FYS 2011-12 Year-End Report - Foster Youth Services (CA Dept of …€¦ · ) Section 42923...

California Department of Education Foster Youth Services Programs Year-End Report for

July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014

Name of County/District:

San Diego Name of Foster Youth Services or Juvenile Detention Program Coordinator:

Michelle Lustig, Ed.D., MSW, PPSC Year of Initial Foster Youth Services Program Grant Award:

2000 The Foster Youth Services (FYS) Program Grant specifies that grantees are to submit a report to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) at the end of each school year that addresses the coordination and delivery of services, collaboration between partners, and quantitative data on program activities and services. California Education Code (EC) Section 42923 requires the SSPI to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature on the effectiveness of services provided to foster youth through the FYS programs. To comply with these requirements, all FYS programs are asked to complete and return this Year-End Report by August 31, 2014, to:

Lisa Guillen, Foster Youth Services Consultant Coordinated School Health and Safety Office

California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Suite 6408

Sacramento, CA 95814-5901 Note: If a question does not apply to your program or you do not have the data, please answer the question with N/A (Not Applicable). PART I: GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

A. Specify the grant program components applicable to your FYS Program Year-End

Report. One report must be completed for each program that received funding. Check all that apply:

Core Countywide Juvenile Detention

B. Describe the guiding principles used to establish a priority, or hierarchy, for

services to foster youth as specified in EC Section 42921(d). Your description should include the process by which your FYS Program’s 2012–13 guiding principles and hierarchy of services were developed and identify the collaborative partners who participated in the process.

1

2013–14 Foster Youth Services Programs Year-End Report

The San Diego County Office of Education Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services Program (SDCOE, FY&HES), formerly Foster Youth Services, continued the commitment to the guiding principle determined in collaboration with all community stakeholders and in compliance with EC Section 42921 (d). This guiding principal was to continue our commitment to provide a broad range of direct services, trainings, and supports to as many students in foster care (including tribal youth) as possible throughout all six (6) regions (and Residential Services) covered by San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency-Child Welfare Services (HHSA-CWS). There were a total of 3473 school aged children in foster care in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

Our strategy to ensure seamless identification and service provision includes having Education Liaisons out-stationed and co-located in each Child Welfare office. These staff members are co-funded by SDCOE, FY&HES and HHSA-CWS. The HHSA-CWS regions include North Coastal, North Inland, East, South, Central, and North Central. An additional specialized “region” office is Residential Services for children placed in Foster Family Agency homes (FFA) and Licensed Children’s Institutions (LCI’s). This regional office also contains the Independent Living Skills Program as well as the Extended Foster Care Units. CWS Adoptions Units are managed by Centralized Child Welfare Services and are housed within North Coastal, North Central and South regions. In Addition, a countywide Medically Fragile Unit is housed in the North Central location. Within these regions, specific emphasis is placed on serving those youth with the greatest academic needs and those facing educational challenges as identified by the adults in their lives: social workers, attorneys, CASAs, education representatives, caregivers, and judges.

The Indian Specialty Unit (ISU) is composed of Child Welfare Services (CWS) social workers who provide culturally-appropriate case management services in conjunction with tribal services to families that have been identified as Native American Indian. The unit is managed by North Inland region but provides countywide services.

SDCOE, FY&HES determined that due to our size and the vast variety of needs, our hierarchy and methodology would be determined as follows: All students in need of any assistance will be referred to an Educational Liaison out-stationed in a HHSA-CWS region office. More information on these staff positions and their funding is included below. A referral will be opened and the Educational Liaison will investigate and provide support in all identified areas of need. The referral will remain open until all concerns have been addressed or resolved. Referrals are generally made by social workers, but can be made by any stakeholder in the student’s life. All calls that come into the main FY&HES office will be routed to an Educational Liaison in the region where the child’s case is carried. All services identified and delivered will be tracked on the monthly tracking form (see Attachment 5). This ensures that all services are accounted for and all numbers of services provided are unduplicated.

The community need aligned well with the mandates of EC 42921 with a strong emphasis on tutoring services and other types of academic supports. These supports include remediation services as well as academic tutoring, transportation assistance, and educational case management. In order to increase the focus on school stability, an area identified as in need of attention, SDCOE, FY&HES applied for and received a grant from the Administration of Children and Families (ACF) which allowed us to pilot different transportation options. Additionally, we continue to participate in Team Decision Making Meetings (TDM's) which are used in San Diego County, primarily when a child is removed from the home or when a placement change is imminent. This effort has helped sustain an increased awareness of the need for school stability and continues to influence the conversations around change of placement issues. In addition, we continue to focus on school stability (among other goals) in the School Success Project. This collaborative effort allows SDCOE, FY&HES to place ten (10) specialized Educational Liaisons in HHSA-CWS offices. This collaborative effort, which grew out of San Diego’s participation in the Ready to Succeed Initiative funded by The Stuart Foundation, involves HHSA- CWS utilizing our FYS funding to draw down Title IV-E match funding. We are engaged in a five (5) year contract for

2


45% of the cost of our staff salary and benefits. We have solid evidence that this effort continues to improve academic and educational outcomes for our students’ countywide while producing lasting systems change. One significant example of this impact is that 84% of all children changing placements that were referred to our Educational Liaison remained in their school of origin when it was determined to be in their best interest to do so during the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

SDCOE, FY&HES continues to address the community’s need for preparation to post-secondary education by facilitating the College Connection Advisory Council and events which provide exposure to college campuses for high school aged youth. In addition, SDCOE, FY&HES staff have been welcomed into the tribal community, remaining an active member of Tribal Successful Transitions for Adult Readiness (Tribal STAR), a collaborative that brings together HHSA-CWS and the community which focuses on successful transitions for tribal youth.

All decisions regarding programming for the SDCOE, FY&HES programs are made through the Foster Youth Services Advisory Committee (FYSAC) which is chaired by the Presiding Judge of the San Diego County Juvenile Court. The agencies represented in the committee include:

• San Diego County Superior Court - Juvenile Division • San Diego County Office of Education, Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services • County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, Child Welfare Services • County of San Diego County Probation Department • Dependency Legal Group • San Diego Volunteer Lawyers Program, Inc. • San Diego Unified School District • Grossmont Union High School District • Sweetwater Union High School District • Casey Family Programs • Voices for Children-CASA • Promises 2 Kids (formerly Child Abuse Prevention Foundation) • Vista Unified School District • Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego • San Diego School Board Association • Grossmont Community College

The Foster Youth Student Information System (FY-SIS©) continues to be the mechanism used to house the educational records for all children under the supervision of the Juvenile Court. Enhancements are being made to this database utilizing both FYS funding as well as funding received from the Administration of Children and Families through the Education Collaboration Grant. More information on this grant and its goals, as they align with FYS mandates, will be discussed below.

San Diego County continues to view transition services as those services provided to youth as they move between home placements and school placements. With our School Success effort, out-stationed liaisons continue to provide support for children as they move home placements. In addition, we continue to explore ways to support transportation needs of our students and the stakeholders who serve them.

1. Identify the services to be provided through your FYS Program, as

specified in EC Section 42921(d) and check all that apply:

Tutoring

Mentoring

Counseling

Transition

Emancipation

3


2. Please provide a brief description of each service that has been provided by your FYS Program (not to exceed one page per description). Tutoring Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services strive to develop efficient, accessible, and cost-effective coordination of educational support services with collaborative partners to achieve increased academic outcomes. SDCOE, FY&HES offers tutoring services in core subject areas for students in K-12. Current available tutoring programs include:

• The Tutor Connection Program: The goals are two-fold: (1) to assist students in foster care in overcoming educational obstacles. (2) To inform future teachers about the unique needs of students in foster care by partnering pre-service teachers as tutors with current students in foster care. We are currently working with California State University San Marcos and San Diego State University with this program.

• Strategic Tutoring Model: This tutor model is used by San Diego State University students who are participating with the Tutor Connection Program. The tutors provide in-home tutoring services which use the Strategic Tutoring model helping students’ learn techniques that successful learners employ as they acquire new knowledge.

• Oxford Tutoring: An in-home tutoring program available countywide, including traveling to remote or hard to reach parts of the county to deliver tutoring. The mission is to promote students’ intellectual growth in a stimulating relationship-based context that adapts to individual learning styles and needs. Tutors often stay with youth when changing placements or schools to provide consistency in service.

• The Ed Ladder: This service provided intensive in-home tutorial services through qualified, experienced teachers. Each student worked with the teacher to set personalized academic goals and created a learning plan for service delivery.

• Summer Academic Enrichment Services: FY&HES provided sixteen scholarships to the Strong Minds-Strong Bodies Summer Camp and seven scholarships to the Kindergarten Prep program offered by Oxford Tutoring. Strong Minds-Strong Bodies Summer Camp supported academic growth and learning through specific activities including the Bernoulli Principle, discovering air and movement, sea and water life, all about San Diego, and all about science. In the Kindergarten Prep program students entering kindergarten in the fall were introduced to foundational skills for early school success. Curriculum included number sense, letters, sounds, blending, and phonics skills.

• Title I: SDCOE, FY&HES provides support to all districts in San Diego for the identification of eligible students and facilitates survey distribution and collection to enable our school districts to add students in foster care to their Consolidated Application.

Through our coordination of services, we are able to refer students who are not covered under SDCOE, FY&HES services to community programs such as: local school districts, Turning the Hearts, Everyone a Reader Program, DASH & REACH programs through Chula Vista Library, and also live online homework help through San Diego City Libraries.

4


Mentoring Our office continues to provide referrals and support to the County of San Diego, HHSA-CWS Foster Youth Mentor Program. Often, tutors under the Tutor Connection Program go through the process to become official mentors via the HHSA, CWS Foster Youth Mentor Program. Since all tutors are trained by our staff and live scanned by HHSA, CWS, the transition is seamless and truly provides consistency for the students in foster care. Educational Case Management Services One of our Education Liaisons has been co-located at Polinsky Children’s Center (PCC), San Diego County’s receiving home. Educational Case Management Services were provided to a wide array of students as they passed through PCC, either as they entered foster care or as they changed placements. In addition, San Diego State University, School of Social Work, Bachelor of Arts in Social Work intern assigned at FY&HES provided individualized case management focused on college preparation. The intern assists students through the entire application process including college applications, FAFSA completion, scholarship applications and essay writing. AB490 Case Opening and Case Closure Notification It came to the attention of our Foster Youth Services Advisory Committee (FYSAC) (via the AB 490 Liaison meetings) that schools were unaware when children were entering foster care and when their cases were closed at reunification, guardianship or adoption. This raised a variety of concerns for the schools including the need to identify children in foster care appropriately under LCFF. FYSAC determined that we could create a process of notification that is generated at the court hearing. Minors attorneys (Dependency Legal Group) completes an AB 490 Notification or Case Closure form (See Attachments 6). This form is either scanned or faxed to our FY&HES office and we send it directly to the AB 490 School District Liaison who notifies the school site of the status change. We believe this is an important service that allows students in foster care to be immediately identified as eligible for all available services outlined in the school districts LCAP. In addition, case closure information provides the information necessary to facilitate a student accessing their rights granted under EC 48853.5 (e) (3) which allows a high school student to remain through graduation in their school of origin if the court’s jurisdiction is terminated. While it is hoped that the statewide disaggregated data match will allow districts to access similar information, some of the data we include on these forms will not be readily available such as current educational right holder, relationship of educational rights holder to the child, attorney’s name and phone number etc. We intend to continue this process as long as it provides valued information to our school districts and ensures identification and access to services of our students.

Transition/Emancipation Services College Connection College Connection is an effort that began in 2002 when FY&HES met with a small group of former youth in foster care to discuss their difficulties navigating the higher education system. Since that initial meeting, the College Connection Advisory Council (CCAC) was formed by San Diego universities, community colleges, Child Welfare Services, Independent Living Skills contracted providers, and other agencies to motivate and encourage students in foster care to seek higher education. Members of CCAC are aware of the obstacles faced by youth in foster care in accessing higher education and they are committed to breaking down the barriers that impede the youth’s overall success. Events are hosted at different colleges throughout the year to give students the opportunity to visit and tour individual campuses and to participate in workshops.

5


Workshops cover topics such as financial aid, housing, student services, and a host panel of former students in foster care who are attending college or have graduated from college. In addition, College Connection hosts an annual All College and Career Day Fair for youth where local universities, colleges, and community colleges meet on one campus to provide information and offer students a chance to meet campus representatives. Youth also have the opportunity to learn about different certificated programs, various trades, short-term careers, on-the-job training, and entry level positions. Pre-Employment Traineeship Program (PET) The Pre-Employment Traineeship program (PET) is a four (4) week traineeship that gives students in foster care, ages 13-15, an opportunity to develop employment “soft skills” while onsite with an employer in their community. This enables youth to develop skills in a “real world” environment, allowing for learning to be transferred from one setting to another. “Soft skills” development focuses on how the youth relate to other people and perform on the job rather than on the specific, teachable abilities that may be required for a specific job. PET focuses on “5 Behaviors” that employers have identified as key attributes for employees to demonstrate in the workplace. These are: attendance and punctuality; workplace appearance; following directions and accepting feedback; taking initiative and being accountable; and interacting positively with supervisor and co-workers. Youth earn a stipend based on their performance in the five (5) areas, which they receive upon completion. Before beginning the traineeship, youth participate in work readiness training. During their training, students learn introductory skills in business etiquette, grooming, completing a job application, interviewing, and understanding program components. Once the assignment begins, a PET coach visits the training site each week to meet with the youth and site supervisor to discuss behaviors and performance of foundational work skills. Youth are placed throughout San Diego County in local businesses, universities, colleges, and libraries during the summer in order to gain enriching pre-employment skills. Promoting Increased School Stability and Permanence (Administration of Children and Families (ACF) Grant: In 2012, FY&HES was granted a two-year $500,000 federal grant from the federal Administration of Children and Families ($488,750 after mandatory Federal cuts). In close collaboration with San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, Child Welfare Services, the grant supports a county-wide approach to increase collaboration between child welfare and public education to increase educational stability and transition into adulthood for students in foster care. Through this project we are building our infrastructure and collaborative efforts to improve educational stability and permanence outcomes for middle-to-high school age youth in the child welfare system. We are using these funds to remove significant barriers affecting our students in foster care. We will be raising the bar on our efforts and creating policy and practice shifts that will assist our students for years to come. Over the course of the two years, the grant focuses on four primary areas to increase the educational stability of students in foster care: transportation, information sharing, supporting students with mental health issues, and training Voices for Children - Court Appointed Special Advocates on the educational needs and rights of students in foster care

6


School Success Project: This project is a joint effort of the SDCOE, FY&HES and San Diego County HHSA-CWS utilizing match funding from Title IV-E. This effort has provided San Diego the opportunity to fund Educational Liaisons to be co-located with HHSA-CWS staff in seven (7) of the county’s regional offices. SDCOE, FY&HES Educational Liaisons serve as subject matter experts. They support social workers in the educational placement and services for students in foster care. The School Success Project helps identify the educational needs of children and youth in foster care early while affording these students access to the full array of academic supports, services, and resources available to all students. In particular, through the referral process, the Educational Liaison ensures that youth are connected to any SDCOE, FY&HES provided services that may be needed, and connect youth to community-based services in their areas. Goals of the project include increased school stability, increased high school graduation rates, increased identification for service provision to students needing special education, and increase in HHSA-CWS worker knowledge of educational issues and advocacy. Not only is the identified issue addressed, but additional work is done to ensure that the students’ needs in all educational areas are identified and addressed. This year the liaisons also tracked the number of “other consultations” for services they provided that do not appear on the tracking form. The total this year was 1892. The most common services included (but were not limited to) the following:

• Consultations with School District Foster Care Liaison or other school personnel regarding foster youth and/or education laws

• Consultations with post-secondary institutions regarding the college enrollment process, financial aid, and/or resources at campus for alumni of foster care

• Consultation with community advocates for services related to education • consultation with care providers regarding the education of youth in their care

This year all SDCOE, FY&HES out-stationed Educational Liaisons used the school of origin best interest methodology to consider school placement during a placement change. A Best Interest Determination form (Attachment 7) was developed and is utilized for this purpose. This methodology and information was looked at from the perspective of the student, educational rights holder, CWS workers and school district. The baseline data for this content area showed youth were remaining in school of origin at a rate of 50% for the start of the 2011-12 school year. At the close of the 2013-14 school year youth remained in their school of origin at a rate of 84%.

