Transcript Slide 1

Providing Transportation to Ensure
School Stability
“Child Welfare, Education and the Courts: A
Collaboration to Strengthen Educational Successes
of Children and Youth in Foster Care”
November 3, 2011
Outline for Presentation
 Overview of Fostering Connections
 State Implementation Considerations –
Transportation
 State and Local Implementation Examples
 Collaboration to Arrange and Provide Transportation
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 Broward County (Fort Lauderdale), Florida
 Reimbursement for Transportation
 California
 Tools and Resources
 Collaboration between American Bar Association,
Education Law Center, and Juvenile Law Center, in
collaboration with Annie E. Casey Foundation,
Casey Family Programs, and Stuart Foundation.
 A national technical assistance resource and
information clearinghouse on legal and policy
matters affecting the education of children and
youth in out-of-home care.
 Website: www.ambar.org/LegalCenter
 Listserv, Conference Calls, Publications,
Searchable Database
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
Presumption: Same School
 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).
Presumption: Same 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).
Topics Not the Focus of Today
 How to support school proximity
 How to determine best interest:
 Reminder: not cost of transportation
 Individuals involved and final decision
 Immediate Enrollment in a new
school, with records
 Liaisons and points of contact in
the agencies
7
Focus for Today
 Children who it is in their best interest to
remain in the school enrolled at the time of
placement;
AND
 Continuing that enrollment will require
some form of transportation.
8
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.
How Many Children Will Need
Transportation?
Remember:
Not all children in care will require
transportation to remain in their same school.
Total # of children in care
minus # not yet school age
minus # graduated/left HS
minus # placed within the school
boundaries
minus # in their BI to be immediately
enrolled in new school
minus # covered under McKinney Vento
minus # have transport. in IEP
EQUALS
# of children who may need
transportation to remain in current
school
10
Children Not Requiring
Transportation
 Placed in school boundaries
 Best interest to be enrolled in another
school
 Completed high school
Some Examples of Additional
Transportation Needed, but No
Additional Cost
 Adding a bus stop to a preexisting bus route.
 School district bus routes converge
 Example: Louisiana

Children who move within the same school district and
transportation across the district is available for other
reasons
 Children who live close to or can be dropped off at a bus
stop proximate to the existing transportation system for
the current school
 Children who have transportation written into their IEPs
because of legitimate special education needs
 Children eligible for McKinney-Vento
12
McKinney-Vento and Foster Care
 “Homeless children and youth” means individuals
who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence…; and includes:
 children living in emergency or transitional
shelters
 children abandoned in hospitals
 Unaccompanied homeless youth
 children “awaiting foster care placement”
 No federal definition of children “awaiting
foster care placement” (AFCP)
 up to states to determine
13
Comparing McKinney-Vento to
Fostering Connections
 McKinney-Vento Act (Education Law: NCLB)
 Requires school districts to ensure school stability,
provide transportation to school of origin, pendency
in school of choice while disputes are resolved,
immediate enrollment, help of school liaisons to
enroll, access to Title I, comparable services etc.
 Fostering Connections (Child Welfare: Title IV-E)
 Requires caseworkers to consider proximity and
appropriateness of prior school in placing children
AND to ensure school stability unless remaining in
same school is not in child’s best interest.
Transportation is permissible CW cost; no liaisons.
14
Examples of Transportation that
Does Require Additional Costs

Foster parent, relative or other significant adult
provides transportation but needs reimbursement for
mileage

Agency provides youth or caretaker bus passes or
other public transportation vouchers

Agency contracts with private transportation
company to provide bus/van/car

School reroutes, or adds bus to fleet to
accommodate new transportation need
15
Important State Considerations
 What is the State’s FMAP Rate?
 Should the State Claim School Transportation
as a FCMP or an Administrative Cost?
 How do child welfare agencies determine what
is considered “reasonable travel”?
 Are child welfare agencies permitted to include
school transportation costs in a FCMP paid to
the child’s provider OR as a separate payment
directly to the transportation provider?
Big Picture
 Education stability requirements apply to all children in
care, not just IV-E eligible kids;




