This work is also available in PDF format. It is recommended that those who wish to print this report use the PDF version.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Contents
Introduction
In recent years, attention has increasingly focused on issues such as youth crime and violence, substance abuse, gangs, school dropouts, academic performance, and other issues associated with "at-risk youth." Common sense and years of research suggest that at-risk youth and their families have multiple needs and interrelated problem behaviors that are not likely to be successfully addressed by single-response, stand-alone initiatives. There is growing interest in community-based collaboratives focused on services integration or comprehensive service delivery that address clients' multiple needs by implementing a broad-based continuum of care and linking youth and families to a variety of services.
Support for such initiatives by federal agencies and foundations underscores the interest in exploring these approaches and in communicating lessons learned to assist similar efforts. For example, the U. S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides support for the SafeFutures initiative. A federal interagency partnership, including the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Services and OJJDP, supported Communities in Schools (CIS). The Annie E. Casey Foundation funded the New Futures initiative in five cities. OJJDP and two other DOJ agencies, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice, joined a consortium of foundations, trusts, and other organizations to support the Children at Risk (CAR) initiative. Another community-based collaboration supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance is the Comprehensive Communities Program, which addresses overall community crime prevention and includes a youth crime prevention component.
This report draws on the experiences of such initiatives to distill findings and suggestions that may benefit other communities seeking to introduce or already in the process of implementing such efforts. The information here is intended for two primary audiences: (1) community leaders and others who make decisions about introducing community-based initatives for at-risk youth or who guide such initiatives, and
(2) program administrators responsible for managing such initiatives.
The five topics addressed here—services integration and case management, parental involvement, using volunteers for tutoring and mentoring, fund-raising and marketing, and monitoring program outcomes—are critical components of community-based initiatives for at-risk youth, yet local programs often experience difficulty implementing them. The suggestions presented here derive from experiences reported by or observed at a variety of programs. They are primarily drawn from an evaluation of CIS, which included field visits to CIS programs in 21 communities. Some material is drawn from an on-going evaluation of the SafeFutures initiative. Since SafeFutures is a relatively new effort (local implementation began during summer 1996) and was not fully implemented at the time of this study, fewer examples are drawn from it than from CIS. Examples also are drawn from an evaluation of the CAR demonstration program (based on reports developed by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) to document the implementation and operations of the program; see "Resources" section).
Brief descriptions of experiences or practices of various community programs are used to illustrate points made or suggestions provided. In some cases, several examples are used to demonstrate diversity in approaches. Due to space limitations, only selected examples can be presented, even though other programs may use similar practices. Some CIS programs are cited repeatedly because they illustrate practices in different areas addressed here, such as case management, use of volunteers, and fund-raising. The CIS and CAR examples reflect circumstances during the time period covered by those evaluations (from October 1991 to February 1994 for CIS, and from fall 1992 through December 1995 for CAR). SafeFutures examples reflect conditions and practices through early 1997. Changes may have occurred subsequently.
Overviews of the three initiatives are provided below as context for the material that follows.
Communities in Schools, Inc., formerly called Cities in Schools, is a national, nonprofit organization that encourages the coordination of youth-oriented services in local communities and schools. The CIS model is based on holistic approaches to school-based, site-specific services to youth at risk of dropping out of school. The CIS model is based on using existing community resources and services that are integrated and repositioned at school sites to achieve dropout reduction and to mitigate related problems, such as teen pregnancy, gang involvement, violence, and other risky behaviors. The model assumes that youth who drop out of school generally have nonacademic problems (such as low income, dysfunctional families, health or mental health problems, substance abuse, etc.) as well as academic ones. The belief is that nonacademic issues must be addressed to adequately resolve the dropout problem.
Autonomous city- or county-level CIS programs develop partnerships with local government (e.g., school districts), service agencies, and local businesses. Usually structured as nonprofit corporations, the community programs are responsible for initiating and managing CIS school-based projects and for developing resources to support program administration and service delivery. There are more than 100 local CIS programs in the United States, and others are under development.
At the school level, the prototype involves bringing together a team of adults to provide services to youth identified as being at risk of dropping out. The team ideally includes case managers, service providers (e.g., counselors from substance abuse agencies), and volunteers (who provide a variety of services, most commonly tutoring or mentoring) under the supervision of a project coordinator, who may serve a dual role as a CIS, school district, or service agency staff member.
The original CIS approach targeted a relatively small number of students in each school. Eligibility criteria generally included poor academic performance, school behavioral problems, or presence of risk indicators. A variation on this approach is the CIS academy, often organized as a separate "alternative school" in which all students are part of the CIS program, or as a "school within a school." Another variation is the "whole school" model, in which all students are considered CIS participants, although some students may be targeted for more intensive services than others. Although CIS programs initially were formed at the high school level, they have been implemented widely in middle schools and even in elementary schools.
CIS programs typically provide some form of case management to assess student needs, develop service delivery plans, and monitor student progress. Services commonly provided on site or by referral include counseling, health care, assessment of employability skills, anger management, and prevention education. Some of these services are offered in a CIS class, which is frequently provided as an elective in middle and high schools. While the CIS classes' content varies by program, many feature life-skills education, which may include employment-related topics, as well as a variety of prevention-oriented topics, study skills, and remedial education. Other CIS services range from individual or group counseling and field trips—provided by virtually all programs—to more specialized offerings, such as teen parenting programs. Most programs have established tutoring or mentoring programs for CIS students.
SafeFutures is a five-year demonstration program supported by OJJDP in six communities: Boston, Massachusetts; Contra Costa County, California; Fort Belknap, Montana; Imperial County, California; Seattle, Washington; and St. Louis, Missouri. The participating sites were selected to represent urban, rural, and Native American communities and their efforts to combat delinquency, youth gangs, and serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. The initiative is being implemented in specified target areas or to specified target groups in most of the communities.
The SafeFutures initiative links research findings about risk and protective factors for youth with state-of-the-art knowledge about "what works" in juvenile delinquency prevention and control. SafeFutures goals include the prevention and control of youth violence and delinquency by reducing community risk factors, increasing factors that protect youth from delinquency, developing a continuum of services for at-risk and delinquent youth, and imposing graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders. At a broader level, the initiative is intended to facilitate an enhanced service delivery system and build the community's capacity to institutionalize and sustain the efforts implemented under SafeFutures.
SafeFutures implementation is overseen by local collaborations of key community stakeholders responsible for providing services to at-risk youth, such as schools, health and human services agencies, law enforcement, probation offices, and juvenile courts. These stakeholders are responsible for such activities as community needs assessment, strategic planning, and service coordination. The SafeFutures initiative does not provide a specific model for service configuration, enabling local autonomy to develop a system conforming to local needs and resources. Most communities use case management to promote service coordination and linkages; some provide school-based services, including use of Family Resource Centers in schools.
The initiative funds services in nine recommended or required component areas: after-school programs; mentoring; family strengthening; mental health; delinquency prevention (such as tutoring, employability skills training, substance abuse prevention, leadership development, or recreational services); gang-free schools and communities efforts; programming for at-risk and delinquent girls; rehabilitation services and graduated sanctions for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders; and implementation of intensive, nonresidential, community-based treatment centers for pre- and postadjudicated youth. Taken together, the SafeFutures program components provide a foundation for community development of customized, comprehensive frameworks and graduated interventions.
Children at Risk was an intensive, two-year intervention for high-risk youth in high-risk neighborhoods. CASA, in partnership with DOJ, managed the demonstration program. Programs were initiated in four communities in fall 1992; two others were added in early 1993. Participating communities included Austin, Texas; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Memphis, Tennessee; Newark, New Jersey; Savannah, Georgia; and Seattle, Washington. Local programs followed the basic CAR model but had flexibility in implementation. Several programs used names other than CAR, including the CAR predecessor, Strategic Intervention for High Risk Youth, or locally-determined names.
CAR was a comprehensive, community-based initiative that brought together social services, law enforcement, and juvenile justice agencies to provide intensive prevention and intervention services to youth and families. The model was intended to bring about increased prosocial bonding and to build educational and social skills for future success by reducing neighborhood, family, peer-group, and personal risks. CAR programs operated within target areas characterized by high crime, poverty, and social problems. Youth in the program met specified risk criteria, attended selected schools in the target area, and were eleven to thirteen years old when they began participating.