FY&HES staff work vigorously to provide the very best services and support to youth. As stated by a HHSA, CWS Social Worker, our hard work does not go unnoticed:

“Dr. Lustig: I just wanted to thank your team for inviting me to the PET event last night. When I walked away from your event last night, it was so positive that I started reconsidering my retirement date.…the experience of seeing my teen grow and become more responsible in part due to PET was priceless. It was equally rewarding seeing other children that I have been associated with enjoying the benefits of your staff’s efforts. As you know I tend to be demanding regarding quality service from providers. Your program NEVER lets me down. Violeta is incredible, but I am sure that you already have heard that before. The staff at (your) program that I have had contact with (Michelle B, Mindy and Kym) are the best. As I review my career with Child Welfare Services there are two or three programs that I can say does what it claims to do and does it well. It is not coincidental that PET along with the Tutor Connection are programs that foster positive change. For many of my kids (and it should be all my kids) education is the key to positive outcomes and an enhanced outlook on life. Thanks again for all that you do to encourage positive lifelong changes for our children. You and your staff are the best.” “Mindy: We have been so busy this summer…and I failed to send a huge thank you for the exceptional tutoring services Brittany “Alex” received from the Foster and Homeless

7


Education Services Program. Alex couldn’t wait for her tutoring sessions with Beau. Beau was exceedingly kind and patient, and made learning fun!”

School Social Work Interns (Counseling) In partnership with The USC, School of Social Work, Dr. Lustig served as the external field instructor for 2 school social work interns placed at San Pasqual Union School (SPU). This K-8 one school district serves middle school students who live at San Pasqual Academy (a Residential Academic Academy for students in foster care). Historically, there has been a great deal of difficulty experienced by our students and the school as they assimilated into the new rural environment. Additionally, the community where SPU is located is an affluent, predominantly white community, and there have been tensions regarding our students. We saw school social work interns being on the campus as a wonderful way to address the micro, mezzo and macros issues that were impacting student performance and well-being. The interns provided School-Based Behavioral Support Services as well as case management services. Fortunately, we have found a community volunteer who will take over the role of external field instructor this Fall, allowing the school to benefit again from these school social work services. We hope to create this capacity on additional campuses in the future in alignment with LCFF and LCAP.

PART II: PROGRAM DATA Note: If a question does not apply to your program or you do not have the data, please answer the question with N/A (Not Applicable). 1. How many total foster youth are eligible for FYS Program services in your program

area (district/county)? Eligible foster youth (both in-county and out-of-county) include those ages four through twenty-one residing in licensed foster homes, as defined by EC Section 42921(e), or county-operated juvenile detention facilities.

Note: Only current FYS Juvenile Detention Program (JDP) grantees are required to provide

information on foster youth in juvenile detention facilities and camps and/or ranches. This information is optional for programs that were not grantees of the JDP.

Licensed Foster Homes

3502 Juvenile Detention Facilities

207

Camps and/or Ranches 42

2. How many eligible foster youth received services through your FYS Program? Include

the number of unduplicated individual foster youth that received services directly from your FYS Program; indirectly through FYS collaboration with child welfare, juvenile courts, local educational agencies (LEAs), etc., (refer to EC Section 42921[c]); or through referral to a collaborative partner or LEA.

Total Number: Please indicate the total number of individual students served directly, indirectly, and through referral.

Direct Services: Please indicate the number of students who received services provided by the FYS Program directly. Example: FYS staff or contractors were directly involved in tutoring, advocating, or doing educational case management for 25 students.

Indirect Services: Please indicate the number of students who received services provided by the FYS Program in collaboration with local partners. Example: FYS staff provided a transfer of records for 15 students.

8


Referred Services: Please indicate the number of students who were referred to other agencies or departments for services. Example: FYS staffs have referred 37 students for tutoring at a local school sit

Total Number of Youth Served: 1540*

Direct 1340

Indirect 166

Referral 34

*4,341 unique services were provided to the students identified above. 3. Provide the following information for each of the four FYS Program outcomes.

All boxes should be completed. Use the “Further comments relevant to your FYS Program” section in A.5 below to explain anything unique about your FYS Program relative to the requested data.

A. Timely and Appropriate School Placement

(Aligns with EC Section 42921[c][1], [2], [8], and [d][5])

A.1 Does Your FYS Program Use a Data-Sharing

System with Other Agencies and/or

Local School Districts? (Yes/No)

A.2 Number of Foster

Youth Records Transferred to Other Schools

A.3 Average Number of Days for Transfer of

Records (EC Section 48853.5[d][4][c])

(Sum of Days for Transfer/Sum of Records)

A.4 Type of Records

Transfer: Electronic or

Paper

Yes 2996 1 Electronic

A.5 Total Number of Foster Youth Receiving Support Services for Appropriate

Placement: 476 (Specify below) Specify the type and number of support services provided to ensure appropriate school placement: (Note: The sum of information below should be shown in A.5.) Special Education Support 314 Team Decision

Making (TDM) 113

Section 504 Accommodation 3 Student Study Team

(SST) 46

Identify other services here:

Enrollment 510 School of Origin 606 Ed Rights 295 Discipline 39

School Placement 507 AB 490 Notification-Case Open 374

Ed Rights/FYSIS 166 AB 490 Notification-Case Closure 1

Ed Rights / JV-535 30 Dual Jurisdiction 234

9


Further comments relevant to your FYS Program:

• SDCOE, FY&HES has a longstanding history of working collaboratively with all school district AB 490 Foster Care Liaisons to ensure compliance with all legislative mandates including but not limited to: AB 490, AB 1858, AB 1353, AB 1573, AB 1909, AB 2060, AB 167/216, as well as all legislative entitlements including the Fostering Connections to Success Act. We actively work to ensure immediate and appropriate enrollment for all students in foster care including those who are considered homeless under McKinney Vento. SDCOE, FY&HES facilitates and/or participates in regional collaborative meetings, which include HHSA-CWS social workers and supervisors and school site and district personnel including 490 Foster Care Liaisons. SDCOE, FY&HES hosts quarterly Joint AB 490/McKinney Vento Liaison meetings and often include other community stakeholders in these forums. These meetings began in 2006 and have created a community of concerned, informed and dedicated professionals working together to address the educational needs of students in foster care. Although budget constraints have often challenged our goal of best proactive policies, these engaged leaders from our community work diligently to address needs and close the achievement gap. Each year representatives from community based organizations present information increase awareness of resources and supports. The focus is on problem solving, increasing communication, information sharing, cross systems collaboration and coordinated support. In addition, SDCOE, FY&HES participates in tribal-led meetings which focus is on successful transition for tribal youth. The dramatic changes in public education regarding the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAP) provided a unique opportunity for us to test the level of collaboration and engagement in our county. On January 31, 2014 SDCOE, FY&HES hosted an LCFF focus group with our LEA’s. Representatives from 24 LEA’s attended this meeting which provided a forum to think about the inclusion of students in foster care in LCFF and how their districts might consider responding. By facilitating the attendance of all stakeholder groups at 4 regional Stakeholder Input meetings which were conducted by our LEA’s. In March 2014 we hosted a planning meeting, allowing the districts to craft an agenda and plan for these meetings. Between April 8th and 23rd, the 4 meetings were held. The following stakeholder groups were represented with a number of each attending one or more of the 4 meetings:

o HHSA-CWS-22 o Voices for Children- San Diego CASA-26 o Dependency Legal Group –Minor’s Counsel Office- 4 o Community Based Organizations- 5 o Group Home/FFA/Foster Parents-11 o Youth-2 o Higher Education-4 o SDCOE, FYHES-19 o SDCOE (other Departments)-2

The meetings included the gathering of responses to 3 essential questions which can be found in (Attachment 8) :

1. In these 8 priority areas, what is working well for students in foster care? 2. In these 8 priority areas, what social, emotional, and/or academic challenges

do students in foster care face?

10


3. Given your response to the first 2 questions, what are 2 suggestions of how we can improve achievement for students in foster care?

• When a dependent child commits a crime or a delinquent ward appears to be the victim of abuse and/or neglect, the Probation Department, Child Welfare Services, and the Juvenile Court work together to determine which system (delinquency or dependency) can best serve the child. This process is accomplished through the Dual Jurisdiction Hearing (also known as Meet and Confer). Some children on the Dual Jurisdiction Hearing calendar will move from the dependency system to the delinquency system. Additionally, some youth who are detained or on probation as a result of their delinquent conduct may move into the dependency system. SDCOE, FY&HES attempts to serve these two populations of students as they transition to community and comprehensive school sites by attending the Dual Calendar Hearing. SDCOE, FY&HES Educational Liaisons rotate their attendance at these hearings to provide the court with information on educational related questions and to provide follow-up services to youth heard on the calendar. In 2013-14, SDCOE, FY&HES Educational Liaisons attended 50 Dual Calendar Hearings at which 234 cases were heard.

B. Self-Advocacy Support Services (Aligns with EC Section 42921[c][5] and [d][2][C][D])

Number of Foster Youth Receiving

Self-Advocacy Materials or Training

Number of Foster Youth Participating in

Leadership/Youth Development Activities

Direct 231 Direct 264

Indirect 0 Indirect 83

Referral 0 Referral 0

Total 231 Total 347

Direct Services: Please indicate the number of students who received services

provided by the FYS Program directly. Example: FYS staff or contractors trained 25 students on self-advocacy.

Indirect Services: Please indicate the number of students who received services

provided by the FYS Program in collaboration with local partners. Example: FYS staff actively participated in collaborative meetings to discuss leadership camp opportunities for 22 students.

Referred Services: Please indicate the number of students who were referred to other

agencies or departments for services. Example: FYS staff referred 30 students to the local Independent Living Program.

Total Number: Please indicate the total number of individual students served directly,

indirectly, and through referral.

11


• Specify the type of self-advocacy materials or training: The following self-advocacy materials and trainings were provided directly and indirectly to students in foster care by SDCOE, FY&HES as well as community and partnering agencies serving students in foster care:

o 3nd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Summit-Youth Engagement training o 3rd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Summit o 3nd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Youth Ambassador training o AB 490 wallet cards o AB 167/216 informational material o “What Students Need To Know About Their Education” pamphlet o Financial-aid and scholarship information specific to students in foster care o University and college admissions and prerequisites o Adult education options o Vocational, technical, and certificated programs o Career options o Student support services and programs (on-campus and off-campus) o California College Pathways Educational Planning Guide o Know your Rights brochure

• Specify the type of leadership or youth development activities:

SDCOE, FY&HES hosted a variety of events at local post-secondary institutions, licensed care facilities and detention facilities including the 3nd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Summit- and Youth Engagement training (2 day event) and 3nd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Youth Ambassador training. Topics covered included: o Understanding the value of education o Using your voice to explain why education/school matters o How to use your message to help other youth o Leadership and team building skills o Looking at how your past may be impacting your current school experience o On-campus and off-campus support services to increase retention rates o Educational Rights o Promises2Kids-support programs o California Youth Connection opportunities o California College Pathways o Transfer requirements o Student life o Campus organizations o Money management and budget planning o Campus tours o General education requirements o Academic and vocational training options o Financial aid, scholarships and grants o Admission requirements o College athletics o Career development o Career assessments o Human resources

12


Include further comments relevant to your FYS Program:

This year SDCOE, FY&HES hosted the 3nd Annual San Diego Foster Youth Education Summit two-day conference. The first day of the conference was led by Jaiya John, Dee Hankins, and Youth Ambassadors (alumni of foster care). Youth Ambassadors spent 2 days in training in person, and participated in numerous conference calls. This group of dynamic individuals, who applied and interviewed for these positions, learned the skills needed to lead the larger group of young people at the Summit. On the first day of the event, youth attendees participated in activities such as team building, strategic sharing, leadership development, empowerment activities, learning how to use their voice effectively, and networking activities. Youth incorporated all these skills to create a youth-led, and youth centered environment at the second day of the conference. During the second day, over 250 stakeholders from San Diego County attended a full day conference. Opening welcomes were provided by San Diego County Senior Director of Student Support Services (Now Assistant Superintendent of Student Services), Don Buchheit, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, Carolyn Caietti, and Director of HHSA-CWS, Debra Zanders-Willis. Youth voice was infused throughout the day; throughout the day from the opening plenary through each workshop session, at lunch during the Playwrights Project performance, and during the closing plenary. Feedback from this event was overwhelmingly positive (Attachment 9).

13


C. Completion of Educational Programs (Optional for Juvenile Detention Grant)

C.1 Number of

Grade Nine–Twelve Foster Youth Served

by FYS Program

C.2 Number of Foster Youth Passing the Entire California High School Exit

Examination (CAHSEE)1

(Also see below.)

C.3 Number of

Grade Twelve Foster Youth

Eligible to Complete High

School Program2

C.4 Number of Foster Youth Projected to

Complete High School Program3 by September 1, 2014

C.5 Number of Foster Youth Completing

High School Program4 by

September 1, 2014

602 106 222 175 173 Identify the number of foster youth passing only the math section of the CAHSEE:

Only the information below is available

Identify the number of foster youth passing only the reading section of the CAHSEE: Only the information below is available

CAHSEE - Passed 106 CAHSEE – Waived 18 CAHSEE - NOT Passed 6 For the foster youth identified above as projected to complete their high school program, specify the number and method of completion: The total of the numbers below needs to equal the number in C.5

High School Diploma 162 Certificate of Completion 5 Graduation Equivalency Diploma 5 California High School

Proficiency Examination 1

Further comments relevant to your FYS Program: Data regarding CAHSEE passage and graduation rates provided to SDCOE, FY&HES by HHSA, CWS and includes all students in foster care under Child Welfare’s authority.

