Archived Information

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| #####                                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### Study of Local Agency Activities Under the Tile I, Part D, Program

Program Profiles

**Prepared for:**

U.S. Department of Education

#### Office of the Under Secretary

Washington, DC 20202

November 1999

**Submitted by:**

Research Triangle Institute

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.2395833333333333in"
height="1.2395833333333333in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [U.S. Department of Education \~ Office of the Under
  Secretary]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  ------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------
                                                                

                ![](media/image2.jpeg)[Planning and Evaluation  
                Service]{.smallcaps}                            
  ------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------

[Study of Local Agency Activities Under the Title I, part D,
Program]{.smallcaps}

Program Profiles

November 1999

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Washington, DC 20202

Submitted by:

Michael D. Tashjian, Study Director

Research Triangle Institute

![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.2395833333333333in"
height="1.2395833333333333in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  [U.S. Department of Education \~ Office of the Under
  Secretary]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

This report was prepared for the U. S. Department of Education under
Contract No. EA94053001. The views expressed herein are those of the
contractor. No official endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education
is intended or should be inferred.

**U. S. Department of Education**

Richard W. Riley

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Marshall S. Smith

*Under Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

November 1999

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U. S. Department
of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation
Service, *Study of Local Agency Activities under the Title I, Part D,
Program*, Washington, D.C., 1999.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to:

edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those whose use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

This report is also available on the department=s web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/elem.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

**Contents**

Acknowledgments iv

Introduction 1

Study Methods 2

Study Findings 3

Program Goals and Design 5

Students and Student Selection 6

Program Structure 7

Program Services and Activities 8

Program Staffing 10

Business, Other Local Agency, and Parent Involvement 11

Program Evaluation 12

Program Profiles 13

Orange County Department of EducationSanta Ana, California CA-1

Polk County School BoardBartow, Florida FL-1

Unified School District 493Columbus, Kansas KS-1

Jefferson County Public SchoolsLouisville, Kentucky KY-1

Kalamazoo Public School DistrictKalamazoo, Michigan MI-1

Duluth Public SchoolsDuluth, Minnesota MN-1

Lincoln Public School DistrictLincoln, Nebraska NE-1

San Marcos Consolidated Independent School DistrictSan Marcos, Texas
TX-1

Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union Bennington, Vermont VT-1

**Acknowledgments**

We thank all the people who provided assistance and support during the
study, particularly Robin Bouckris, the project officer, who provided
thoughtful guidance during all phases of our work. We are also indebted
to Paul S. Brown and Patrick Smith of the Title I program office in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Stephanie Stullich and
Val Plisko of the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the
Undersecretary, who were all helpful in answering our questions and
reviewing our work.

We are especially grateful to the many individuals who gave their time
and knowledge to the study by sharing their experiences with us,
including the state educational agency, local educational agency,
school, and facility staff members with whom we visited in the nine
sites whose programs are reviewed here. We also thank the students we
met during the course of this study. The Research Triangle Institute
study team included Todd Arrington, Erin Cashman, Barbara Elliot, Kelly
Long, Norma Marti, Christene Tashjian, and Mike Tashjian.

Michael D. Tashjian

Study Director

**Introduction**

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) represents
the federal government's primary investment in improving education for
children and youth at risk of school failure. Part D of Title I
authorizes two programs specifically for children and youth who are
neglected, delinquent, or at risk of dropping out of school: Subpart 1,
which provides financial assistance to educational programs for youth in
state-operated institutions or community day programs for neglected or
delinquent youth; and Subpart 2, which provides financial assistance to
support local educational agency (LEA) programs involving collaboration
with locally operated correctional facilities. The purposes of Subpart 2
programs are to:

-   Carry out high quality education programs to prepare youth for
    secondary school completion, training, and employment, or further
    education.

-   Provide activities to facilitate the transition of such youth from
    the correctional program to further education or employment.

-   Operate dropout prevention programs in local schools for youth at
    risk of dropping out of school and youth returning from correctional
    facilities.[^1]

Most students served by the Subpart 2 program are at risk of school
failure as a result of multiple factors, and many perform at three or
more grade levels below their noninstitutionalized peers.

Under the Improving America's Schools Act (P.L. 103-82), which
reauthorized Title I in 1994 and created the Subpart 2 program, each
state retains funds generated under Part A based on the number of youth
residing in local correctional facilities or attending community day
programs for delinquent children and youth. State educational agencies
(SEAs) use these funds to award subgrants to LEAs with high
concentrations of residents in locally operated correctional facilities
for youth. States may award local grants under a formula basis or
through a competitive process. If an SEA distributes funds through a
formula, it must divide the funds proportionately among eligible LEAs,
based on the number of youth in delinquent institutions.

LEA applications to SEAs for Subpart 2 funds must describe the program
to be assisted, identify the youth targeted for services, discuss the
types of services to be provided, and describe how the program will
coordinate the roles and responsibilities of correctional facilities,
schools, local agencies, businesses, parents, and other individuals. By
statute, any LEA receiving funds must use a portion of the grant to
operate a dropout prevention program in one or more of the district's
regular schools, unless 30 percent or more of the youth residing in area
facilities will live outside the district's boundaries upon leaving the
institution. Each correctional facility or delinquent institution
receiving assistance must have a formal agreement with the LEA
describing the program and services to be provided to its population of
eligible residents and must ensure, to the extent feasible, that its
educational program is coordinated with the students' home schools.

In October 1998, the Planning and Evaluation Service of the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) contracted with the Research Triangle
Institute (RTI) to obtain descriptive information on LEA activities
under the program through site visits to nine programs. In the remainder
of this introductory section we summarize the study's methodology and
briefly identify some of the key issues and findings that emerged from
our investigation of local programs. Individual site reports follow this
introductory section.

**Study Methods**

Our principal objective in selecting nine sites for on-site data
collection was to ensure diversity with respect to geographic location
and program design. We purposively selected nine states that, in the
aggregate, represented all major regions of the country and included
states of varying size.[^2] Our selection of districts in these nine
states was guided by information we gleaned from ED program
documentation and from interviews with SEA Title I coordinators to (1)
identify the state role in the administration and operation of Subpart 2
programs and (2) obtain recommendation for LEAs that merited on-site
data collection by virtue of program size and design.

The objective of our on-site data collection was to obtain detailed
descriptions of (1) program goals and design, (2) students and student
selection, (3) program structure and staffing, (4) program services and
activities, and (5) program evaluation. We developed research questions
in each of the areas of inquiry and loosely structured data collection
protocols, based on those questions, to guide our discussions with LEA,
facility, and school staff members. While on site we also reviewed
available program documentation, including applications for funding,
program descriptions, cooperative agreements between the LEA and
facilities, and evaluation reports.

**Study Findings**

The nine local programs we visited varied widely with respect to
purpose, grant amount, number of students served, and number of
participating facilities or schools, as indicated in Table 1. At the
same time, all but one of the programs provided some amount of academic
instruction in the detention environment. Our discussions with state
Title I coordinators during the selection process indicated that local
programs are much less likely to use program funds to pursue either of
the program's other two goals: dropout prevention in the regular public
schools or formal transition services for youth returning from a
detention facility. Most district staff believe that the need for
supplementary academic instruction in facilities for delinquent youth
far exceeds the need for dropout prevention services in the regular
schools.

Formal transition or aftercare programs remain scarce, despite
widespread awareness of the need for such services, owing to a lack of
knowledge in how to set up such programs, the absence of a mandate
assigning this responsibility to any one state or local agency, and
inadequate funding. The absence of post-release monitoring in turn
results in a lack of continuity in the education of many delinquent
youth, especially because students' length of stay at any one facility
is frequently less than a full school year. Gains in achievement or
improvements in attitudes toward education that students may experience
in the structured environment of a correctional facility can erode in
the absence of post-release services. A few of the states and districts
we visited are improving the continuity of education for delinquent
youth through the use of integrated instructional software systems,
which are aligned with state standards for curriculum mastery. As we
discuss in the profiles that follow, students released from a detention
facility who enter another facility or school in these districts (or
states) may continue to learn at the same pace, using the same materials
and standards, to the extent that other schools or facilities in the
district (or state) employ the same software.

We summarize below other findings and issues that emerged from our
visits to local programs. These findings are organized under the study's
research questions.

**Table 1: Purpose and Scope of Subpart 2 Programs Visited**

+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| **Local Educational   | **Program     | *      | **Num | **Number  |
| Agency**              | Purpose(s)**  | *Grant | ber** | of        |
|                       |               | Am     |       | Fa        |
|                       |               | ount** | **of  | cilities/ |
|                       |               |        | Stude | Schools** |
|                       |               |        | nts** |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Orange County         | Academic      | \$6    | 1,500 | 5         |
| Department of         | improvement   | 58,044 |       | f         |
| Education             |               |        |       | acilities |
|                       | Transition    |        |       |           |
| Santa Ana, California |               |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Polk County School    | Academic      | \$3    | 900   | 8         |
| Board                 | improvement   | 16,000 |       | f         |
|                       |               |        |       | acilities |
| Bartow, Florida       | Transition    |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Unified School        | Academic      | \$     | 58    | 1 school  |
| District 493          | improvement   | 35,592 |       |           |
|                       |               |        |       |           |
| Columbus, Kansas      | Dropout       |        |       |           |
|                       | prevention    |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Jefferson County      | Academic      | \$     | 1,300 | 2 schools |
| Public Schools        | improvement   | 95,646 |       |           |
|                       |               |        |       | 6         |
| Louisville, Kentucky  |               |        |       | f         |
|                       |               |        |       | acilities |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Kalamazoo Public      | Academic      | \$1    | 460   | 4         |
| Schools               | improvement   | 19,671 |       | f         |
|                       |               |        |       | acilities |
| Kalamazoo, Michigan   |               |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Duluth Public Schools | Transition    | \$1    | 313   | 3         |
|                       |               | 00,000 |       | f         |
| Duluth, Minnesota     | Academic      |        |       | acilities |
|                       | improvement   |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Lincoln Public School | Academic      | \$     | 386   | 1         |
| District              | improvement   | 40,425 |       | facility  |
|                       |               |        |       |           |
| Lincoln, Nebraska     | Life skills   |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| San Marcos            | Dropout       | \$1    | 555   | 3 schools |
| Consolidated          | prevention    | 62,000 |       |           |
| Independent School    |               |        |       | 2         |
| District, San Marcos, | Academic      |        |       | f         |
| Texas                 | improvement   |        |       | acilities |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+
| Southwest Vermont     | GED           | \$     | 23    | 1         |
| Supervisory Union     | preparation   | 17,707 |       | facility  |
|                       |               |        |       |           |
| Bennington, Vermont   | Academic      |        |       |           |
|                       | improvement   |        |       |           |
+-----------------------+---------------+--------+-------+-----------+

**Program Goals and Design**

1.  *What are the specific goals of districts' Subpart 2 programs (i.e,
    dropout prevention, transition from institution to school or
    employment)?*

-   Our discussions with SEA Title I coordinators in nine states
    indicated that most districts in their states used Subpart 2 funding
    to provide supplementary academic instruction in institutions for
    delinquent youth; school-based programs and formal transition
    programs appear much less frequent.

-   Seven programs identified academic improvement as their primary
    goal. One program (TX) identified dropout prevention as its primary
    purpose, one program (MN) identified its central purpose as helping
    students transition out of the facility, and general equivalency
    diploma preparation is the primary goal of one program.

-   In most of the districts we visited, the number of youth residing in
    institutions who were from, and are therefore presumed to return to,
    another district's jurisdiction exceeded the 30 percent threshold
    associated with the mandate to operate a dropout prevention program
    within the local schools.

-   District and facility staff at several sites expressed a desire to
    establish more formal transition oriented programs, but cited the
    lack of an effective model for doing so as an impediment to pursuing
    such a goal.

**2. *Why were these goals established (e.g., state mandate, to meet
state performance standards, formal needs assessment)?***

-   Generally, district and facility staff believe the need for
    supplementary educational services in the detention environment
    exceeds the need for additional dropout prevention services in the
    regular public schools*.*

-   District staff in the program that focused primarily on dropout
    prevention established this goal to help students master statewide
    curriculum and pass the state competency exam. The program helped
    the district establish a continuum of supplementary instruction for
    disadvantaged students at all grade levels.

***3. What roles did the SEA, LEA, facility, school have in developing
these goals?***

-   SEAs typically did not play an active role in the design of local
    programs; the state's role was frequently limited to funding
    allocations and collection of year-end reports. Only one of the nine
    states we visited used a competitive process to award local grants.

-   Districts varied considerably with respect to their role in the
    design of local programs. Districts that used funding to provide
    services in the schools tended to be more actively involved in
    program decisions than were districts where the majority of funding
    supported services in facilities.

-   Facilities in the districts we visited had considerable discretion
    in deciding how to use their Subpart 2 funding, especially in
    programs with large numbers of participating facilities. The head of
    one program (CA) asked facility staff members to submit proposals to
    the district and awarded "mini-grants" to successful bidders that
    supplemented their core allocation and supported specific needs in
    individual classrooms.

**4*. To what extent, if any, is the design based on research on
effective practices?***

-   In general, the overall designs of the Subpart 2 programs we visited
    were not based on effective practices research. At the same time,
    several programs included one or more components (e.g., software
    packages, assessment programs) that were research based, and several
    individual teachers we spoke with based their instructional
    practices on a research-tested approach (e.g., reality-based
    theory).

5.  *How do districts allocate their Subpart 2 funds and what factors
    influence district decisions about how to allocate their funding?*

-   In only one site we visited (FL) did the district allocate funds to
    participating facilities on a strict per pupil basis; each facility
    received funding in proportion to the number of eligible students
    who reside there.