Lead agencies in the CAR program created multiagency networks to implement a comprehensive set of services to eligible youth. Enhanced law enforcement efforts and community policing were required in the target areas as part of the model to reduce illegal drugs and crime in participants' neighborhoods. Other core services in the CAR model included intensive case management, family services, education services (such as tutoring or homework assistance), after-school and summer activities, mentoring, incentives, and juvenile justice interventions (such as working with juvenile courts to provide community service opportunities and enhanced supervision of youth in the justice system). The initiative also sought to better coordinate service delivery among human services and justice system agencies for program participants. The linkages created among collaborators were also intended to have a broader effect on service delivery in the community.
Services Integration and Case Management
Programs designed to address the needs of at-risk youth typically recognize that such individuals (and their families) have multiple problems and needs, requiring services from more than one source. Thus many programs for this clientele seek to counteract service fragmentation by implementing holistic approaches built on a foundation of integrated services and case management. Integration of services occurs at the system level. It involves coordinating the policies and procedures of different institutions to establish a multiorganizational infrastructure that ensures service recipients do not "fall through the cracks" formed by the various service providers. Case management occurs at the client-service delivery interface. Although case managers may support clients in a variety of ways, core functions involve coordinating and monitoring a suite of services customized to the needs of each particular youth or family.
Integrated services and case management are key features of the CIS model. (The SafeFutures and CAR initiatives also include service coordination and case management as part of their program models.) An underlying premise of CIS is that resources to help youth and their families are already allocated, but a coordinating structure for them is lacking. In addition, CIS believes that gaps in and duplication of services may exist when agencies work in isolation. Thus, CIS emphasizes bringing various agencies together as a team, in regular or alternative public school settings, to promote more effective provision of services to youth and families. CIS projects are deliberately located in schools, because youth are legally required to attend school. This location facilitates identification of youth and families who need supportive services, while enhancing the accessibility of those services to youth and their family members.
It is beyond the scope of this report to describe in detail how to implement integrated services or case management practices. Significant aspects of these topics are discussed here, including an overview of collaborations and partnerships and the major functions performed under case management. The "Resources" section identifies agencies and publications that can provide further information or references on these topics.
SERVICES INTEGRATION
Key objectives of services integration include identifying gaps in service delivery and assigning organizational responsibility for implementing needed services; reducing barriers to obtaining existing services (e.g., unacceptably long waiting periods before treatment can commence, and geographical distance between provider and clients, compounded by insufficient public transportation); and conserving institutional resources by sharing some efforts across systems or by reducing unnecessary duplication of services. Given this focus, developing collaborations and public-private partnerships, bringing together service providers to support these efforts, becomes a crucial consideration for programs that wish to incorporate services integration initiatives.
Collaborations or partnerships of social service providers and other agencies that affect at-risk youth (such as law enforcement or juvenile justice agencies) may facilitate service coordination in a number of ways. Examples include centralized client intake, assessment, or referral; increased information sharing, possibly even developing a centralized management information system; cross-disciplinary team staffing of cases; joint fund-raising; and sharing resources. For example, several agencies may elect to colocate their staff members in one place (i.e., "one-stop shopping") to improve access and promote service coordination. Some agencies call this approach "outstationing." CIS programs frequently include providers who have been "repositioned" to serve clients at the CIS school site. Similarly, schools share their resources by dedicating teachers to CIS classes or by providing space, furnishings, and, occasionally, some equipment for the program. In effect, reassigning staff to a different site is a resource allocation decision.
Build broad-based collaboratives and partnerships to promote services integration.
Services integration usually is accomplished through institutional arrangements to colocate staff or to ensure that clients referred to different agencies are provided services (e.g., by reserving a specific number of "slots" for them or by giving them priority status). Collaboratives and partnerships among agencies are common institutional arrangements to promote services integration.
Collaboration commonly occurs at two levels: the policy level (the focus of this section) and the practitioner level. On the policy level, collaboration occurs through participation of high-level agency administrators on boards of directors, steering committees, and similar collaborative groups, or through formal agreements among agencies. Collaboration among practitioners may involve the formation of service cabinets that regularly meet to exchange information and resolve systemic issues. The arrangement may also be more informal, occurring when colocated staff of different agencies interact regularly to serve clients or when service providers meet periodically to develop plans, review cases, or address service delivery issues.
Collaboratives should represent diverse providers, particularly system actors who represent institutions that can have a major impact on client needs (e.g., schools, human services providers, law enforcement, juvenile and family courts, and employers). Since communities are unique, local collaborations can evolve and be structured in different ways. Local CIS programs are generally structured as independent, nonprofit organizations, each with a board of directors whose members represent the local partnership or collaboration in support of CIS. The national CIS organization trains communities to replicate the CIS model, with an emphasis on developing the community partnership and establishing a board of directors.
CIS boards include representatives of the private sector (business and industry), government, nonprofit agencies, school districts, and the community. Social service, health, mental health, employment, and substance abuse treatment agencies are commonly represented. Since CIS programs are located in and work closely with schools, the superintendent of the school district is usually represented on the CIS board. Service agencies represented on the boards typically provide staff for CIS programs or help facilitate service access for CIS participants. Business or community leaders on the boards often work behind the scenes to encourage staff relocation or development of coordinating mechanisms.
SafeFutures delinquency-prevention and violence-reduction programs are also implemented by local collaboratives. At least some of the partners initially developed their community's SafeFutures proposal to receive federal funds. In communities chosen to participate, the collaboratives, usually called steering committees or policy boards, function much as a board of directors in providing oversight and direction for the initiatives. They include representatives from public and nonprofit organizations serving youth and families, business and industry, and parents and youth. Because of SafeFutures' emphasis on mitigating juvenile crime, these boards include representatives from local law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies. One lead agency in each community has primary responsibility for implementing and managing the initiative.
CAR initiatives were sponsored by a lead agency—in various locations, these included citywide collaboratives, government agencies, and direct service providers—supported by agencies that provided the service components required by the CAR model. These agencies generally included the local school district, police department, and a range of government and nonprofit social service agencies.
Partner organizations and their representatives should have parity in decisionmaking. Some community collaboratives spend considerable time envisioning desired outcomes and how to prioritize their reform efforts. In addition, successful collaboratives make concerted efforts during their formative stages to exchange information explicitly about the mission, services, flexibility, and limitations of each partner. Where a particular model is to be implemented (such as the CIS approach), it is important that collaborative members fully understand and buy into the program to ensure their support and cooperation. Providing an orientation to the program at the early stages of collaborative development promotes such support.
- The CIS executive director in Adams County, Colorado, believed that the involvement of collaborative members (e.g., school board members, principals, and directors of social service agencies) in CIS training was crucial not only to promote their acceptance of the program, but also to ensure commitment to free up resources, such as staff and other in-kind support. CIS regional staff traveled to Adams County to provide several presentations on CIS for community leaders. In addition, a number of potential CIS staff and community leaders attended training at CIS regional or national training centers. A group also traveled to Houston to observe CIS operations there. The school district paid for these trips.
When a collaborative is initiated without a predefined approach, it is important for partners to reach consensus on the outcomes they hope to achieve and the efforts needed to accomplish their objectives. Some community-based collaboratives hold retreats, facilitated by professionals, to help them develop a strategic plan to guide their efforts.
Cross-agency collaboration is the primary mechanism for systems change, as organizations agree to modify existing procedures, adopt new ones, or address gaps in services. However, even where there is a shared vision of what can and should be accomplished, collaboratives may encounter obstacles, including specific missions or mandates that limit the flexibility of some member agencies. Despite such stumbling blocks, collaboratives are often able to bring about change.
- Collaboratives in several communities contributed to changes in juvenile probation practices. In Adams County, Colorado, the probation department assigned some probation officers juvenile-only caseloads and assigned other officers to school districts or specific schools to facilitate closer coordination with school and CIS staff. Previously, juvenile cases had been assigned on a rotational basis, resulting in geographically widespread caseloads. In Pinal County, Arizona, the probation department realigned caseloads in order to assign a single officer to the youth in each community. As a result, schools and the CIS Family Resource Center (FRC) no longer had to deal with changing probation officers, and the officers had a more efficient service area. In Contra Costa County, California, one probation officer was assigned to work part-time at three schools with SafeFutures initiatives in place, facilitating information exchange with school and SafeFutures staff.
- At one Seattle, Washington, elementary school, assessments determined that high absenteeism was related to student inadmissibility because required immunizations were lacking. CIS obtained serum from the public health department and arranged for a local hospital to administer immunizations.
- In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the school system adopted a charter schools approach (e.g., a thematic magnet school-within-a-school) for all high schools, modeled after the CIS block scheduling approach used in CIS high-school programs in that city.