1 For the purpose of these counts, please only count students who have passed both the math and reading parts of the CAHSEE. 2 For this purpose, completion of the high school program means attaining a high school diploma, certificate of completion, or General Education Development Test (GED), or passage of the California High School Proficiency Examination. 3 For this purpose, please count the number of youth who were on target to graduate after summer session. 4 For this purpose, please count the number of youth who actually completed programs after summer session.

14


D. Transition to Independent Living or Higher Education (Aligns with EC Section 42921[d][2][C][D])


Independent Living Related Services


Vocational/Career Technical Education

Support Services

Number of Foster Youth Receiving Post-Secondary Preparation and

Support Services Direct 225 Direct 252 Direct 206

Indirect 85 Indirect 85 Indirect 93

Referral 3 Referral 2 Referral 3

Total 313 Total 339 Total 302

Specify the independent living services provided through your FYS Program. San Diego County continues to have unique and innovative methods for delivery of Independent Living Skills (ILS) services to current and former foster youth. All ILS contractors have specific requirements that relate to education, employment, and vocational outcomes. FY&HES supports these efforts and collaborates with all of the ILS contractors.

Additionally, we provide on-site informational sessions for those unable to attend the events described above (i.e. incarcerated youth). Identify the collaborative partner(s) that provide independent living related activities for foster youth referred by your FYS Program.

• ACCESS, Inc. • Cal State University San Marcos • California Student Aid Commission, Cal-Soap • Casey Family Programs • Promises2Kids (formerly Child Abuse Prevention Foundation) • Cuyamaca College • Grossmont College • Mira Costa College • Miramar College • Palomar College • San Diego City College • San Diego Community College District • San Diego County Probation Department • San Diego County HHSA, CWS. ILS • San Diego Mesa College • San Diego State University • San Diego Unified • San Diego Youth Services (SDYS) • SDCOE JCCS • South Bay Community Services (SBCS) • Southwestern College • University of California, San Diego • Voices for Children • YMCA

15


Specify the type of vocational/career technical education support services provided through your FYS Program.

SDCOE, FY&HES College Connection Advisory Council and other community partners collaborated to host the All College and Career Day/I Can Go To College event at Grossmont College. The purpose of this event is to encourage the participants to plan for college enrollment and/or consider career options upon high school graduation by providing them opportunities to meet with representatives from local community colleges, universities, apprenticeship programs and community agencies to help them learn about educational and career options available to them as they transition from the foster care system into independence. The day included a student life tour to learn about the different opportunities offered at a community college campus like athletics, art, health sciences, child development, and the arts. Youth learned about the different services and help available at a community college and university campus and how to be successful college students wherever they decide to attend school. Students also learned about the academic and career programs available through community colleges that will prepare them for the 21st century workforce.

SDCOE, FY&HES and University of California, San Diego Office of Admissions & Relations with Schools co-presented a financial aid workshop for foster youth adult supporters that will be assisting youth in applying to post-secondary institutions. A total of 25 social workers, ILS contractors, group home providers, mentors, and school representatives attended this workshop. The workshop provided information on the critical changes in financial aid guidelines, financial aid process, financial aid timelines, and scholarship and grant opportunities available to foster youth.

Specify the type of post-secondary preparation support services provided through your FYS Program. SDCOE, FY&HES continues to receive active support, participation, and contribution from the College Connection Advisory Council members in providing and implementing transitional and emancipation services through College Connection events.

College Connection events bring groups of current and former foster youth to local colleges or universities for a day of exposure to campus life, admission requirements, campus support programs and services, financial aid requirements, housing, student organization, and general campus expectations. Students are also exposed to many aspects of career options and opportunities provided on-campus and off-campus. Other activities include workshops, mock registration, classes, lectures, and youth panels. SDCOE, FY&HES College Connection Advisory Council and other community partners collaborated to host the All College and Career Day/I Can Go To College event at Grossmont College. The purpose of this event is to encourage the participants to plan for college enrollment and/or consider career options upon high school graduation by providing them opportunities to meet with representatives from local community colleges, universities, apprenticeship programs and community agencies to help them learn about educational and career options that are available to them as they transition from the foster care system into independence. The day included a student life tour to learn about the different opportunities offered at a community college campus like athletics, art, health sciences, child development, and the arts. Youth learned about the different services and help available at a community college and university campus and how to be successful college students wherever they decide to attend school. Students

16


also learned about the academic and career programs available through community colleges that will prepare them for the 21st century workforce.

Additionally, SDCOE, FY&HES provided on-site informational sessions for those youth unable to attend the events described above (i.e. incarcerated youth) by attending the JCCS Resource Fairs. Community partners were brought together to provide resources to 60 high school juniors and seniors from the JCCS work-readiness program at Camp Barrett and JCCS community day schools. The students were able to obtain information on job placement, housing, college, career-technical education and certification, internships, and more.

Further comments relevant to your FYS Program. In recent years, SDCOE, FY&HES College Connection Advisory Council collaborated with San Diego’s Juvenile Court “I Can Go To College” Advisory Committee to organize one effort to leverage resources and capitalize on our joint effort to co-host the All College and Career Day/I Can Go To College event. Details of the last event were mentioned above.

17


Identify the number of foster youth receiving additional services through your FYS Program.

Services Provided Direct

Services to Foster Youth

Indirect Services to Foster

Youth

Referral for Services

to Foster Youth

Academic Counseling 231 2 0

Academic Tutoring 194 0 82

Advocacy and Consultation 1073 60 1

Educational Assessment 91 118 0

Link to Community Services 93 19 19

Mentoring 0 0 0

School-Based Behavioral Support Services 28 38 0

Other (please specify) Credit Recovery Assistance 46 4 0

Educational Summer Camp 32 0 18

Enrollment Assistance 445 65 0

Transportation Assistance 285 42 3 Training provided by the FYS Program to LEAs, care providers, child welfare, and other agencies on the educational rights and/or unique needs of foster youth. Specify the number of trainings provided, the target population, and the number of those in attendance. Identify “Other” agencies in the last column.

Number of

Trainings Number of Attendees

Specify Other Here

LEAs 23

LEAs 669

Attorney/Judge/Court – 14 Probation - 4

Child Welfare – 70 CASA – 58 CBO – 96

Foster Parents - 3 Group Home Staff - 3

Providers 3

Providers 23

LEAs – 104 CBO – 71

Child Welfare – 20 CASA – 44

Attorney/Judge/Court – 13 Probation - 4

Child Welfare

11

Child Welfare

193

LEAs - 139 CASA – 52 CBO – 78

Group Home Staff – 2 Attorney/Judge/Court – 13

Foster Parent – 3 Probation - 4

Other 23

Other 282

18


PART III: PROGRAMMATIC INFORMATION A. Local Advisory Group/Collaborative Partners What local advisory group representatives/collaborative partners does your FYS Program work with in determining the

direction of program services and provision of services? Please include multidisciplinary team (MDT) and health and education passport (HEP) activities. If your FYS Program is party to an Interagency Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, or court order, submit a copy with this report. Check all that apply. (Aligns with EC Section 42921[d][4].)

Collaborative Partner Participates

in FYS Advisory Activities

Co-located

with FYS Staff

Involved in

HEP

Provides Student

Referrals to FYS

FYS Participates in MDT Case

Planning

Party to Formal

Interagency Agreement with FYS

Alcohol and Other Drug Programs Colleges/Universities Community-Based Organizations County Departments of Mental Health County Employment Development Offices County Probation County Public Health County Social Services Courts Faith-Based Organizations Former and Current Foster Youth Foster Youth Advocacy Groups Group Home Providers Independent Living Skills Programs Private Industry Schools and District Offices Tribal Organizations Other (Please List): Dependency Legal Group (Minor’s Counsel) Voices for Children (CASA)

19


Note: If a question does not apply to your program or you do not have the data, please answer the question with N/A (Not Applicable).

1. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the local advisory group’s role in effective service provision for foster youth?

Not at this time

2. If you have or are developing a formal Interagency Agreement (i.e., Memorandum of Understanding, Court Orders, etc.), please summarize your efforts, role, the list of participating agencies, and the purpose of the Interagency Agreement below. The revised agreement includes all current legislation including AB 167, AB 81, AB 1853, SB 1353, AB 1933 and The Fostering Connections to Success Act, again suggesting best practices to meet these mandates. The agreement covers all stakeholders’ responsibilities under AB 490, allows for the automated exchange of health and education data, and suggests procedures for compliance with the mandates and requirements of AB 490. The combined efforts of FYSAC/ED Committee, community stakeholders, the Interagency Agreement, Memorandum of Agreements and FY-SIS© increase communication, expedite the transfer of records in a timely manner, ensure appropriate school placement, and address educational issues. While SDCOE, FY&HES administers FY-SIS©, this could not be accomplished without the weekly downloads from Child Welfare Services-Case Management System (CWS,CMS), Probation’s PCMS system, daily downloads from juvenile court, probation, and our school districts. The availability of this information allows our authorized users to access educational information in a timely manner and increases accountability on all levels. FYSAC/ED Committee is an active participant in all decisions made regarding FY-SIS©.

The following agreements are in place: A. Interagency Agreement- Between: SDCOE, HHSA-CWS, Probation, Juvenile Court,

CASA, Public Defenders, Alternate Public Defender, and 41 of 42 school districts.

IAA available online at: http://www.sdcoe.net/student-services/student-support/Pages/foster-youth-forms-and-brochures.aspx

B. FY-SIS© MOU- Between: SDCOE, Juvenile Court, HHSA-CWS, and Probation.

Standing Court Order for information sharing and data collection.

B. Non-Public Schools (Optional for the Juvenile Detention Grant) Provide the following information for foster youth attending a non-public school

(NPS) and residing in an attached licensed children’s institution (LCI). Include both foster youth placed in your county and those placed out of county. In responding to this question, use a 30-day “point-in-time” period and specify the period used, (i.e., October 1–31, 2011).

Number of Foster Youth in NPS/LCI

In County

Number of Foster Youth in NPS/LCI

Out of County

30-Day Point in Time Period

20 12 June 1-30, 2014

20

http://www.sdcoe.net/student-services/student-support/Pages/foster-youth-forms-and-brochures.aspx

http://www.sdcoe.net/student-services/student-support/Pages/foster-youth-forms-and-brochures.aspx


C. Educational Liaisons (Not required when reporting for the Juvenile Detention Grant) 1. What efforts have been made in the last year to ensure that the district

educational liaisons in your county are aware of their responsibilities pursuant to Assembly Bill 490 and EC Section 48853.5? Include in your response the number of AB 490 trainings that were conducted and the number and percent of districts in attendance.

Number of AB 490

Trainings Number of

Districts Trained Percent of Total Districts Trained

5 26 60%

Describe other efforts here:

In addition to the trainings listed above, the District Liaisons are brought up-to-date on current legislation and education codes at the quarterly School District Liaison meetings. At these meetings the average district attendance is greater than 50%, which consistently includes the districts with the largest in care populations. Participation tends to be weakest in those districts with little or no students in foster care.

2. Please provide the name and contact information for the educational

liaison for your county office of education/district. Name: Dr. Michelle Lustig Phone: (619) 683-9340 ext 31 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (619) 293-3496 Address: Mailing Address:

6401 Linda Vista Road San Diego, CA. 92111 Physical Address: 3878 Old Town Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA. 92110

21

mailto:[email protected]


D. Significant Achievements Identify significant achievements for your FYS Program in 2013–14.

Third Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Summit: This year SDCOE, FY&HES hosted the Third Annual San Diego Foster Youth Education Summit, a two-day, two part conference. The first day of the conference was led by Jaiya John, Dee Hankins, and 10 Youth Ambassadors (alumni of foster care). Youth Ambassadors spent 2 days in training (Two with Jaiya John and Dee Hankins in person, and participated in numerous conference calls) learning the skills needed to lead the larger group of young people at the Summit. On the first day of the event, 25 youth attendees participated in activities such as team building, strategic sharing, leadership development, empowerment activities, learning how to use their voice effectively, and networking activities. On the second day of the conference, youth incorporated all these skills to create a youth-focused environment. During the second day, over 250 stakeholders from San Diego County attended a full day conference. Opening welcomes were provided by San Diego County Senior Director of Student Support Services (Now Assistant Superintendent of Student Services), Don Buchheit, Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, Carolyn Caietti, and Director of HHSA-CWS, Debra Zanders-Willis. In addition, Dr. Kevin Holt, Superintendent of San Marcos Unified School District was the Keynote along with one of his students, Julius Lowe. Dr. Holt had met Julius during this past school year and had mentored him with the support of SDCOE, FY&HES. The two spoke about the power of connections, the significance of relationships and the healing effect of hope. Youth voice was infused throughout the day, from the opening plenary, through each workshop session. Feedback from this event was again, overwhelmingly positive (Attachment 9). We look forward to having this be an annual event, and have already begun planning for 2015.

School Success Project: This effort, which is a true collaboration between SDCOE, FY&HES and HHSA-CWS has yielded significant outcomes for both the students we serve and all stakeholders responsible for the educational outcomes of students in foster care. We continue to sustain and make change with 10 full-time Educational Liaisons out stationed with HHSA, CWS. HHSA, CWS utilizes our FYS grant to draw down Title IV-E match funds offsetting our cost for 10 full time Education Liaisons. In order to focus on school stability, a Best Interest Determination Form was created in 2012 and has been in use throughout this fiscal year (See Attachment 7). In FY 2013-2014, 84% of students who changed home placements remained in their school of origin, when it was determined in their best interest to do so. This is a decrease from last fiscal year due to a change in data tracking methodology. In FY 2012-2013, 93.5% of students who changed home placements remained in their school of origin, when it was determined in their best interest to do so. This is an increase from 47% in FY 2010-2011 and 79% in FY 2011-2012. In addition, new collaborative and relationship building practices have been put in place. One example is an annual East Region School Year Kick-Off Event that brings school site and child welfare staff together for a meet and greet. On this particular day, following this time for relationship building and collaboration, all HHSA, CWS social workers are required to stay in their offices and update the Education Notebooks for their clients. Other changes include, fully staffing the two Central Region offices with full time staff (previously one staff covered both offices) and utilizing the staff member at Polinsky Children’s Center to ensure that children first entering the foster care system remain in their school of origin whenever it is safe and feasible for them to do so. One of our staff works directly with the Extended Foster Care Unit/ILS/Teen Unit. This allows us to ensure educational needs are considered and addressed at these critical junctures. Extended Foster Care social workers are more aware of higher education and refer more youth to FY&HES staff for assistance. The greatest accomplishment at Central Region - Mills is the

22


increased knowledge and the social workers/supervisors being proactive when it comes to education. The best interest of school of origin has positively evolved since 2008. The social workers have grown to understand AB490 while most importantly putting the law into practice. Also, the social workers are proactive in contacting the educational liaison with any questions and concerns, which shows education is a priority when they complete investigations, risk assessment, and the overall well-being of the student. The placement unit works cohesively in locating a foster home/placement near the school of origin. These examples demonstrate the role of an educational liaison is increasing capacity and systemic change. FY&HES educational liaisons collaborate with the case carrying social workers ensure youth’s progress toward graduation; whether it is reviewing transcripts to identify missing/recovering credits and/or explaining high school graduation requirements.

