Foster Youth with Disabilities Transition Planning: Issues and Barriers from a PTI Perspective

1. Welcome and introductionsWelcome and introductions

2. Foster Youth with Disabilities face unique and daunting challenges WHAT WE KNOW: Children who have consistent, knowledgeable advocates are most likely to receive appropriate services and supports. Almost HALF of Foster Youth have identified special education needs, a number that is probably LOW. Involved, committed parents often struggle to navigate the special education system and secure effective individualized plans for their children� Some reasons why we do what we do: Prior to the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1975, only 1 in 5 children with disabilities were served by U.S. schools. Only 56% of CA children enrolled in special education graduated with a diploma in 2005. And that number is dropping. Only 85% of the services specified in Individualized Education Plans (or IEPs), a legally-binding document for children with disabilities who qualify for special education, are being provided. Children who have consistent, knowledgeable advocates are most likely to receive appropriate services and supports. That�s where we and you come in. That�s hopefully why we are here tonight.Some reasons why we do what we do: Prior to the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1975, only 1 in 5 children with disabilities were served by U.S. schools. Only 56% of CA children enrolled in special education graduated with a diploma in 2005. And that number is dropping. Only 85% of the services specified in Individualized Education Plans (or IEPs), a legally-binding document for children with disabilities who qualify for special education, are being provided. Children who have consistent, knowledgeable advocates are most likely to receive appropriate services and supports. That�s where we and you come in. That�s hopefully why we are here tonight.

3. Foster Youth with Disabilities face unique and daunting challenges �WHAT WE KNOW: Foster Youth often have no such advocate. Foster Youth may experience multiple changes in placement and support relationships. Problems in School and lack of appropriate intervention and support not only impact educational success � they �blow up� placement and prevent permanency and success for many youth. Some reasons why we do what we do: Prior to the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1975, only 1 in 5 children with disabilities were served by U.S. schools. Only 56% of CA children enrolled in special education graduated with a diploma in 2005. And that number is dropping. Only 85% of the services specified in Individualized Education Plans (or IEPs), a legally-binding document for children with disabilities who qualify for special education, are being provided. Children who have consistent, knowledgeable advocates are most likely to receive appropriate services and supports. That�s where we and you come in. That�s hopefully why we are here tonight.Some reasons why we do what we do: Prior to the federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1975, only 1 in 5 children with disabilities were served by U.S. schools. Only 56% of CA children enrolled in special education graduated with a diploma in 2005. And that number is dropping. Only 85% of the services specified in Individualized Education Plans (or IEPs), a legally-binding document for children with disabilities who qualify for special education, are being provided. Children who have consistent, knowledgeable advocates are most likely to receive appropriate services and supports. That�s where we and you come in. That�s hopefully why we are here tonight.

4. Current State of Affairs: Barriers to Success  for Foster Youth

5. Despite Good Intentions:the System can be the PROBLEM Children in Foster Care often experience numerous changes in placement and schools. This leads to loss of relationships, credits, and delays in enrollment and academic progress. Lines of responsibility and accountability are unclear. Schools & Child Welfare Agencies do not coordinate efforts or share information. A particular school or teacher may not know a child is in Foster Care. The court may not know a child is struggling in school.

6. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 68% of school age children in Foster Care who were reviewed were identified as having special needs.  Yet only 36% were receiving Special Education services. (Choice et al., 2001, p.54, p. 89) Child Find / Identification Issues

7. Foster Youth come into care because of significant difficulties likely to result in emotional, behavioral or learning difficulties. Foster Youth are often not referred for special education eligibility assessment, or are assessed only after the situation escalates into a crisis. There are strong systemic disincentives to qualify older Youth for services. Yet without identification, no access to Transition Planning or extended participation in school up to age 22 is possible for this population with the weakest social safety net� Child Find / Identification Issues

8. Child Find / Identification Issues Lack of an Effective Advocate may limit Procedural Safeguards, such as: Independent assessments by specialized evaluators (behaviorists, neuropsychologists, developmental pediatricians, etc.) that could ultimately identify a child with a disability. Children who are NOT identified often continue to struggle. They are more likely to: - be retained- leave school prematurely, or - be subject to expulsion if learning challenges  play out behaviorally�

9. Child Find / Identification Issues EVERY TIME A CHILD: Is moved into a more restrictive setting, Experiences a change in placement because of  unmet disability needs, Is punished for a problem he or she has no tools  to handle, Does not receive the support & care needed to  succeed, THAT CHILD EXPERIENCES ANOTHER TRAUMA. TRAUMA ACCUMULATES & TRAUMA ULTIMATELY INTERFERES WITH ADULT FUNCTIONING, AT A HIGH COST TO THE INDIVIDUAL, COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY.

10. Effect of Multiple Placements Children who experience multiple Foster Care placements and who needed Special Education were less likely to receive those services than children in more stable placements. REMEMBER �lack of support at school can DRIVE a change in placement at home!