- Although Pinal County, Arizona, had a number of organizations that provided emergency food supplies, their locations were widespread, and they were often open for limited hours. The FRC facilitated meetings of ministers and other interested parties who established a food bank that would be open six days a week and staffed by community members recruited and trained by VISTA volunteers. The city provided a building for $1 a year, and the library started a program enabling borrowers to bring food for the bank instead of paying a fine for overdue books.
- In the Savannah, Georgia, CAR program, a collaborative member alerted the group to the poor condition of a baseball field next to a school involved in the CAR program. This resulted in the city providing funds to restore the field. Similarly, after the group determined that there was no transportation between the school and the local recreation center, the group was able to obtain a school bus for this purpose.
Use formal agreements to promote services integration.
Successful integration of services is facilitated by shared governance and common procedural practices across agencies or, at least, by consensual arrangements that remove turf barriers. Some collaboratives rely on informal arrangements to define partnership roles and responsibilities. For example, the Columbia, South Carolina, CIS program did not use formal agreements with agencies, believing it was better to have relationships based on trust. It was felt that if formal agreements were used, agencies might adhere only to what was specified in the agreement, and that they might be more flexible to changing needs and provide additional services in the absence of such agreements. Informality was also believed to be beneficial in the event that repositioned staff did not work out well.
However, because informal agreements can easily fall apart, most partnerships prefer to use formal agreements, such as Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or contracts.
- Adams County, Colorado, used different agreements for each agency; a local attorney developed the contracts for CIS pro bono. The agreements, which were renegotiated annually, specified the number of staff to be relocated at the CIS school site and their roles, responsibilities, and working conditions. Use of these agreements forestalled potential issues such as background checks, liability, and supervision. Since the school board officially adopted repositioned staff as independent subcontractors, the contracts also eliminated issues of confidentiality and information sharing among organizations that were part of the service network. The CIS director engaged the support of the school system (the superintendent or a school board member), the relevant agency director or board member, and a local government leader, such as the county commissioner, in officially authorizing each agreement.
- SafeFutures initiatives generally use MOUs with each agency providing staff or services. These MOUs typically specify the services and other resources (such as staff or office space) to be provided and, in some cases, the minimum number of youth and families to be served. Other aspects of the collaboration may also be spelled out. Imperial County, California, MOUs included such items as cooperating to promote SafeFutures' goals, participating in planning meetings or other groups, sharing client information, coordinating with other agencies, participating in ongoing training, and providing data for use in evaluating the local initiative.
Colocate staff to promote integrated services and enhance case management.
Colocation of staff in the same facility on a full- or part-time basis can reduce service barriers and enhance collaboration among practitioners. For example, colocation of staff from a range of agencies, particularly at a school site, may increase service use by eliminating the need to travel to different locations to obtain different services. Colocation also may reduce clients' reluctance to use services that have negative connotations, such as mental health or substance abuse treatment, since their use is less obvious in a multiservice setting.
- Colocation of staff from health and human services agencies at the school site is the primary mechanism for services integration in CIS programs. Staff commonly relocated to CIS programs include social workers (supplemented by social work practicuum students or interns in several communities), counselors, health care providers, and job training staff. Police and probation officers are also colocated in some programs. Schools typically provide one or more teachers for the CIS class; some also provide other school staff, such as school nurses or counselors.
- In the Imperial County, California, SafeFutures program, a variety of service providers were colocated in the FRC begun in a target area high school. Service delivery staff located at this site on a full- or part-time basis included two FRC staff members who performed case management functions, a social service eligibility worker, a nurse-practitioner, a mental health case manager, and a social worker. This program also initiated a law enforcement team (a police officer, a deputy sheriff, and two juvenile probation officers) to help coordinate prevention and intervention efforts. Law enforcement team members were colocated in the police department and also spent time in the FRC.
- In the Bridgeport, Connecticut, CAR program, family mentors (case managers) shared a storefront office in the target area with two neighborhood police officers. The police officers and family mentors jointly conducted some home visits; they also collaborated on individual cases and participated in team meetings.
Colocated staff can work together to respond holistically to the spectrum of problems exhibited by at-risk youth. Colocation enables staff to interact informally to discuss client issues, changes in needs, progress, options for service provision, and differing perspectives on a case. In addition to promoting services integration, colocation of staff was reported to provide a variety of other benefits, including increased professional development and growth for staff, networking and understanding of capabilities and limitations of other agencies, and enhanced knowledge of how to access local resources for one's own clientele. Emphasizing such benefits may help in efforts to obtain relocated staff.
The ability to obtain staff for colocation or to maintain such commitments over time is a problem for a number of CIS programs, particularly those in small communities with relatively few human service agencies, in areas where agencies had suffered budget cutbacks and downsized their staff, and in cities with heavy service demand. In such cases, agency administrators often feel so "stretched" they are unwilling to reposition any staff. One way to offset service agencies' reluctance to relocate staff is to pay part or all of the salaries and costs of such staff. Some programs find this arrangement desirable because it gives them more control over staff.
- The Miami PIC (Private Industry Council), Florida, CIS program contracted with local-government and private-service organizations to provide staff for counseling, service delivery, and referrals. The PIC believed that purchasing these services guaranteed stable service delivery, averting loss of staff if agencies suffered fiscal cutbacks, and made the service provider more accountable to PIC. Service providers included community-based organizations, state and local government agencies, employment and training organizations, postsecondary institutions, and social and mental health agencies.
- In Columbia, South Carolina, the CIS program paid a portion of the salary of its repositioned social worker. The portion was negotiated each year and varied according to the social service agency's financial condition.
- In High Point, North Carolina, funding for two social workers in the county's human services agency was earmarked by county commissioners for the purpose of relocating them in the CIS program.
Although colocation of services is desirable, it is not always possible or necessary to provide all services on site. Those needed by relatively few students might be obtained more efficiently through referral. Few CIS programs are able to secure a sufficient diversity of repositioned staff to enable them to provide a comprehensive range of services at the school site. Referrals to off-site services are common, but many are to entities that are not part of the CIS "umbrella" and do not guarantee services will be provided to CIS students or families. In cases where agencies limit the number of referrals accepted, CIS staff generally refer only the most serious cases. As a result, some students who might have benefited from particular services do not receive them.
Facilitate working relations with relocated staff.
Program directors can facilitate smooth working relationships with colocated staff by providing adequate orientation to the program, its operations, and procedures when staff are initially assigned. Some CIS program managers send repositioned staff to national or regional CIS-sponsored training programs and conferences to help them better understand CIS and make them feel a part of the team. Some large programs, such as Houston's CIS program, provide their own annual training and orientation. Similarly, some SafeFutures initiatives have begun cross-training staff to encourage greater interagency compatibility.
Since service agency staff are often viewed as "outsiders" by school staff (particularly if they are repositioned on a part-time basis), it is helpful for repositioned staff to participate in school activities, such as faculty meetings, committees, family nights, and special events. Some CIS programs made a practice of introducing repositioned staff to school staff at all-staff meetings held by the school each fall or at other events attended by school staff.
One problem identified by a number of CIS staff was their relative lack of control over relocated staff whose salaries they did not support. Although arrangements for such staff generally were satisfactory, in some cases CIS staff felt schools or service agencies were "dumping" unwanted employees on them. Ideally, program staff should help choose and evaluate relocated staff. Some CIS programs have agreements providing this arrangement, but others did not ask for or were unable to obtain such input. This issue should be addressed early and included in MOUs or staff contracts.
Program directors also need to adequately supervise relocated staff, individually or in groups. Some CIS coordinators held weekly or monthly meetings with all repositioned staff to identify problems or concerns and make sure that everyone is "on the same page."
Adopt practices to support services integration.
Developing collaboratives or partnerships, signing MOUs or contracts, and colocating staff all promote services integration and coordination. Other steps that support integration are discussed below.
Collaborative members should meet regularly to ensure their efforts are functioning smoothly. Most collaborative bodies meet on a quarterly basis; some meet monthly. Some communities have established additional, smaller groups (e.g., "service cabinets") that meet more frequently and focus on issues related to program operations, while the overall collaborative focuses on "big picture" policy issues.
For example, in addition to its larger collaborative groups, the Imperial County, California, SafeFutures program established a management team, comprised of directors or key staff of agencies involved in direct service provision. Similarly, the Seattle, Washington, initiative established a SafeFutures interagency staffing group, comprised of key staff from agencies serving youth and families involved in or at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system. This group coordinated the day-to-day efforts of the initiative, identified key areas for systems change, and made recommendations to the larger collaborative body, the community planning board.