The Assistant Superintendent and Senior Director of the Student Support Services Division of SDCOE engaged in HHSA-CWS site visits to gain a better understanding of the work of the School Success Project out stationed liaisons. During these visits it was clear that the partnership with HHSA-CWS is vital to the academic success of our students. In each region the importance of school stability was stated. We believe this is a direct result of our out-stationed Educational Liaisons working with HHSA, CWS to promote this awareness and paradigm shift. HHSA, CWS site visits were also conducted with Policy and Program Support to review our collaboration with the School Success Project and to provide program updates. These meetings were very helpful to increase all parties understanding of the collaboration and its impacts. College Connection: The networking opportunities offered through College Connections Advisory Council (CCAC) fostered a partnership between the community colleges and the Independent Living Skills (ILS) contractors to provide ILS classes’ on-campus. This familiarizes the students with the college campus and the support services that are available to all students. Pre-Employment Traineeship Program (PET): SDCOE, FY&HES continued its partnership with Casey Family Programs to implement the PET program. This program provides soft employment skills to young people ages 13-15 and 16 if they are returning PET students in good standing. This involves mandatory training for caregivers, job coaches, site supervisors, and youth. Youth are placed in traineeships that include libraries, community college financial aid offices, community centers, YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, child development/preschool centers, family resource centers, university social work program offices, retail businesses, non-profit organizations, faith –based organizations, county department offices, and foster family agencies. SDCOE, FY&HES is currently serving young people who are placed throughout the county for 4 weeks during the summer months. The Tutor Connection Program: The Tutor Connection Program continues to be a nationally recognized model. We continue to see tremendous academic gains for the students who receive tutoring. Of the 168 participants for the 2013-14 academic year, all students either maintained their GPA, improved their GPA, or improved in one subject area. This year, the SDCOE, FY&HES continued the Tutor Connection Program partnership with San Diego State University. The program also maintained a large volume of participating students at Cal State San Marcos during the Fall 2013 semester. The Program’s impact on future teachers is evident in the CSUSM student reflections which show the dramatic growth these students make in one semester. Dedicated staff ensures the needs of university staff, professors, and college students are met. Overall, the program provided training to 168 university students

23


regarding the unique educational needs of youth in foster care and ways to improve the youth’s educational outcomes. SDCOE FY&HES created a comprehensive manual designed as a resource for other programs seeking to replicate the Tutor Connection Program. In addition to the resource manual, a comprehensive student manual for the college participants was also developed. Promoting Increased School Stability and Permanence - Administration of Children and Families (ACF) Grant: In 2012 SDCOE FY&HES was granted a two-year $500,000 federal grant from the federal Administration of Children and Families ($488,750 after mandatory Federal cuts). The grant will support a county-wide approach to increase collaboration between child welfare and public education to increase educational stability and transition into adulthood for students in foster care. Through this project we are building our infrastructure and collaborative efforts to improve educational stability and permanence outcomes for middle to high school age youth in the child welfare system. We are using these funds to remove significant barriers affecting our students in foster care. We will be raising the bar on our efforts and creating policy and practice shifts that will assist our students for years to come.

• We have surveyed and established an agreement and protocol with CWS to contract with a transportation provider who will provide transportation to and from school for those youth ages 10-17 who have changed placements and need transportation support to remain in their school of origin when it is in the best interest of the child and the child is appropriate to be transported, within San Diego County.

• In September 2013 we began contracting with a transportation company to provide transport to students referred for services when: their placement changed, their school of origin was determined to be in their best interest, and lack of transportation to that school was a barrier to attendance.

• We have agreements and protocols in place with CWS in order to provide this service, and have notified our advisory committee, FYSAC, and all CWS workers, minor’s attorneys, and courts, of the availability of this service.

• We have successfully transported 19 children, which allowed them to maintain stability at critical times. This allowed more time for children to adjust to the new placement, even if it was eventually determined that a neighborhood school was in their best interest, allowing for fewer disruptions in these children’s lives. It also allowed for transitions to occur during a natural break in school, and in some cases assisted into transitioning into relative care, as well as gave time to find other people who could transport on an ongoing basis.

• We have conducted satisfaction surveys with caregivers and social workers. Child welfare service workers all reported that they were very satisfied with the transportation service, and reported their students were also very satisfied with the service. Child welfare workers appreciated the opportunity to maintain school stability at the students’ school of origin during this time of upheaval and transition in the students’ lives.

• Caregivers all reported that they were very satisfied with the service, reporting they couldn’t have maintained school of origin on their own. One reported it was the most helpful service she had received in over 25 years of foster parenting. Several reported their connection is strong enough with the student now that the student will remain in their care and attend a neighborhood school at the beginning of the next year, and that remaining in SOO this year was very helpful in the transition.

• In 2013, in collaboration with CWS and Voices for Children (the agency in San Diego responsible for appointing CASAs), we matched 17 students in care with CASAs who are holding education rights for these students, to assist in educational advocacy and school stability. We are following these matches to determine if this assisted in

24


maintaining school stability for these students and SDCOE FY&HES will begin looking at academic outcomes to determine the impact.

• We have provided training on special education laws and educational laws relating to students in foster care to over 200 additional CASAs.

• The Foster Youth Student Information System (FY-SIS©) is being expanded to include all school districts including those that have changed information systems prompting the need for new scripts to be written. Enhancements are being made to this database utilizing both FYS funding as well as funding received from the Administration of Children and Families through the Education Collaboration Grant.

USD Kinship Project SDCOE, FY&HES assisted the Nonprofit Leadership Alliance Student Association of the University of San Diego (USD) in the 18th Annual Easter “Basket” Drive. SDCOE, FY&HES identified kinship families, developed a referral form for the project, developed a referral process, and coordinated the distribution process between USD and YMCA. YMCA Kinship Families were selected as recipients of this project. USD provided 160 children in kinship foster care in San Diego County Easter backpacks filled with toys, clothes, candy and school supplies. Children had the opportunity to provide a “wish list” and the USD students provided a gift that was approximately $20 per child. E. Greatest Challenges and Strategies to Address Them Identify the two or three of the greatest challenges for your FYS Program in 2013–14 and two or three of the most successful strategies to address them.

1. SDCOE, FY&HES faced several challenges during the 2013/2014 school year. First was identifying ways to support our school districts through the transition brought about by LCFF and LCAP due to the mis-alignment of FYS mandates and population served with the definition of a students in foster care now contained in LCFF. We continue to be challenged by the limitations of EC 42921 which prevents our program from serving students placed with relative caregivers, those in family maintenance or family reunification. . The State of California, and indeed the Nation, has worked continually over the last decade to increase the number of children placed with relatives/kin, to maintain children with their families whenever possible and reunify as soon as it is safe to do so. In addition, In compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), tribal youth are frequently placed with relative caregivers. Expansion of our mandate to children in these placement types would allow services to be more equitable to tribal youth and other foster populations of color who are disproportionally represented in the foster care system and more often placed with kin providers. It should also be recognized that there are clear and significant efforts to move children from foster and group home care to more normalized settings with a strong emphasis on family connections. FYS programming should support these efforts.

San Diego County is one of the largest geographic counties in the state of CA. Supporting school stability during placement changes has historically been extremely challenging. A student can be moved as far as 50 or 60 miles from his previous school. Transportation issues and coordination continue to be one of the

25


largest hurdles for schools, caretakers, CWS workers and SDCOE-FY&HES. Since the passage of the Fostering Connections Act, and the corresponding legislation in California, AB 12, there is funding to offset the burden of transportation to school of origin for some caretakers. In spite of this support, there continues to be a lack of resources for families and placements for our students that enable them to remain in their communities and therefore their schools.

2. HHSA, CWS are in the process of two initiatives we hope will address some of these concerns: The County of San Diego 2012-2017 Child Welfare System Improvement Plan and the expansion of Neighborhoods for Kids countywide. • Established in 2004, Neighborhoods for Kids (N4K) works with schools, foster

parents, law enforcement, community organizations, faith-based groups, and other stakeholders to minimize the stress and disruption children often face when they cannot remain with their family by working to align child welfare services within school boundaries. The program relies on a community-based approach and public-private partnerships to meet the needs of families in San Diego’s East County. N4K is based on the premise that healthy child development and learning are two basic needs for children that are best met when education and child welfare service systems work together (i.e., the two systems working in concert can better protective outcomes for children and youth). The effort relies on a community-based approach using public-private partnerships to allow children to remain in familiar environments, either with relatives or kin, or in foster homes within their same school boundaries. This effort is being expanded in a variety of regions in San Diego County.

• The System Improvement Plan focuses on improving placement stability for

children and youth. Placement stability is crucial to the well-being of foster children. One of the primary strategies is to maintain a child’s connection to familiar environments and culture by ensuring a child remains connected to school and community (friends, activities).

We also look forward to utilizing FYS grant funds to continue our efforts to transport students to their school of origin when our current ACF grant sunsets. This will allow continuity of services and ensure school stability when no other transportation or placement options exist.

26


PART IV: ADDITIONAL CORE PROGRAMMATIC INFORMATION (OPTIONAL FOR COUNTYWIDE AND JUVENILE DETENTION FYS PROGRAMS)

Note: If a question does not apply to your program or you do not have the data, please answer the question with N/A (Not Applicable). Provide the following information pursuant to EC Section 42923: A. Academic Achievement

(Aligns with EC Section 42923[b][4][A])

Desired Outcome: Sixty percent of foster youth students will gain at least one month of academic growth for every one month of tutoring received.

Grade Level Number of

Students Tested5

Number of Students Who Achieved

Desired Outcome

Percent Achieving Desired

Outcome

Average Rate of

Academic Growth6

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Total

5 Kindergarten through twelfth grade students who received at least three months of tutoring and were pre- and post-tested. 6 Calculate by dividing the total difference between pre- and post-test scores by the total number of months tutored.

27


B. Pupil Discipline/Juvenile Delinquency (Aligns with EC Section 42923[b][4][B]) Desired Outcome: Fewer than 5 percent of the foster youth population will be expelled.

Total Number of Foster Youth Students

Total Number of Expulsions

Percent of Population Expelled

C. Dropout/Truancy Rates

(Aligns with EC Section 42923[b][4][C])

In responding to this question use a 30-day “point in time” period and specify the period used here, (i.e., October 1–31, 2011): Desired Outcome: Foster youth will achieve an average of 90 percent attendance rate.

Comprehensive School Students

Grade Level Number of Students

Total Days Enrolled

Total Days Attended

Percent Attendance

Rate K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

Total

Alternative Education Attendance

Number of Students

Total Days Enrolled

Total Days Attended

Percent Attendance

Rate Totals

28


PART V: PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

In compliance with EC Section 42923, please provide the following recommendations: Recommendations regarding the continuation of services:

SDCOE, FY&HES recommends that Foster Youth Services programs continue to be funded and that the mandates, requirements and services/supports they provide align with the Local Control Funding Formula and our LEA’s Local Control Accountability Plans.

Recommendations regarding the effectiveness of services:

SDCOE, FY&HES recommends that programs be encouraged to conduct an ongoing assessment of their own community needs to determine what programs are needed. In addition, we recommend that an outside evaluation be required to evaluate successful interventions. Interventions that have not been proven to improve the academic functioning of students in foster care should be closely monitored and if they continue to be ineffective, that they be discontinued or modified as appropriate.

Recommendations regarding the broadening of services:

SDCOE, FY&HES recommends that EC 42921 be amended to include all children in out of home care with a priority given to those with the greatest academic need. It is imperative that children who are placed in a relative placement be able to access the direct services provided by FYS funding. Children and youth placed with relatives face the same academic challenges as those placed in foster homes. In fact, our analysis of local data as well as statewide data reported in The Invisible Achievement Gap Report (WestEd, 2014) funded by Stuart Foundation, showed that children in foster homes and relative homes are faring approximately the same, while children placed in FFA foster homes appear to be doing slightly better academically. Relative caregivers and the children they care for are in need of these supportive services. These students in relative placement are at risk of school failure along with their peers in foster homes. An additional consideration is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which requires tribal youth be placed with relatives whenever possible. Inclusion of children placed with relatives would allow services to be more equitable to tribal youth and other disparate populations of color within the foster care population who are more often placed with relative caregivers. Providing support to relative caregivers would increase placement stability which in turn would assure children’s connection to their family and ethnic culture and history. Last, SDCOE, FY&HES recommends that youth in Extended Foster Care, including those who have completed their K-12 education be included in the FYS mandates. This population who remain Non Minor Dependents continue to experience academic difficulty and can benefit from supportive services as they transition to adulthood. We find this is especially true for those students who received a high school diploma under the provisions of AB 167/216. These students have not completed key coursework, putting them at a disadvantage in community college courses.

29


PART VI: GOALS FOR 2013–14 Identify your FYS Program benchmarks for the 2013–14 program year and report on the progress made toward reaching the benchmarks.

Measuring and Reporting Outcomes SDCOE, FY&HES contracts with Child and Adolescent Research Services Center (CASRC) to provide an independent evaluation of our program efficacy. The following are the areas we intended to evaluate as part of our ongoing efforts to monitor the impact our services have on the students in our county. Tutoring (all programs): • Outcome Measure: Increase in academic achievement and stability among participants. • Variables:

o Wide Range Achievement Test IVR pre/post scores for grades K-8 o GPA grades 9-12 o Stability of home placement o Stability of school placement o School discipline-if available o Attendance-if available

Emancipation Services (all programs): • Outcome Measure: Increased preparation for transition to adulthood • Variables:

o Number of events attended o Completion of college/vocational application o Completion of FAFSA o Completion of scholarship applications o Participant survey results o School attendance/absences in high school-if available o Enrollment in college-if available

Co-Located Educational Liaison Services: • Outcome Measure: Increase in utilization of services by HHSA Social Workers, providers,

caregivers, and the schools. Increased awareness of education as a health and well-being indicator.

• Variables: o Number of referrals in all service categories o Results of social worker knowledge survey o Impact of services provided

Summer Interventions Pilot: • Outcome Measure: Increased academic success and achievement. • Variables:

o Academic success based on progress in school o Achievement o Matriculation o Graduation o School attendance-if available o School disciplinary-if available o Truancy/dropout rate-if available

30


Pre-Employment Traineeship (PET): • Outcome Measure: Successful completion of program and increased school success. • Variables:

o Academic success based on progress in school Achievement Matriculation TDM’s regarding placement change

o Increased school attendance o Decrease in school disciple issues o Youth report of applying for employment o Youth report becoming employed

Youth Engagement: • Outcome Measure: Increased involvement of youth who are or have been in foster care in

all phases of SDCOE, FY&HES programming. • Variables:

o Summary of Leadership Empowers All Possibilities Board meeting including agenda when SDCOE, FY&HES programming is discussed

o Number of youth empowerment events o Number of youth attending empowerment events o Survey results

In addition, as referenced in Content Area 7, we will track our impact and measure our progress in meeting the following program goals:

• Students in foster care will experience timely and appropriate school placement. • Youth who are or have been in foster care will receive self-advocacy materials and

training. • Students in foster care will successfully complete their educational programs. • Students in foster care will receive support for successful transition to post-secondary or

vocational programs. Please see Attachment 10 for our evaluation.