-   In other districts, facilities that generate local Subpart 2 funds
    do not necessarily receive funding in direct proportion to their
    number of residents. The amounts allocated to individual facilities
    in these districts are most often determined on the basis of need.
    For example, one facility may receive extra funding in one year to
    upgrade its computer capability and then receive less the following
    year when another facility receives an extra allotment for the same
    purpose.

**Students and Student Selection**

**1*. How many students do local programs serve and what are the
characteristics of students served in terms of grade level, age, and
other characteristics?***

-   The largest program we visited (CA) served approximately 1,500
    students last year; the smallest (VT) served 23 students; the age of
    students served across all programs ranged from 11 to 21 years.

-   Most students served by the program are at risk of school failure as
    a result of multiple factors; district programs generally have high
    percentages (i.e., 40-80 percent) of students who require
    individualized education plans.

-   While the vast majority of students served by the program are, in
    fact, adjudicated youth, most school-based programs serve
    academically deficient students who have no history of involvement
    with the juvenile justice system, and other programs serve neglected
    or homeless youth who reside in group homes or shelters.

2.  *Are all eligible students served? If not, what specific groups of
    at-risk youth are district programs intended to assist, and how did
    the district select students for participation?*

-   All youth in local correctional facilities or delinquent
    institutions through the age of 21 are eligible to receive services.
    All of the juvenile institutions we visited operated
    institution-wide programs (i.e., all students benefit from Subpart 2
    services).

-   School-based programs tended to select students for participation on
    the basis of grade level and one or more at-risk factors (e.g.,
    academic failure, disciplinary problems). For example, one district
    that allocates funding to schools (TX) selected for participation in
    the high school program tenth-grade students at risk of dropping
    out, with one or no credits, and a history of low attendance. This
    district also selected students in the junior high programs who had
    failed the statewide competency exam.

**Program Structure**

**1*. How many and what types of schools and facilities are involved in
the program?***

-   Six of the nine districts we visited allocated funding only to
    facilities; one program involved a single school, and two programs
    involved both schools and facilities.

-   The highest number of facilities involved in any one district's
    program was eight (FL); the lowest was one (NE, VT). The facilities
    we visited included detention centers, halfway houses, county jails,
    boot camps, youth shelters, and other types of locally operated
    programs for delinquent youth.

-   Types of schools we visited included an alternative high school and
    an alternative middle school (KY); an alternative classroom in a
    regular high school (KS); and a regular high school, two junior high
    schools, an alternative high school (academic center within the
    regular school), and a youth shelter classroom (TX).

2.  *How do participating districts coordinate their activities with
    local facilities?*

-   In most localities, probation departments or other arms of the
    juvenile justice system (or their contractors) operate the
    facilities and direct the overall treatment and intervention
    programs, while LEAs are responsible for providing residents with an
    appropriate education.

-   District coordination with participating facilities is the
    responsibility of the individual responsible for the Subpart 2
    program, who may or may not be the district's overall Title I
    coordinator. In most smaller districts the Title I (or federal
    programs) coordinator is directly responsible for Subpart 2, while
    in larger districts another individual in the Title I office assumes
    this responsibility.

-   In one district (CA) Subpart 2 is administered by a separate
    division of the county school board that oversees correctional
    education, alternative schools, and charter schools. In another
    large program (FL) coordination between the district and
    participating facilities is a shared responsibility of the school
    board's Title I staff and staff of the alternative education
    division.

-   Districts communicated with participating facilities through
    telephone calls, regular meetings, on-site monitoring, joint
    training, and cooperative agreements or contracts.

3.  *How do the structure and content of cooperative agreements between
    facilities and districts vary across sites?*

-   Cooperative agreements between districts and participating
    facilities ranged from formal detailed descriptions of each party's
    role and responsibilities to a mere signature of a facility official
    on the district's application for program funding. The number and
    formality of written agreements between district and facility staff
    appear to vary primarily as a function of program size.

**Program Services and Activities**

1.  *What specific services are provided with Subpart 2 funding?*

-   In most programs visited, districts used the majority of their
    Subpart 2 funds to provide supplemental instruction in reading,
    language arts, and mathematics.

-   Virtually all of the programs we visited used some portion of their
    funding to purchase computers, software, or other instructional
    materials.

-   Integrated instructional software systems, aligned with statewide
    standards for curriculum content and assessment, are a key feature
    of some local programs (FL, MN, TX). These systems include a
    diagnostic component that identifies a student's achievement levels;
    curriculum components that design individual programs of instruction
    in various content areas; and management components teachers may use
    to further tailor lesson plans and customize assignments.

-   One program (MN) allocated the majority of its program funding to
    provide transition and follow-up services to delinquent youth. The
    district operates a three-phase program that includes (1) prerelease
    planning and student attendance at the student's home school six
    weeks prior to release, (2) weekly contacts by the project
    coordinator with the student, counselor, social workers, and
    teachers for six weeks after release, and (3) monthly contacts with
    released students for up to one year.

-   Although only one of the nine programs identified transition as a
    primary goal, in juvenile corrections programs, where the average
    length of stay is typically one year or less, virtually all services
    are intended to help students go back to school or find employment,
    as one program's motto - "think exit upon entry" - communicates
    quite succinctly. Often transition-oriented services are provided in
    "life skills" programs through which students learn communications,
    problem-solving, goal setting, management of emotions, resource
    identification, and other skills needed to succeed after release
    from a facility.

-   Many programs use a portfolio through which students show their
    plans for a successful reentry (i.e., educational or employment
    goals, necessary activities to complete, individuals they may rely
    on for assistance, etc. ). Portfolios include a resume,
    documentation of achievements, and any certificates or awards
    earned.

-   Another Subpart 2-funded transition-oriented service we learned of
    is a research-based program, called "Bridges," that includes three
    main components: assessment, remediation, and transition. The
    program measures students' learning styles, reasoning, visual,
    motor, and academic abilities; develops a profile of the student's
    skills and abilities as they relate to learning; provides exercises
    to develop capacity in areas of identified deficits; and identifies
    career choices that represent a good match for a student's interests
    and abilities.

-   At one program we visited (FL) students who successfully complete a
    six-month boot camp move on to a three-month transition program
    where they work on their post-release goals, develop a transition
    plan, and continue their schooling. The Subpart 2-funded program
    coordinator compiles student records and meets with students at
    least once a week to help in planning their goals, apply for further
    schooling, or otherwise prepare for release.

**2*. What other related services are available?***

-   The nature and extent of services available to students served by
    the Subpart 2 program varies greatly from district to district.
    Students in school-based programs typically benefit from the full
    range of services and programs available at most public schools
    (i.e., dropout prevention and safe and drug-free schools). Support
    services available to residents of juvenile detention institutions
    may include medical and dental care, psychiatric counseling, sports
    and recreation, tobacco intervention, alcohol and substance abuse
    intervention, cultural awareness, religious services, parenting
    classes, driver's education, anger management, career exploration,
    work experience, and others.

3.  *What is the relationship, if any, between Title I, Part A services
    and Subpart 2 programs?*

-   In most of the districts we visited local Part D programs serve
    students in the detention environment while Title I Part A programs
    serve public school students. In these programs little coordination
    (beyond that required for consolidated applications for federal
    funds) is required.

-   In two programs (KY, MI), some Subpart 2 students live in group
    homes and attend alternative schools that are Title I, Part A
    schoolwide projects. These students benefit from Part A funded
    services during the regular school day (as do all students at these
    schools), as well as after-school tutoring at the group homes that
    is funded by Subpart 2.

-   One school-based program (TX) uses Subpart 2 funds to provide
    supplemental instruction and dropout preventions services for junior
    and high school students, and concentrates Title I, Part A funding
    to serve students in elementary grades. Program staff note that many
    of the students participating in the Subpart 2 funded programs are
    the same students who received Title I, Part A in earlier grades.

**4. *What additional services might benefit the program and
students?***

-   Facility staff members noted that formal transition services to
    prepare students for re-entry into their home schools or employment,
    and post-release monitoring and aftercare, are the services most
    urgently needed.

-   Facility staff members said psychiatric and psychological counseling
    are other services in scarce supply.

**Program Staffing**

**1. *How are Subpart 2 programs staffed? Do districts have coordinators
for their programs, and , if so, how much time do they allocate to
Subpart 2?***

-   Facility and school staff supported with Subpart 2 funds across the
    nine sites we visited included 18 instructional aides, eight tutors,
    four teachers, three educational program coordinators, six
    transition specialists, a life skills specialist, and a reading
    coordinator. These staff often serve more than a single function.
    For example, classroom aides frequently tutor students before or
    after class.

-   District-level staff responsible for Subpart 2 administration
    allocate little time to the program; frequently the role of the
    district coordinator is limited to preparing the funding
    application, allocating funds to participating institutions, and
    providing technical assistance to facility staff, as needed or
    requested.

-   Facilities that use program funds to hire staff employ
    paraprofessionals (i.e., instructional aides or tutors) more often
    than certified instructors, an approach that allows them to maximize
    the total number of instructional staff and therefore reduce the
    student-to-staff ratio.

**2. *To what extent do teachers and staff receive training and
technical assistance?***

-   Subpart 2-funded staff in all of the programs we visited have the
    same opportunities for training and technical assistance as do staff
    funded by Title I, Part A. Most programs also make additional
    training opportunities available that focus specifically on youth
    with discipline problems or a history of involvement with the legal
    system.

-   One program that employed the greatest number of Subpart 2-funded
    staff (CA)*,* including 16 instructional assistants, provides new
    staff with preservice training, and frequent in-service training
    offered by the state, the county, and professional associations
    (i.e., Correctional Educational Association*).* Assistants who also
    serve as tutors participate in monthly staff development meetings
    with Title I, Part A tutoring specialists who work with neglected
    students residing in group homes.

**Business, Other Local Agency, and Parent Involvement**

**1. *To what extent, and how, are local businesses, health and social
service agencies, and parents involved in local programs?***

-   The extent of business and community agency involvement in district
    programs varies from extensive to nonexistent depending on program
    size and purpose. Parent involvement is typically minimal.

-   In a few of the programs we visited, local businesses and employers
    provide students with an orientation to or actual experience in the
    workplace. For example, students in one program (KY) participate in
    field trips to a carpenter's (or other trade) union and some
    students may be placed in the union's apprenticeship program. In
    another program (VT) local construction companies and fast food
    restaurants provide employment opportunities through which students
    earn an income (deposited in individual accounts by the program
    manager) they may rely on for food, clothing, and rent after their
    release.

-   Most programs have established links with a variety of community
    agencies, organizations and individuals, including mental health
    agencies, hospitals, adolescent treatment centers, psychologists,
    YMCAs, and religious organizations, that provide services to
    individual students. Programs that involve halfway houses (MI, KS)
    have established relationships with area schools that students may
    attend during the day.

-   In the one program with a transition focus the project coordinator
    attempts to contact parents on a weekly basis during the first month
    after release, and then monthly for the remainder of the year.
    Generally, however, parent involvement is difficult for many
    reasons. First, many youth come from dysfunctional families in which
    the parents are abusive, have alcohol or drug problems, or have a
    history of their own involvement with the criminal justice system.
    Second, parents may have little patience with their child at the
    point of adjudication and are often relieved to transfer
    responsibility to facility staff. Finally, parents may live far away
    from the facility housing their child, work several jobs, and face
    other constraints that limit the time available to participate in
    their child's experience.

**Program Evaluation**

**1. *What data do districts collect?***

-   All districts were able to identify the number of youth served and
    most were able to report basic demographic data, such as gender and
    race.

-   All districts make some attempt to collect student achievement
    data*,* although typically these data are incomplete*.* Measures of
    student gains on test scores are especially difficult for districts
    to obtain, owing to high student mobility. Typically the number of
    students pretested is more than double the number who received a
    post-test.

2.  *What indicators do district and facility rely on to assess program
    effectiveness?*

-   Most facility staff believe improvements in students' behavior and
    attitude are necessary prerequisites to academic improvement and are
    more realistic measures of program success than are test scores, in
    light of the time available to them (typically six to nine months)
    and the deficits with which most of their students arrive.

-   At the facility level, staff use informal means to identify how
    individual students are progressing. As one teacher said, if
    students attend class regularly and appear motivated to learn, then
    progress is being made.

**3. *What are respondents' perceptions of impediments to more
successful programs?***

-   High student mobility is one of the greatest impediments to more
    effective Subpart 2 programs. Students often exit abruptly from a
    facility before they have fully reached individual goals or grasped
    the importance of education for their future. Many facility staff
    told us that their students thrived under the structured environment
    of a detention center, but these same students would lose that
    structure after release and return to behaviors that first led them
    to incarceration.

-   Education plans for delinquent youth are frequently delayed because
    facility staff are waiting for academic records from the students'
    previous schools.

-   Mandated pretests administered a day or two after a student arrives
    at a facility may not provide an accurate assessment of a student's
    achievement level, owing to the emotional instability associated
    with recent incarceration; some districts now wait up to one week
    after admittance before testing new students.

-   According to many facility and school staff, inadequate funding is
    also an impediment to more effective programs. Additional funding
    could be used to purchase additional computers and software, upgrade
    existing equipment, hire more instructional staff, and begin formal
    transition programs.

**Program Profiles**

In the remainder of this report we present profiles of each of the nine
programs we visited. The profiles are listed alphabetically by state.