Many agency administrators and service-providing staff have only a vague—and sometimes not entirely accurate—understanding of what other agencies can provide. This lack of information hinders services integration. Sharing information about the services, capabilities, and limitations of participating agencies can lead to greater coordination and better referrals for youth.
- Members of collaborative bodies usually end up sharing information about what their agencies do. This often occurs informally, in response to topics under discussion or questions about who can provide particular services or why a service is not available. Some groups deliberately promote information sharing when they realize that members are not fully aware of each other's services. The St. Louis, Missouri, SafeFutures program initiated monthly meetings of its partner agencies to promote information sharing and coordination. Participants in an early meeting went around the room identifying the services and resources they could provide. In Seattle, Washington, the SafeFutures program developed an electronic resource guide, available on the Internet, that identified services available from different agencies and included other information, such as location, hours of operation, and languages spoken by agency staff. This guide was intended for use by service delivery staff and parents.
- In the developmental stages of the Adams County, Colorado, CIS program, the executive director met several times with key representatives of agencies identified as potential partners. Some representatives felt that their missions were misunderstood and that other institutions, such as schools, viewed them in a negative light due to unrealistic expectations of what they could accomplish. Workshops were held to bring together school administrators, staff, and service providers to enhance communication and begin team building. Worksheets were developed to (1) enable agencies and schools to define their missions and boundaries, services provided, and existing interagency linkages; (2) assess strengths and weaknesses of existing relationships; and (3) identify opportunities for developing a more efficient, effective approach that would be mutually beneficial to the supporting agencies.
Establishing and maintaining a good relationship with the school district and individual school(s) is critical for programs that are located in or work closely with schools. It is particularly important to enlist the support of the principal as the key school administrator. Arranging for services or resources that benefit the entire school is one way programs can promote good relations with schools. Programs have developed a variety of other practices to strengthen their ties with schools.
- The Houston, Texas, CIS program strongly emphasized school relationships. CIS signed contracts with school districts identifying the services and responsibilities of each. CIS located programs only in schools where principals really wanted them and involved principals in selecting the CIS project manager for their school to create a sense of ownership of the program and commitment to working with the manager. Project managers provided monthly reports to both CIS and the principal. They also served on the school's shared decision-making committee. Other CIS staff participated in faculty meetings, committees, and school functions. School staff were invited to participate in CIS events or activities.
- The CIS in Adams County, Colorado, was intimately tied to the school system by design. The executive director was a school district employee, and participating school districts assigned staff to coordinate and participate in CIS. Rather than create an additional structure to address the needs of students with social and family problems, the Adams County CIS process was woven into the school's existing referral and review process. (Each school in Colorado has a mandated, formal referral and review team to respond to the needs of students unable to learn in a regular classroom setting. District 14, for example, has child advocates, school employees who have master's degrees in psychology or social work, in each school. The CIS site coordinators in District 14 are also the system's child advocates.)
- The Central Texas (Austin), CIS program used a variety of techniques to strengthen its relationship with schools. An annual survey of school staff was conducted to provide feedback about the CIS program at each school site as well as suggestions for improvement and additional services. The short form included questions about familiarity and level of satisfaction with CIS services. It asked what CIS was doing that respondents liked, what changes they would like to see, and what recommendations they would make to strengthen the relationship between the school and CIS. The program developed a referral feedback form, which was sent to the teachers or other school staff members who referred students to CIS to advise them of the status of their referrals. The program also provided support services for school staff, such as consultation or technical assistance regarding at-risk students, conflict management, team building, and stress management. CIS also hosted an annual "school district appreciation" luncheon for key school district decisionmakers, school board members, principals of schools with CIS programs, and CIS program managers from these schools as a mechanism for sharing information and building relationships.
- Advocates (case managers) in the Savannah, Georgia, CAR program began attending teacher team meetings in the middle school participating in CAR. The teams met to discuss academic issues and student problems. The advocates provided background information on youth participating in CAR and helped develop plans to address problems.
CIS programs in a number of communities promote service continuity by establishing programs in sets of schools that feed a particular high school. That is, the program is gradually put in place in all elementary schools feeding into middle schools whose students feed into a targeted high school. The intent of this practice is to enable the program to serve students as they progress through school levels and to provide services to siblings of CIS students who attend different schools. To accomplish this objective, however, care must be taken to identify students when they transfer from one school to another, so the program in the receiving school can "pick up" those who participated in the program in their prior school.
CASE MANAGEMENT
Case management is derived from social work practices. Programs vary in the functions assigned to case managers and in terms of organizational structure. Although most case management programs geared to at-risk youth view the child as the client, some programs also attempt case management for parents, caregivers, and other family members.
At the bare minimum, case management includes a limited assessment of client needs and referral to appropriate services. More extensive approaches include assessment of client problems and needed services using standardized tests or diagnostic instruments; development of individual service plans; coordination of referral and provision of services (serving as a linchpin or broker); crisis intervention or provision of emergency services (e.g., food, clothing, shelter); and advocacy for clients in their contacts with service providers and institutions such as schools and juvenile court. Other activities may include outreach to family members, integrative activities such as arranging transportation to services, monitoring service delivery and student (or family) progress, and revising service plans as needed. Case managers also may provide formal or informal counseling or guidance, depending on their qualifications. In addition, case managers may be in the unique position of "sentry"—identifying gaps in existing services or areas where demand for services greatly exceeds the system's capacity to respond quickly.
Staff the case management function.
A key assumption underlying case management approaches is that clients will benefit from individualized attention engendered by low client-to-staff ratios and multiple services customized to individual needs. Most programs expect case managers to assume responsibility for their clients. However, some programs adopt a team model of case management, in which several individuals share responsibility for decisionmaking and the provision and monitoring of client services. There are strengths and limitations associated with each approach. For example, a single case manager assigned to each client encourages a bonding relationship that may have distinct therapeutic or interventive advantages. However, if several clients on a case manager's caseload experience simultaneous crises, the case manager may be unable to provide satisfactory attention to routine cases while focusing on the higher-need individuals. Sharing of case management duties among a small team of staff members who are fairly interchangeable and familiar with all cases may provide balanced services to all clients, even those who require extra attention.
Programs studied used various hiring strategies. Social workers or similar professionals such as counselors were often assigned or hired as case managers. Alternatively, some programs sought individuals who were "street wise" or had prior experience working with at-risk youth. Still others sought community residents, feeling they would more easily establish rapport with youth and family members. A few programs assigned all or almost all staff members as case managers for at least some youth. In a number of CIS programs, particularly smaller programs with no repositioned staff, the program director at the school site served as the case manager and primary service provider.
Programs without staff with social-work backgrounds often lacked an adequate case management system. In general, case manager qualifications should match the functional requirements of the job. When case managers are expected to perform only basic needs assessments and make referrals, programs probably can hire and train staff with limited prior experience. However, programs that expect to implement comprehensive case management services should seek staff with professional credentials related to social work or human services provision.
- In the Central Texas CIS program, the program manager at each school site generally had a master's degree in social work. In addition to directing the program and overseeing other staff, this individual provided case management and counseling. Most schools had a second caseworker and one or more interns, all of whom performed case management functions. Some schools had a casework assistant or case aide (generally parents or community residents) who performed administrative or clerical functions.
- The Miami PIC, Florida, CIS program, called Stay-in-School (SIS), contracted with various service providers to reposition staff as full- or part-time counselors for CIS high school students. Counselors, who performed case management functions, had caseloads ranging from sixty to ninety students. Each school had one or two school staff members assigned as full-time SIS facilitators who managed site-specific SIS activities, supervised coordinators, and acted as liaisons between counselors and school staff, to facilitate information exchange.
- In Palm Beach County, Florida, full- or part-time home visitors were hired to support case management. Home visitors had some experience with youth or counseling and generally had four-year degrees; some had master's degrees. They were responsible for visiting each CIS student's home at least twice a year to obtain information on family circumstances. This information was used to develop service plans and provide understanding of factors affecting student performance and behavior. When the program was no longer able to obtain repositioned counselors, home visitors took over some of their roles, such as telephoning parents and making referrals to service providers.
- The High Point, North Carolina, CIS program had two full-time social workers who served as case managers for the largest number of students, including those with serious problems. The two teachers assigned to CIS were responsible for teaching and case management; they had caseloads of about 15 students each. The program's administrative assistant also had a small caseload because she liked working with students and had good rapport with them.