31

Attachment 1Page 1 of 1

IRS Code Section 179: computer and equipment is depreciated over a 5-year periodOffice furniture 7-year period

Quantity Item Description Acquisition Date Serial Number Location Current Condition Date Fully

Depreciated Disposition Date of Disposition 1 Printer Laser Jet 12/21/1999 USCC098706 FYHES Offices Good 12/21/20041 HP Color LaserJet CP4525xh Printer 3/2/2011 JPBCBDJ09J FYHES Offices Good 1 Konica Minolta BIZHUB 501 12/8/2011 101926893230027193 FYHES Offices Good 1 Poweredge R910 Server+SQL Server Lic 12/16/2011 8VBHWR1 FYHES Offices Good1 EPSON Projection System 4/16/2002 CWQ0220145C FYHES Offices Good 4/16/20071 EPSON Projection System 1/26/2009 JHZF891035L FYHES Offices Good 1/26/20141 LCD Projector 6/29/2011 NEVF092073L FYHES Offices Good

1 Dell Optiplex260 Computer 6/24/2003 2G0NW21 FYHES OfficesXP Hardware no longer supported 6/24/2008 Retired 2/19/2014

1 Dell Optiplex270 12/5/2003 6890R31 FYHES OfficesXP Hardware no longer supported 12/5/2008 Retired 2/19/2014

1 Dell Optiplex GX280 5/23/2005 B4DOK71 FYHES Offices Good 5/23/2010 1 Dell Optiplex GX620 10/10/2005 2K6RK81 FYHES Offices Good 10/10/20101 Latitude D620 6/30/2006 D27Q5B1 FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20111 Optiplex GX620 6/30/2006 2W6R5B1 FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20111 Latitude D620 8/29/2006 DY4BMB1 FYHES Offices Good 8/29/2011

1 Optiplex GX620 1/5/2007 2CLD8C1 FYHES OfficesXP Hardware no longer supported 1/5/2012 Retired 2/19/2014


1 Optiplex GX620 1/5/0007 FBLD8C1 FYHES OfficesXP Hardware no longer supported 1/5/2012 Retired 2/19/2014

1 Optiplex GX620 1/5/2007 CBLD8C1 FYHES Offices Good 1/5/2012


1 Optiplex GX620 1/5/2007 8BLD8C1 FYHES OfficesXP Hardware no longer supported 1/5/2012 Retired 2/19/2014

1 Optiplex GX620 1/5/2001 JBLD8C1 FYHES Offices Good 1/5/20061 Latitude D620 1/5/2007 72P18C1 FYHES Offices Good 1/5/20121 Optiplex GX620 9/12/2007 BRZDLD1 FYHES Offices Good 9/12/20121 Latitude D630 12/3/2008 34R9QH1 FYHES Offices Good 12/3/20131 Optiplex755 11/24/2008 J9FCQHI FYHES Offices Good 11/24/20131 Optiplex 755 11/24/2008 JQFCQHI FYHES Offices Good 11/24/20131 Optiplex 755 1/26/2009 2B84J1 FYHES Offices Good 1/26/2014

1 Latitude E6420 9/15/2011 B6V93R1 FYHES OfficesDamaged/non-repairable Retired 12/4/2013

1 Latitude E6420 9/15/2011 G6V93R1 FYHES Offices Good1 Optiplex 780 4/28/2011 E75592 FYHES Offices Good1 Powerbook G3 12MB 6/8/2000 QT01704KHKE FYHES Offices Good 6/8/20051 IPAD- WI-FI Black 6/16/2011 E75682 FYHES Offices Good1 IPAD- WI-FI Black 6/16/2011 E75684 FYHES Offices Good1 IPAD- WI-FI Black 6/16/2011 E75685 FYHES Offices Good1 Lateral File-Fimbal 5 drawer 6/30/2005 none FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20121 4Drawer 42W Lateral File 6/30/2005 ME67086 FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20121 5 Drawer 42W Lateral File 6/30/2005 ME67087 FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20121 Lateral File 1/26/2009 LFF18424 FYHES Offices Good3 42" FILE CABINET 6/30/2010 none FYHES Offices Good1 CONFERENCE TABLE 10/5/2005 none FYHES Offices Good 10/5/2012

10 Support Staff Desk 6/30/2005 none FYHES Offices Good 10/5/20121 Manager Desk 6/30/2005 none FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20121 Manager Credenza 6/30/2005 none FYHES Offices Good 6/30/20127 Hon Desk 1/10/2008 none FYHES Offices Good1 HP Color Laserjet Printer 8/12/2013 CNCCF710J3 FYHES Offices Good1 Latitude E6430 9/10/2013 5HTNNX1 FYHES Offices Good1 Optiplex 7010 8/29/2013 6F658Y1 FYHES Offices Good1 Optiplex 7010 8/29/2013 6F7Q8Y1 FYHES Offices Good1 Optiplex 7010 8/29/2013 6F6R8Y1 FYHES Offices Good

Local Educational Agency Name: San Diego County Office of Education

California Department of Education

2013–14 Foster Youth Services ProgramInventory

For the Foster Youth Services Program, the LEA maintains an inventory record for each piece of equipment, with an acquisition value of $500 or more per unit, that is purchased with state funds.


Center Name:

Fiscal Year: 2014-15 Date:

Original: [ ]Note: Amendment changes total budget. Amendment: [ ] No. ____Revision does not change total budget. Revision: [ ] No. ____

1100 Teachers' Salaries

Position Title FTE* Rate per HourHours per

WeekWeeks per

Year Total0.000.00

Total 1100 0.00

1300 Certificated Supervisors' and Administrators' Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year Total0.000.00

Total 1300 0.00

2100 Instructional Aides' Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year Total0.000.00

*Full-time equivalent Total 2100 0.00

2200 Classified Support Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year Total0.000.000.00

Total 2200 0.00

FOSTER YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM―BUDGET DETAILAttachment 2Page 1 of 6

Employee Name

Employee Name

Employee Name

San Diego County Office of Education

12-Aug-14

Employee Name

2300 Classified Supervisors' and Administrators' Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year TotalFYS Coordinator 0.95 Salary 122,510.80Project Specialist 1.00 Salary 92,411.00Project Specialist 1.00 Salary 83,817.92Project Specialist 0.20 Salary 18,482.19

ogram Business Specia 0.24 Salary 23,883.67Total 2300 341,105.58

2400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year TotalSecretary 1.00 Salary 35,967.66Secretary 1.00 Salary 46,547.83Liaison II 1.00 Salary 64,140.01Liaison I 0.58 Salary 38,426.06Liaison I 0.58 Salary 28,077.22Liaison I 0.58 Salary 34,886.71Liaison I 0.58 Salary 33,706.93Liaison I 0.58 Salary 33,706.93Liaison I 0.58 Salary 33,706.93Liaison I 1.00 Salary 53,151.29Liaison I 0.58 Salary 33,706.93Liaison I 0.58 Salary 32,904.40Liaison I 0.58 Salary 33,706.93

Program Aide 0.10 Salary 4,771.04Program Aide 1.00 Salary 42,759.36

Total 2400 550,166.23

2900 Other Classified Salaries


WeekWeeks per

Year Total0.000.000.00

*Full-time equivalent Total 2900 0.00


Michele ManleySonnet Miller

Jennifer Renteria

Ana NicasioMichelle Bailow

Samuel RigbyKymmberly Wolfe

Employee Name

Norma ChanudomchockAlice CoronadoRobyn EricsonChristina Luna

Lemuel Villalvazo

Karen Alexander

Janet Ortega

Vy Nguyen

Employee Name

Catheryn Sali

Employee NameMichelle LustigVioleta Mora

Leah Reed

Mindy Kukich

3000 Employee BenefitsPercent of Salaries Total Salaries Total

0.45 891,271.81 401,072.310.00

Total 3000 401,072.31

4100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials

Cost per UnitNumber of

Units Total 0.00 0.000.00 0.00

Total 4100 0.00

4200 Books and Other Reference Materials


Units Total 0.00 0.000.00 0.00

Total 4200 0.00

4300 Materials and Supplies


Months Total362.00 12.00 4,344.00

1,500.00 0.00

Total 4300 5,844.00

4400 Noncapitalized Equipment


Units Total1,314.00 4 5,256.00

0.00

Total 4400 5,256.00

FOSTER YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM―BUDGET DETAIL

DescriptionEmployee Benefits

Description

Description


Laptop/desktops

Description General Office Supplies (pens, pencils, paper, toner, etc.)

Nutritional Snacks for College Connection event

Description

5100 Subagreements for Services

Total

Total 5100 0.00

5200 Travel and Conferences

Number of Participants Registration

Lodging Costs per Room

Number of Rooms

Number of Nights

Per Diem per

ParticipantNumber of

Days Total1 35.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 35.00

410.70756.00

1 100.00 110.00 3 2 34.00 2 828.001 868.00

80.00418.10

3 100.00 150.00 3 2 34.00 3 1,506.003 1,218.00

120.000.00

1 1,512.00160.00

1 200.00 1 2 34.00 3 502.0045.00

105.45378.00

40.005 275.00 175.00 5 2 34.00 3 3,635.00

2,030.00200.00

4 70.00 200.00 4 1 34.00 2 1,352.00421.80320.00

1 503.0040.00

20 19,182.24Total 5200 36,666.29

Staff - Mileage (34,254 miles X .565)

Shuttle/Taxi ($40 X 5 staff)Airfare/Parking ($$350 X 5 staff: $56 X 5 staff)

Annual CA foster Youth Education Summit (SacramentoShuttle/Taxi

Airfare/Parking ($350; $28)

Shuttle/Taxi ($40 X 1 staff)Airfare/Parking ($475 X 1 staff; $28 X 1 staff)

Parking ($40 X 2 days X 4 staff)Mileage (190 miles @ .555 X 4 staff)

Bench XXII Improving Justice for Children and Familie Shuttle/Taxi ($40 X 4 trips)

Shuttle/Taxi ($40 X 3 staff)

CDE - FYS Statewide Training (Sacramento)

Legislative Hearings (Sacramento)Airfare/Parking ($350 X 4 trips; $28 X 4 trips)

Mileage (370 X .565 X 2 trips)

Airfare/Parking ($350 X 3 staff: $$56 X 3 staff)

Mileage (190 miles @ .555)Parking ($15 X 3 days)

Southern Region FYS Coornidator (Sacramento & LA)Mileage (370 miles @ .555 X 2 trips)Airfare/Parking ($350 X 2; $28 X 2)

Shuttle/Taxi ($40 X 2 trips X 1 staff)

Blueprinte for Success Conference (LA)


Description

FYS Task Fource Meeting (Sacramento & LA)arking ($350 X 2 trips X 1 staff; $42 X 2 days X 2 trips

Description of Travel/Conference

5300 Dues and MembershipsCost per Month

Number of Months Total

0.000.000.00

Total 5300 0.00

5400 InsuranceCost per Month


0.000.000.00

Total 5400 0.00

5500 Operations and Housekeeping ServicesCost per Month


0.000.000.00

Total 5500 0.00

5600 Rentals, Leases, Repairs, and Noncapitalized ImprovementsCost per Month


7,774.00 2 15,548.00125.00 12 1,500.00

5,000.000.00

Total 5600 22,048.00

FOSTER YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM―BUDGET DETAIL

Konica MiloltaFacility Rent for Ed Summit

Description

Facility Rent - FYS portion

Description

Description


Description

5700 Transfers of Direct CostsCost per Month


416.67 12 5,000.0025.00 12 300.0041.67 12 500.00

2,916.67 12 35,000.0041.67 12 500.0083.33 12 1,000.0083.33 12 1,000.00

Total 5600 43,300.00

5800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating ExpendituresCost per Presenta-

tion or Workshop

Number of Presenta- tions or Workshops Total

300.00200.00

140,435.0020,000.00

6,500.0020,000.00

7,000.001,893.00

Total 5800 196,328.00

5900 CommunicationsCost per Number of Total

39.17 12 470.040.00

Total 5900 470.04

6000 Capital Outlay (Preapproval is required.)Cost per Unit Number of Units Total

0.000.00

Total 6000 0.00


Description Graphics

IMS - FY - SYSOffice Systems

Document Destruction

Workshops

PostageFleet Car/Transportation

Telephones - FYS Portion

Catering Services (Meetings/Trainings/Events)

Meeting Bridge Virtual Conferencing

Promises2Kids

Tutoring ContractsSDSU Ed Summit

Other Services

Description

Description

Description

San Diego State Univeristy - Reseach FoundationMW Management

Attachment 3 Page 1 of 4

California Department of Education Foster Youth Services Program

BUDGET NARRATIVE FORM

A detailed Budget Narrative of project expenses must accompany the Budget Summary form. For each line item in the Budget Narrative, please provide the cost and a brief description of how the requested funds will be used. 1100 Teachers’ Salaries 1300 Certificated Supervisors’ and Administrators’ Salaries 2100 Instructional Aides’ Salaries 2200 Classified Support Salaries 2300 Classified Supervisors’ and Administrators’ Salaries – $341,106.00 FY&HES Program Manager 0.95 FTE - $122,511

Responsible for the supervision of nineteen staff; work with school districts and placing agencies to increase school stability, academic achievement and cross system collaboration; assist all stakeholders in acquiring records and ensure a timely transfer of such records; respond to requests from the juvenile court and work with court to ensure educational services; facilitate communication between foster care provider, teachers, school staff, and education service providers; ensure that all legislative mandates are followed by all stakeholders including child welfare, probation, LEA’s and juvenile court; implement, monitor and evaluate all services to ensure they are achieving educational and academic outcomes; seek additional funding opportunities to leverage all funding and ensure the highest level of services to students in foster care; serve as a subject matter expert when called upon by state or national entities; oversee the administration of the Foster Youth Student Information System (FY-SIS ©); ensure compliance with EC§§42921-42925.

