Fostering Connections and Education: Funding Transportation Kathleen McNaught

1. Fostering Connections and Education: Funding Transportation Kathleen McNaught American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law Fostering Connections Resource Center - Webinar Series July 13, 2010

2. Overview of Webinar Review of webinar features and Q&A tools Overview of Fostering Connections Resource Center Review of Fostering Connections law and education stability provisions of the Act Focus on addressing transportation to keep children in their current schools. Wrap-up

3. Webinar logistics and Q&A • Control Panel features • “Grab tab”: click on the arrows to open/close control panel throughout the presentation. • Questions pane • How to ask a question • Type a question for presenters into the text box at the bottom of the question pane and hit “SEND” • If we are unable to respond to you during the session, we will follow up after the presentation

4. About the Fostering Connections Resource Center • Mission: The Fostering Connections Resource Center is dedicated to providing timely and reliable tools and information on all aspects of the Fostering Connections Act to ensure that state, tribal and local decision makers are well-informed about the new law and that they receive maximum support as they plan for and carry out its implementation. • Supported through generous contributions of: • The Annie E Casey Foundation • Casey Family Programs • Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption • Duke Endowment • Eckerd Family Foundation • Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative • Sierra Health Foundation • Stuart Foundation • Walter S. Johnson Foundation

5. What does the Resource Center provide? • Nonpartisan data and resources on each section of the bill • A user-friendly website at www.fosteringconnections.org serves as a central clearinghouse of customized tools and information, such as policy and budget analyses, an up-to-date list of federal guidance, implementation toolkits, research briefs, and examples of best practices and legislative approaches.   • Individualized technical assistance • The Resource Center responds directly to questions from state and tribal leaders and can connect decision makers with other experts and TA providers • Monitoring of implementation activity • Visitors to www.fosteringconnections.org can stay up-to-date on federal regulatory activity on implementation, events in the field, congressional oversight hearings and learn about best practices and state and tribal approaches to implementation • Opportunities to communicate with experts and peers • Subscribe to mailing lists, join webinars and online discussion forums; and stay informed about major events and conferences hosted by the Resource Center and its many collaborating organizations.

6. Resource Center Networks & Collaborating Partners • Partners play a central role in the efforts of the Resource Center. The Resource Center hosts and manages six national networks of state-based stakeholders who help us stay abreast of key questions and concerns regarding implementation, identify best practices, and assist in the delivery and dissemination of tools and resources. • Networks are managed by issue experts at the Resource Center who work with a leading partner organization: • Kinship/Guardianship Jennifer Miller/Children’s Defense Fund • EducationMadelyn Freundlich/ABA Legal Center for Foster Care and Education • Adoption Kerry DeVooght/North American Council on Adoptable Children • Health Marci McCoy-Roth/National Academy for State Health Policy • Older Youth Barbara Langford/National Foster Care Coalition • Tribal Madelyn Freundlich/National Indian Child Welfare Association • More than 25 national organizations serving as collaborating partners • We welcome the opportunity to feature resources by and contact information for state & tribal organizations. Contact us at info@fosteringconnections.org

7. Legal Center for Foster Care and Education • Created by the ABA and the Juvenile Law Center and Education Law Center, in collaboration with Casey Family Programs, and, most recently, the Annie E. Casey Foundation. • A national technical assistance resource and information clearinghouse on legal and policy matters affecting the education of children and youth in out-of-home care • Website: www.abanet.org/child/education • Listserv, Conference Calls, Publications, Searchable Database

8. Sweeping federal reforms for children and families The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act(P.L. 110-351): Signed into law on October 7, 2008 Most significant federal reforms for abused and neglected children in more than a decade

9. Education Stability Provision of FC The child’s case plan must include: • assurances that the placement of a child in foster care 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.

10. Keeping Children Living in Their School Communities • This is best practice, even outside of the school context. School stability is added benefit. • Need for targeted recruitment of resource families within school communities and boundaries. • Examples from field: • GEO mapping • Illinois- School Minder program

11. Education Stability Provisions of FC • assurance that the state [or local child welfare agency] has coordinated with appropriate local education agencies … to ensure that the child remains enrolled in the school in which the child was enrolled at the time of placement. • If remaining in the same school is not in the best interest of the child, assurances by the State agency and the local education agencies to provide immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school, with all of the education records of the child provided to the school.