- In Contra Costa County, California, individuals who lived or had worked in the target community were hired as community resource specialists for the six schools with SafeFutures programs. Because the specialists were responsible for outreach to parents and the community, in addition to case management functions, the program wanted staff familiar with the area who could readily establish rapport with its low-income population. Since most of the specialists did not have social work backgrounds—although some had prior experience working with youth—they were supervised by a social worker, who met with them every two weeks to discuss the status of their cases and provide advice. More serious cases, such as those needing mental health or therapeutic services, were referred to the social worker.
- The SafeFutures program in Imperial County, California, used a centralized case management approach. Youth who entered the SafeFutures network through one of the partner agencies were referred to the FRC, whose staff performed case management functions (discussed below). A common intake form was used by all agencies to facilitate referral.
- CAR programs sought various qualifications in their case managers, including experience working with inner city youth and families, life experience, and a connection to the target community, such as living or working there. Some programs required that case managers be bilingual or reflect the racial or ethnic group to be served. Most case managers had prior experience in the social service field, including counseling, working in a group home, casework, teaching, and probation.
Provide ongoing training for case managers.
Many programs provided or arranged for periodic training for case managers, particularly those with no social work background. Even for those with such experience, periodic training is desirable to keep the staff abreast of current information and practices and to expose them to different perspectives. Many social service agencies provide regular in-service training for their staff for this reason. These workshops may be offered to staff relocated by these agencies and possibly to other staff members who work with them.
- National and regional CIS offices provide a variety of training opportunities relevant to case managers. Many local CIS programs encourage case managers and similar staff to attend, often providing paid time to do so and/or covering travel and lodging expenses. Some large local programs provide their own training. The Houston, Texas, CIS program annually held week-long in-service training at the beginning of the school year for CIS and repositioned staff. Organized along the lines of a professional conference, it provided workshops on various topics, so participants could attend sessions most relevant to their needs.
- The Bridgeport, Connecticut, CAR lead agency, in conjunction with Child Guidance Center of Bridgeport (one of the participating agencies), held bimonthly staff development sessions for family mentors (who performed case management functions) and other outreach staff. Family mentors also attended in-service training provided for Child Guidance Center staff on such topics as child development, crisis intervention, engaging difficult clients, and domestic violence. The lead agency in the Savannah, Georgia, program held regular in-house seminars on case management, community organization, and child development. Before the program began, the case managers were given extended training in case management and addiction. When the program modified its approach to place greater emphasis on families, a consultant was hired to provide staff development on engaging families.
Implement comprehensive case management activities.
Case management activities can be viewed as occurring more or less in sequence when a youth or family enters a program. Assessment or identification of needs and development of individualized service plans are the initial stages. Standard forms for needs assessment are commonly used; these typically include information about the youth (such as grades, absenteeism, tardiness, behavioral problems, health status, involvement with the juvenile justice system, alcohol or substance abuse, gang involvement, and interests or goals) and family (such as family composition and stability, employment, income, housing conditions, and alcohol or substance abuse). This information is often collected by interviewing the youth and parent(s); some of it may come from school or other records. Some forms also include information obtained through observation and interaction (such as appearance, attitude, concentration, and behavior). Some programs use surveys or psychological tests as part of their needs assessment. Assessment information forms the basis of a case file, to which new information is added over time.
Outreach to family members—parents, caregivers, and siblings—usually occurs in the early stages of case management. Parental consent is usually necessary to provide services to the child, particularly therapy or health services, and to share information among service providers. It is also desirable to involve parents in identifying youth and family needs. Finally, it is important to enlist family support for services recommended for their child. (See chapter 3 for a more extensive discussion of parental involvement.) Although the child is usually the main focus of case management, some programs attempt to provide case management for other family members. Other programs involve parents or other family members to a more limited extent, for example, as participants in family therapy.
Once needs have been identified and a plan developed, linking (or referring) the client to services occurs. This may involve referring a youth to colocated providers or off-site agencies that have agreed to provide services. In some cases, the case manager may have to broker services with other agencies or locate a source for a particular service. Case managers also may need to perform integrative activities, such as scheduling appointments and arranging or providing for transportation to services. The latter role was common in CIS and SafeFutures programs due to inadequate public transportation in low-income communities or lack of a vehicle or funds for transportation on the part of the family.
Monitoring service delivery and the progress of clients is an ongoing aspect of case management. Monitoring includes checking whether clients actually followed through on referrals and whether services were provided. Ongoing contact with youths and their parents to check their status and identify problems is also done. Monitoring includes periodic reassessment of needs, which may lead to modification of service delivery plans because a service is no longer needed or the need for different services surfaces.
Keeping records of student contact (or contact on behalf of students) in the case file is part of the monitoring function. Programs with personal computers have begun keeping much of their monitoring information in databases, which enables them to readily determine the status of referrals made and services provided and to store original and current data related to school performance, juvenile justice system involvement, and other issues. Such information can be used to help make decisions about service provision and frequency of contact. Combined data on all cases, or selected types of cases, can help agencies manage programs by identifying services used most, gaps in available services, and client characteristics and outcomes associated with different services. (See chapter 6 on monitoring program outcomes.)
Other functions case managers commonly provide include crisis intervention and advocacy for clients in their contacts with service providers, schools, and juvenile court. Case managers also generally provide formal or informal counseling, depending on their qualifications. Some lead regular support groups or provide periodic training sessions, for example, on anger management or applying for college or jobs.
The extent to which case management components are provided varies among programs. Most CIS programs studied provided some but not all of the components considered to be elements of case management. For example, almost all CIS programs identified needs of youth (although some did so informally) and made referrals to a range of service agencies or other sources of assistance (e.g., clothing banks, free eyeglasses). The CIS programs that offered more comprehensive case management were generally those where social workers had key roles, either as colocated staff or as project directors. This situation is not surprising, since social workers are likely to be trained in or familiar with case management practices.
The case management components most frequently missing or weak in CIS programs studied included conducting needs assessments, developing individualized plans for service delivery, following up on service receipt, monitoring client progress, and contacting families. These components tended to get lost in the shuffle in programs where case management was performed by staff who did not have backgrounds or training in case management or social work (or a related profession), where caseloads were too high for staff to perform all of the desired case management activities, or where case management was added to the staff member's primary functions.
The following examples illustrate case management practices in selected programs.
- In High Point, North Carolina, the initial case management step was a home visit conducted by repositioned social workers during the summer before the youth entered CIS. The social workers explained the program to parents and caregivers and obtained family information used to prepare a case history for each student's file. They also reviewed school and social service agency records, notes from counselors or teachers, and notes from individual interviews conducted with students the previous spring. Student files contained reasons for referral and information on grades, attendance, family, peers, and goals for improvement. Case histories were updated annually.
Case managers developed service plans for each student in a meeting that usually involved the student, parent, teacher or other school staff, and service agency staff. The plan identified areas of concern—e.g., grades, attendance, tardiness, or behavior—goals, and intervention strategies. Students were referred to outside services as needed, usually for more serious issues such as substance abuse. Case managers kept in contact with referral agencies to be sure students were receiving services. Case managers monitored progress through ongoing contact with their students; a minimum of twice-monthly contact was required, but most had more frequent contact. "Contact" was defined as in-person or telephone conversations for specific purposes, such as discussing grades, report cards, or problems the student was having, as opposed to purely social contact, and was viewed as informal counseling. Case managers conducted home visits (two visits per year were required in addition to the initial visit; more were conducted as needed) and had telephone contact with parents on an as-needed basis. For example, case managers checked daily school attendance and called home if the student was absent. Case managers functioned as advocates with teachers and other school personnel, such as guidance counselors, as needed.
Record-keeping practices supported case management. Student plans were submitted to the lead social worker, and case managers were required to write brief notes summarizing each student contact for the case file. Each case manager was assigned a specific color of paper for their notes, so anyone reviewing a file could readily determine who entered particular notes. The lead social worker or program director reviewed student files twice a year to check that they were complete and up-to-date and that contacts were being made. An end-of-year report was completed to summarize the student's academic status, plans for the summer and the next school year, status of the mentoring relationship, and a brief assessment of the year's progress. This summary was intended to help case managers review the student's status at the start of the next school year.
- Miami PIC, Florida, CIS counselors worked with each student to develop a "diagnostic-prescriptive-evaluative plan," updated quarterly. They met with the student at least four times during each nine-week grading period and made at least four home visits annually. Counselors coordinated with other social service providers when needed.