**Orange County Department of Education**

**Santa Ana, California**

Orange County, California, is the 16^th^ largest metropolitan area in
the country with more than 2.6 million residents, 58 percent of whom are
white and another 28 percent of whom are of Hispanic origin. Asian
Americans constitute another 12 percent of the county's population,
while African Americans account for just two percent of all residents.
The county has a vigorous economy of over \$88 billion dollars. Median
household income in the county is \$51,300. The rate of unemployment
averages about three percent.

The Orange County Department of Education includes 27 school districts
serving approximately 450,000 students in grades pre-kindergarten
through 12. More than 7,000 of these students are enrolled in
alternative education programs offered by a division of the Department
of Education called Alternative, Charter, and Correctional Education
Schools and Services (ACCESS). All ACCESS programs fall into one of four
alternative education categories: adult correctional programs, charter
schools, community schools, or juvenile court schools. The county
allocates its Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds (\$658,044 in FY 1999) to
support instructional assistants who provide supplementary academic
instruction for delinquent youth in the juvenile court schools, which
include four detention centers and a local jail; to provide
supplementary equipment and instructional materials to teachers; and to
provide partial support for a reading teacher. In 1998, approximately
1,500 delinquent youth residing in these facilities received Title
I-funded instruction in reading, language arts, and mathematics.

We visited the Orange County program in March 1999. We completed a brief
telephone interview with the California Title I coordinator in advance
of the visit to identify the extent to which local programs reflect
state guidelines.[^3] In Orange County we met first with the director of
ACCESS and then spoke at length with the Title I coordinator, who also
serves as the principal for three juvenile court schools. We also met
with the Title I instructional programs assistant, who supervises the
work of Title I-funded staff at the facilities. Finally, we met briefly
with the coordinator of the Title I funded tutoring program, which
serves primarily neglected youth and is funded through Part A of Title
I.

We visited two juvenile court schools located on the grounds of
detention facilities: (1) the Rio Contiguo School on the grounds of the
Youth Guidance Center Probation Facility in Santa Ana, and (2) the High
School located at the Los Pinos Conservation Camp in the Cleveland
National Forest. At each school we spoke with the assistant principal
and several classroom teachers and Title I-funded assistants. We also
reviewed evaluation reports for the program from the past three years,
as well as a variety of documentation of ACCESS programs, students, and
services.

**Program Goals and Design**

The mission of all ACCESS programs, is "To care for, teach, and inspire
all students in alternative education programs." ACCESS programs are
based on a belief that all students can learn and that it is the
responsibility of school staff to address the varied learning needs,
interests, and abilities of each student. The Title I program supports
the overall ACCESS mission primarily through supporting instructional
assistants in juvenile court schools who help classroom teachers
identify and address the unique needs of each student through individual
and small group instruction. To be considered for employment with
ACCESS, prospective assistants must pass a basic proficiency examination
administered by the county and demonstrate during their job interview
with the Title I staff that they have a commitment to program goals and
an ability to engage students.

ACCESS staff use the vast majority of program funding (approximately 60
percent) to support 16 assistants who work three-fourths time in the
juvenile court schools delivering supplementary academic assistance to
identified Title I students intended to allow them to learn new skills
and succeed in the regular classroom. Assistants may also elect to
provide extended-day tutoring to individual students who need extra
support. Approximately one-fifth of the Subpart 2 allocation enables
Title I staff to purchase instructional supplies and computer equipment
for the juvenile court schools.

The Title I coordinator for ACCESS and the instructional programs
assistant believe that using program funds for instructional assistants
provides the greatest benefit to students. They believe that most of the
students attending juvenile court schools require as much individual
attention as possible in order to succeed. Overall, the student-teacher
ratio in the schools is approximately 15:1, but the presence of Title
I-funded assistants effectively reduces the student-to-staff ratio to
7:1. Using program funds to hire assistants rather than teachers (who
receive higher salaries) results in a greater total number of
instructional staff.

The Title I administrative staff noted that all instructional assistants
are intended to deliver direct services to students, rather than provide
clerical support to the classroom teacher. During our conversation, they
stressed that the role of the assistant is to support learning by
working directly with students. A handbook for all Title I assistants
that details the roles and responsibilities of the position also
underscores the importance of direct student services. All of the
teachers with whom we spoke identified the assistants as equal partners
in the effort to help students succeed.

The central goal of the Subpart 2 program is to improve academic
achievement of students. This goal is part of the broader ACCESS
mission. One key aspect of that mission is to prepare students for a
successful transition out of the facility, whether to return to regular
or alternative schools, attend college, or find employment. The phrase
"think exit upon entry" appears repeatedly in ACCESS program materials
to reiterate the goal of all the division's activities and services.
Thus, while not formally labeled as a "transition model," the design of
the Subpart 2 program reflects the longer term goals of students served.
As we describe in later sections of the report, the Title I coordinator
is currently considering designating one or more Title I-funded staff to
establish a more formally structured "transition" program.

The Title I staff meet annually to plan how to use program funds in the
upcoming year. Although they maintain a commitment to the use of
instructional assistants as the core of their program, they review
annual program data to identify what additional needs exist in the
schools that the Title I program might be able to address. In the last
such meeting, the Title I coordinator and program assistant decided to
provide institutional sites with an opportunity to decide how they
wanted to use their funding not earmarked for staff. They used a
"mini-grant" program to obtain local input into the planning process,
and awarded several small (i.e., a few thousand dollars) grants to
support specific needs in individual classrooms. One teacher, for
example, used the funding to purchase a new software program for
language learning.

**Students and Student Selection**

Last year the Orange County program served 1,506 students, including
1,348 males (90 percent) and 158 females (10 percent). The ages of
students served by the program ranges from 11 to 18, with approximately
80 percent in grades 9-11. Approximately two-thirds of the students are
of Hispanic origin (68 percent); 18 percent are white, seven percent are
Asian or Pacific Islander, and six percent are African American. The
average student is 15 years old, in the 10^th^ grade, and a minority
male. Trends in recent years show an increase in female and middle
school-aged students with low basic skill levels.

All residents of the juvenile court schools are eligible to receive
Title I services. Program staff use a variety of criteria to select
students for Title I-funded instruction. A student may be selected if he
or she is:

-   two or more years below grade level in reading, mathematics, or
    language arts,

-   identified by teachers as having special academic problems,

-   an English Language Learner,

-   studying for a general equivalency diploma,

-   leaving the institution, or

-   recommended for extra assistance by probation staff members .

Also, any student who requests assistance will receive Title I support,
regardless of skill level. All students complete the Basic Skills
Inventory or the Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Essential Skills to
identify grade level performance in reading, math, and language arts.
School staff may also use other, teacher-developed, assessments for
identification purposes.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

As noted, all alternative and correctional education programs in the
county are administered by Alternative, Charter, and Correctional
Education Schools and Services (ACCESS). ACCESS programs include 45
community schools, community day programs, a charter school for
home-schooled students in grades K-12, adult correctional education
programs, and juvenile court schools. Juvenile court schools, which
serve students referred by probation officers or social services
personnel, include four juvenile justice institutions (detention
centers), day centers, and group homes and social services institutions
for neglected and abused children.

Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds are used to support the educational
programs at the four juvenile justice institutions and in the Santa Ana
Police Department (SAPD) jail.

ACCESS is divided into 15 service areas or principal administrative
regions, each under the jurisdiction of a coordinator or principal. The
Title I program is organized into one region and is responsible for
institutional support (Title I, Part D) and group home tutoring (Title
I, Part A). As director of this region, the Title I coordinator oversees
the Title I program assistant, five tutoring specialists, 64 tutors, and
20 instructional assistants (16 funded through Part D). The Title I
coordinator is also the director of a geographic region that includes
three of the four juvenile court schools, for which she serves as
principal.

In prior years the director of the Title I region worked only in the
capacity of Title I coordinator and allocated the majority of her time
to the group home tutoring program for neglected and abused children,
funded through Title I, Part A. Two years ago the ACCESS director, in an
effort to more fully integrate the Part D program with other juvenile
court school programs, created the current administrative structure,
which has the ACCESS Title I coordinator also serving as principal to
three of the four juvenile court schools. The current Title I
coordinator spends approximately 40 percent of her time fulfilling
central office responsibilities associated with the administration of
Title I programs, and approximately 20 percent of her time (i.e., one
day each week) at each of the three schools.

As noted, the majority of Subpart 2 funding supports instructional
assistants at four juvenile court schools located on the grounds of
juvenile justice institutions. The detention facilities are operated by
the County Probation Department, while the schools on the grounds of
these facilities are governed by the County Department of Education's
division of alternative programs. A memorandum of understanding between
the County Department of Education and the Probation Department sets
parameters and articulates each agency's role and responsibility. We
briefly describe below the four schools that receive the bulk of program
funding and the facilities of which they are an integral component.

> **Orange County Juvenile Hall** is a 374-bed institution for juvenile
> law violators housing young men and women between the ages of 12 and
> 18 who are detained pending juvenile court hearings in an adjacent
> juvenile justice center. Youth are assigned to living units designed
> to house up to 30 individuals, typically by age group. The intake and
> release center houses newly arrested minors awaiting their first court
> appearance. ACCESS provides an accredited academic program for all
> minors at Juvenile Hall, including six Title I-funded assistants,
> through the Otto Fischer School.
>
> **Youth Guidance Center** is a coeducational juvenile residential
> institution housing approximately 100 young men and 25 young women
> ages 11-18. Many youth reside at the center for 90 days or less,
> although the average length of stay for young women is only about one
> month. Seventy-five students assigned to one of two drug treatment
> programs at the facility serve a minimum of six months. The center is
> the only in-county placement for young women, other than Juvenile
> Hall, a factor in the considerably shorter length of stay for those
> assigned to the center. The Rio Contiguo School, located on the
> center's grounds, serves grades six through twelve, providing
> residents with six 45-minute periods of education, 244 days each year.
> The school is staffed by 11 credentialed teachers, and four
> instructional assistants (three funded by Title I and one special
> education assistant.)
>
> **Joplin Youth Center** is a juvenile correctional institution
> providing residential treatment for 64 young men ages 13-17, whose
> length of commitment ranges from one to twelve months. The center,
> located in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, was originally
> established as a Boys Ranch for runaways, truants, "incorrigibles,"
> and other probation wards. ACCESS operates a high school on facility
> grounds that includes four credentialed teachers and two Title
> I-funded assistants who provide year-round instruction to students in
> grades seven through twelve, through five 55- minute periods.
>
> **Los Pinos Conservation Camp** is a 125-bed, all-male institution
> located in the Cleveland National Forest. The average length of stay
> at the camp is between three and four months, and most of the young
> men residing in the camp are between 16-18 years old. Owing to the
> slightly older age of Los Pinos residents, the facility, including the
> high school, places a somewhat stronger emphasis on vocationally
> oriented programs and on planning for transition out of the facility.
> The high school serves grades nine through twelve in six 60-minute
> periods of instruction.

These four facilities house more than 95 percent of the delinquent youth
served by the Subpart 2 program. The other five percent receive services
in the Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) jail, a largely adult facility
that houses some juveniles for short periods of time. The jail's
education program began in late 1996-97 and initiated Title I-funded
services only in late 1998.

The Title I, Part D budget for June 1998-June 1999 supports a total of
14.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions, as follows:

-   Administration 1.4 FTEs

-   Instructional Assistants 12 FTEs (16 at 75% time)

-   Reading coordinator 0.5 FTE

-   Transition 0.5 FTE

Administrative positions include the Title I coordinator and an
instructional programs assistant. The coordinator said she allocates 40
percent of her time to Title I administration and 60 percent to her role
as principal of three juvenile court schools. The instructional program
assistant's central responsibility is to supervise the work of the
instructional assistants through weekly visits and frequent phone
contact at all sites. She identifies the need for any technical support
at the sites and targets areas for future staff development activities.
The program assistant also works closely with the supervisor of the
Title I, Part A tutoring program.

The 16 instructional assistants provide direct services to students in
the classroom and through extended day tutoring programs at each of the
institutional sites. Assistants who provide tutoring participate in
monthly staff development meetings with the Title I, Part A tutoring
specialists. Each assistant brings a unique set of skills and
experiences to his or her work and the Title I coordinator and program
assistant attempt to match these characteristics with specific needs at
each facility. One of the assistants, a Hispanic male who has
considerable expertise in computers and associated technology, provides
technical support for the use and maintenance of Title I computers,
software, and documentation.

All Title I staff participate in staff development activities, offered
through the state, the county, professional associations, (e.g.,
Correctional Education Association), and other ACCESS staff members.
Examples of staff development in recent years include a Reading to Learn
conference, attended by all instructional assistants, a "phonics fair,"
mathematics workshops, and a technology conference that focused on the
use of computers in the classroom. Title I staff development in-service
training has focused on topics such as gender equity, accountability,
and associated regulations and guidance. Also, all Title I Tutors
receive three hours of staff training every month. Future staff
development will focus on increased familiarity with instructional
technology and use of assessment measures for tracking student progress.

The Title I coordinator plans to hire a staff member whose principal
responsibility will be to coordinate transition out of institutions for
Title I students. The coordinator said "Transition is a very important
component of an effective program and one that we have not addressed
strongly enough." While some form of transition services are available
at all sites, the nature and scope of these services vary from
institution to institution as a function of program size, students' ages
and length of stay, and available funding. The coordinator and her staff
are considering whether to hire someone on a full-time basis or two or
three individuals who would work on transition planning part-time.
ACCESS staff and Probation Department officials share a desire for good
transition programs, but inadequate funding and the lack of a
demonstrably effective design for such a program continue to slow
progress.

