication leads to increased participation, early notice of potential problems, and can ease some of the hurdles that arise when coordinating across multiple systems (i.e., courts, CPS, schools, caregivers, attorneys, etc.).

a. Did CASA provide you with a list of all the relevant players (i.e., CPS, Attorneys, Caregivers)?

b. Did you ever rely on the list for contacting relevant players? If so, can you give any example?

c. Whether relied on or not, did you find the list useful? Why? (Alternatively, if you did not receive a list of players, would you have found such a list to be helpful? Why?)

d. Can you think of other ways that communication could be improved between the various persons involved in a child welfare case? What would be most helpful to you?

| P a g e

31

IV. Needs Assessment As part of the pilot, AISD agreed to perform a needs assessment for each child to identify any unmet needs, academic and otherwise, that would act as a barrier to educational success. The goal was to focus on a child’s range of needs early in the enrollment process and to identify specific action steps to address these needs. Part of CASA’s “Educational Advocate” role was to request the assessment and monitor the follow up undertaken as a result.

a. Did CASA request a needs assessment in this case?

→What was the date of the request? _________________________________

→ What was the date of the assessment? _______________________________

→How long did the assessment last? (approximately) _____________________

b. Did you attend the assessment? If yes, what role did you play in the assessment? Please describe.

c. Did you find the needs assessment helpful in identifying unmet needs? Please describe.

d. Who was responsible for monitoring/implementing recommendations coming out of the assessment? To your knowledge were the recommendations, if any, eventually implemented?

f. Please describe any unanticipated delays or problems that might have occurred either in scheduling/holding the assessment or in implementing any ensuing recommendations.

| P a g e

32

g. Do you have suggestions for other ways that schools and the other people involved in a case could work together to identify early targeted supports for a child who is struggling at school?

V. Other School-‐Related Issues The committee identified several areas of frequent concern for children involved with the child welfare system. Emphasizing continuous monitoring and targeted intervention, the pilot attempted to bring an early focus to potential concerns in these areas and to prompt specific action steps to address issues before they worsened, disrupting home placements and undermining the child’s school success and overall well-‐being.

a. Please identify which of the following issues, if any, were of concern in this case:

→Credit Recovery _____

→Special Education _____

→Academic Supports (i.e., tutoring) _____

→After School Activities _____

→Other School-‐Related Issues (describe):

b. Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding each of these concerns (i.e., required special education testing, experienced significant behavioral challenges in the classroom, behind grade level in reading and math, etc.)

c. For any of the specific issue areas identified, please describe how and to what extent the pilot may have helped (i) bring attention to the issue, (ii) identify tools or resources to address the issue, or (iii) provide the child with the actual support needed to address the issue. If you felt the pilot

| P a g e

33

(through the early appointment of CASA, the AISD needs assessment, or any of its other intended benefits) brought no additional support or focus, please note that as well.

d. Compared with other children contending with these same issues who may not be in the child welfare system, did you feel like this case was more or less typical in terms of identifying concerns and accessing the necessary resources? Is there anything additional that you can identify that would have been especially helpful for this child?

VI. Education Pilot As part of the evaluative process, the committee wants to know how well the pilot worked in terms of day-‐to-‐day implementation and to solicit input with regard to recommendations moving forward.

a. Do you feel as though the pilot added to the time that you spent on this case? If so, can you estimate how or where that additional effort occurred? For example, additional contact with CASA and other persons involved in the case? Assessments? Other ways?

| P a g e

34

b. Compared with other similar cases you may have handled in the past, did you notice any particular benefits from this child’s participation in the Education Pilot? (Alternatively, if you did not observe any benefit to the child in this case, do you have any thoughts on why not?)

c. Based on your experience working with this population of children, what do you feel are the two or three most critical road blocks to many of them finding academic success? Do you have any suggestions to offer about how to better address these road blocks?

d. Is there additional training or other support that you would find helpful in working with this population of children?

Please provide your name and contact information in the event any follow up is needed. We greatly appreciate your assistance and time to share your knowledge and expertise with the committee.

NAME: ____________________________________________________________

CONTACT INFO: _____________________________________________________

THANK YOU!!!

| P a g e

35

APPENDIX C

| P a g e

36

Continued on next page

| P a g e

37

| P a g e

38

| P a g e

39

| P a g e

40

| P a g e

41

| P a g e

42

| P a g e

43

| P a g e

44

| P a g e

45

APPENDIX D

| P a g e

46

| P a g e

47

| P a g e

48

| P a g e

49

| P a g e

50

| P a g e

51

| P a g e

52

| P a g e

53

| P a g e

54

| P a g e

55

traviscountymodelcourtforchildren&families ...€¦ · !|page!! 2! i.! introduction!...

Documents