11. Foster Youth with Disabilities often receive a lower level of Special Education Services In a comparison of Foster Youth receiving Special Education to Youth receiving Special Education but NOT in Foster Care*, researchers found that: The Education and Transition Plans of Foster Youth  were lower in quality. The Transition Plans of Foster Youth were half as  likely as the comparison group�s plans to contain  post-secondary education goals (31% vs. 60%). Foster Youth were less likely to have an advocate  at the IEP meeting (42% vs. 69%). * (Greenen & Powers, 2006, pp. 9-11)

12. High School Completion Issues Predictors of not receiving a traditional diploma, according to the EPE Research Center, are: Repeating a grade Changing schools Behavior problems 58% of Foster Youth had a High School degree at age 19, compared to 87% of their same age peers in a comparable national sample.

13. Key findings of the 2004 Fostering Futures Project (OHSU) indicate that Transition Plans of Foster Youth generally: Are poor in quality. Do not reflect the requirements of IDEA. Do not reflect effective practices. Were less likely* to include goals for  post-secondary education.  (Only 31% of plans had a goal in this area.) � * (compared to Youth with IEPs only) Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

14. Transition Plans: What�s Missing? Were less likely* to include goals for developing independent living skills. (Only 16% of plans had a goal in this area.) Had significantly fewer goals overall.*(20% of plans had NO Measurable Post Secondary Goals. (MPSG) Often had no plan for how to reach goals.(32% of Transition Goals had no accompanying action steps in the plan.) Had less advocate involvement.* (Less than 50% IEP/TP participation by a family member, Foster Parent or Educational Surrogate.)

15. Caseworkers were typically absent. (Only 31% of IEP/TP plans provided any indication that the caseworker had attended the meeting.) Often caseworkers and families were listed as responsible for Transition Plan activities even though they had never attended the IEP/TP meeting. Typically plans listed Student responsible for working on Transition Goals, often with little or no support from others. (22% of plans listed Student as the sole person responsible for implementing the goals.) Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

16. Lacked a specific timeline for goal completion.(Only 7% of goals identified a specific target date.) Rarely described effective practices known to promote successful Transition outcomes (such as training around self determination, person-centered or career planning, extra-curricular activities, mentoring, individualized financial support education.) Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

17. Did not focus on career development. Work experience, when described at all, was typically: - segregated - disability stereotypical - inconsistent with the Student�s  employment goals Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

18. Revealed little understanding or  acknowledgement of Foster Care issues.  ( 0% of plans referenced Transition Planning that  occurs through Child Welfare. - Indeed, several Foster Youth had 2 separate  Transition Plans!  - Comparison between the Special Education and  FCIA Transition Plans revealed little overlap. Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

19. While almost half the Foster Youth were turning 18 before their next scheduled IEP meeting, plans barely discussed Student�s anticipated emancipation. (Only 7% of plans contained discussion about a student�s emancipation from Child Welfare.) Based upon review of notices, schools failed to invite the Student�s caseworker to the IEP/TP meeting. (Over 50% were lacking.) Lacked reference to Independent Living Programs. (Less than 25% of the plans.) Transition Plans: What�s Missing?

20. �Indicator 13� Checklist: A tool for Educators and Advocates What is Indicator 13? As part of IDEA 2004, the U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) required states to develop 6-year State Performance Plans around 20 indicators. Data is submitted annually (beginning 2/2007) in Annual Performance Reports. The 13th Indicator relates to Transition Services. � Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an individualized education program (IEP) that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals.� [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)] * * National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center

21. Link to checklist from NSTTAS Site: Very useful in assessing compliance of a Transition Plan with IDEA 2004. Indicator 13 Checklist: A tool for Educators and Advocates

23. Foster Youth Need Consistent Advocates IDEA presumes and depends on Parental involvement and advocacy. Foster Parents may be appointed by default, but changes in placement mean changes in surrogate.

27. ITP Meeting: Preparation Prior to any IEP or 504 Meeting for a Youth age 14 or Older: Identify that this is a Foster Youth. Identify all agencies involved in case. - CASA - DDS caseworker  - Attorney - County Mental Health/therapist  - Child Welfare Worker - Others Notice all agencies at least 2 weeks prior  to meeting IN WRITING.

28. SEC. 614. (d)(1)(B) INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM.--The term `individualized education program team' or `IEP Team' means a group of individuals composed of-- (i) the parents of a child with a disability; (ii) not less than 1 regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment); (iii) not less than 1 special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than 1 special education provider of such child; (iv) a representative of the local educational agency who-- (I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; (II) is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and (III) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency; (v) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in clauses (ii) through (vi); (vi) at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and (vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability. Additional team members can be invited, such as an attorney if the district is given at least 24 hours notice. Or an expert the parent needs there to explain an independent assessment for example. Or a support person that knows the child, past teacher or caregiver. Someone to take notes for the parent. IEP meetings can be overwhelming for parents. They can invite key people too.SEC. 614. (d)(1)(B) INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM.--The term `individualized education program team' or `IEP Team' means a group of individuals composed of-- (i) the parents of a child with a disability; (ii) not less than 1 regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment); (iii) not less than 1 special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than 1 special education provider of such child; (iv) a representative of the local educational agency who-- (I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; (II) is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and (III) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency; (v) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in clauses (ii) through (vi); (vi) at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and (vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

29. Interagency Collaboration is Essential for Foster Youth! A 2007 evaluation by National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) found that: Over 86% of the states reviewed had NO CONSENT from Parent/Student to invite other agencies to the meeting. Our experience at DREDF, with other stakeholders in Foster Care advocacy, suggests that Interagency Collaboration is the exception, not the rule.