**Program Services and Activities**

The district uses most of its Subpart 2 allocation to support
instructional assistants in facility classrooms, who provide one-on-one
or small group instruction to students in reading, mathematics, and
language arts. Several bilingual Title I-funded assistants provide
instruction in English as a Second Language as part of their work in
reading classes. Instructional assistants provide all instructional
services in a regular classroom setting; ACCESS discontinued the lone
pull-out program in reading last year. Table 1 identifies the number of
students who received Title I instruction, by subject area, at each
participating facility.

**Table 1: Number of Title I Students, by Facility, By Subject Area**

+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| **SCHOOL**  | **Number   | **Number | **Rea  | **Language   | **Ma |
|             | of         | of**     | ding** | Arts**       | th** |
|             | R          |          |        |              |      |
|             | esidents** | **St     |        | **Writing**  |      |
|             |            | udents** |        |              |      |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| Otto        | 3,569      | 464      | 421    | 629          | 313  |
| Fischer     |            |          |        |              |      |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| Rio         | 744        | 413      | 87     | 203          | 344  |
| Contiguo    |            |          |        |              |      |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| Los Pinos   | 453        | 418      | 418    | 418          | 418  |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| Joplin      | 373        | 148      | 135    | 135          | 32   |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| SAPD        | 425        | 63       | 12     | 26           | 28   |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+
| TOTAL       | 4,658      | 1,506    | 1,073  | 1,411        | 1    |
|             |            |          |        |              | ,135 |
+-------------+------------+----------+--------+--------------+------+

Title I staff use a wide variety of approaches to learning, including a
reading lab where an instructional assistant helps students develop
their skills by working with a variety of software programs designed to
remediate specific deficiencies. Another assistant identified a need for
students to develop their research and writing skills more fully and now
reserves one period of instruction to help students learn how to write
more effectively. Title I staff also work in an integrated social
studies and reading class in which the students listen to a one-hour
lecture on a particular issue and then write an essay about the subject
in the following hour. Staff report that students enjoyed the first such
class, which examined the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and that the
approach demonstrated to students their own capability to listen,
comprehend, and effectively communicate.

In addition to academic instruction, classroom teachers and Title
I-funded assistants also provide students with academic and transition
counseling on an as-needed basis, and several assistants provide
extended-day tutoring to individual students. The Title I tutoring
program provides supplemental, one-on-one tutorial services to youth in
residential facilities, including juvenile court schools and group homes
for neglected or abused children. In the past year a total of 247
probation students received tutoring services.[^4] On average these
students, aged 12-18, received three hours of instruction per week for
nine weeks.

The Title I coordinator and instructional programs assistant are also
working to expand the role of instructional assistants to include life
skills instruction and transition planning. For example, at Los Pinos
students begin to plan for their transition out of the facility from the
day they arrive, reflecting the ACCESS directive to "think exit upon
entry." Students receive a form that asks them to identify their
educational, employment, and residential goals, and provides a structure
for helping them track their own progress toward achieving those goals.
Students are asked to identify (1) how they will break the cycle of
activities that caused their incarceration, (2) steps they will take to
stay the course when setbacks occur, and (3) those they can rely on when
they need emotional support. Students work on their "transition folder"
at least once a week and develop a transition portfolio that includes a
resume and documentation of their academic achievements (e.g., course
credits, certificates, awards) they can take with them as they leave the
facility.

Another Title I-funded service with a long-term goal of helping students
leave the facility is provided by a Title I assistant who works at the
Los Pinos Conservation Camp implementing a research-based program for
student assessment and remediation called "Bridges." The Bridges program
is a tool designed to ensure that students are learning to full
capacity. The Bridges Learning Center has three main components:
assessment, remediation, and transition. Each student referred to the
Bridges program is assessed through a series of questions and exercises
called Structure of Intellect (SOI) that measure learner style,
critical-analytical reasoning, reading, mathematics, and vision. Another
assessment, the Sensory Integration Assessment, measures visual
processing skills and sensory motor skills that may affect learning. In
combination, these assessments result in an individual profile of the
student's cognitive abilities, perceptual skills, and sensory-motor
integration as they relate to learning.

The program then addresses student needs, as identified on the profile,
through exercises that develop capacity in areas of identified deficits.
For example, some exercises are designed to correct visual processing
and focusing problems that affect learning, while others address balance
and other physiological impediments to learning through sensory-motor
integration. The student profile also helps students identify career
choices that represent the best match for identified abilities and
interests.

Students may be referred to the Bridges program by teachers, counselors
or administrators who are concerned with students' inability to meet
academic or behavioral expectations in the classroom. The instructional
assistant who runs the Bridges program has tested 12 students to date.
She estimates that each student referred to the program should
participate in the program for about three months in order to achieve
remediation objectives and show classroom improvement. The potential
benefit of the Bridges program is somewhat limited by the short-term
commitment of most students, which precludes comprehensive remediation
of identified deficits in many cases. This constraint notwithstanding,
staff have already seen the benefits of the Bridges program in helping
to isolate and improve impediments to effective learning, and are
excited at the prospect of being able to assist greater numbers of
students in the future.

In addition to Title I, the relatively resource-rich juvenile justice
institutions within the ACCESS structure have a wide variety of
additional services available to help them achieve a successful
transition. At most facilities residents receive a variety of support
services, as needed, including medical and dental care, psychiatric and
psychological counseling, sports and recreation, and religious services.
Other programs available to students include a tobacco intervention
program, a variety of mandatory and voluntary alcohol and substance
abuse intervention programs, anger management, cultural awareness
classes, parenting classes, driver's education, career exploration, and
work experience. Regular meetings between education and probation staff,
often in the form of student consultation teams, help ensure that
students' myriad service needs are addressed.

We asked all staff members with whom we spoke if there were any services
needed by students that the facilities or schools did not sufficiently
provide. One staff member believes that more vocationally oriented
programs should be available to students, especially those in the 17-18
year old range. While some job readiness, vocational, and career
exploration opportunities are available through the Regional Occupation
Program (ROP) and traditional vocational education classes, this
individual believes ACCESS should place an even greater emphasis on
work-related education, training, and experience. A few staff members
also identified a need for more professional counseling and
psychotherapy.

Most often the staff members we spoke with identified a more formal,
structured transition program as their greatest need. All of those we
met believe that students typically make a great deal of progress, both
behaviorally and academically, during their stay at ACCESS institutions,
but many lamented the potential pitfalls that students may encounter
once they leave, after three to eight months in most cases, and return
to their former, less structured environment. Some students enter one of
ACCESS's community schools after release from a juvenile justice
institution, and while there is at least some continuity in the
education program for these students, the nonresidential community
schools do not receive Title I funding. As yet, there is not a system
for post-release tracking of students accessible to all ACCESS and
Probation Department staff.[^5] As noted previously, development of a
more structured transition program is one of the most important
priorities to Title I and ACCESS administrators.

**Program Evaluation** **and Recommendations for Improvement**

The ACCESS program conducts an annual evaluation of its Title I program.
Their most recent program evaluation (1997-1998) contains largely
descriptive information, including the number of students served by
subject area at each facility, the length of stay for Title I students
at each facility during the last five years; students' gender,
ethnicity, and grade level; and students' assessment scores. The report
also identifies program strengths and weaknesses and briefly describes
plans for program improvement in the current year.

Instructional assistants are responsible for maintaining the data
required for the year-end Title I evaluation report, using a "project
data form" that obtains demographic information on targeted students, as
well as assessment results. By design, Title I students receive pre- and
posttests at all sites. As noted previously, Title I staff members use
the pretest information to identify areas in which supplementary
instruction might be useful, However, owing to the average length of
stay of three months at most sites, few students actually receive a post
assessment. Students that did receive a pre- and posttest (Brigance
Inventory of Essential Skills) showed an average gain of at least one
grade level equivalent.

California law requires all schools, including ACCESS schools, to assess
students in grades two through eleven by May 15 of each fiscal year
using a single standardized test (The Stanford 9). The testing program,
referred to as the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program,
was established in 1997. Students at the juvenile court schools were
scheduled to take the test the same week we visited the program;
however, the test publisher failed to deliver the tests on time and
principals and staff were trying to figure out the logistics required to
rearrange staff and student schedules to accommodate the postponement.

Several staff members questioned the use of mandatory testing at
specific dates for students at juvenile court schools. While they
welcomed the accountability implicit in a statewide testing program,
many believed that the mobility of their students severely constrains
their ability of to accurately measure individual student gains from
year to year. Moreover, many of their students have only recently
arrived at a facility when they take the six-hour test, and their
performance is undoubtedly affected by emotional issues associated with
incarceration. Finally, many of the students have limited English
abilities, and this factor adversely influenced their test results.

Most of the staff members we spoke with believe the more important, or
at least more fundamental, indicator of success for their students is
improved behavior. The prevailing view among Title I staff members is
that academic improvement is typically preceded by a willingness to
learn and an emerging appreciation of the value of education. In the
three to four months they are able to work with most of their students,
staff members tried to develop such an appreciation in their students
and an attitude conducive to learning. As one staff member said, "The
best indicator is if students attend class regularly and appear to be
motivated to learn." Teachers also monitor the amount and quality of
work students complete as indicators of individual student progress and
overall programmatic success.

All of those with whom we spoke believe the local Title I program for
delinquent youth is critically important. Staff members especially
appreciated the flexibility to run programs that address local needs. At
the same time, Title I staff members mentioned that the statute and
associated guidelines are somewhat confusing, in that Part A is used to
support neglected youth served in local institutions while Part D is
used for delinquent youth, even though Part D is titled "Neglected and
Delinquent."

**Polk County School Board**

**Bartow, Florida**

.

Polk County covers 2,048 square miles in the center of Florida. An
historically rural area, the county's population has increased
dramatically during the last 10 years and now includes 459,000 residents
(82 percent white, 13 percent African American, and four percent
Hispanic). The rate of unemployment in the county is five percent; 13
percent of all residents live below the poverty level. The county's
economy is driven by three main industries: citrus farming, phosphate
mining, and tourism. The Polk County School Board (PCSB) is the county's
largest employer with an estimated 9,000 employees.

Polk County is the nation's 45^th^ largest school system, serving
approximately 75,000 students in grades kindergarten-12. Two-thirds of
the students are white, 23 percent African American, 10 percent
Hispanic, and one percent Asian or Native American. Among the county's
112 schools are a number of alternative educational programs, including
eight that serve delinquent youth. Cheap land prices, the county's
central location within the state, and the relative lack of public
pressure against the construction of detention facilities are among the
reasons the county houses so many juvenile detention facilities.

In school year 1998-99, the PCSB received approximately \$316,000 in
Part D funding. The district retained approximately five percent of this
amount for indirect costs and allocated the remainder among the eight
facilities for delinquent youth.[^6] The district determines the amount
of funding each facility receives on a strict per pupil basis (\$568 per
student); the amounts any one facility received varied from a low of
\$5,112 to a high of \$142,000. In the aggregate, participating
facilities used Subpart 2 funds to (1) support nine staff persons (seven
instructional aides and two transition coordinators); (2) purchase 15
computers and associated hardware and software; and (3) obtain other
instructional materials and supplies.

This report presents the findings from our visit to the PCSB in April
1999 to obtain information about the Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 program
We collected information about the program through a telephone interview
with the state educational agency Title I coordinator, a two-day visit
to the school district, and review of program documentation. Individuals
we interviewed in Polk County included the Title I supervisor and the
manager of the Subpart 2 program, the director of student services, the
coordinator of alternative education, the lead teachers at two
facilities, and a Title I funded transition specialist.

**Program Goals and Design**

The district's Title I supervisor identified academic improvement as the
overarching goal of the Part D program in Polk County. A secondary
purpose of the program is to help students move out of detention and
into further schooling or employment. Most of the students residing in
area detention facilities will not return to county schools upon
release,[^7] and Title I staff elect not to use any program funds to
provide dropout prevention services in the regular public schools,
because the school board already provides these services.

Title I staff afford the eight institutions that receive program funds
broad discretion in use of these resources to improve students' academic
achievement. As we describe in some detail in subsequent sections of
this report, the facilities that receive Subpart 2 funds vary with
respect to overall goals, administrative structure, staffing, size,
characteristics of students served, and programs offered. Moreover,
several of the eight facilities initiated operations only within the
last few years. In light of the recent establishment of several
facilities and the diversity across all eight institutions in key
dimensions, district staff do not believe it appropriate to prescribe
how each facility uses its Subpart 2 allocation. Rather, the district
allocates Subpart 2 funds to each facility based solely on the number of
residents and, with some caveats, allows facility staff to decide how
best to use the funding.

At the facility level, debate concerning the use of program funds
typically focuses on whether to hire additional instructional staff or
purchase computers and associated software. If facility staff elect to
use Subpart 2 funding for computers and software, the district's
Alternative Education staff strongly encourage them to acquire a
specific type of software, the *New Century Integrated Instructional
System*. This software is being used by school districts throughout the
state because it aligns with recently implemented statewide performance
standards (i.e., Sunshine Standards) that identify the knowledge and
skills students are expected to know at certain grade levels and a
statewide test (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test or FCAT) that
assesses student performance against these standards.[^8] As we describe
in later sections of the report, most of the facilities have used at
least a portion of their Subpart 2 funding to acquire this system.

Many factors affect facility-level decisions regarding expenditure of
program funds, including the total numbers of students served (and thus
the amount of Subpart 2 funding received), characteristics of the
facility itself, and availability of other resources for the educational
program. The number of residents at two of the facilities is so small
that the amount of program funding is inadequate to support even a
single staff person. Thus, these facilities use their Subpart 2
allocation for computers and instructional supplies.