FY&HES Project Specialist 0.2 FTE - $18,482 Assist with foster youth in homeless status. Responsible for providing direct supervision and program guidance for up to two program aides and other FYS staff as assigned; participate in the development of program materials and services for FYS specifically for those students also eligible for McKinney Vento Services; research and review existing materials and/or services; coordinate the assistance of other agency staff and subject matter experts in the development of materials and/or services; assist FYS manager and staff in meeting superintendent’s priorities and State FYS outcomes; ensure appropriate placement of youth who are homeless and in foster care to schools by assisting schools and districts in understanding and complying with current laws and legislation; develop processes to ensure youth with special education needs have timely assessments and identified services are


provided; plan, organize and conduct meetings among staff in schools, group homes, placing agencies and others involved with youth in foster care services; provide training and conduct workshops on current policies, laws, and legislation related to FYS; provide coordination, consultation, and program development recommendations in areas identified to support educational needs of students in foster care. FY&HES Project Specialist 2.00 FTE - $176,229 Provides supervision of 11 Ed Liaisons and programming support. Responsible for providing direct supervision and program guidance for up to eight FYS staff and interns as assigned; participate in the development of program materials and services for FYS; research and review existing materials and/or services; coordinate the assistance of other agency staff and subject matter experts in the development of materials and/or services; assist FYS manager and staff in meeting superintendent’s priorities and State FYS outcomes; ensure appropriate placement of youth in foster care to schools by assisting schools and districts in understanding and complying with current laws and legislation; develop processes to ensure youth with special education needs have timely assessments and identified services are provided; plan, organize and conduct meetings among staff in schools, group homes, placing agencies and others involved in FYS; provide training and conduct workshops on current policies, laws, and legislation related to FYS; provide coordination, consultation, and program development recommendations in areas identified to support educational needs of youth in foster care; oversee multiple service programs

Program Business Specialist 0.24 FTE - $23,884 Assist with all business, fiscal, reporting for all grants that support students in foster care.

2400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries – $550,166

• FYS Ed. Liaison II 1.0 FTE - $64,140 Facilitates the Tutor Connection Program

• FYS Ed. Liaison I 6.22 FTE - $355,980 total or 6.22% of 10 co-located staff CWS pays 3.78% utilizing Title IV E match funds

• FYS Program Aide 1.0 FTE - $42,759 • FYS Program Secretary 2.0 FTE $82,516 • FYS/Homeless Program Aid .1 FTE - $4,771

2900 Other Classified Salaries 3000 Employee Benefits - $401,072

All fringe benefits calculated by Internal Business Department by using standard Medicare, FICA, Employee Retirement System, Unemployment, Worker's Comp. OPEB formulas plus standard $19,963/employee Health Benefits


4100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials 4200 Books and Other Reference Materials 4300 Materials and Supplies – $5,844

Office & educational supplies (including pre and post testing materials for tutorial programs) & materials/meeting expense

4400 Noncapitalized Equipment - $5,256

Replacement computer for staff: 2 laptops with e-port system, 1 laptop, 1 desktop (Pre-approved by CDE)

5100 Subagreements for Services 5200 Travel and Conferences – $36,666

Travel/conference & mileage for 21 staff (breakdown in Budget Detail). 5400 Insurance 5500 Operations and Housekeeping Services 5600 Rentals, Leases, Repairs, and Noncapitalized Improvements – $22,048

• Office rental (2 months July & August $15,548) • maintenance on copier $1500 • rental for the Annual Youth Summit $5000

5700 Transfers on Direct Costs – $43,300

Graphics $5,000; Postage $300; Fleet Car service $500; Office system $500; Workshop $1000; Other Services $1000, Foster Youth Student Information System (FY-SIS) support and enhancements $35,000

5800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating Expenditures – $196,328


Cintas $300, Meeting Bridge $200, Tutoring $140,435, San Diego State University Foundation $20,000, MW Management Group $7,000, Annual Foster Youth Summit $20,000, Promises2Kids $6,500, Trainings/meetings $1,893

5900 Communications - $470

Phone service for office 6000 Capital Outlay (preapproval is required)


Center Name: San Diego County Office of Education Fiscal Year: _ 2014–15 Date: Original [ ]

Note: Amendment changes total budget. Amendment [ ] No. _______Revision does not change total budget. Revision [ ] No. _______

Object Code Description

Current Budget Changes (+/–) New Budget Justifications: Revisions and Amendments Only

1100 Teachers' Salaries 0.001300 Certificated Supervisors' and Administrators’ Salaries 0.002100 Instructional Aides' Salaries 0.002200 Classified Support Salaries 0.002300 Classified Supervisors' and Administrators' Salaries 341,106.00 341,106.002400 Clerical, Technical, and Office Staff Salaries 550,166.00 550,166.002900 Other Classified Salaries 0.003000 Employee Benefits 402,027.00 402,027.004100 Approved Textbooks and Core Curricula Materials 0.004200 Books and Other Reference Materials 0.004300 Materials and Supplies 5,844.00 5,844.004400 Noncapitalized Equipment 5,256.00 5,256.005100 Subagreements for Services 0.005200 Travel and Conferences 36,666.00 36,666.005300 Dues and Memberships 0.005400 Insurance 0.005500 Operations and Housekeeping Services 0.005600 Rentals, Leases, Repairs, and Noncapitalized

Improvements 22,048.00 22,048.005700 Transfers on Direct Costs 43,300.00 43,300.005800 Professional/Consulting Services and Operating

Expenditures 196,328.00 196,328.005900 Communications 470.00 470.006000 Capital Outlay 0.00

Total Budget 1,603,211.00 0.00 1,603,211.00Less Capital Outlay

New Total 1,603,211.00 0.00 1,603,211.00Indirect Cost 150,221.00 150,221.00

Plus Capital OutlayGrand Total Allocation 1,753,432.00 0.00 1,753,432.00

lBUDGET SUMMARY


RefDate Closed Last Name First Name DOB Issue/Resolution SW or PO School AB

12A

dopt

ions

Uni

tA

dopt

ion

Ass

ista

nce

ER NR

EFM

PCC

Fost

er H

ome

FFA

Gro

up H

ome

Kin

Fam

ily M

aint

enan

ceVo

lunt

ary

JD-D

ual C

alen

dar

Juve

nile

hal

lM

cKin

ney/

Vent

o A

ttend

s N

PSG

uard

ians

hip

Plac

emen

t Cha

nge

Rem

ain

in s

choo

l-bes

t int

Scho

ol C

hng

- bes

t int

Scho

ol C

hng

- oth

erPe

ndin

g Sc

hool

Pla

cem

ent

GR

AD

E LE

VEL

TDM

for p

lmt c

hang

eTD

M (O

ther

)Pa

rtia

l Cre

dit

Enro

llmen

t/plm

t ass

tTr

ansp

orta

tion

Ass

tTu

torin

g R

efTu

torin

g w

ith F

YSA

cade

mic

Cou

nsel

ing

Susp

ensi

on is

sue

Pend

ing

expu

lsio

nN

ot e

xpel

led

due

to a

sst

Faci

litat

e R

ecor

ds R

eqst

(JV5

35)

Tran

s R

VW w

/ Ed

asm

tG

radu

atio

n ve

rific

atio

nC

redi

t Rec

over

y as

stA

sst S

W w

/ Ed

right

sA

sst E

d R

ight

s ho

lder

AB

167

Div

ersi

on M

tgC

YPM

MD

T M

eetin

gC

YPM

Pro

gres

s R

evie

w M

eetin

gA

ttend

ance

/ SA

RB

SST/

RTI

Gen

eral

Spe

c. E

d as

stR

efer

red

for S

pec

EdEl

igib

le fo

r Spe

c Ed

Elig

ible

for 5

04El

ig M

enta

l Hea

lth S

vcC

onsu

lt ex

istin

g IE

PLi

nk to

Com

mun

ityB

efor

e &

Afte

r Sch

ool

Early

Edu

catio

nSu

mm

er C

amp

PET

Ref

erra

lIL

S Se

rvic

esCo

nsul

t w/ S

DFCL

/Sch

ool P

erso

nnel

Con

sult

w/ H

ighe

r ED

Con

sult

w/ P

rovi

der

Con

sult

w/ C

are

Prov

ider

Con

sult

w/S

DVL

POt

her C

onsu

lt (U

SE A

SLAS

T RE

SORT

)A

pp A

sst (

Col

lege

/Voc

)A

pp A

sst (

Scho

lars

hip)

Enro

lmen

t (C

olle

ge)

FAFS

A A

sst

Yout

h Ld

rshp

/Dvm

ntPo

st-S

econ

dary

Self-

Adv

cy M

ater

ials

Vo

c/C

aree

r/Tec

h Ed

G

PA (

Star

t)G

PA (

End)

Direct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Referral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Open Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grade Levels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P K N UNK C D Total DTotals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 Total Ind

Total Re

Attachment 5

Page 1 of 1

00

Please indicate with the #1 GPA

00

Transition/ILS/Post 2nd"D" Direct Service | "I" Indirect Service | "R" Referral

End of Year Tracking Form 2013-14


Best Interest In School of Origin Decisions: A Checklist for Decision Making (Adapted from the San Diego County Interagency Agreement for Providing Educational Support to Students in Foster Care And the Texas Homeless Education Office)

Decisions regarding school selection should be make on a case by case basis, giving attention to the circumstances of each student. The following information and checklist may help Child Welfare Services staff in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Background and Law: Studies consistently show that school stability is critical for academic achievement. Therefore, the law allows a youth to remain in their school of origin, if the youth, the person holding educational rights and the school district foster care liaison determine that remaining in the school of origin is in the best interest of the child. When a child is going to change residences, whether this is due to initial entry into the foster care system or a placement change afterwards, the first key decision is whether or not the child will remain in the same school. The federal Fostering Connections legislation states that the child’s case plan must contain the following assurances:

• The placement 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.

• The placement agency has coordinated with the person holding the right to make educational decisions for the child and appropriate local educational agencies to ensure that the child remains in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement or, if remaining in that school is not in the best interests of the child, assurances by the placement agency and the local educational agency to provide immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school and to provide all of the child's educational records to the new school. WIC §16501.1(f).

The authority to determine which school the youth will attend rests with the school district foster care liaison, the person holding educational rights and the youth, in consultation with the placing agency. The recommendation must be based on the best interest of the child and the placing agency shall be informed of school placement decisions. EC§48853.5 Key Considerations:

• How long is the placement expected to last and what is the permanent plan? • How many schools has the child attended this year? How many over the past few

years? • How strong is the child academically? • Which school does the child prefer? Why? • Would the timing of a transfer coincide with a logical juncture such as after testing, end

of a semester, or end of a school year? • How would the length of commute impact the child? • Does the youth have any anxieties about upcoming moves or changes in his/her life? • Are there any safety issues to consider? • Is the current school in Program Improvement (PI)


Student Name: Date: Remaining in the Same School (School of Origin) Considerations

Transferring to a New School Considerations

� Continuity of Instruction Student is best served at the same school due to prior history.

� Continuity of Instruction Student is best served at a different school due to his or her future.

� Age and grade placement of the student Maintaining friends and contacts with peers is critical to the student’s meaningful school experience and participation. The student has been in this environment for an extended period of time.

� Age and grade placement of the student Maintaining friends and contacts with peers is not critical to the student’s meaningful school experience and participation. The student has attended the school of origin for only a brief time

� Academic Strength The child’s academic performance is weak, and the child would fall further behind if he/she transferred to another school.

� Academic Strength The child’s academic performance is strong and at grade level and the child would likely recover academically from a school transfer.

� Social and emotional state The child is suffering from the effects of mobility, has developed strong ties to the current school, does not want to leave, or involved in school related or extra-curricular activities.

� Social and emotional state The child seems to be coping adequately with mobility, does not feel strong ties to the current school, does not mind transferring to another school, or is not involved in school related or extra-curricular activities.

� Distance of the commute and its impact on the student’s education and/or special needs The advantage of remaining in the school of origin outweighs any potential disadvantages presented by the length of the commute.

� Distance of the commute and its impact on the student’s education and/or special needs Shorter commute may help the student’s concentration, attitude, or readiness for school. The new school can meet all of the necessary educational and special needs of the student.

� Personal safety of the student The school of origin has advantages for the safety of the student.

� Personal safety of the student The new school has advantages for the safety of the student.

� Student’s need for special instruction The student’s need for special instruction, such as Section 504 or special education and related services, can be met better at the school of origin.

� Student’s need for special instruction The student’s need for special instruction, such as Section 504 or special education and related services, can be met better at the new school.

� Length of anticipated stay in a temporary or permanent location The student’s current living situation is outside the school of origin attendance area, but his/her living situation or location continues to be uncertain. The student will benefit from the continuity offered by remaining in the school of origin.

� Length of anticipated stay in a temporary or permanent location The student’s current living situation appears to be stable and unlikely to change suddenly. The student will benefit from developing relationships with school peers who live in his or her community.

� Academic Performance Ranking The school in program improvement, but the student is connected (academically or socially) to the school which outweighs transferring to a new school or higher performing school.

� Academic Performance Ranking The school of origin is in Program Improvement and the new potential school will meet the educational needs of the student. The new school can provide more academic support services and greater opportunities than the school of origin.


AGENDA LCAP Stakeholders Engagement Meeting April 8, 2014; April 11, 2014; April 22, 2014; April 23, 2014 10:00am – 12:00pm

Introduction

Michelle Lustig, Ed.D, MSW, PPSC Foster Youth & Homeless Education Services San Diego County Office of Education

District Introductions Participating Districts April 8th

Sweetwater Union High School District Chula Vista Elementary School District National School District

April 11th Vista Unified School District Escondido Union High School District Escondido Union School District San Marcos Unified School District

April 22nd

San Diego Unified School District San Ysidro Elementary School District Ramona Unified School District Poway Unified School District San Dieguito Union High School District

April 23rd La Mesa-Spring Valley School District Santee School District Lemon Grove School District Cajon Valley School District Lakeside Union School District

Group Breakout & Instructions by Lead District

Breakout Sessions

Sharing out of stakeholder input

Additional Instructions:

A total of 3 questions will be asked during the breakout session. 20 minutes per question has been allocated.

1. In these eight state priority areas, what is working well for students in foster care?

2. In these eight state priority areas, what social, emotional, and/or academic challenges do students in foster care face?

3. Given your response to the first two questions, what are two suggestions of how we can improve

achievement for students in foster care?


San Diego County Office of Education Student Services and Programs Division

Evaluation Summary

Student Support Services Presentation Title: 3rd Annual San Diego Foster Care Education Summit: Inspiring

Youth to dream Big! Educational Supports for Youth in Foster Care

Date: June 25 & 26, 2014 Location: Mission Valley Marriot Number of evaluations submitted: 107

1. The breakout sessions were in alignment with the event goals: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3% 36% 61% 2. There was sufficient time provided for each breakout session:

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 6% 12% 37% 45%

3. The program content will help me support the education of students in foster care:

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 4% 35% 61%

4. The handouts and materials were useful*:


*2% did not respond 5. The venue was appropriate for the event

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 24% 76%

6. The information presented by the keynote speakers was beneficial:


7. The lunch speaker was inspiring*: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3% 19% 75% *3% did not respond 8. The youth comments and input was helpful/inspiring:


*1% did not respond 9. Overall the event met my expectations:



Recommendations for improvement to this event: • Need more foster care parent participation and more foster teens. Social workers need to

encourage participation to help our foster youth. • Make content of sessions available before sign-up online is done. • Long breakout sessions. • More involvement from FFA and CWS. • Breakout sessions for youth. • More youth presenters. • Sessions should be at least 30 minutes longer. • Having the youth host workshops would be really engaging and it would be great to see the

youth leading the summit. • Free wireless connection would be helpful especially for looking up resources referred to in

sessions. • Increase lunch delivery staff so we have the full afternoon session. • Continued stories from youth. • Session were long before a break was given; sometimes you didn’t want to step out for fear of

missing something. • Have more trashcans available. People were setting cups down on the floor all over the place. • Add sessions we signed up for to nametags – I registered so long ago I forgot what I signed up

for! • More time for breakout sessions (3) • Diary-free options for lunch. • Great job to everyone who organized, coordinated, and facilitated a powerful and informative

event. • I would like more emphasis placed on all foster youth from birth. I felt the emphasis was placed

on teenage foster youth. Education begins at birth. • No big recommendation for the event. The event was well organized, the food and presenters

were excellent. • Different audiences had different information needs to leveled workshops or job specific could

have been helpful. • Less or shorter “welcomes” and speakers to allow for more time to attend breakout sessions.