- In the Imperial County, California, SafeFutures program, the guidance technician assigned to the FRC performed the initial needs assessment and service plan development in conjunction with the youth and parent(s), who were invited to the office to participate. If the parent could not come to the office, the guidance technician conducted a home visit. The guidance technician also called the parent a few weeks after the initial visit to check whether the youth and family received the services to which they were referred and to determine if additional needs had surfaced. In some cases, the technician called the agency to which a referral was made to let it know the client was being referred by the FRC.
Staff colocated in the FRC met as a team once a month to discuss new referrals and to jointly develop a plan of action, which could include referrals to services other than those identified initially. One team member was assigned responsibility for following up on these referrals. A second team meeting each month focused on reviewing the status of existing cases, including possible new referrals or courses of action, if needed.
- The St. Louis, Missouri, SafeFutures program used a "caring adult" to provide case management services. At the FRCs located in community education centers (schools in the target area), the caring adult was either the FRC's family therapist or community outreach worker. The therapist was responsible for determining the initial services needed, sometimes assisted by the outreach worker. Interviews with youths, parent(s), teachers, and the referring source were conducted to gather information for this purpose.
Caring adults were responsible for meeting with youth regularly—a minimum of once a week, more often if needed. They completed initial information forms and set up a team meeting for all service providers associated with the youth within two weeks of referral to identify needs and resources. The caring adults also coordinated monthly team meetings to ensure that services were delivered and that changes in needs were identified. In addition, they linked youth with services, contacted agencies to ensure services were delivered, provided ongoing support such as counseling and tutoring, tracked progress, and submitted monthly progress forms. Caring adults also arranged and facilitated weekly "wrap-around" services meetings with key program and school staff to discuss the youth's needs.
The program developed a number of forms to support the case management function. A youth data form with checklists for problems identified and services provided was used for those referred for case management. A more detailed form was used for clients referred to therapy; it included family and child history, school performance and adjustment, problems, and clinical assessment information. When youth were referred to other agencies, a checklist form was used to identify these services. This form was updated monthly and kept in the case file. In addition, a referral feedback form was sent to the referral source, to be completed and returned to verify the services provided. A progress report form similar to the youth data form, with checklists to identify problems and services provided, was completed monthly by the caring adult. It included space for comments on progress, goals for the coming month, and team meeting dates and participants.
- Some CAR programs used a team approach to develop and monitor service plans. In Austin, Texas, for example, representatives of the various service delivery agencies participated in weekly "mega staffings." Case managers rotated cases for discussion on a regular basis and used the advice provided by meeting participants to develop or modify service plans. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, family mentors and other outreach staff of one of the participating agencies participated in weekly case conferences with a supervisor from that agency to share information on cases and discuss strategies and resources. The supervisor also had weekly group and individual meetings with the family mentors.
Periodic meetings of all team members also are commonly used for case management purposes. Such exchange provides a more complete picture of a child's situation, as each service provider is likely to have different information or insights to contribute.
OBSERVATION
Programs that endorse collaborative efforts often assert that integration of services can be accomplished without new or additional resources—that is, that needed services exist and only require shifting or enhanced coordination to facilitate more efficient access by clients. This belief is often combined with a second assertion that existing systems incorporate duplication of services that can be streamlined through services integration, thereby freeing up resources for allocation elsewhere. Field visits to nearly two dozen CIS community programs did not support these assertions. Programs should expect and prepare for shortfalls in services, even with the highest level of collaboration possible. As programs to serve youth and families are implemented, agencies may find that additional issues are uncovered that require more social service intervention or for which no resources are available. Similarly, they may find that as referrals and monitoring of case-managed clients take root, previously underserved populations may significantly increase their service utilization, thus taxing previously acceptable service capacity.
Parental Involvement
Parental involvement in programs seeking to assist at-risk youth is desirable and, some might argue, necessary. At a minimum, parental consent is usually required for youth to participate in such programs or in specific activities such as field trips, as well as to share information among agencies that provide services (see additional discussion under "Case Management" in
chapter 2). More important, efforts to change a child's behavior will generally be more successful if parents (and possibly other family members) support these efforts—which means they must be aware of them and understand how they can reinforce them at home. Since the problem behaviors of at-risk youth often stem from difficulties in the home—such as poverty, inappropriate disciplinary practices, or substance abuse—many programs also seek to provide services to parents and other family members to help resolve the child's problems. Both the CIS and SafeFutures programs stress a holistic approach that includes family involvement and services to address family needs.
Parental involvement means different things in different programs. In most programs, it includes participation in periodic meetings with staff to discuss a child's progress and occasional activities with other parents, some of which may include youth. In other programs, it may also include participation in home visits, workshops or activities designed to help parents and families (such as parenting skills courses), individual or family therapy, job training, or substance abuse treatment.
Many CIS staff reported little success in involving parents, even when special efforts were made. There are undoubtedly numerous reasons for this, including the many demands on time parents face and the limited resources of low-income families. Concerns about being "blamed" for their children's behavior or school performance also may make some parents reluctant to become involved. A number of CIS program staff members pointed out that many parents of at-risk youth had unsuccessful experiences in school themselves and therefore were reluctant to participate in school-related activities or even to interact with school staff. The age of the child also appears to be a factor. CIS staff reported a decline in parental involvement as students entered adolescence and became more independent of their parents; in some cases, youths even discouraged their parents' involvement in school-related activities.
Despite the recognized importance of parental involvement, it often appears to be neglected in practice. Programs may allocate so much staff time and other resources toward services for youth that there are insufficient resources left for parental involvement. Although many programs were frustrated in their efforts to involve parents, some programs had more success in this area. Their experiences and advice have been used to develop the suggestions provided here.
Involve parents as soon as possible and make clear expectations of involvement.
Parental consent requirements provide an opportunity to involve parents when their child starts the program. Instead of sending a form home to be signed, ask parents to attend an individual get-acquainted meeting with program staff or an open house for all parents. Use these meetings to explain the program's objectives and what it has to offer their child and the family and to have consent forms signed. Forms can be sent home to those parents who don't attend the in-person meeting, so this approach does not preclude participation of their children. A telephone call can be made in addition to sending the form home, to establish personal contact and extend an invitation to meet program staff at a later date.
Some CIS programs predicated a child's enrollment on an interview with parents, and some also required parental commitment to participate in specific activities. One program director noted that involvement in the admission process is intended to help "set the tone" that a partnership between the parent and school is needed and that parental involvement is expected. Formal contracts detailing parents' responsibilities were used in a few programs.
- The CIS programs in Columbia, South Carolina, and Houston, Texas, required an interview with parents before admitting a child. In Columbia, parents were expected to attend 80 percent of the parents' meetings and sign a "contract" agreeing to do so. At the Metropolitan Corporate Academy (MCA) in New York City, staff interviewed parents of prospective students. Parents also were asked to accompany their children to school on the first day to meet with the principal and the CIS coordinator.
- In the Imperial County, California, SafeFutures program, a staff member called the parents of youth referred to the FRC and invited them to come to the office for an initial meeting, where consent forms were signed and a needs assessment conducted with the parent and child present. Referrals were made for services needed by families (such as housing and medical care), as well as by youth. If the parent was unable to come to the office due to transportation or other problems or could not be reached by telephone, the staff member conducted a home visit.
Create a welcoming atmosphere.
Creating an atmosphere that makes parents feel comfortable can help overcome feelings of intimidation or resistance to involvement. This welcoming can be done in a variety of ways, some as simple as offering coffee or other refreshments. Involving parents in fun activities, such as holiday parties, picnics, and open houses, also can help make parents feel more welcome.
- The High Point, North Carolina, CIS program created a homey atmosphere in its main office with a (donated) couch, armchairs, and coffee table, along with a coffee maker and cookies. Staff put pictures of students taken at various activities on the walls and in photo albums as evidence of the staff's genuine caring for students. Parents of graduating students were invited to attend a graduation banquet along with their children.
- MCA in New York City invited parents to periodic special events, such as a year-end multicultural festival, as well as to monthly meetings of its parent-staff association. The program also "buddied" parents of new students with parents whose children had been attending MCA for a while to develop a peer support network and help new parents feel more comfortable.
- Each month, Colman Elementary School in Seattle, Washington, had a drawing from the names of students who had perfect attendance the previous month. The winner received dinner out for the entire family.