Other factors may also influence facility decisions governing use of
program resources. For example, one of the facilities we visited is run
by a private for-profit company under contract to the Department of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and the PCSB supplies educational staff to this
facility through a cooperative agreement. The lead teacher at this
facility decided to use their program allotment to pay the salaries of
two aides rather than to purchase much-needed computer hardware and
software primarily because of the structure of facility programs. The
facility operates three programs serving three different groups of
youths who are housed and must remain in different areas of the
facility. Any new hardware would necessarily be unavailable to
two-thirds of these youth, while instructional aides are free to move
from one area of the facility to another to serve all residents. Thus,
using the funds for staff ensures that all students benefit from the
program.

The district's Title I and Alternative Education staff are considering
changing the way in which the school board allocates funding to each
facility and tightening somewhat the flexibility currently afforded
institutions in deciding how to use program funds. A private company,
which operates the district's largest facility (also one of the newest
among the eight facilities), received \$142,000 in Subpart 2 funds but
failed to expend its entire allotment as planned. At the same time,
several older facilities in the district have needs for staff members
and equipment that far exceed available funding. As a result of this
situation, district staff are debating whether to consider the relative
need of each facility in allocating funds, rather than giving each
institution an amount commensurate with the percentage of the district
total its residents generate. The Title I supervisor plans to discuss
this possible change in the program with the state educational agency
later this year.

**Students and Student Selection**

All students in all eight facilities are eligible for Title I services.
In October, when the district obtains its caseload data for federal
reporting purposes, the Polk County program served 536 students residing
in county facilities for delinquent youth. Table 1 summarizes the
average number of students who resided at each facility at that time,
the number who received Title I services, and the percentage of
residents who arrived at each facility from outside the county.

Due to variable lengths of stay at participating facilities, ranging
from a few days up to one year, the total number of youth detained at
each facility throughout the year is much higher than the count
indicated in the table, which is based on 30 consecutive days of
residence. Also, although all residents are eligible for Title I
services, many do not receive services owing to their

**Table 1: Average Number of Residents and Students, and**

**Percentage From Other Counties, by Facility**

+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| ***Facility***            | ***        | **          | *            |
|                           | Average*** | *Average*** | **Percentage |
|                           |            |             | from Outside |
|                           | ***Number  | ***Number   | the          |
|                           | of         | of          | County***    |
|                           | Re         | Students*** |              |
|                           | sidents*** |             |              |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Bartow Youth Training     | 73         | 74          | 67%          |
| Center                    |            |             |              |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Boot Camp                 | 95         | 86          | 15%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Youth Villa               | 22         | 25          | 50%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Bradley Manor             | 39         | 17          | 30%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Youth Shelter             | 10         | 9           | 85%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Sabal Palms               | 350        | 250         | 95%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Polk House                | 28         | 26          | 10%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+
| Regional Detention Center | 115        | 49          | 10%          |
+---------------------------+------------+-------------+--------------+

short stay (i.e., less than 30 days), especially at the detention center
where many youth reside pending assignment to another facility.[^9]

**Program Structure and Staffing**

The manager of the Subpart 2 program is in her first year on the job,
having previously worked in the district as a high school principal. She
handles all day-to-day management responsibilities, reporting to the
district's overall Title I supervisor as necessary. She helps facility
staff plan their programs and provides on-site technical assistance. The
program manager spends about 25 percent of her time on the Subpart 2
program, with the remainder allocated to her responsibilities as the
district's Title I Migrant program manager.

The PCSB is ultimately responsible for the regular educational program
at each juvenile delinquent facility in the district, while the state's
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is responsible for the overall
operation of each facility. Relations between the eight facilities and
the PCSB staff are governed by the terms of several cooperative
agreements and contracts with the state or the organizations contracted
by the state to operate specific facilities, including the county
sheriff's office and private companies. Responsibilities of each party
specific to Title I programs are governed by the terms of addenda to
these contracts and cooperative agreements.

Educational services at each facility may be delivered directly by
employees of the PCSB's Alternative Education Department, the sheriff's
office, private companies who operate some of the facilities, or the
state. When the school board directly provides the educational staff at
a facility, a cooperative agreement articulates the relationship between
the board and other organizations, while the district uses contracts
with facilities where other organizations directly deliver the education
program. We briefly summarize below the administrative structure of each
participating facility, the types of youth served, the number of
instructional staff, and the amount and uses of Subpart 2 funding.

-   **Bartow Youth Training Center** is a wilderness center located on
    240 acres. Operated by a private for-profit company (Correctional
    Services Corporation) the center serves males aged 14-18 who are
    committed to detention by the juvenile court system. The center
    operates three distinct programs: (1) a halfway house for 24 youths
    with an average length of stay between four and six months; (2) an
    intensive halfway house for 20 youths with an average stay between
    six and nine months, and (3) a serious habitual offender program for
    30 youth with an average stay between nine and 12 months. Four
    teachers and four aides with the county school board provide youth
    in all three programs with five hours of educational services per
    day. The center used \$42,032 in Subpart 2 funds to support two of
    the instructional aides (referred to as "adjudicated youth
    assistants") and to purchase test materials.

-   **Polk County Juvenile Boot Camp** is a structured, secure
    residential program emphasizing paramilitary courtesy and bearing,
    physical and mental discipline, and "pro-social" activities for male
    and female offenders aged 14-17. The education program at the camp
    is delivered by five teachers and five paraprofessionals (i.e.,
    instructional aides) employed by the school board through a
    cooperative agreement with the sheriff's office, which runs the
    camp. Students in grades 7-12 are served in five classrooms. The
    camp used its Subpart 2 allocation of approximately \$49,000 to
    support a transition facilitator and to purchase instructional
    supplies.

-   **Sheriff's Youth Villa,** originally established as a child care
    institution for dependent and neglected children, now provides
    residential and remedial education services for delinquent males and
    females, 8-18 years old. The sheriff's office, which operates the
    facility, supplies two teachers. The Villa used \$14,200 in program
    funding to partially support a tutor, under the terms of a contract
    with the PCSB. The Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranches organization
    provides the balance of the salary and benefits for this position.

-   **Bradley Manor** is a short-term residential program for males
    between 14-17 years old who are committed to detention for level six
    (felony) crimes. Operated by the Agency for Community Treatment
    Services, the objective of the facility is to provide a structured
    therapeutic environment through a comprehensive program of behavior
    management, counseling, education, and transition planning. The
    school board supplies the educational staff at Bradley Manor (three
    teachers and two aides) through a cooperative agreement with the
    state. The facility spent its Part D allocation of \$9,656 on two
    computers, associated software, and other instructional supplies.

-   **Cornerstone Youth Shelter** provides temporary refuge for male and
    female youth, ages 9-17, who have run away from home, have been
    asked to leave by parents/guardians, or who are awaiting
    adjudication. The PCSB supplies the one teacher at this facility
    through a cooperative agreement. The shelter used \$5,112 in program
    funding to purchase a computer and software.

-   **Sabal Palms Youth Development Center** is operated by the
    Correctional Service Corporation under contract with the state as a
    secured residential facility for up to 350 adjudicated youth. The
    contractor directly provides educational services at the center,
    employing 28 teachers and three paraprofessionals. The contractor
    used \$53,000 of its total allocation of \$142,000 in program funds
    to purchase 12 computers, software, and other instructional supplies
    under the terms of a cooperative agreement with the PCSB. The school
    board allocated the remaining amount (\$89,000) on contract for the
    purpose of hiring additional paraprofessionals (aides) to serve as
    tutors in the classroom.

-   **Polk House** is a moderate-risk residential program for males,
    aged 14-18, that is directly operated by the DJJ, and the **Polk
    Regional Detention Center** is a DJJ facility that serves juveniles
    who are awaiting either a judicial decision or placement in a
    commitment program. These two facilities are adjacent to one another
    and share personnel. Educational staff at the two facilities,
    including 14 teachers and six paraprofessionals, are DJJ employees.
    Under a contract with the school board, the facilities used their
    combined allocation of roughly \$42,000 to fund a transition
    specialist who serves students who have completed the Polk House
    program and to purchase instructional supplies for students at both
    facilities.

Overall, PCSB employees deliver educational services at four of the
eight facilities that currently receive program funding, the DJJ employs
its own staff at two institutions, the sheriff's office at one facility,
and a private company at one facility. At facilities where other than
PCSB staff deliver educational services, the role of district staff is
limited to monitoring and oversight. Ideally, Alternative Education
staff would prefer that their own employees provide services at all
institutions, because they maintain responsibility for the overall
quality of educational programs. However, it is less expensive for the
private companies to hire their own employees because they need not be
union members and may work longer hours. Citing these incentives, the
lead teacher at one facility we visited (a county employee) expressed
uncertainty regarding whether the school board will continue to directly
provide the educational services at the facility in future years. This
is a factor that complicates long-term planning and resource allocation
decisions. Notwithstanding district preference, PCSB staff members
report that relationships between the school board and the organizations
that operate the facilities continue to be strong and cooperative.

**Program Services and Activities**

The specific services and activities available to residents at any one
of the eight facilities that receive program funding vary based on the
overall goals of the facility. However, the basic educational program is
essentially the same across all institutions. As an example, the
educational program at one of the facilities we visited consists of 300
minutes of instruction for each youth per day. Subjects include English,
mathematics, social studies, science, physical education, and life
management skills. All facilities also offer general equivalency diploma
preparation classes.

Students at the Bartow center take the Test of Adult Basic Education
(TABE) five days after arrival at the facility to identify achievement
levels and provide staff with some of the information needed to develop
an individual lesson plan.[^10] Treatment teams, consisting of
counselors (e.g., substance abuse, psychological), teachers, a
representative of Correctional Service Corporation, and others as
appropriate, convene weekly to monitor students' progress in following
lesson plans, as well as in meeting behavioral objectives established by
facility staff. Educational staff members at the facility include the
lead teacher, who acts as an assistant principal, and three classroom
teachers, one for each of the three programs operated at Bartow center
(i.e., halfway house, intensive halfway house, and serious habitual
offender program).

The instructional staff also includes four aides, two of whom are funded
by Title I, Part D. One of the instructional aides, or adjudicated youth
assistants, funded by Title I works with students at the halfway house,
providing instruction from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. each day. Remedial
instruction in reading and math is through a pull-out design, often
outdoors at a picnic table or by the pond on the facility's grounds. The
other Title I-funded aide teaches two, two-hour computer-assisted
learning classes and one period of physical education each day for
students in the serious habitual offender program.[^11] In the computer
lab, half of the students work independently on their reading and math
skills for one hour on computers, while the aide provides the other
students with individual or small group instruction. In the second hour
of the class, students who worked with computers during the first hour
work with the aide, while the other students work in computer-assisted
instruction.

Prior to release from the Bartow center, each student participates in a
transitional exit conference with the treatment team and in some cases
with a representative of the school the student will attend to
coordinate the student's reentry. At this conference the student is able
to express his or her preference for continuing formal education after
release from an institution. Facility staff members gather all of the
student's records (i.e., TABE scores, credits earned, and report cards)
to pass on to the receiving school. By law, any student released from a
commitment program must reenter the school system through the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice which holds a re-entry hearing. Moreover,
all youth under age 18 are required to attend a three-month aftercare
program upon leaving a facility, regardless of their future plans.[^12]
The exit conference helps prepare the student for the state re-entry
hearing, the aftercare program, and any further schooling the student
intends to pursue.

We also visited the Polk County Juvenile Boot Camp, a partnership
between the county sheriff's office, the DJJ, the PCSB, and local
citizens. The boot camp accepts males and females aged 14 to 18 who have
been adjudicated guilty by the juvenile justice system. The camp's
program combines rigorous military-style physical training with academic
instruction, vocational training, and psychological counseling. The
experience lasts 12 months: six months in the basic boot camp, three
months in an on-site transition program, and three months in the
aftercare program.

Student movement through the six-month boot camp and three-month
transition program is carefully structured and monitored. Students in
the basic program progress through three levels of behavioral and
educational achievement, and, if successful, proceed through another
three levels during the transition component of the program.[^13] At
entry into the facility, students attend an initial treatment plan
meeting that sets forth the individual's academic and behavioral
objectives. Drill instructors, teachers, counselors and other facility
staff members document student achievement against these objectives and
meet with individual students each week to discuss progress and plan
next steps. In the transition program, where between 15-18 students
reside at any given time, staff members document student achievement
daily, using a checklist of 25 items addressing all aspects of student
development.

School board staff provide educational services at the camp through a
cooperative agreement with the sheriff's office. Five teachers and five
paraprofessionals serve a total of 95 students in grades 7-12. These
employees direct students' work in math, English, science, social
studies, physical education, and health and peer counseling, using both
standard and computerized curriculum. Other services at the camp include
substance abuse prevention, mental health counseling, parenting skills,
therapy, and family counseling.

The Title I-funded transition leader, whose prior experience includes
being the lead teacher at the camp, is a key member of the student
planning and monitoring teams. She is responsible for intake and
scheduling student activities, obtaining records from students' home
schools, administration of standardized tests, and assisting students
prepare for their re-entry hearings upon release from the facility's
transition program. She sees every one of the students informally on a
daily basis, usually when they are in the computer lab adjacent to her
office.

The transition specialist formally meets with every student regularly to
help them decide on their post-release goals, develop a transition plan,
and otherwise prepare for reentry. Students may also submit written
requests to schedule ad hoc meetings, as necessary. She uses a variety
of diagnostic tools to help students identify their interests and
abilities, relying primarily on the New Century system for academic
assessment and planning, and the Quest inventory for vocational
planning. Her work with each student depends on that individual's
specific goals. Some students plan to reenter the regular public
schools, other want to attend an alternative school to obtain a general
equivalency diploma, and still other students plan to enroll in a
vocational program after release.