If child welfare agencies must ENSURE children stay in their
current school, (and it is in their best interest to do so), then
it follows that they are ultimately responsible to ENSURE,
when it is needed, that transportation is provided.
Costs must be addressed; can be through Child Welfare or
Education funding alone, or collaboration across agencies to
fund this transportation.
Fostering Connections requires collaboration across agencies.
Intent is that collaboration occur around the issue of
transportation.
The dependency court has the ability to ensure school
stability for children in care, including ensuring child welfare
agency has a documented plan for education stability, and
ensuring transportation is provided when necessary.
17
Legal Center for Foster Care and
Education Resources
www.ambar.org/LegalCenterMATERIALS
 Fostering Connections Toolkit
 McKinney-Vento and Fostering
Connections Overlap Series
 Data and Information Sharing (Manual
and Tools)
 Searchable Database
Broward County, Florida
•
Southeast Florida (Fort Lauderdale and surrounding area)
–
–
•
1,200 square miles
1.7 million residents
Broward County Public Schools is the 6th largest school district in the country
–
–
Over 257,000 students
230 schools/centers and 68 charter schools
•
Nearly 1,000 children in licensed out-of-home care
•
580 students in licensed care in PK-12 as of 10/6/11
•
First School District/Child Welfare interagency agreement signed in January 1999
2.14 Educational Stabilization. This Agreement ensures that:
a) the Parties develop and support program initiatives to facilitate the effective
and efficient delivery of education and related services to eligible students known
to the department;
b) ChildNet shall attempt to place students in shelter and foster care homes
within or closest to their home school boundaries to facilitate stabilization of
school placements;
c) ChildNet and SBBC staff shall follow guidelines and procedures as identified
in the Fostering Student Success training manuals in order to promote educational
stability and request transportation when appropriate;
d) SBBC shall make every effort to provide transportation for students living in
out of home licensed placement when it is in the best interest of the student to
attend their school of origin which is not within the approved school assigned
boundaries of the shelter/foster care home location. Other transportation
requests to maintain school of origin will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Requests for transportation are processed within 10 business days of receipt of
the request by the SBBC Transportation Department. Notice of approval or denial
of transportation will be reported to the assigned Child Advocate, the ChildNet
Administrator responsible for coordinating transportation, the caregiver and the
foster care designee. SBBC Court Liaison, upon confirmation by the SBBC
Transportation Department, will provide the notice;
e) ChildNet retains the responsibility to coordinate temporary
transportation for students to and from school during the time that SBBC
transportation is being arranged;
f) DCF and ChildNet will explore the use of Title IV-E funding for
alternative transportation options;
g) foster parents and other approved caregivers of children known to the
department have the authority to enroll the children in their care in school
pursuant to section 1000.21 (5), definition of a parent.
Transportation Routed
Transportation Feasibility Grid
Mobility (2005-2008)
Consider The Following…
• “Awaiting foster care” under McKinney-Vento
for students in shelter facilities
• Consider NCLB/AYP school choice options
• Magnet schools/other regional program sites
• ESE “cluster” sites
• Population focus (i.e. high school)
• Develop a solid immediate process- any
waiting will cause loss of momentum
Cautionary Tales
• Availability can change year-to-year
• Personnel turnover (schools and child welfare)
means constant training/attention
• School district leadership may weaken child
welfare responsiveness
• Best-interest decision-making practicesrequires a community-developed protocol
• Treats (flowers, cookies etc.) get pricey 
School Stability and
Transportation Coordination for
Children in Out of Home
Placement
Philadelphia Department of
Human Services and School
District of Philadelphia
Liza M. Rodriguez, Ph.D., Consultant
Research, Education, and Social Innovations
Bridging Vision, Strategies, and Practice
School Stability and Transportation
Coordination
Presentation Outline
1. Background for School Stability &
Transportation Coordination in Philadelphia