- The CAR programs in Memphis, Tennessee, and Savannah, Georgia, initiated regular social gatherings for families to promote parental involvement. The Memphis program had bimonthly family nights at the YMCA that included games and activities designed to help family members learn to make joint decisions and relate to each other. Staff "modeled" social behavior to illustrate how parents could interact with their children. Staff also occasionally held recreational outings for a few families, such as dinner and bowling. The Savannah program had a biweekly Saturday Academy that included social, educational, and recreational programs—some for parents alone, others for adults and children together. Parents also were invited to assist in ceremonies recognizing children's successes.
Reduce barriers to involvement.
CIS staff identified three key areas that affected parental involvement: scheduling, transportation, and language barriers.
Many parents do not work in "9 to 5" jobs or may hold two jobs, so finding the right time to schedule meetings may be difficult. Consequently, some programs schedule every major meeting at least twice (on a weekday evening and on a Saturday). When initial contact is made with parents, program staff ask what times they are usually available for meetings or events, then select meeting times that will draw the most participants. Provision of child care also facilitates parental attendance at meetings.
In programs that serve youth of various ethnicities, it is important to have staff who speak the predominant languages of the communities served. Be sure that written materials for parents are translated into the appropriate languages. Programs should avoid using English-speaking children to translate for their parents. This approach has two drawbacks: it may undermine parental authority, and the youth may deliberately misinterpret some information.
Many low-income families do not have a car and often live in communities with little or no public transportation. Staff in some CIS programs, particularly in rural areas with no public transit, frequently drove parents to school in their own vehicles so they could attend meetings with school or CIS staff.
- The Central Texas CIS program scheduled its "parents as educators" meetings in both the morning and evening and conducted them in Spanish and English.
- The SafeFutures program in Imperial County, California, offered two sessions of its parenting skills course: one in English, the other in Spanish. The ten-week course rotated among different communities in the county to make it more accessible.
- In the Seattle, Washington, CIS program, the North Seattle Family Center provided free child care for virtually every activity or presentation it sponsored. A series of monthly parenting classes rotated among three elementary schools.
- In San Antonio, Texas, staff at the Stafford Elementary School CIS program arranged for child care for CIS parents attending GED classes. Students at an alternative high school for teen mothers provided child care while CIS parents attended class as part of their school's partnership with CIS.
- To increase attendance at weekly parent support groups held by the Austin, Texas, CAR program, staff invited all family members to attend the evening session. Younger children played by themselves or in groups on the side of the room; older youth who participated in the program often joined in the discussion.
- In the Fort Belknap, Montana, SafeFutures program, located on a rural reservation, one outreach worker frequently drove parents to important meetings, such as court hearings and counseling sessions. She also regularly brought some parents to parenting skills classes they were court-ordered to attend. The SafeFutures staff assigned to a middle school in Richmond, California, similarly drove parents to important appointments.
Use outreach and home visits to involve parents.
Some programs have a specific outreach function or outreach staff to promote parental awareness and involvement. Home visits were used to varying degrees in CIS and SafeFutures programs as a way to establish contact with the child's family and assess family needs (formally or informally) for food, clothing, shelter, or other services. Home visits were also used to inform parents about problems they might not have been aware of, such as truancy, to help parents better supervise their children. Sometimes home visits were part of family counseling efforts. Although the value of home visits was frequently cited, most programs conducted them just once or twice a year, and some made regular visits to a limited number of families with more severe problems.
- In Fort Belknap, Montana, each of the four SafeFutures locations had an outreach worker who obtained information from schools about students with attendance problems, conducted home visits to advise parents of the problem, and explained what the SafeFutures program could offer them and their children. They provided similar follow-up on cases referred by the family court.
- In High Point, North Carolina, the CIS social worker conducted home visits during the summer for students entering the program in the fall. The social worker explained the program and obtained information about the family and the student to develop a case history and service plan for each student. Two other home visits were required each year: one during the fall term and a final visit later in the school year. Additional visits were made as needed.
- At one school in the Palm Beach County, Florida, CIS program, home visitors were school employees who worked an additional 20 hours each week for CIS. They checked school attendance daily, called parents when students missed one day, and visited homes if students missed additional days. Teachers also identified issues for CIS staff to check into. Home visitors helped families obtain and complete housing applications, relocate to more suitable housing (including providing transportation and volunteer labor to accomplish the move), identify job openings, apply for food stamps and other social services, and obtain medical services.
Offer services that interest and help parents.
Sponsoring activities or services that address parents' needs and interests can draw them to the program. Once parents become involved and benefit from these activities, it may be easier to keep them involved. Many CIS and SafeFutures programs offer workshops or courses in parenting skills, which often include information about appropriate disciplinary methods, self-esteem building, and supporting academics. Some programs bring in occasional speakers to address topics of interest to parents or help them help their children, e.g., dealing with divorce, or helping parents support reading skills. Some programs create formal or informal support networks for parents. A number of programs have established "one-stop shops" for a range of social services and referral to other agencies at the school site.
- The CIS program in Central Texas (Austin) collaborated with the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) in two schools. Using home visits, HIPPY staff trained parents to prepare their preschool children for school using storybook and lesson packages. Parents also met with the HIPPY coordinator at the school for group discussion and additional training. Because of HIPPY's association with CIS, participating families had access to CIS resources.
- In the Pinal County, Arizona, CIS program, the Coolidge FRC provided one-stop shopping for social services and offered flexible hours and a welcoming atmosphere. Services for parents included support sessions and parenting classes, individual and family counseling, crisis intervention, access to emergency services (food, housing, rent and utility assistance), and a clothing bank. The FRC sponsored a Parents Anonymous support group for abusive adults, and a spin-off group addressed women's issues. The FRC also provided individual and family counseling for substance abuse and other dysfunctions.
- The SafeFutures program in Imperial County, California, established an FRC in the high school in its target area. The FRC functioned as a one-stop shop for a range of services for youth and families. It had an eligibility worker to help families apply for various social services for which they were eligible. The program also provided parenting skills classes.
- In San Antonio, Texas, each CIS elementary school program developed a "clothing closet" of donated clothing for children and adult family members to fill emergency needs. Similarly, some kept nonperishable foods and school supplies on hand. The program also had other arrangements to provide clothing, including vouchers from retail stores, churches, and charitable organizations. The Stafford Elementary School CIS program also arranged for provision of GED, English as a Second Language (ESL), and parenting classes through the school district. Once a month the parenting class focused on an arts and crafts project as a "fun" incentive. (Parents had to attend the other three sessions to participate in it.)
- In Columbia, South Carolina, a "talk show" format was used in group meetings involving parents and youth. Staff served as hosts "Harpo Winfrey" and "Sally Jesse Ravioli," while guests addressed such topics as "Teens Who Will Not Assume Responsibility" and "Parents Who Expect Too Much." The talk show format was believed to facilitate communication, since it was familiar to everyone and added some levity to serious topics.
- The Cambodian Girls Group, one of the SafeFutures initiatives in Seattle, Washington, provided parenting classes for parents of the at-risk girls in the program, many of whom were refugees or immigrants. These classes included traditional parenting skills training, such as disciplinary practices, as well as aspects of U.S. culture, such as how to read a report card, call the school counselor, and open a bank account to save for college education. Staff developed culturally appropriate teaching methods for this group—such as using drama and proverbs, traditional teaching tools in Cambodia—but avoided role playing, which was considered embarrassing.
- In a number of CIS and SafeFutures programs, staff were available to serve in a support or advocacy role, accompanying parents and youth to meetings with school principals or other staff, providing moral support and advice, and helping with translation or explanation of procedures. In Imperial County, California, for example, expulsion cases were referred to one SafeFutures staff member who explained the procedures to parents and gave advice about requirements for readmission to school.
Involve parents in volunteer efforts.
One way programs involve parents is by encouraging their participation as volunteers. Volunteer activities that require an ongoing commitment, such as mentoring or tutoring, may not be compatible with the time demands many parents face. However, even sporadic volunteer opportunities—such as chaperoning field trips, organizing or supervising special events, and fund-raising activities—can help parents get to know program staff and youth and make them feel part of the program. Different parents can be asked to help with different events, enabling more parents to get involved. Volunteering also provides a way for parents to "give back" to the program that is helping their children. (See chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of volunteer efforts.)
- Some elementary school programs in San Antonio, Texas, had parent volunteers who functioned as teacher aides, helping students (by listening to them practice reading, for example), making classroom decorations, helping teachers, and helping office staff with activities such as mailing fliers. Parents participating in the ESL and GED classes at Adams Elementary School helped by collecting recipes for a fund-raiser cookbook.