The transition specialist and the lead teacher agree that the boot camp
is an effective approach to education for adjudicated youth. They
believe that the program's emphasis on discipline is highly effective.
They also noted that the facility's psychiatric and psychological
services, provided by an outside agency via contract, are also effective
in addressing students' underlying emotional issues. As a result, they
are able to focus 100 percent of their energy on academic instruction, a
factor they believe underlies the average two grade level equivalent
gain that students at the camp achieve. Both also agree that the New
Century software is an effective instructional approach for their
students.

All but one of the facilities that receive Subpart 2 funding use the New
Century integrated instructional software system as part of their
instructional approach. The software includes a diagnostic component; a
curriculum component for mathematics, reading, language arts, and
writing; and a management component that enables instructional staff to
tailor the system to individual and program requirements. As noted
earlier, many school districts throughout Florida are now using this
system to track student achievement against recently adopted statewide
standards for curriculum content and assessment.

The diagnostic component identifies a student's current level of
achievement in various content areas (i.e., mathematics, reading,
language arts) and then sets up an individual program of instruction
appropriate for that level. Assessments, in the form of brief tests in
the student's program, permit continuous tracking of student progress.
Teachers use the results to adjust the instructional plan. Each lesson
teaches students a concept through a series of tutorials, guided
practice, and independent practice. The management system software
provides teachers with reports on individual student progress, including
the results of individual lessons, cumulative gains, current grade
level, and time on task. Using this information, teachers may override
the automatic lesson plan and create customized assignments as
necessary.

**Program Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvement**

District Alternative Education staff report that the success of the
overall education program in assisting students improve academically
varies from facility to facility. They acknowledge that current
information collection practices preclude accurate, comprehensive,
districtwide assessment of student progress. Impediments to more
rigorous evaluation include the number and diversity of facilities
located in the district, several new facilities without data, the large
percentage of students who arrive (without documentation of their
academic performance) from outside the county, and the short stay of
many facility residents. Moreover, the Subpart 2 program manager is in
her first year on the job and is still becoming familiar with the
specific operations of the eight, soon to be nine, facilities that
receive funding. The district's Title I supervisor and Alternative
Education staff agree that improved data collection and evaluation are a
major priority for the coming year.

One of the difficulties faced by school board staff in ensuring the
quality of all education programs serving delinquent youth in the county
is that the various organizations that operate the facilities typically
do not actively seek comments from the school board on the design of a
facility's overall program, or on how the educational component might
best support the facility's broader mission. The juvenile justice
system's focus is necessarily on behavioral change, and for the most
part the educational program supports and complements behavioral
objectives. However, the behavioral plan and the educational plan are
not always entirely consistent, and in the event of a conflict between
individual members of facility treatment teams, the justice system's
perspective invariably wins out, according to facility staff with whom
we spoke.

District staff are striving to address current variability that exists
across institutions with respect to accountability for student
achievement. They report that where accountability has been an issue
during the last few years, they have encouraged facilities to acquire
the New Century system in an effort to implement a means of generating
more continuity and uniformity in the types of information collected on
student performance. Where accountability is in place, they have
encouraged an increased emphasis on transition.

All students at all facilities are pre- and post-tested either through
the New Century system or the TABE. A five-day waiting period before
students are allowed to take the initial TABE is required by quality
assurance standards for juvenile justice commitment programs, and
reflects a recent revision to state policy intended to allow students to
adjust to incarceration before measuring academic achievement levels. As
a result of the new policy, entry scores have increased; consequently,
overall student gains have decreased. Despite the new policy on net
gains, all of the school board and facility staff with whom we spoke
believe the waiting period ensures a more accurate initial assessment
and more appropriate lesson plans.

Many of the individuals we spoke with at the district and facility level
identified improvements in students' behavior and attitude as a
prerequisite to academic improvement, and while they see such changes
occur on an informal basis, they are not aware of any means to measure
these improvements in a uniform fashion. While they welcome increased
accountability, as represented by the Sunshine Standards and the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test, district staff believe that students in
these eight facilities are unlikely to achieve at the same rate as their
noninstitutionalized peers, owing to the relatively higher incidence of
academic deficits and underlying behavior problems. Nevertheless,
district staff believe that all students should demonstrate some level
of academic improvement while residing in area facilities, and they
remain confident that once fully implemented, the New Century system
will generate the information needed to fully document individual
student gains. Moreover, the uniformity of information the system will
provide across institutions will help address the problem of student
mobility and ensure some level of continuity in each student's education
as he or she moves into and out of county institutions and schools.

**Unified School District 493**

**Columbus, Kansas**

Columbus, Kansas, the seat of government for Cherokee County, is a
small, rural community with a population of approximately 3,500. The per
capita income in Cherokee County is \$16,561; the rate of unemployment
has averaged seven percent during the last decade. Major employers in
the county include manufacturing, retail, and government. Nine percent
of the labor force works in agriculture.

Columbus's Unified School District (USD) 493 operates a total of seven
schools: six elementary (one serves students in grades kindergarten
through eight) and one high school. The district serves approximately
1,442 students in grades pre-kindergarten through 12 (95 percent white,
three percent Native American, one percent African American, one percent
Hispanic, and one percent Asian American). Forty‑six percent of district
students are from economically disadvantaged homes.

In 1998‑99, the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) distributed
\$445,378 in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds, on a formula basis, to
eight eligible school districts. To be eligible for a Subpart 2 grant, a
district must house at least five percent of Kansas' delinquent student
population in local correctional facilities. The school district's
eligibility for Subpart 2 funds depends on enrollment at the Elms Acres
Youth Home, a temporary placement for adolescent girls (grades 7-12)
removed from their homes by the courts because of truancy, a
dysfunctional family life, abuse, or trouble with the law. According to
the district's director of consolidated programs, all of the girls are
included in the delinquent count (or classified as delinquent) because
they are wards of the state.

The district first received a Subpart 2 grant in 1996-97, and used the
money to hire a certified teacher to tutor several young women at Elms
Acres. In 1997-98, the district did not qualify for Subpart 2 funds
because the October enrollment at Elms Acres the prior year did not meet
the state's eligibility criteria. For the current year (1998‑99), USD
493 received a Subpart 2 grant of \$35,592. The director of consolidated
programs recently learned that the district will receive funding again
next year, based on this year's October enrollment.

The district used this year's allotment to pay a full-time certified
teacher and a full-time certified aide to operate an alternative
classroom at the local high school.[^14] The alternative classroom is a
temporary placement for students who are either: (1) on the verge of
suspension for disruptive behavior in the classroom or (2) failing to
complete assignments and falling behind in their academic work. The
primary goal of the alternative classroom program is to provide a
disciplinary placement with a strong academic focus, in lieu of
suspending the student from school.

This report describes USD 493's activities under the Title I, Part D,
Subpart 2 program. We collected information about the program from three
sources: (1) a telephone interview with the Kansas Title I consultant,
(2) a site visit to the district in April 1999, and (3) a review of
program documentation, including the district's application for Subpart
2 funds. During our visit we interviewed the district's director of
consolidated programs (who also serves as the district's business
manager and works half-time as a guidance counselor at the high school),
the vice principal of the high school, and the full-time teacher of the
alternative classroom.

**Program Goals and Design**

KSDE does not have a statewide strategy for Subpart 2 programs, although
it strongly encourages districts to target those students in greatest
need of academic assistance. Kansas has curriculum standards in reading,
writing, math, social studies, and science, which all state-accredited
schools must follow, including all institutional educational programs
that apply for and receive accreditation. Kansas's Title I consultant
for Part D programs indicated that the KSDE becomes involved in the
planning of local programs only at the request of the district, or to
help resolve problems. The district's primary goals for its Subpart 2
program are to (1) improve the academic achievement of at-risk students
in grades 9 through 12 and (2) prevent these students from dropping out
of school. Another goal is to help these students learn how to succeed,
both behaviorally and academically, in the regular classroom
environment. The alternative classroom at the high school is designed to
meet these goals.

The district coordinator for consolidated programs, the high school
principal, and the district superintendent worked together to develop
the concept of the alternative classroom when several of the girls from
Elms Acres experienced disciplinary problems.[^15] The Elms Acres girls
were often behind in their credits and many had not attended school
regularly prior to coming to Elms Acres. Consequently, the director of
consolidated programs and the principal originally envisioned the
classroom as a type of transition program, in which all of the Elms
Acres girls would first be assigned to prepare them behaviorally and
academically for the regular high school. However, they quickly realized
that requiring all of the Elms Acres girls to enter the high school
through the transition classroom would discriminate against those girls
who were already capable of handling the regular classroom. In addition,
they recognized that disciplinary problems at the high school were not
limited to the Elms Acres girls. Therefore, they broadened the concept
of the program to target all high school students experiencing
behavioral and academic difficulty in the regular classrooms.

The alternative classroom provides students with an opportunity to
continue their regular academic studies (with an emphasis on the core
subjects of English, math, and science) in a more structured and
individual setting. Students assigned to the alternative classroom for
disciplinary reasons must earn the privilege to reenter their regular
classes by exhibiting appropriate behavior and maintaining academic
progress while in the alternative classroom. Staff monitor student
behavior using a detailed point system.[^16]

The district's decision to use Subpart 2 funds to support an alternative
classroom at the high school was not based on a formal needs assessment.
Instead, administrators at the high school merely saw a need for a
program to address some of the behavioral and academic problems that
surfaced. In addition, while the district had already established
at-risk programs for elementary and junior high school students, it
lacked an at-risk program for high school students. District staff
viewed the Subpart 2 grant as an opportunity to fill this gap.

Students in the alternative classroom follow the same academic
curriculum that they would in their regular classrooms. The point system
used in the alternative classroom was adapted from a similar system
employed by the district's alternative program for behavior-disordered
students, which proved effective.

**Students and Student Selection**

The alternative classroom targets first students who are on the verge of
being suspended for disciplinary reasons, and second, students who are
falling behind academically. The vice principal decides which students
to assign to the alternative classroom, based on a variety of factors,
including the number of referrals a student has received for being tardy
or for other reasons, and the student's academic progress in the
classroom. He does not use a set formula (such as a certain number of
referrals) for assigning students to the alternative classroom, and he
tries to explore other forms of discipline first, such as detention,
Saturday school, or a short-term, in-school suspension. In the hierarchy
of disciplinary actions, assignment to the alternative classroom occurs
before an out-of-school suspension. The typical disciplinary assignment
to the alternative classroom is for 10 days.

Average daily attendance in the alternative classroom ranges from five
to 10 students. Since the program began operating last fall, it has
served a total of 58 students; 24 students (41 percent) have been girls
from the Elms Acres Youth Home. Of the 58 students served so far, 53
percent are male and 47 percent are female.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

In the 1998-99 school year, USD 493 used its entire Subpart 2 grant to
staff the alternative classroom for at-risk students with one certified
teacher and one aide. The aide has a teaching degree but is not
certified by the state of Kansas. All other expenses for the alternative
classroom, such as books, computers, and other supplies are paid through
the district's general education fund, which includes both state and
local funding. The district does not use any other federal funds to
support this program.

The alternative classroom is located in a separate building across the
street from the high school. The building formerly housed a convenience
store and remained vacant for a number of years until the former
superintendent of the district convinced the store chain to donate the
building to the high school. Despite its location in a separate
building, the alternative classroom is a part of the high school's daily
education program, and a student placed in the alternative classroom
continues to work on his or her regular classroom assignments. The
essential difference is that instruction in the alternative classroom is
individualized and is more carefully monitored by the teacher and aide.

Students who are placed in the alternative classroom are isolated from
the entire student population of the high school. While in the
classroom, students cannot talk to one another or to any other member of
the high school. They are not allowed to eat lunch with the high school
students, attend school assemblies (pep rallies, concerts, etc.), or to
enter the regular school building for any reason during their placement.
Also, while in the alternative classroom, students may be placed in
isolation booths (located in the corner of the room) if they display
behavior problems and cause classroom disruptions. Isolated students
continue to receive individual instruction and work toward exiting the
classroom and returning to the main building.

Once assigned to the classroom, students earn their way back into the
main building by earning points for behavior and grades. They receive a
maximum of 10 points every class period[^17] for exhibiting each of the
following behaviors: (1) use of appropriate language; (2) being on time;
(3) coming prepared; (4) remaining on schedule with the given tasks; (5)
following instructions; (6) doing quality work; and (7) cooperating with
teachers and peers. On average, a student is expected to earn 4,750
points before exiting the classroom. Adhering to this point system, a
student can earn a maximum of 490 points a day and exit the alternative
classroom in about 10 days. However, a student can earn the required
number of points in 15 days or more by successfully completing academic
assignments and not improving behavior. In this situation, the exiting
student must sign a form acknowledging his or her return to the regular
high school. If the student encounters any additional behavioral or
academic problems, the alternative classroom is no longer an option and
the student is suspended from the high school.

There is no cooperative agreement between the high school and the Elms
Acres Youth Home. Girls who reside at the youth home are under legal
guardianship of Elms Acres, and as residents of the district, they are
eligible to attend classes at the high school. There is minimal,
incidental contact between the alternative classroom and the juvenile
justice system. On occasion, a student who has been placed on probation
by the courts for some type of previous criminal offense will be in the
classroom and if the student experiences discipline or attendance
problems while in the classroom, the vice principal informs the
student's parole officer of the situation.