12. Topics Not the Focus of this Call • How to determine best interest: School Selection for Students in Out-of-Home Care This brief provides a framework for for assessing best interest when selecting a school for students in out-of-home care.http://www.serve.org/nche/downloads/briefs/school_sel_in_care.pdf • Reminder: cost of transportation CANNOT be a factor in determining best interest. • Immediate Enrollment in a new school • Decision making and dispute resolution • Liaisons and points of contact in the agencies

13. How Many Children Will Need Transportation? Remember: Not all children in care will require transportation to remain in their same school. Total # of children in care minus # not yet school age minus # graduated/left HS minus # placed within the school boundaries minus # in their BI to be immediately enrolled in new school minus # covered under McKinney Vento minus # have transport. in IEP EQUALS # of children who may need transportation to remain in current school

14. McKinney Vento • McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. §11431 et. seq. Purpose: ensure that children and youth in homeless situations receive a free, appropriate public education, and remove obstacles that delay enrollment or prevent access. • Student remains in school of origin if in best interest to do so or gains immediate access to new school. • School of Origin defined - the school the child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school last enrolled. • Best interest determinations must be made • Once eligible applies for remainder of school year or for period of eligibility • Transportation must be provided to remain in school

15. McKinney-Vento and Foster Care • “Homeless children and youth” means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence…; and includes: • children living in emergency or transitional shelters • children abandoned in hospitals • Unaccompanied homeless youth • children “awaiting foster care placement” • No federal definition of children “awaiting foster care placement” (AFCP) • up to states to determine

16. MV and FC Resources • State AFCP Chart • For a list of all states with an AFCP definition, please see http://www.abanet.org/child/education/publications/afcp_chart_5_11_10.doc • Q & A: Overlap between MV and FC • For a factsheet detailing the overlap of the two laws, please see http://www.abanet.org/child/education/publications/qa_fc_and_mv_overlap_final.pdf • Two Issue Briefs • Clearing the Path to School Success for Students in Out-of-Home Care - This brief provides basic information about the McKinney-Vento Act and Fostering Connections Act and provides case studies to outline the overlap of these laws in providing for school success. • When Working Together Works - This brief is designed to help educators and child welfare advocates work together to support the academic success of children and youth in out-of-home care. The brief offers practical, proven strategies for implementing the Fostering Connections and McKinney-Vento Acts collaboratively.

17. Summary: Comparing McKinney-Vento to Fostering Connections • McKinney-Vento Act (Education Law: NCLB) • Requires school districts to ensure school stability, provide transportation to school of origin, pendency in school of choice while disputes are resolved, immediate enrollment, help of school liaisons to enroll, access to Title I, comparable services etc. • Fostering Connections (Child Welfare: Title IV-E) • Requires caseworkers to consider proximity and appropriateness of prior school in placing children AND to ensure school stability unless remaining in same school is not in child’s best interest. Transportation is permissible CW cost; no liaisons, no clear mandate on Education – HOWEVER, they have a duty to cooperate to ensure stability.

18. Special Education: transportation in an IEP • When a child in care is eligible for special education services under the IDEA, he/she must have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed that outlines the child’s education needs and services, including related services. • Related services are services that will allow the child benefit from his/her special education program. • Transportation is an allowable related service in an IEP, as long as the IEP team determines it is necessary for the child to benefit from the special education program. • Therefore, while the inclusion of transportation as a related service in an IEP might help support school stability, the core reason for that transportation to be included must be related to the special education needs of the child.

19. Focus for Today • Children who it is in their best interest to remain in the school enrolled at the time of placement; AND • Continuing that enrollment will require some form of transportation.

20. Big Picture • Education stability requirements apply to all children in care, not just IV-E eligible kids; • If child welfare agencies must ENSURE children stay in their current school, (and it is in their best interest to do so), then it follows that they are ultimately responsible to ENSURE, when it is needed, that transportation is provided. • Costs must be addressed; can be through Child Welfare or Education funding alone, or collaboration across agencies to fund this transportation. • Fostering Connections requires collaboration across agencies. Intent is that collaboration occur around the issue of transportation. • The dependency court has the ability to ensure school stability for children in care, including ensuring child welfare agency has a documented plan for education stability, and ensuring transportation is provided when necessary.

21. Some Examples of Additional Transportation Needed, but No Additional Cost • Child moves within same school district to different school, but transportation exists across district for other reasons. • Child moves to new school district, but can cross street or be dropped at a bus stop close by to access old district’s existing transportation system. • Adding a bus stop to a preexisting bus route. • School district bus routes converge • Example: Louisiana • Adult in the child’s life whose existing commute complements the child’s transportation need

22. Example of Transportation that Does Require Additional Costs • Foster parent, relative or other significant adult provides transportation but needs reimbursement for mileage • Agency provides youth or caretakerbus passes or other public transportation vouchers • Agency contracts with private transportation company to provide bus/van/car • School reroutes, or adds bus to fleet to accommodate new transportation need

23. What FC Says about Transportation Costs • The term foster care maintenance payments includes “reasonable travel for the child to remain in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.”