2. Framework: Child Welfare and School District
Collaboration
• Mayor’s Cross-Systems Leadership Initiative
• Data Sharing Memorandum of Understanding
• School Stability and Transportation
Coordination Protocol
• Preliminary Year 1 data
3. Lessons Learned
Background: School Stability and
Transportation Coordination in
Philadelphia
• Child welfare and school district collaboration in
Philadelphia
– Mayor Michael Nutter’s alignment of City services with
school district
– Mayoral convening of key city departments and School
District of Philadelphia
– Cross-systems work group
– Data-sharing Memorandum of Understanding between
child welfare and school district
– School Stability Transportation Protocol for Children in
Out of Home Placement
Framework: Child Welfare and School
District Collaboration
Year 1, A
Mayor’s Office
of Education
convenes
systems
Year 1, B
Child Welfare
and School
District
establish
regular
learning &
planning
meetings
Year 2, A
Data sharing
buy-in and
MOU
development
Year 3
School
Stability
Coordination
Protocol
(Transportation)
Framework: Child Welfare & School District
Collaboration
MOU = Information Sharing
Child welfare
School District
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name, Address
Demographic information
All schools attended
Attendance
Disciplinary/behavioral
record
Grades for all subjects
High school credits
Special education status
and records (IEP)
Standardized test scores
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name, Date of Birth, Case
Number
Name and contact information for
DHS worker, supervisor,
administrator
Provider agency and contact
information
Placement zip code, date and
discharge date
Type of placement
Final status of investigation if
School is reporter
Court dates
Status of parents’ education
rights
Framework: Child Welfare & School District
Collaboration
Transportation Coordination Protocol
TRACK 1
Remains in
current
school
Child is placed
1st time or
changes
placement
Busing/transpass
requested
through counselor
if outside of 1.5
mile radius
Attendance
and progress
monitored
SCHOOL
DHS Education
Support Center &
District assistance
STABILITY
TRACK 2
Cannot remain in
school due to safety
or other critical
factors listed in
Policy
Immediately
enrolled in
new school
Provider obtains
transfer packet
from original
school
Attendance
and
progress
monitored
Child Welfare and School District Collaboration
Preliminary Year 1 Data
• DHS tracks data on individual consultations to identify
common barriers, length of time in resolving barriers, and
barrier resolutions
• More than 1024 individual consultations by DHS
Education Liaisons as of May 2011
• Of the 1024 consultations, 916 unduplicated youth have
been served.
• Top three identified educational barriers in
consultations:
• School Stability (31%)
• Unexcused Absences (22%)
• Transportation (12%)
Child Welfare and School District
Collaboration
Preliminary Year 1 Data
Resolutions
97% of Education Barriers addressed by the
Education Support Center are resolved.
•
•
•
•
•
Appropriate Education Setting Identified 22%
Stayed in School of Origin 14%
Transportation Provided 9%
Resource Information Provided, 11%
Other (foster home changed, home environment
issues addressed, etc.) 13%
Child Welfare & School District
Transportation Coordination
Lessons Learned
• School stability ensured for approximately 200
children in first year of full implementation
• Both child welfare and schools welcomed a
single point of contact to resolve school stability
issues for children in placement.
• Communication and cross-training between
systems is critical – on a regular basis
• Both systems understood how to take
unresolved system barriers “up the chain of
command”
Child Welfare & School District
School Stability Collaboration
Lessons Learned
• Systems continue to make internal reforms and
changes - Collaboration structure needs to
adapt to change to sustain itself over time
Questions, Comments
Contact Information
Liza M. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
Consultant
Research, Education, and Social Innovations
Bridging Vision, Strategies, and Practice
[email protected]
215-990-2049
Contact Information
•Kristin Kelly, J.D., Staff Attorney, ABA Center on Children
and the Law, Legal Center for Foster Care and Education
www.ambar.org/LegalCenter
[email protected]
•Debbie Winters, Foster Care/Dependency Liaison
Student Services Department,
[email protected], 754-321-2122
•Liza M. Rodriguez, Ph.D., Consultant, Research, Education,
and Social Innovations: Bridging Vision, Strategies, and Practice
[email protected], 215-990-2049