This way we walk away more knowledgeable to help foster youth. • Youth portion at the end of day should be earlier when more participants are still around. • McKinney-Vento more legislation and current bills going through federal or state governments. • Directions to more bathroom stalls. • Longer breakout sessions with discussions. • Keep kids coming. • Although the venue was spacious, parking and traffic makes the location a hassle to get to. • More time for lunch and lunch speaker so there’s sufficient time for the second breakout

session; network and talk to youth present. • More handouts to hand out to students. More resources. • Some of the breakout rooms need to accommodate more people. • Have handouts for other breakout sessions available. I wanted to attend more than one. • Good selection of workshops, however, some appeared to be repeat from the summit held

earlier this year in Sacramento. Would like to see different workshops offered. • Consider making it a multi-day event beyond the 2 days to allow for more breakout sessions.


Other comments: • It was a wonderful experience. • The keynote speaker and the youth were very inspiring. • Once again, I say this is the best one-day conference about youth in the state of California! • Fabulous! • Best event – I look forward to it all year. • Counting on another summit next year! • So much helpful information! Thank you! • It was a wonderful event! I enjoyed all the breakout presentations and speakers. • Excellent job! • Excellent event. • The youth voice is the event! Please pass along my thanks to all the youth and ambassadors. • Very inspirational speakers. • The best part is when youth are involved. • The event was wonderful and the youth’s stories were very inspiring. • Youth was awe-inspiring! Makes you feel connected. • It was so great to hear Jaiya and all the youth, as well as all the speakers. Amazing! • WOW. Awesome content. Very moving, useful and inspiring! • Outstanding. • The schedule was great this year – loved having only two longer breakout sessions. • This was amazing/Excellent! Thank you! (3) • Really enjoyed the summit (2) • Great Speakers! (6) • Great Conference! (10) • Having the ability to contact the youth ambassador prior to the presentation was great. • What a wonderful program. • I really appreciate the youth voice. • Youth speaking is the highlight (2) • I really love this event. • It was great connecting with the youth. I’m always inspired by this event.


Foster Youth Education Services Evaluation – 2014

Prepared for the

San Diego County Office of Education Foster Youth & Homeless Education Services Program

Dr. Michelle Lustig, Manager,

Foster Youth and Homeless Education Services

Prepared by

Joe M. Price, Ph.D., Bill Ganger, M.A. (Data Analyst), and Natalia Walsh, M.S.

Child and Adolescent Service Research Center (CASRC)


Foster Youth Education Evaluation – 2014

The following evaluation was provided for the San Diego County Office of Education Foster Youth & Homeless Education Services Program (SDCOE, FY&HES). The data used in this evaluation was supplied by SDCOE, FY&HES, and their partners.

Tutoring and Academic Related Services

Tutor Connection & Oxford Tutoring Programs

Across the 2013/2014 school year, 153 children and youth in foster care were provided with academic tutoring from either the Tutor Connection (N = 103) or Oxford tutoring (N= 50). The average age of the youth attending these programs was 11.91(SD = 3.3) for Tutor Connection and 10.9 (SD = 3.1) for Oxford tutoring. Among the students attending Tutor Connection 57.3% were females and 42.7% were males. Among the students attending Oxford tutoring, 50% were female and 50% were male.

Pre-Post WRAT4 Subscales – Tutor Connection and Oxford Tutoring

For a subsample of the youth participating in these tutoring programs pre-and-post scores from the WRAT4 were available. The five subscales assessed by the WRAT4 included Word Reading Standard Scores, Sentence Comprehension Standard Scores, Spelling Standard Scores, Math Computation Standard Scores, and Reading Composite Standard Scores. Using the data from this subsample it was possible to analyze potential pre-post changes in subscales of the WRAT4. Only those participants for whom there were both pre-and-post WRAT4 scores available were included in the analyses. An additional inclusion criterion was that for each participant the pre-and-post WRAT4 assessments had to be at least 30 days apart. For several participants there were multiple administrations for the WRAT4. In those instances, the first and the last administrations of the WRAT4 were used in the analyses. This selection process resulted in the data for 63 participants from Tutor Connection and 10 participants from Oxford Tutoring being available for analyses. To determine where there were pre-and-post-test differences on subtests of the WRAT4, comparisons were made between pre-and post-test scores on each of the subtests of the WRAT4. Table 1 displays the means of the WRAT4 subtest scores by pre-and post-tests for students in each of the tutoring programs. The results of a series of Paired-Samples t-tests conducted on the Oxford tutoring subsample revealed significant pre-post differences on all five subscales of the WRAT4, including Word Reading Standard Scores, Sentence Comprehension Standard Scores, Spelling Standard Scores, Math Computation Standard Scores, and Reading Composite Standard Scores. For each of these findings, the post-test scores were higher than the pre-test scores. The results of the Paired-Samples t-tests conducted on the Tutor Connection subsample revealed that there were statistically significant pre-and post-test differences on four of the subscales of the WRAT4, including Sentence Comprehension Standard Scores, Spelling Standard Scores, Math Computation Standard Scores,


and Reading Composite Standard Scores. In each case, post-test scores were significantly higher than pre-test scores. Pre-and post-test differences on the Word Reading Standard Scores was not significant. Overall, the pattern of findings on the impact the tutoring programs offered to children and youth in foster care in San Diego County indicates that these programs are indeed leading to improvements in key areas of academic functioning for children and youth in foster care.

Pre-Post GPA Comparisons

For a subsample of the youth who participated in Tutor Connection and Oxford tutoring programs during the 2013/2014 school year, it was possible to compare changes in their GPAs before and after tutoring. For the Oxford tutoring program, 13 participants had both pre-and-post GPA data. For these participants, the pre-tutoring mean GPA was 2.1 (SD =. 49) and the post-tutoring GPA was 2.3 (SD =. 81). This particular pre-post mean difference was not statistically significant (p < .26), most likely due to the low sample size. For the Tutor Connection program there were 28 students with available data. For these participants, the pre-tutoring mean GPA was 2.33 (SD = .75), and the post-tutoring mean GPA was 2.54 (SD = .82). The difference between these two means was statistically significant, p < .023. Thus, for the subsample of children and youth in the Tutor Connection program there was a significant change in students’ pre-to-post GPAs. For this group of youth, there was an average mean increase in GPAs following participation in the Tutor Connection program, adding to support to the effectiveness of this program for improving he academic outcomes for children and youth in foster care.

The Ed Ladder Tutoring Services

A select number of children and youth received tutoring services from The Ed Ladder tutoring Services. The age range of 17 individuals served ranged from pre-kindergarten to the 10th grade, 10 of whom were females. The majority of these children and youth were Hispanic (n = 9), with the remainder being either African American (n = 2), Asian American (n = 1), and Caucasian (n = 5). Specific academic skills were assessed for each individual prior to tutoring and immediately after the individualized tutoring programs. The average number of hours of instruction per individual was 9.98, with a range of 1 hour to 23 hours of instruction. The majority of tutoring services targeted English and language art skills, with fewer services targeting math skills. Improvement in the number of skills was assessed from pre-test to post-test. All students demonstrated significant gains in specific targeted skills. The average gain across these 17 individuals was 18.30%, with the range of gains in skills being from 5.88% to 100%.

Overall, for the children and youth in foster care who received some type of tutoring services during the 2013/2014 academic year, depending on the type of services received, there were significant gains in specific academic skill domains, improvements in average GPA scores, and


significant improvements in WRAT 4 test scores. Thus, tutoring services appears to be one effective means of addressing the academic challenges facing many children and youth in foster care.

Oxford Summer Camp

The Oxford Summer Camp was made available to children in foster care to improve academic functioning. During the summer of 2013, 16 children took part in this summer program. Of these children, 1 was in their second year of kindergarten and 15 were elementary-aged children. For nine of these children post-camp data was collected on academic functioning. At the end of camp, six students were at grade level in all subject areas, two were at grade level in all subjects except for history and social studies, one was at grade level in all subjects except math, and the final student was at grade level in social studies. None of the students were below grade level in all subject areas.

Pre-camp data was collected on the academic functioning of all 15 elementary-aged children who participated in the Oxford Summer Camp program. Post-camp data on academic functioning was available on 8 of these students. A comparison of the pre-post academic evaluations of 8 students for whom there was post-camp information revealed that in 5 cases there were improvements in all or some areas of academic functioning and for three other students grade level proficiencies were maintained across the period of the summer camp. Thus, the majority of children in foster care who participated in this summer camp demonstrated academic improvements or maintenance as a result of the activities associated with this program.

The following school year (2013 – 2014), for 13 of the 15 open cases, data were available on school absences. For these 13 cases, there was an average of 2.5 absences across the school year. However, this average was inflated due to one case with a high number of absences (17 days). Excluding this case, the average number of absences for the 13 remaining cases was only 1.3 days absent from school.

Taken together, the findings on the improvement in academic functioning immediately following the Oxford Summer Camp and the minimum number of absences at school during the following academic year suggest this program has benefits for the student participants. Given the academic needs of children in foster care, these findings would support increasing opportunities for other children in foster care to participate in this type of summer program.

Teacher Survey of Tutoring Services

During the Fall of 2013 and Spring of 2104, classroom teachers of students in foster care receiving tutoring services from either Oxford or Tutor Connection were asked to complete a survey regarding the tutoring services students received after the students had received the services during that particular semester. During the Fall semester 23 surveys were completed


and during the Spring semester 22 surveys were completed. The first part of the questionnaire addressed students’ school functioning, including number of absences, whether there were any disciplinary issues (suspensions, expulsions, and referrals), and student proficiency in six academic areas (reading, math, language arts, history, social studies, and science). For the Fall 2013 semester, the average number of absences per student was 2.73 (SD=4.4), with a range from 0 to 16 absences. In the Spring 2014 semester, the average number of absences per student was 2.25 (SD = 1.8), with a range of 0 to 6 absences. In regards to disciplinary actions, during the Fall of 2013 none of the students (n = 23) were suspended or expelled, and only one student was referred for a discipline. During the Spring of 2014, two students (out of 22 students) were suspended, no students were expelled, and 7 students were referred for discipline.

Tables 2 and 3 (Fall 2013 and Spring 2014, respectively) present the percent of students displaying proficiency in the six academic domains. Based on teachers’ reports from the Fall 2013 semester, across the six domains approximately a quarter of students who were tutored were performing at grade level, with 14% of students performing above grade level in reading. Between 40 to 50 percent of students were performing below grade level in reading, math and language arts. Similar percentages were revealed based on teachers reporting in the Spring semester, with a small percentage of students being reported at above grade level in reading, math, and language arts. Between 38 and 48 percent of students were performing below grade level in reading, math, and language arts. The areas of history, social sciences, and science did not apply to many students.

The second part of the survey of teachers with students who received tutoring services from one of the two service providers focused on teachers’ opinions of the services. The specific questions teachers were asked along with the percent of teachers responding with either “yes,” “no,” or “Unsure,” to each question during the Fall and Spring semesters is provided in Tables 4 & 5, respectively. For both semesters, an overwhelming percentage of teachers (90%) reported that the tutoring service provided to the student in their class was helpful. During the Fall semester about half of teachers reported that they were aware of their student’s foster care status prior to being contacted. During the Spring semester, more than two thirds of these teachers reported being aware of their student’s foster care status. This is most likely to due to the fact that teachers reporting in the Spring semester had known their students for a longer period of time. Only about a third of the teachers responding in both the Fall and Spring semesters reported being aware of the SDCOE foster education services program. During the Fall semester about half of teachers reported that communication regarding tutoring services was helpful that the tutoring services increased their awareness of the SDCOE foster education services program. During the Spring semester a higher percentage of teachers reported that the communication was helpful and that the tutoring services increased their awareness of the SDCOE foster education services program. Lastly, only a small percentage of teachers reported that the SDCOE linked them with other professionals involved in the life of their students. The


results of the second part of this survey revealed that for many teachers the tutoring services provided by SDCOE were not only helpful to students but also helped in making teachers aware of the SDCOE foster education services program. This, in turn, could lead to improved services for subsequent students in foster care who arrive in the classrooms of these teachers and those of other teachers with whom these particular teachers have contact.

Tutor Trainees: Pre-Post Survey Evaluations of Training

Students from California State University, San Marcos, who were in training to become tutors for foster youth received specialized training in foster care and foster care services. Students were asked 10 questions concerning issues related to foster care and foster care services, both prior to training (February, 2014) and immediately following training (May,. 2014). This provided the opportunity to examine changes in students’ perceived knowledge of these issues as a result of their participation in this specialized course. For each question, students were asked to rate their degree of knowledge of the issue on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= I do not know to 5 = I know very well. The 10 questions that composed the survey are listed in Table 6. At pre-test, 54 student surveys were available, and 49 student surveys were available at post-test. The average student ratings for each question at pre-and post-assessment are presented in Table 7. For all 10 items, there was a noticeable increase from pre-to post-assessment in the average self-ratings. For example, for question #1, I know why children are put into foster care, the average rating for how well students knew this information increased from 3.38 at pre-test to 4.55 at post-test for the Spring 2014 cohort. One of the most dramatic increases in student knowledge came from knowing the difference between foster care and kinship care (question #4). There was an average increase in knowledge on this issue from 2.8 at pre-test to 4.19 at post-test. Overall, based on students’ self-reports the specialized training students received in foster care and foster care services was effective in increasing student knowledge in key areas of knowledge concerning child welfare and foster care.

2014 San Diego Foster Care Education Summit

Youth Participation Evaluation

The 2014 Foster Care Education Summit was held on June 25th and 26th at the Mission Valley Marriott Hotel. This summit was attended by youth in foster care as well as other stakeholders, including those in the legal profession (attorneys and judges), educators, child welfare staff, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs). (See Table 8 for a breakdown of adult stakeholders).