24. IV-E Transportation: Reminders and Issues REMINDERS • Use of IV-E dollars applies only to IV-E eligible children (although case plan requirement to ensure school stability applies to ALL children in care) • Permissible use of Administrative OR Maintenance Dollars (although “to ensure” child stays in same school is a requirement) • Requires state to fund match for IV-E eligible children • No federal reimbursement to support transportation for non IV-E eligible children. ISSUES • What about other transportation costs related to remaining in school at the time of placement? • How can reimbursements be calculated? • How is all of this working in states?

25. Administrative Cost AND Maintenance Cost • Oct 2008: FCSIAA added school transportation to “foster care maintenance payment” definition. • July 2010: Fostering Connections Program Instruction • Clarified these costs include initial placement in care as well as subsequent placements. • Clarified that payment can be paid to the child’s provider, or a separate payment directly to the transportation provider. • Clarified that transportation for a child to remain in their “school of origin” is also an allowable Title IV-E administrative cost (CWPM 8.1B). **Guidance confirms that this transportation is allowable under either cost. This would allow for greatest flexibility for the states to achieve education stability for children.

26. Administrative Cost or Maintenance Cost? • For both maintenance or administrative: • Only can be used for IV-E eligible children. • To find out what percentage of children are IV-E in your state check here: http://cwla.org/advocacy/childreninfostercarereport08.pdf • Differences between maintenance and administrative costs: • Maintenance match rate varies by state between 50% and 83%; Administrative rate for all states is 50% • For your state maintenance match rate check here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap11.pdf; • Before the ARRA bump, 23 states had FMAP rates between 50 and 55%; these states may prefer to claim as administrative costs.

27. Maintenance Payments • Transportation for reasonable travel for the child to remain in the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement is an allowable separate item of expense under IV-E maintenance. • The cost of local transportation associated with providing food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, and a child’s personal incidentals is allowable and presumably included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment. CWPM §8.3B, Q&A 4

28. Transportation to Extra Curricular Activities • “other transportation associated with the child’s attendance at his/her school of origin is an allowable administrative cost under Title IV-E because such transportation is related to case management and therefore necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E state plan” CWPM § 8.1B • “cost of transportation to and from extra curricular activities that substitute for daily supervision is also allowable and presumed to be included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment.” CWPM 8.3B Q4.

29. How to Calculate Reimbursements • Can you use IV-E dollars to reimburse other entities that provide transportation for the child? • Short answer is yes, BUT • When using IV-E dollars, must be able to connect directly to the IV-E eligible child. • May need to devise formulas for determining cost per child • Much will depend on how your state designs and structures your IV-E maintenance and administrative payments.

30. Transportation Checklist: Answers You Need to Know about Your State TRANSPORTATION GENERALLY: • How many school aged foster children do we have? • What percent are placed within school boundaries? • What percent are placed at such far distances, or have other reasons for it not to be in best interest to remain in original school? • What is our state MV policy and/or definition of AFCP? • What % of children in care with IEPs have transportation as a related service? Of those, what percent of those would address school stability? • What are our state and school district policies for all students about transporting children within a school district? Between school districts? What about unique policies for children in care?

31. IV-E SPECIFIC: What % of children in care are IV-E eligible? What is your state FMAP rate? How are your IV-E maintenance payments structured? Can transportation costs be added to core payment? Can a separate payment be made? How are your IV-E administrative payments structured? Does it make sense in your state to claim transportation costs as administrative or maintenance costs? Who will be actually providing the additional transportation needed to keep kids in their same schools? Will there be a number of methods used? When schools or other entities are providing the additional transportation, do you have a formula that allows for calculation of the specific costs for that IV-E eligible child? If you are in a IV-E waiver state, do provisions of your waiver impact how these payments can be calculated or made? Transportation Checklist: Answers You Need to Know about Your State

32. Key Themes from our State Examples • Collaboration is critical to success of laws and policies • Flexibility is necessary to allow for most effective implementation • Need to articulate clear responsibilityfor costs and in what circumstances • Designation of additional dollars, beyond the use of IV-E, is necessary to serve all children in care who may need transportation

33. Example: Connecticut • New school stability law effective July 1, 2010; SB 31 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00160-R00SB-00031-PA.htm • When in the child's best interests to remain in his or her school of origin (SOO): • DCF and the board of education for such SOO shall collaborate on a transportation plan for such child from the town in which the child is placed to such SOO. • The DCF shall be responsible for any additional or extraordinary cost of such transportation beyond that to which the child would otherwise have access. • The DCF shall maximize federal reimbursements under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, as amended, for costs of transporting Title IV-E eligible children. • The DCF and the board of education for the SOO shall consider cost-effective, reliable and safe transportation options.

