The Education of Children in California who Live in Group Homes : Just How Bad is it and What Should be Done? Nina Van Dyke, Ph.D.

● Julie ● Jessica

● Number of youth in foster care in U.S.: >500,000 (Weinberg et al. 2001) ● Number of youth in foster care in California: >100,000 (Morena 2001) ● Number of youth in California who live in group homes: 18,500 ● Number of group homes in California: 1,634

Group Homes ● Also called Licensed Childrens Institutions (LCIs) ● Residential facilities ● Licensed by the State ● Six or more youth ● Mostly dependents or wards ● Mostly higher level of care

How Youth End up in Group Homes ● Placed by Child Welfare Services (abuse or neglect) -- “dependents” ● Placed by probation (violated a law); alternative to juvenile hall -- “wards” ● Placed by an expanded IEP team (severely emotionally disturbed)

Outcomes for Foster Youth ● 37% had not finished high school ● 39% were unemployed ● 27% males, 10% females incarcerated 1+ times ● 39% receiving public assistance ● (study of former foster youth months after emancipation; Courtney & Piliavin, 1998)

This Study (March, 2003) ● 15 months; $1(U.S.) million ● Goal: provide a detailed road map for improving educational services AND address issues of finance ● Report: – 1. Fiscal analysis – 2. Existing system – 3. Implementation of this system – 4. Data analysis – 5. Recommendations

Methodology ● Fiscal arrangements – finance committee ● Policies and procedures -- State – interviews – document reviews – stakeholder committee ● Policies and procedures -- Counties – interviews – document reviews – focus groups – youth placement profiles

Problem Areas ● 1. Fiscal arrangement ● 2. Capacity ● 3. Accountability and responsibility ● 4. Records and information transfer ● 5. Interagency relationships ● 6. Advocacy

100% NPS Reimbursement Formula ● School districts reimbursed 100% for extra costs of special ed services if: – (a) served in an NPS, AND ● (1) placed in LCI or FFH ● (2) by a non-education agency ● (3) parents ed rights removed, OR – (b) placement outside school district in which parents live; NOT – (c) if placed out of state

Youth Placement Profiles ● Track educational and residential history back one year ● Sample: 308 youth ages 12-18; eight counties ● Three field workers ● 2-5 youth per home, randomly selected ● Information from caseworkers/probation officers, schools, residences, youth ● About 45 minutes/youth/source

Authority ● Educational records: Agent of the State ● Residential records and youth interviews: standing court orders from youth's county of adjudication

Obstacles ● Judges delayed/refused to issue order ● Group homes still wouldn't let us in ● Social workers/probation officers would not return repeated phone calls ● Mental health placements: parental consent and lawyer's consent ● Missing data ● Interviewee couldn't provide information

Data Collection Indicators

Age of Youth in Sample

Gender of Youth in Sample (Source: Caseworker/PO interviews)

Race/Ethnicity of Youth in Sample (Sources: Caseworker/PO interviews; 2000 Census, based on K-12 enrolment)

Agency Responsible for Youth in Sample

Do Parents Maintain Educational Rights? (Source: Caseworkers/POs)

Demographics of Youth in Sample ● About 16 years old ● Mostly boys ● Overrepresentation of Blacks; underrepresentation of Latinos ● Placed by Social Services or Probation ● For 15% of the youth, caseworker/PO doesn't know if parents maintain ed rights

Frequencies and Annual Costs of Services for Youth in Sample (based on current residential and education placements) (Source: current group homes and schools)

Numbers of Youth in Sample Who Receive Mental Health Services (Source: Group Homes)

Spending on Youth: Examples ● Levon – lives in a group home – attends an NPS – receives the following services: intensive day Tx, med support, crisis intervention, TBS – avg annual cost: $152,704 ● Jose – lives in a group home – attends regular ed classes in a regular pub school – receives mental health services – avg annual cost: $78,328

How Academic Progress Previous Semester Documented (Source: Schools)

Grade Point Average (GPA) (Source: Schools)

Enroled Credits Earned (Prior Semester)

Educational Outcomes ● No one has any idea how a lot of these youth are doing ● Most of the youth who did not receive letter grades are in special ed ● The youth for whom we do have educational information are falling behind

Number of Days Missed Between Educational Placements (over prior 12 months) (Source: Schools)

Number of Days Youth Resided at Current Group Home Before Enroled in School

Reasons Youth Missed School (Source: Current Group Homes)

Amount of School Missed ● Significant numbers of youth have missed several days or more of school over the past year when they changed schools/homes ● Youth say they missed more ● Regular public schools put up roadblocks to enroling these youth

Number of Educational Placements Over Past 12 Months (Source: Schools)

Number of Educational Placements Over Past 12 Months According to Youth

Length of Time Spent at Any Given School (Source: Schools)

Educational Itinerancy ● Youth frequently change schools ● Youth report more changes than do schools ● Schools report only 56% attended same school over past 12 months; youth report only 37% ● Twenty per cent of schools and 41% of youth report attending three or more schools over past year ● Youth rarely stay at one school for long

Changed School Mid-Semester Because of Residential Change (Over Youth's Time in Foster Care) (Source: Youth)

Number of Mid-Semester Moves (Over Youth's Time in Foster Care) (Source: Youth)

Number of Residential Placements Over Past 12 Months

Whether Out-of-County Placement Driven by Residential or Educational Needs (Source: Caseworkers/POs)

Reason for Termination of Educational Placement (Source: Caseworkers/POs)

Residential Itinerancy ● Overwhelmingly, youth change schools because they change residential placements ● Youth change homes frequently ● More than 2/3rds of youth say they have changed schools mid-semester ● Average of four such moves over a youth's life

Recommendations: Overarching Principals ● Child-centered system ● Education agencies (State and local) primarily responsible ● Foster youth recognised by State as special group ● Education recognised as primary service ● Voice for foster youth ● All needs considered together as a whole ● Educational success dependent on stability of residential and educational placements ● All professionals involved act as advocates

Recommendations for Change ● 1. Alternative to 100% NPS reimbusement formula ● 2. Strengthen accountability and monitoring of public and nonpublic education received ● 3. Develop independent state and local oversight boards ● 4. Change/expand Ombudsman Office – independent – education ● 5. Establish interagency working goups (State and county levels)

Recommendations for Change (cont.) ● 6. Education agencies responsible for education of foster youth; clear roles for others ● 7. Ensure continuous enrolment in same school ● 8. Single, statewide, web-based data system accessible to all agencies ● 9. Acceptance and awarding of partial credit ● 10. Interagency training ● 11. Improvement and increased monitoring of court and community schools