When Elms Acres girls first enroll at the high school, school staff are
responsible for obtaining the girls' previous academic records. The
staff identifies the high school the girl most recently attended and
attempts to obtain her school records, a process that is often time
consuming. The only records that Elms Acres is required to present to
the high school at the time of a girl's enrollment is a copy of her
immunization records. The high school makes no effort to track the
progress of the Elms Acres girls or other students who leave the high
school (and the alternative classroom) without graduating. However, the
high school faculty track the progress of its graduating seniors, as we
discuss later in this report.

District and school personnel involved in administrating and operating
the Subpart 2 program include the district's program director for the
consolidated plan, the vice principal of the high school, and the
alternative classroom teacher and aide. The district's program director
for the consolidated plan oversees all of the Subpart 2 funding
activities for the district, and develops the application for obtaining
Subpart 2 funding.[^18] The vice principal spends approximately
10 percent of his time on matters related to the alternative classroom,
including assigning students to the classroom and handling any
discipline problems encountered. When a student is selected for
placement in the classroom, the vice principal meets with the student to
explain its purpose rules, and point system, and asks the student to
sign a form documenting his or her understanding of the rules of the
placement. When the program started, he spent a lot of time meeting with
the parents of students who were placed in the alternative classroom
explaining to them its concept, function, and purpose. He noted that
parent questions have decreased considerably since program initiation.

The alternative classroom teacher and aide dedicate 100 percent of their
time to Subpart 2 priorities, providing individual instruction and
monitoring students' behavior, attendance, and academic progress. The
alternative classroom teacher also coordinates each student's daily
assignments with his or her regular teachers by asking them to complete
a daily assignment sheet for each class. The alternative classroom
teacher has daily contact with each student's regular teachers to ensure
that all staff are aware of all student assignments and progress. If she
has questions concerning a student's assignments from a regular teacher,
she meets with that teacher either before school or during the lunch
period. Such coordination between the alternative and regular classroom
teachers helps students make the transition back into regular classes by
ensuring that they are up to date on the same subject material as their
classmates.

Students exit the alternative classroom through a simple process. A
student signs an exit form and the teacher provides the student's
regular teachers with a copy of all the student's work. However, the
exiting process is sometimes abrupt for some of the young women from
Elms Acres, especially when they move to another detention placement or
to foster care outside of the district. The alternative classroom
teacher stated that sometimes she was not notified when this happened
and so no transfer of academic records or tracking of the student was
possible.

**Program Services and Activities**

Alternative classroom instruction emphasizes the core subjects of the
high school's curriculum, language arts, reading, and mathematics. The
staff used general education funds to purchase teacher edition textbooks
(especially math). The alternative classroom has one computer and one
printer that students must share because they are not allowed to enter
the high school building. The teacher, as the lone instructor in the
alternative classroom, teaches all classes including electives such as
woodworking, music, and art, for which she is admittedly not fully
qualified to teach. The students' elective teachers in the regular high
school give her student assignments, but they typically consist of
exercises from textbooks that do not coincide with the instruction
students in the regular classroom receive. This is a problem that the
high school wants to address, but the focus of the class will remain on
the core subjects because they are the ones the students must master in
order to graduate.

Another important part of the high school's education program used in
the alternative classroom is the Accelerated Reader Program. The
district uses this program due to its concerns over the poor reading
ability of many students; one sophomore class tested at the seventh
grade reading level recently. The Accelerated Reader Program is a
diagnostic program; students take a test to determine their reading
level and teachers then assign appropriate reading material. Students
answer a series of questions on each book they read. To help all
students develop their reading skills, one class period each day at the
high school is set aside for silent reading. This daily class counts
toward the points system.

**Program Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvement**

Although only in its first year of operation, the alternative classroom
has had positive effects, according to members of the high school's
faculty. They see it as a more productive alternative for at-risk
students than suspension. While unable to track the long-term progress
of its students; in the short term, the alternative classroom believes a
placement is successful if the student reenters the regular classroom,
and is current on academic work. The high school staff follow the
progress of its graduates through a mail survey. Each graduate receives
a survey one year after graduation, and a similar survey five years
after graduation soliciting information on the person's educational and
employment status.

When asked what could be done to improve the program, the alternative
classroom teacher said that she would like to see the students enter the
class at an earlier age to develop study skills. She would also like to
spend an entire day at Elms Acres when a girl is first placed in her
class, and observe how Elms Acres staff interact with the girls. She
believes this experience would help her better communicate with Elms
Acres girls in the alternative classroom, especially those who are new
Columbus Unified High School students.

The teacher also stated that the students could benefit from having more
computers and having at least one computer networked, so she could send
the regular teachers e-mail messages concerning the students'
assignments. This would save her time by not having to meet with the
teachers before school and during the lunch period. She would also like
to have more training for herself and the aide. She feels that the staff
could benefit from training that would develop their skills in dealing
with difficult students and possible volatile situations.[^19] Another
recommendation she offered was to survey the regular high school
teachers about students' academic and behavioral status upon exiting the
alternative classroom and reentering the regular classroom.

**Jefferson County Public Schools**

**Louisville, Kentucky**

Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) is the largest school district in
Kentucky, and the 26^th^ largest in the country. Serving an area that
includes Louisville (with a population of about 300,000), JCPS has 88
elementary schools, 26 middle schools, 18 high schools, and about 18
"special schools." The "special schools" include alternative schools for
children and youth who have committed serious violations of the student
code of conduct; been involved with fighting, weapons, assaults on
staff, drugs, or alcohol; or been suspended three times. About one-third
of the county's children are non-white (mostly African American); 24
percent live below the poverty level.

Kentucky distributed a total of \$393,031 in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2
funds, by formula, to 12 school districts in FY '99, with grants ranging
from \$8,037 to \$95,646.[^20] The latter amount went to JCPS; however,
the district's funding will drop to around \$50,000 in FY 2000 because
the only juvenile detention facility in the area (Jefferson County Youth
Services \[JCYS\]) failed to turn in its count form this year. According
to our state-level contact, most local educational agencies used their
funds for districtwide programs. One allocated all of its Subpart 2
money to the local delinquent facility; another paid for half of a
school nurse's position.

With its grant, the JCPS:

-   **Funded one full-time teaching position** at Buechel Metropolitan
    High School, an alternative school whose focus is on behavior
    modification;

-   **Purchased instructional materials** (computers and integrated
    learning software) for Kennedy Metro School, an alternative middle
    school; and

-   **Placed a part-time tutor** at each of six group homes for youth
    returning from detention facilities.

We visited the JCPS in March 1999 and met with the district's two Title
1 specialists, who are jointly responsible for the Subpart 2 program. We
also spoke with: (1) a representative of the Kentucky State Department
of Education's Title I office; (2) the principals of both Buechel and
Kennedy; and (3) Buechel's Occupational Work Experience (OWE) instructor
(whose position is funded by Subpart 2). The site visit also included a
brief tour of Buechel.

**Program Goals and Design**

Aside from requirements in the federal legislation, Kentucky does not
impose any requirements concerning goals, services, curricula,
targeting, training, technical assistance, or agreements with local
facilities on Subpart 2 programs. Respondents stressed that the JCPS
program does not focus on dropout prevention. At the alternative
schools, the goal is to transition students back to their regular
schools. At the group homes, Subpart 2 provides tutoring to improve the
academic achievement of students who attend various Jefferson County
schools during the day.

The two Title I specialists are not involved in program planning;
however, they report that district personnel consult with group home
administrators to determine what services are needed at the facilities.
The principals of Buechel and Kennedy make their own decisions about how
to use the money they receive. (Buechel received about \$46,000 to cover
the salary and benefits of one-full time teacher, while Kennedy got
\$8,000.)

At the district level, administrators decided that alternative schools
were a high priority for funding. At the school level:

-   **Buechel**[^21] designed "Project Reality," an enrichment program
    for adjudicated students whose goal is to help develop students'
    work ethic, employment skills, and community awareness.

-   **Kennedy** (in its first year of Subpart 2 funding) used its
    allocation to purchase hardware and software for two integrated
    learning systems (SuccessMaker*,* designed by Computer Curriculum
    Corporation) to add to those it already had.

Kennedy's principal observed that the amount of funding he received
would have paid for only part of an instructional assistant, and that he
did not like to depend on "soft" funds to support staff positions. He
also noted that the distinguishing feature of all children at his
school, both African American and white, was that all were poor. He
said, "We don't know how to teach poor kids. They have so much other
baggage." As an example, he described one child referred to Kennedy
whose difficulties at the affluent sending school derived from his
discomfort with his surroundings and fellow students. The student was
the child of former sharecroppers who had only recently moved to a home
with indoor plumbing.

**Students and Student Selection**

According to the district's application, the program serves about 650
students at any one time or a total of about 1,300 a year. The majority
of students are at Buechel and Kennedy,[^22] with the balance
distributed among six group homes. The district also previously worked
with JCYS. A "checklist" in the district's application to the state is
the only formal agreement with these facilities.

About 75 percent of students at both Buechel and Kennedy are male; 60 to
70 percent are African American. In contrast, only about one-third of
the district's total enrollment are minorities. Both Buechel and Kennedy
are Title I schools, with schoolwide programs. (All district Title I
programs are schoolwide.)

The district identified these two schools and six group homes to receive
program funding because they serve its most troubled youth. All district
high schools and middle schools refer students to Buechel and Kennedy.
Although students at the group homes attend a variety of Jefferson
County schools during the day, it is likely that they may attend either
Buechel or Kennedy at some point.

All students at the group homes are eligible for tutoring, and all
students at Kennedy can use the hardware and software purchased with
Subpart 2 funds. At Buechel, Project Reality involves about 34 of the
school's 300 students, with additional students included in field trips.
Instructors identify candidates for the program during the first two
weeks of the semester, selecting those who have severe behavioral
problems or who indicate that they have been adjudicated delinquent.
This semester, the OWE instructor and a second teacher who assists with
the program decided to target their second period classes for the
project because they contained large numbers of adjudicated youth.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

When students are referred to Buechel High or Kennedy Middle School
(after a "due process" hearing at the district level), the alternative
school's counselor obtains information about them during an intake
meeting involving the student, his parents, and any other interested
parties (e.g., social workers, parole officers, or staff from the
sending school). If the student has been incarcerated within the state,
the schools can obtain records of the grades and credits he received
while institutionalized.

When a student is selected for Project Reality*,* Buechel administrators
send a letter to his parents explaining that their child has been chosen
for the program, and its purpose. The school also communicates with
parents through a newsletter published twice a semester. According to
administrators, the newsletter was an outgrowth of Project Reality*,*
and always includes an article written by a participating student.

Kennedy's principal reported that his school maintained frequent contact
with parents through regular telephone calls and materials sent home
with students each week. He observed, however, that communicating with
parents of students who are in alternative programs may require
persistence. Many work at more than one job in order to support their
families, and do not have positions that allow them to take time away
from work for school meetings and activities. To contact them, school
personnel may have to call at specific times of day, at night, or on the
weekend.

Buechel High School and Kennedy Middle School also coordinate with a
variety of community agencies, including community centers, private
hospitals, adolescent treatment centers, and mental health agencies. One
Buechel instructor works closely with the carpenters' union
apprenticeship program to place the school's pre-apprenticeship
students. Field trips to the carpenters' union, as well as others
(including electricians, operating engineers, and sheet metal workers)
expose students to a variety of union training programs.

At both schools, a contract among the student, parent, and school spells
out the conditions under which a student can be considered for return to
his home school.[^23] The average length of stay at Buechel is about
seven months, although students may stay for up to two years. At
Kennedy, each sending middle school is allocated a certain number of
"slots." Once it has filled those slots, it can refer additional
students only by agreeing to "take back" others. Although Kennedy's
principal makes the final decision, the two principals involved work
together to determine which students will return. They make their
selections based on the student's progress, rather than the length of
time that he has been at Kennedy, as well as other factors (such as
whether he needs to be separated from certain other students in the
sending school). Twenty-five to 30 percent of students may remain at
Kennedy for their whole middle school experience, although the school
was not designed for this purpose.

Other sources of funding for services to delinquent students include:

-   **State general funds*;***

-   **State funds for Extended School Services,** which provide
    instructional services outside of the regular school day;

-   **Title I, Part A** (Buechel and Kennedy receive less than \$100,000
    each);

-   **Perkins and School-to-Career funds;**

-   **Small amounts of Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding** (most of
    which is used at the district level); and

-   **Donations from businesses and employers.** The district expects
    all of its schools to involve businesses and employers. At Buechel,
    they have donated equipment for a school-based enterprise. At
    Kennedy, Meijers (a large retailer) sends department managers to the
    school to talk with students, allows them to visit the store to
    study the operations of particular departments, and donates items
    for treats and incentives. Home Depot (a building supply store) has
    provided materials for school projects (e.g., picnic tables that
    students will sell in order to raise funds for future projects).

The state's 1990 education reform legislation allocated \$40 million in
state funds to create Family Resource and Youth Service Centers, which
also benefit this population.

The district's Title I specialists each estimated spending about 200
hours per year in activities related to administration of Subpart 2
(although Subpart 2 funds do not support their positions). Subpart 2
funds support one full-time instructor at Buechel and six part-time
tutors at the group homes. When Kennedy opened three years ago, the
local teacher's union agreed to allow administrators to hand-select
teachers for the school, and only three of the original group have left.
Buechel's principal helped design Project Reality shortly after he began
work several years ago.

Like others in the district, these instructors participate in staff
development opportunities offered by district personnel. Training in
sound instructional strategies, Kennedy's principal suggested, is the
most important preparation for teaching at-risk children. The majority
would be better behaved if only they could do the assigned work, he
said. Instructors must realize that many alternative students have adult
responsibilities (e.g., caring for younger siblings, grocery shopping,
cooking) at home, and treat them accordingly.