34. Connecticut: cont… • Approximately $3 million dollars allocated in the state budget to support child welfare agencies in providing transportation to keep children in their same schools. • State child welfare agency is developing an RFP to seek bidders for the transportation contract; contract will require: • A transportation coordinator • Various configurations of transportation must be provided, including buses with monitors; various sized passenger vans, and private car options.

35. Example: Minnesota DHS Bulletin 10-68-05: issued June 14, 2010 Education Stability for Children in Foster Care http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/publications/documents/pub/dhs16_150905.pdf Financial Claims for Transportation Costs • Child welfare agency should work with foster parents to provide transportation • Can be an increase in “Difficulty of Care” level of care • Can be a separate payment to the foster parent • Can be a separate payment to another provider • Could be the local school district • Allowing for retroactive reimbursement from Oct 2008; will have data systems updated to allow for future electronic submissions

36. Examples: Butte & San Diego Counties, CA • Both are models of collaborative approaches to ensuring foster children and youth receive transportation, using a case-by-case strategy, and access McKinney-Vento funds when applicable. Otherwise, costs are distributed among many parties. • In San Diego, the cost of transportation is usually covered by an equal split between the school district of residence and the school district of origin. Social workers coordinate transportation for individual foster children and youth, which may take the form of reimbursing foster parents for mileage, paying for public transportation, or allowing child welfare or school district personnel to provide transportation. • Butte County relies on a 5-way cost sharing plan among the Butte County Office of Ed, the Children’s Service Division of the Department of Social and Employment Services, the foster family agency, the district of attendance, and the district of residency. The logistics are coordinated through a central person in the Office of Ed who determines the type of transportation necessary.

37. Example: Philadelphia, PA • Department of Human Services (DHS), School District of Philadelphia, and Family Court collaborative • Joint Protocol between DHS and School District Children placed in new home within 1.5 radius of school • Foster parent/provider responsible for taking child to school • Eligible for reimbursement Children placed outside of 1.5 radius of school: District pays • Public transit explored • DHS submits request to guidance counselor to submit busing form (up to 6th grade) • DHS submits request for counselor to provide transpass (7th grade and up) Emergency, overnight, respite, or temporary placements • Child automatically remains in school of origin Complex cases • Consultation with DHS Education Support Center

38. Contact Information ABA Center on Children and the Law Legal Center for Foster Care and Education www.abanet.org/child/education Kathleen McNaught Project Director mcnaughk@staff.abanet.org

39. We invite your questions The Resource Center is pleased to answer questions about any topic related to implementation. Please email questions to info@fosteringconnections.org The Resource Center can also broker or offer limited technical assistance to agencies. Again, please send inquiries to info@fosteringconnections.org. You can also contact the Legal Center for Foster Care and Education directly atccleducation@staff.abanet.org.

40. More than 500 state and national resources available • Fostering Connections Resource Center • Visit www.fosteringconnections.orgto access tools, analyses, and other information on each provision of the Act. • Legal Center for Foster Care and Education • Visit http://www.abanet.org/child/education/publications/fosteringconnections.html to access numerous tools and resources related to state implementation of the education provisions of the Act.

41. Thank you & please come again • Copies of this presentation, as well as an audio recording, will be available on www.fosteringconnections.org • Next FCRC webinars: August 10th at 1pm and August 12th at 3:30pm on Tribal issues (presented by the Resource Center and the National Indian Child Welfare Association) Sign up at www.fosteringconnections.org • Discussion forum: We invite you to join a new LinkedIn Group Discussion Forum:  Fostering Connections Implementation Working Group. You can find a user guide to LinkedIn and register for the Fostering Connections Group at: http://www.fosteringconnections.org/resources?id=0007 • The Fostering Connections Discussion Group offers subgroups on kinship, guardianship, adoption, older youth, education, health, training and Tribal topics. • Contact us: - Fostering Connections Resource Center, info@fosteringconnections.org • Legal Center for Foster Care and Education, network partner mcnaughk@staff.abanet.org • Madelyn Freundlich, Network Manager mdf@excalconsulting.com