Of the youth attendees, 34 filled out evaluations of the summit activities. The first question asked of the youth attendees was “Was this the first Education Summit you attended.” Twenty seven of the attendees (79%) stated that this was their first Education Summit they attended. Seven of the attendees had attended a prior summit. Next, attendees were asked “How


organized did you think the event was?” Of the 34, 28 (82%) stated that it was very organized, and the remainder (18%), said it was organized. Attendees were then asked about how interesting they found the first and second days of the summit. All the responders found the summit activities on both days “interesting.” More specifically, the vast majority of the responders (79% and 82%, respectively) found the first and second days very interesting. The remainder of the responders (21% and 18%) found the first and second days interesting. Next, the attendees were asked if they were “glad” they participated. All 34 responders were glad they attended the event, with 79% stating that the event was much better than they expected. Also, all 34 responders stated that the Education summit should continue to be offered each year.

Finally, attendees were asked two qualitative questions about the event. The first of these questions was Can you tell us something that you learned from the event? Youth respondents gave a wide range of responses to this question, but there were a few general themes that emerged including, realizing there are others in similar situations, the importance of sharing one’s voice (e.g., opinions, perspective) and that it can have an impact, the importance of help seeking, there are others (adults and foster youth) who care, educational resources available to foster youth, and rights of foster youth. The second qualitative question asked: Can you tell us one thing you want professionals to know about why education and school matters to you? The responses fell into a few major categories: education matters and is important to graduation and finding a job, we are open to adults helping us succeed in our education, help keep youth in the same school and don’t move them unless necessary, provide us with the resources and guidance we need, demonstrate care, and provide us with role models of youth who have been successful in school.

Based on the responses to this evaluation, it was clear that the foster youth gained valuable information about their educational rights and the educational resources available to them from the Education Summit. In addition, many foster youth gained the valuable insight that they are not alone in their journey toward graduation and a career; that there are other youth who are fellow travelers in this same journey and there are caring adults available long the way to help them be successful in their journey. Finally, foster youth want this yearly event to continue because it provides an important service in assisting them in their educational journey.

Stakeholders Evaluations

In addition to the aforementioned questionnaire completed by youth attendees, adult stakeholders who participated in the 2014 San Diego Foster Care Education Summit were asked to fill out an additional evaluation questionnaire. Of the attendees, 107 provided evaluations of the summit activities. For this evaluation stakeholders were presented with statements regarding the quality of several different aspects of the 2014 Education Summit and asked to rate how much they agreed with that statement, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The specific statements presented to participants and the percent agreements for each response option


associated with each statement are presented in Table 9. Across the 10 items, an overwhelming percentage of respondents agreed with each statement. Respondents stated that the breakout session were in alignment with event goals, the content will help them support the education of students in foster care, the handouts and materials were useful, the venue was appropriate, the information presented by the keynote speakers was beneficial, the lunch speaker was inspiring, the youth comments and input was helpful/inspiring, and the event met their expectations. There was less unified agreement for the statement “There was sufficient time provided for each breakout session.” It appears that some respondents felt more time was needed for breakout sessions. Based on these ratings, it appears that the various stakeholders valued the Education Summit and the information provided.

Supporting these ratings, participants also provided many favorable comments about the summit. Among those comments were: “Fabulous,” “Best event – I look forward to it all year,” “Great speakers,” “Great event,” “WOW, Awesome content, Very moving, useful and inspiring,” “This is amazing/Excellent! Thank you,” “What a wonderful program,” “I really appreciate the youth voice,” “So much helpful information! Thank you,” The event was wonderful and the youth’s stories were very inspiring,” I really love this event,” and “It was great connecting with the youth. I’m always inspired by this event.” In addition to these comments, the Special Instructional Services Coordinator of the Altus Institute-Network of Charter Schools wrote an email directly to Dr. Lustig stating: “Just want to send you a THANK YOU note- The Foster Youth Summit was an awesome experience: educational, inspiring, and very informative. Thank you for all of your hard work and dedication- it was a great event. I’m very happy to be a part of this team of professionals supporting foster youth in San Diego. I look forward to learning this next year and doing my part to make a difference.”

The aspects of the summit participants appreciated most were: 1) youth presenters; 2) selection of workshops; 3) organization; 4) type of information provided; 5) overall schedule; 6) keynote speakers, and 7) connecting with youth. Participants also provided constructive comments on how to improve the conference. A number of participants wanted more and, particularly, longer breakout sessions. Others suggested more handouts and making handouts from other sessions available. Some respondents wanted to see even more foster youth attending the summits, and someone even suggested having social workers encourage youth participation. Overall, it is clear from both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations that participants who attended the 2014 Education Summit thoroughly enjoyed the event, found the information highly useful, and were inspired by the stories and messages of the youth speakers.

Description of Educational Liaison Services

Extensive tracking of educational liaison services was conducted. Table 10 lists the various support services provided by educational liaisons as well as different types of educationally related outcomes for San Diego County foster youth. Over the course of the 2013-


2014 academic year, 3,453 foster youth were referred by social workers to receive educational liaison services. This is a 76% increase from the 2012-2013 academic year when 1,954 youth were referred. The specific types of services and outcomes are organized into eight categories such as academic support, school stability, and special education (see Table 10 for full list). The frequencies with which each type of service was provided and that various outcomes occurred are broken down into additional subcategories within each category. These frequencies were recorded on a monthly basis between July 2013 and June 2014. As is evident from Table 10, educational liaisons provided a wide range of services for social workers, families, and the children and youth in their care. Areas in which educational liaisons provided assistance included assisting with school enrollment, obtaining tutoring services for youth, requesting school records for social workers, leadership/youth development, and vocation/career/technical education and post-secondary education matters. In addition, liaisons assisted in helping to intervene in pending school suspensions and expulsions, obtaining special education services, providing materials and information to social workers about education rights and laws, and making contacts with community services. Among the most frequently provided services were support with helping to arrange transportation for youth to and from school, consultations/assistance to social workers regarding education rights, assisting youth with general Special Education information, as well as consultations/assistance for youth with existing IEP's. Some informative trends regarding student outcomes also emerged. For example, 4 youth were referred for assistance with pending expulsion issues over the course of the 2013-2014 academic year and 7 youths were not expelled due to assistance from an educational liaison. Over this same period, there were 948 instances of foster youth placement change and in 606 of these instances youths were able to maintain their same school based on best interest determination. Given the range of services provided by educational liaisons, the frequency with which they are contacted for assistance, and the various positive outcomes that result from these services, it is clear that these individuals provide an invaluable resource to the social workers in San Diego County and to the children and youth they serve.

Emancipation Services

Student Evaluation of Spring 2014 College and Career Day

This event was held at Grossmont College. The grade level of attendees ranged from middle school to graduates from high school from eight different school districts in San Diego County. The majority of attendees were currently in high school. The breakdown of the grade level of the respondents is listed in Table 11. An eight-item evaluation questionnaire was provided to participants at the end of the event. Of the youth that attended, 48 completed evaluations. The average rating score for each of the eight items is presented in Table 12. Across these questions, the ratings for specific aspects of this event were high, ranging from 4.1 to 4.8. The highest rated item was “I feel that the people giving out the information were friendly and helpful.” The next highest rated item was “I feel that college is a place where I can belong.” The youth believed


they learned about various jobs and careers, where to get training for different kinds of jobs and careers, and what they could do after high school (see Table 12). Youth also indicated that they were likely to apply to some of the colleges, training programs, or jobs they learned about at the event.

The evaluation questionnaires also provide space for attendees to share comments or suggestions to improve the event. The most frequently occurring suggestion was to provide information on jobs youth can have during high school, and not just following high school and college. Another suggestion offered by several youth was to include more discussion regarding what other resources are available to them while they are still in foster care. In addition to providing suggestions for improving the event, many attendees used the space provided to give positive comments about the event, including comments such as “Good Job,” “It was great,” “I learned more than I expected,” and “Enjoyed the experience.” Furthermore, many attendees used the opportunity to thank the organizers for this event. Clearly, the attendees found this event informative and helpful in considering education and career options following high school.

Pre-employment Training (PET)

Youth in foster care were given the opportunity to participate in a variety of internship programs available in San Diego County. Most of these programs last a period of four weeks and require youth to participate a minimum of 80 hours. Descriptive information was available on 18 youth in foster care who participated in PET during the summer of 2013. Of these 18 youth, 7 were male and 11 were female. The average age of these youth was 15.7, ranging in age from 14-to 17-years of age. Eighteen youth successfully completed the PET program in the summer of 2013, with 4 of these students returning to the program in the summer of 2014. Of the 18 youth who had completed the PET program in 2013, 6 youth participated in work readiness activities since completing the PET program last year. Seventeen of the 18 youth reported setting a career or educational goal since completing PET program. In addition, all 18 of the youth who completed the PET program in 2013 reported staying in school since completing the program. This is an exceptionally high rate of retention, especially for this population of youth.


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations on WRAT4 Subtests by Pre-and Post-Test

Tutor Connection (N= 63)

Pre-Test Post Test t Sig.

Word Reading Standard Score 103.3 (23.0) 107.1 (22.3) -1.7 .091

Sentence Comprehension Score 93.8 (18.9) 101.1 (17.5) -4.3 .001

Spelling Score 99.1 (17.5) 107.5 (19.8) -4.9 .001

Math Computation Score 95.6 (17.4) 101.5 (18.4) -4.4 .001

Reading Composite Score 97.9 (19.8) 103.8 (19.0) -3.7 .001

Oxford Tutoring (N = 10)

Pre-Test Post Test t Sig.

Word Reading Standard Score 89.9 (12.2) 102.8 (13.8) -3.8 .005

Sentence Comprehension Score 85.5 (14.0) 94.8 (11.3) -3.1 .013

Spelling Score 89.6 (14.8) 110.6 (15.0) -3.8 .004

Math Computation Score 94.9 (5.02) 108.0 (9.8) -3.7 .005

Reading Composite Score 85.9 (10.5) 97.9 (11.5) -3.7 .005


Table 2.

Percent Proficiency Level by Subject: Fall

Subject Above Grade Level

At Grade Level

Below Grade Level

No Change Subject Does Not Apply

Reading 14.3 14.3 47.6 4.8 19

Math -- 23.8 42.9 -- 33.3

Language Arts -- 20 50 -- 30

History -- 23.8 19 -- 57.1

Social Sciences -- 23.8 23.8 -- 52.4

Science -- 28.6 19 -- 52.4

Table 3.

Percent Proficiency Level by Subject: Spring

Subject Above Grade Level

At Grade Level

Below Grade Level

No Change Subject Does Not Apply

Reading 9.5 28.6 38.1 4.8 19

Math 5 20 40 5 30

Language Arts 4.8 23.8 47.6 4.8 19

History -- 21.1 26.3 5.3 47.4

Social Sciences -- 15 35 5 45

Science -- 35 25 5 35


Table 4.

Teacher Opinions of Tutoring Services: Fall

Question Percent Responding “Yes”

Percent Responding “No”

Percent Responding “Unsure”

Was tutoring helpful for your student? 95 5 --

Were you aware of student’s foster care status prior to being contacted?

52.2 47.8 --

Were you aware of the SDCOE foster education services program?

31.8 68.2 --

Was communication re: tutoring services helpful? 52.4 47.6 --

Did communication re: tutoring services increase your awareness of the SDCOE foster education services program?

54.5 45.5 --

Did we link you with any other professionals involved in the life of your student?

8.7 78.3 13


Table 5.

Teacher Opinions of Tutoring Services: Spring

Question Percent Responding “Yes”

Percent Responding “No”

Percent Responding “Unsure”

Was tutoring helpful for your student? 89.5 10.5

Were you aware of student’s foster care status prior to being contacted?

77.3 22.7

Were you aware of the SDCOE foster education services program?

31.8 68.2

Was communication re: tutoring services helpful? 60 40

Did communication re: tutoring services increase your awareness of the SDCOE foster education services program?

68.2 31.8

Did we link you with any other professionals involved in the life of your student?

4.8 81 14.3


Table 6

CHILD WELFARE KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONNAIRE Name Date

Please indicate your level awareness of the following areas on the scale provided.

1= Do not know at all 5= I know very

well 1 2 3 4 5

1. I know why children are put into foster care.

2. I know what a Child Protective Services Social Worker’s job entails.

3. I understand the role of Juvenile Court in a foster youth’s life.

4. I know the difference between foster care and kinship care

5. I know what the Child Abuse Reporting laws are and who is a mandated reporter.

6. I know the difference between Juvenile Dependency and Juvenile Delinquency.

7. I know how being in foster care affects a child’s educational development.

8. I know what Confidentiality is as it pertains to youth in foster care.

9. I know the different types of child abuse.

10. I know when, how and why kids leave foster care.


Table 7

CHILD WELFARE KNOWLEDGE SURVEY: Spring 2014

Question #1 Mean rating

PRE 3.38 POST 4.55


PRE 2.68 POST 3.85


PRE 2.28 POST 3.59


PRE 2.8 POST 4.19


PRE 2.72 POST 4.23


PRE 2.75 POST 3.99


PRE 3.72 POST 4.78


PRE 3.58 POST 4.70


PRE 2.63 POST 4.74


PRE 2.93 POST 4.49


Table 8

Descriptive Statistics of Stakeholders Represented at

2014 San Diego Foster Care Education Summit,

Self-Identified by Category

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent

Attorney/Judge/Court Staff 13 6 6

CASA 41 17 23

Caregiver 3 1 24

College Staff

Community Partners

28

64

12

27

36

63

Educator/School Staff 67 28 91

HHSA-CWA 16 7 98

Probation 4 2 100

Total 236


Table 9

San Diego County Office of Education Student Services and Programs Division

Evaluation Summary Number of evaluations submitted: 107

1. The breakout sessions were in alignment with the event goals: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3% 36% 61% 2. There was sufficient time provided for each breakout session:

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 6% 12% 37% 45%

3. The program content will help me support the education of students in foster care:


4. The handouts and materials were useful*:


*2% did not respond 5. The venue was appropriate for the event


6. The information presented by the keynote speakers was beneficial:


7. The lunch speaker was inspiring*: Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3% 19% 75% *3% did not respond 8. The youth comments and input was helpful/inspiring:


*1% did not respond 9. Overall the event met my expectations:



Table 10


Table 11

Grade Level of Respondents of Evaluation of College and Career Day

Grade Level Frequency Percent

Middle School 3 6.3

9th Grade 1 2.1

10th Grade 7 14.6

11th Grade 9 18.8

12th Grade 20 41.6

Graduated/GED 6 12.5

Did not state 2 4.1

Total 48 100.0


Table 12

Average Ratings and Standard Deviations of Youth Evaluations of College and Career Day

aAverage Rating

1. I learned about how to apply to college. 4.29 2. I learned about financial aid, scholarships, and grants. 4.1 3. I learned about services provided on campus (i.e., EOP/ACE Scholars). 4.4 4. I feel that college is a place where I can belong. 4.5 5. I feel that the people giving out the information were friendly and helpful 4.25 6. I will get in touch with the people I met today to learn more about college 4.17

Note: ratings for each item were presented on a Likert scale, including Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Somewhat Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1).

Attachment 11

FYS 2011-12 Year-End Report - Foster Youth Services (CA Dept of …€¦ · ) Section 42923...

Documents

Transcript of FYS 2011-12 Year-End Report - Foster Youth Services (CA Dept of …€¦ · ) Section 42923...