30. It is critical that the School District invite, with adequate notice, other agencies who ARE or MAY need to be involved: Child Welfare Caseworker Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) Centers for Independent Living (CIL) Dependency Attorney Independent Living Skills Program Worker (ILSP) Group Home or Foster Family Support Agency  Counselor or Social Worker� Interagency Collaboration is Essential for Foster Youth!

31. Department of Developmental Services  (DDS/Regional Center) caseworker School District Foster Youth Liaison  (where applicable) Workability Staff/Job Coaching program Housing Program staff Vocational Assessment professional Health Care Coordinators / Social Workers  /Therapists Any other Agency or individuals that may be  responsible for input or delivery of plan services. Interagency Collaboration is Essential for Foster Youth!

32. During the ITP Meeting: REMEMBER: MEASURABLE POST-SECONDARY GOALS based on QUALITY ASSESSMENTS in ALL AREAS OF FUNCTIONING are what drive SERVICES. ACCOUNTABILITY IS KEY:Never assign responsibility to a person or Agency not present to ACCEPT and UNDERSTAND what is needed! ASK: What tools, modifications/accommodations, services, and relationships will support Youth in meeting this goal�

33. During the ITP Meeting: INVOLVE YOUTH IN ANY WAY FEASIBLE.BUT DO NOT MAKE THE YOUTH INDEPENDENTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACHIEVING HIS OR HER OWN GOALS!!!

39. Transition Plans: Must Build Accountability It is NOT sufficient to identify a need. A need MUST include a plan for ensuring that it is met! Individuals and/or Agencies must be identified as responsible for action components.

40. NOT: �Deb will investigate college choices on  the internet.� Transition Plan Accountability

41. NOT: �Sam will learn to use the computer  for his writing assignments.� Transition Plan Accountability

42. Postsecondary Issues In a Midwest study, the majority (80%) of Foster Youth age 17-18 hoped and expected to graduate from college eventually. Only 15% of Foster Youth were likely to be enrolled in college preparatory classes vs. 32% of students not receiving Foster Care, even with similar test scores and grades. Colleges expect a level of independence and self-advocacy difficult for many students with disabilities to achieve; especially Foster Youth with disabilities. Issues like where to go during Summer or Winter Break, or how to support one�s self over these breaks when financial aid is not available can sabotage student success at college.

43. Foster Youth need: Key Components for Success Maximum input into charting their own course without forfeiting adult support or safety nets available to other students. School-Based Preparatory Experiences and environments to support skill acquisition, educational and vocational opportunities INDIVIDUALIZED to the students own goals. Career Preparation and Work-Based Learning Experiences while still in school �(could be an ESY service)

44. Foster Youth need: Key Components for Success Support in the early months of Transition via identified systems (DSPS, Group Homes, ILSP staff) � a need that should be addressed in the ITP AND in the Case Plan. A single, integrated Transition Plan that includes clear lines of responsibility and accountability between child welfare and school districts. Recognition that self advocacy is developed over time and through practice, and is not attained at the 18th birthday�

45. Foster Youth need: Key Components for Success Recognition of their vulnerability, and attention to their higher need for safety nets outside of the nuclear family AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST�a willingness on the part of educators and advocates to get involved to provide this!

46. Resources: Casey Foundations Family Programs: www.casey.org National Working Group on Foster Care and Education: www.casey.org/FriendsAndFamilies/Partners/NWGFCE/ Includes: - American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law www.abanet.org/child/home2.html - American Public Human Services Association www.aphsa.org/Home/home_news.asp - Casey Family Programs www.casey.org/Home - Children's Defense Fund www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer - Child Welfare League of America www.cwla.org

47. Resources (continued): - Education Law Center (Pennsylvania) www.elc-pa.org - Juvenile Law Center www.jlc.org - National�CASA Association www.nationalcasa.org - National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and  Judicial Issues www.abanet.org/child/rclji/home.html - National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges www.ncjfcj.org - National Foster Care Coalition www.nationalfostercare.org - National Foster Parent Association www.nfpainc.org

48. Resources (continued): National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth at the Institute for Educational Leadership www.ncwd-youth.info/promising_Practices>

49. The Parent Training & Information (PTI) Center and Foster Youth Resources for Education (FYRE) at DREDF provides technical assistance and training to parents, caregivers and professionals who serve children with disabilities. Please contact us with concerns & questions: 510.644.2555 Phone 800.348.4232 Toll Free 510.841.8645 Fax info@dredf.org www.dredf.org