- Pinal County, Arizona's CIS program involved parents and community residents in an extensive "Christmas bundle" volunteer effort that provided clothing, toys, food, and household goods to needy families in the county. The project also expanded community awareness of the FRC. Volunteers were used to sort, gift wrap, and label donated items and assemble "bundles" (large plastic bags) of items that matched family needs. (The FRC developed sign-up sheets for clients to identify their needs and provide information about clothing sizes.)
Stay in touch with parents.
Programs use a variety of strategies to stay in touch with parents. Telephone contact is the primary method of communication. Some programs phone parents regularly, while others phone only when a student is not in school or some problem has developed. Other communication tools include meetings and written notices or announcements sent home with students or mailed. A few programs have regular newsletters. A number of programs maintain contact with parents by inviting them to observe sporting events, performances, or other activities involving their children. Staff use these informal opportunities to build or maintain relationships with parents and to get feedback about their programs.
- In New York City, MCA teachers routinely called parents. For example, staff called when a student was absent even once or if a student missed a mentoring session. Sometimes calls were made just to keep in contact with parents to better understand the family situation.
- In Columbia, South Carolina, parents were invited to the school to confer with school staff at the time of report card distribution. Parents were sent a monthly calendar with dates marked for special school and CIS events and parents' meetings. The program also issued a quarterly newsletter.
- In the Colman Elementary School CIS program in Seattle, Washington, parents were required to sign homework every night. In lieu of suspension, parents had to come to class and sit with children who had misbehaved. If transportation was a problem, the principal made some arrangement; if getting time off from work was an issue, the principal contacted employers. Parents had to come to school to pick up at least two of the four report cards issued each school year, creating an opportunity to confer with teachers.
- In Fort Belknap, Montana, the local public radio station made announcements about SafeFutures activities and events. Staff also prepared weekly press releases for the local newspapers. Staff felt that these approaches reached more community residents and required less staff time and resources than preparing a newsletter. This program also held quarterly meetings in the four communities on the reservation. Parents were invited to attend athletic events and dance practices and performances by youth learning traditional Native American dance as part of the SafeFutures program. Staff held brief meetings with parents after such events.
Volunteers for Tutoring and Mentoring
Programs that provide services to youth often rely on volunteers to expand their offerings. Using volunteers not only benefits the youth, it connects the program to the community and enlarges its circle of resources.
Volunteer activities fall under two major categories. Volunteers can be used to provide core services, such as tutoring or mentoring. They make a commitment on a regular, frequent basis, and interact closely with youth. Most CIS and SafeFutures programs use volunteer tutors and/or mentors.
Volunteers also are used on a less regular basis or to perform noncore functions. Examples of the former include serving as chaperones for field trips or special events such as dances and helping organize or operate activities such as athletic events or fund-raisers. Some professionals, such as doctors, dentists, and therapists, provide pro bono services occasionally or on a regular basis. Some programs use volunteers to assist with office or administrative functions, such as publicity, developing program materials (e.g., annual reports or newsletters), bookkeeping, accounting, and clerical functions. Other programs use volunteers to track student attendance, call parents of absent students, or assist in the school as classroom aides and hall monitors.
Connecting youth with caring adults has assumed greater importance recently, partly because research indicates that mentoring has a positive influence on a number of behaviors. (See "Resources" section.) Considerable attention has been paid to mentoring since spring 1997, when President Clinton, several former presidents, and other leaders launched a national campaign urging adults to become involved in mentoring and other volunteer services for youth.
There are many variations on the activities volunteers can perform with youth. Even seemingly "standard" activities such as mentoring and tutoring are performed somewhat differently in different programs. But usually these activities are similar across programs.
Adult mentors usually function in "big brother/big sister" capacities, providing encouragement, guidance, informal counseling, and serving as role models. Mentors usually expose students to enrichment opportunities and social situations, such as museums, cultural events, restaurants (some low-income youth had never eaten in a restaurant before being taken to one by their mentor), college campuses, and libraries. Some mentors expose youth to employment opportunities by taking them to their place of work for "job shadowing." Mentors may also demonstrate responsibility and adult roles by including students as they carry out their normal routine (e.g., running errands, participating in sports) or by inviting them to participate in activities with the mentor's family or friends. Mentors typically agree to meet with students on a regular basis, ranging from once a week to once a month. Some programs ask mentors to have telephone contact in between meetings.
Mentoring is generally structured as a one-on-one activity. While some programs arrange to have mentors meet with students at the school site (commonly during lunch or after school), many mentoring pairs meet at least occasionally at other locations. Some programs have students meet mentors at their workplaces, an opportunity to emphasize employment. Most programs treat mentoring as a low-cost, high-quality commitment for the volunteer, making it clear that mentors are expected to spend time but little money on their students. Some programs reimburse mentors for out-of-pocket expenses, such as transportation costs.
Volunteer tutors generally provide homework assistance and help students study for tests or prepare assignments; some concentrate on particular subjects. Some programs ensure that tutors have contact with teachers, so they are familiar with course content, assignments, the student's performance, and areas in which assistance is needed.
Tutors are not always assigned to work with individuals. One or more tutors might be assigned to work with a small group of students, or a group of volunteers might be available to assist students who "drop in" for help at scheduled times. Tutoring activities are often scheduled once or twice a week, although some programs have volunteers available every school day. Tutoring usually takes place at the school site, sometimes during lunch period. Alternatively, tutoring may be held at the program office or some centralized location such as a community or recreation center.
Some programs combine the tutoring and mentoring roles. In other programs, mentoring and tutoring efforts are incorporated with other special programs.
- In High Point, North Carolina, "partners" met with ninth- and tenth-grade CIS students once a week during the CIS class period. They typically provided assistance with homework or class projects or worked on exercises developed by CIS staff, but they also interacted as mentors. Most volunteers periodically met with their students after school or on weekends to attend cultural or fun events or to watch their students compete in sporting events.
- In Seattle, Washington, the Downtown Seattle Association partnered with CIS on a summer youth employment program, Helping Interns Reach Excellence (HIRE). The program combined paid summer jobs with a mentorship component that paired students with an employee in the company where the student worked. Mentors provided general support and guidance and generally were not their student's supervisor.
Some volunteer efforts are less structured but still provide students with adult exposure.
- In Adams County, Colorado, the Adopt-a-Cop program brought police volunteers to schools to spend lunch hours or other downtimes assisting with courses, eating with the students, or participating in sports or games on the playground.
Programs that are considering or just beginning mentoring or tutoring programs (or other substantial volunteer efforts) often do not realize the extent of support activities needed for such efforts to operate smoothly. This chapter suggests activities that support volunteer efforts, namely, recruiting, screening, and training volunteers; selecting youth for program participation; matching volunteers and youth (usually done only for mentoring relationships); and providing ongoing support, monitoring, and recognition for volunteers. Exhibit 4-1 provides a list of standards for mentoring programs developed by Greater Boston One to One, a coalition that supports mentoring efforts, which expands on the activities discussed here.
Establish responsibility for volunteer efforts.
Activities aimed at finding and keeping volunteers can be overlooked, given the many responsibilities that program staff face. Tutoring and mentoring require many volunteers on a regular basis. Consistency within the volunteer ranks is also important. Assigning a staff member to be responsible for managing and coordinating the volunteer effort helps ensure these programs will operate as smoothly as possible. It also gives volunteers a regular contact and ensures that someone pays attention to this important function on a regular basis. Some CIS programs, particularly those providing mentors or tutors for large numbers of youth, establish a full- or part-time volunteer coordinator position. Others make volunteer coordination the responsibility of a particular staff member or even another volunteer.
In the Central Texas CIS program in Austin, VISTA volunteers served as coordinators for the program's extensive volunteer efforts. Each VISTA worker supervised the activities at two schools, each of which had about twenty volunteers. One VISTA worker also coordinated the overall volunteer program and, along with CIS staff, trained new coordinators. The original volunteer coordinators developed a manual to use in training future coordinators. It described job responsibilities, provided suggestions about recruiting, and offered samples of letters that coordinators might need to write (such as recruiting and thank yous).
Another option for managing a volunteer program is to partner or contract with another organization. Local affiliates of national youth-service organizations, such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters or Boys and Girls Clubs, commonly provide services such as mentoring or tutoring. Thus they have experience and skills in operating these programs and have procedures and standards (which may be established by their national organization) for recruiting, screening, and training volunteers—responsibilities that can seem daunting to program staff inexperienced in working with volunteers. This option may be particularly useful for programs that lack staff capacity to manage a volunteer program and are unable or unw