Instructors in both of the schools we visited had also received training
in safety and security. When Kennedy Middle School opened three years
ago, its principal explained, staff members were initially concerned
about these issues, and focused staff training accordingly; training now
addresses instructional issues. At Buechel High School, all personnel
are trained in methods for safe physical restraint of students. As a
result, the principal observed, students are often back in the classroom
quickly after outbursts that would result in their being suspended from
a regular school.

**Program Services and Activities**

Buechel's Project Reality is a student enrichment program that includes
three components: (1) an "outdoor" component involving activities such
as camping, rafting, and nature hikes; (2) a "work" component that
involves community work experience; and (3) exposure to area businesses.
This year, a volunteer from Junior Achievement, a not-for-profit
organization created to familiarize youth with business and industry, is
working with Project Reality students once a week. This individual is
providing the "business" component of the project through Junior
Achievement's Success 2000 program, which teaches employability skills.
All students in the class complete career assessments, which staff use
to decide what field trips they should plan.

All 34 students in Project Reality, as well as other students at Buechel
with severe behavioral problems or a history of involvement with the
juvenile justice system, participate in field trips. Field trip
activities have included visits to:

-   ***"*Henry's Ark*," ***a sanctuary for abused or unwanted animals.

-   ***A* veterinarian's office*, ***where students interested in
    animal-related careers were allowed to observe surgery.

-   ***"*Camp Sky High,*"*** operated by the local police department,
    where pre-apprenticeship carpentry students were allowed to
    participate in ropes training and team-building exercises in
    exchange for work they did there.

-   **An operating engineers' union*,*** where pre-apprenticeship
    students were allowed to operate heavy equipment under the
    supervision of a union instructor.

-   **A "Habitat for Humanity" home,** where students helped with
    construction.

At Kennedy, the Title I reading specialist uses the SuccessMaker
software paid for by Subpart 2 to assess students' reading and math
levels, as well as their familiarity with technology. Students at both
Kennedy and Buechel also use the software for instructional purposes.
Kennedy's principal remarked that he would like to concentrate Subpart 2
funds on instructional technology, because students who are not
technologically literate are "really out of step with society," he said.
He would eventually like to have twice as many SuccessMaker workstations
as the school currently has, so that each child could use one for about
half an hour a day. Such systems could also be used for individuals
attending adult education or general equivalency diploma classes at the
school. The school, however, was able to purchase only two integrated
learning systems with the \$8,000 it received. He also noted that he
would allocate some funding for staff development, because there is
little point in having instructional software unless all staff
(including instructional assistants, who do not have extra time for
training during their normal working day) know how to use it.

Instructional offerings at Kennedy High School and Buechel Middle School
are identical to those in other Jefferson County Schools. The
alternative high school offers a variety of vocational programs,
including a school-based enterprise called Hydro-Herbs*,* in which
students grow basil for sale to local restaurants; a pre-apprenticeship
carpentry program; and a co-op program. Like all Jefferson County
schools, it has an Options 2000 technology lab, which includes not only
the latest computers but also robots, lasers, and electronic equipment.
Administrators described this lab as being "second to none in the
district." Related support services include sessions in anger management
and career counseling.

Instructors often integrate academic and vocational instruction. For
example, at the time of our visit, students in the school's
pre-apprenticeship carpentry program were making "Beanie Baby
bunkhouses," which will later go to the art class to be painted;
students will describe their work on this project in papers they write
for their portfolios. Instructors post their activities for the current
week and plans for the coming week on a "Collaboration Board" in the
faculty lounge, so that each one will know what is taking place in other
classrooms.

Buechel's instructor noted that an additional service needed in the
program was funding for substitute teachers to work with part of the
Project Reality students while she took others on field trips. She also
pointed out that, next year, the school would have to pay a fee of \$5
each for career assessments (which it obtained for free this year).

**Program Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvement**

Buechel's principal reported that 18 percent of the students that his
school returned to their "home" schools eventually came back to Buechel.
It is difficult to determine how many students who attend Buechel
complete high school, because---although they may complete their
graduation requirements at the alternative school---their diplomas are
actually issued by their home schools.

State and district officials expect students served by Subpart 2 to meet
the same academic standards that other students do,[^24] and they take
the same assessments. However, their scores on the Kentucky
Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) are reported along with
others from their home school, and are not usually disaggregated.[^25]
In fact, the focus of KIRIS is on evaluating the performance of schools
and districts, rather than individual students. As one administrator
suggested, "their success is not based on their KIRIS scores," which are
often low. Like other schools in the state, Jefferson County also
administers the California Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) in grades 3, 6,
and 9.

According to Buechel's principal, Project Reality has helped staff
develop ideas about how to assist all students at the school in
acquiring a strong work ethic and learning marketable skills: for
example, the success of the project's work component led administrators
to create the school's pre-apprenticeship carpentry program.
Administrators noted, however, that they had encountered difficulty in
collecting outcome information from students' home schools. Not only do
students transfer to and from the alternative schools, but they also
move into and out of detention facilities, and---often due to unstable
home conditions---to other schools, districts, and states. (School
administrators also tried unsuccessfully to obtain grant funds to
support an employee to collect and track data.)

The district has not conducted any formal evaluations of its Subpart 2
program. In fact, administrators noted, it would be difficult or
impossible to evaluate the effect of part-time tutoring services, due to
the transient nature of the student population. Administrators suggested
that the only meaningful evaluation might be a longitudinal study of
whether children who attend Kennedy do, or do not, later end up at
Buechel. Although this study could be accomplished with the district's
existing student tracking system, it would be expensive and take funds
away from student services.

District administrators indicated that---because of the flexibility that
the program affords at the school level and the excellent guidance they
had received from the state---they had little difficulty in working with
Subpart 2 funds. Our state-level contact observed that Subpart 2 funding
does not necessarily directly "follow" the students who generate the
funding, and that districts are in compliance with federal requirements
as long as they are addressing the needs of at-risk children. His only
suggestion for changes in the program was that districts might consider
services for teen parents, in order to help them complete high school
and transition to work.

**Kalamazoo Public School District**

**Kalamazoo, Michigan**

Kalamazoo is located in the southwestern corner of Michigan's lower
peninsula. Three-fourths of the city's 83,00 residents are white; 19
percent are African American. The local economy is driven by
auto-related manufacturing and pharmaceutical companies. Major area
employers include Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., and Kellogg's Corporation,
which is located in Battle Creek, 20 miles east of Kalamazoo. Median
family income in Kalamazoo is roughly \$29,000; the rate of unemployment
is about four percent.

The Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS) operates 25 schools (K-12), one adult
education center, and five alternative and other schools that serve
approximately 12,000 students. Fifty-two percent of the students are
white and 40 percent are African American. Approximately 45 percent of
the district's school-aged children live in poverty.

KPS is the largest of nine school districts served by the Kalamazoo
Regional Educational Services Agency, which provides educational
supports and regulatory monitoring for all schools within its
jurisdiction. KPS used its \$119,671 in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds
for the 1998-99 school year to (1) provide supplementary academic
instruction for approximately 460 delinquent youth in four local
facilities (two halfway houses, a county jail, and a juvenile home) and
(2) purchase computers, software, and other instructional materials for
these facilities.

This report describes the Subpart 2 program in the Kalamazoo school
district. We visited the district in May 1999 after completing a
telephone interview with the state's Title I coordinator. While in
Kalamazoo, we spoke with the district's Title I coordinator, instructors
at the county jail and at a halfway house for adjudicated males, the
program manager of a halfway house for females, and the administrator of
the Juvenile Home School. We also reviewed a variety of documentation
related to the district's programs, students, and services.

**Program Goals and Design**

The overall goal of KPS' Subpart 2 program is to improve delinquent
students' academic achievement through supplementary instruction. The
state's Title I director noted that state funding allows districts to
operate dropout prevention programs in the regular public schools, and
that funding provided by the Subpart 2 program is "just enough for the
youngsters who are institutionalized." Therefore, the state allocates
Subpart 2 funding to eligible districts on a formula basis to support
direct instruction and purchase of computers and other instructional
materials for delinquent youth.

Each of the four participating facilities in the district used their
Subpart 2 funds to support their existing educational program, the goals
of which vary. Two of the facilities (Academy Hall and Park Place) are
halfway houses whose goals are to (1) improve students' practical living
and social skills and (2) provide students with appropriate learning and
employment experiences through a highly structured program. Residents of
these facilities attend school in the community during the day and
return to the facilities at night. The Juvenile Home's mission is to
prepare students "to become competent, socially responsible, life-long
learners," and the goals of the home's educational programs (a day
program and a residential program) are to help students "catch-up" to
their age-appropriate level and return to their home schools. The goal
of the Kalamazoo County Law Enforcement (KCLE), a county jail program,
is to assist incarcerated youth work toward completion of a general
equivalency diploma, or to apply for and begin postsecondary education.
Each facility used the bulk of its Subpart 2 funds to hire instructional
staff who assist residents achieve these goals, as we describe more
fully later in the report.

**Students and Student Selection**

The KPS Subpart 2 program served approximately 460 students last year.
Table 1 summarizes the number of youth served at each facility on an
annual, and on a daily, basis.

**Table 1: Number of Students Served by Facility**

+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Facility**                          | **Number    | **Number**    |
|                                       | Served**    |               |
|                                       |             | **Served**    |
|                                       | *           |               |
|                                       | *Annually** | **Daily**     |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| Academy Hall                          | 36          | 12            |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| Park Place                            | 42          | 9             |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| Juvenile Home                         | 92          | 50            |
|                                       |             |               |
| Intensive Learning Center (day        | 242         | 40            |
| program)                              |             |               |
|                                       |             |               |
| Youth Center (residential program)    |             |               |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| County Jail (KCLE)                    | 73          | 14            |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+
| Total                                 | 485         | 125           |
+---------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+

All residents of Academy Hall are males and all residents of Park Place
are females; the other facilities serve students of both genders. Both
Academy Hall and Park Place may serve up to 12 youth between the ages of
13-21 at any one time, although the majority of residents are between
15-18 years old. The two Juvenile Home programs serve youth 11-17 years
old, while students in the county jail are between the ages of 17 and
21. A majority of students at each facility are minorities, and many
require individual education plans.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

The district's Title I coordinator oversees all Subpart 2 activities.
She said she spends one or two days each month administering the
program, including managing the application process, reimbursing
facilities, and writing reports for the state educational agency. In
prior years she met with Subpart 2-funded staff each month to review
progress and discuss any issues requiring attention. She now meets with
facility staff less often owing to a recent loss of staff support, but
reports that a minimum of two meetings each year and periodic telephone
conversations keep her informed of program matters.

Subpart 2 staff at the facilities also consult with the district's
content area specialists, as needed, and are invited to attend regional
annual in-service training for Title I programs. Certified instructors
may also take advantage of additional professional development
opportunities, such as district-sponsored conferences and in-service
workshops. The Juvenile Home school offered 24 staff development
opportunities for individual teachers and eight additional training
sessions for the entire faculty. Topics addressed in these sessions
included defiant children, behavior intervention strategies, and
cultural diversity.

As noted, the majority of program funding supports instructional staff
at participating facilities. We briefly describe below each of the four
participating facilities, including staffing, the educational program,
and the amount and uses of Subpart 2 funding.

-   **Academy Hall** is a halfway house for adjudicated males, and
    **Park Place** is a halfway house for adjudicated females. Staff of
    each facility includes a program director, a house manager, five
    counselors, a psychologist, and an educational coordinator. Academy
    Hall also employs a job developer. Students residing at these
    facilities attend one of the district's alternative high schools, an
    adult education center, or a local community college. The Hall used
    \$9,423 and Park Place used \$8,481 in Subpart 2 funds to support
    part-time educational coordinators who provide students with
    tutorial assistance, and to purchase instructional materials.

-   **Juvenile Home** operates the **Intensive Learning Center**, a day
    program for delinquent youth living at home or in foster care, and
    the **Youth Center***,* a residential program. Staff include the
    coordinator, two counselors, two secretaries, 12 certified teachers,
    and 13 instructional aides. The educational programs at the Home
    include seven periods of classroom instruction. The home used
    \$84,807 in Subpart 2 funds to cover the salaries of three aides
    (\$67,000), purchase supplies (\$13,000), and pay for staff travel
    to conferences (\$1,000).

-   **Kalamazoo County Law Enforcement** operates the county jail, which
    houses up to 350 inmates. The jail's educational program, which
    emphasizes general equivalency diploma preparation, used its
    \$16,961 in Subpart 2 funds to pay the facility's lone instructor
    (\$16,250) and to purchase instructional materials and supplies
    (\$800)**.**

The juvenile justice system assigns youth to the Juvenile Home or one of
the two halfway houses after considering a youth's criminal history,
family situation, and current service needs. If the court decides that a
halfway house program (i.e., Academy Hall and Park Place) is
appropriate, the court refers the case to the Family Independence
Agency, a branch of the Michigan's Department of Human Services. The
agency then contacts the program directors at the facilities and
arranges for a tour of the premises during which a prospective resident
meets with facility staff members. The youth, the agency caseworker, a
probation officer, the program director, and parents (if allowed by the
courts) then make a final decision.

At the time of adjudication and assignment to a detention facility, the
court often establishes specific educational and behavioral goals the
individual is expected to pursue while detained. Court-ordered goals are
provided to facility administrators and become the basis for a contract
between the resident and the facility. Goal attainment may constitute
grounds for release from detention.

**Program Services and Activities**

On admission to Academy Hall or Park Place, residents are given an
"orientation packet" that explains the rules and identifies available
educational and other services. The two facilities are located in a
residential neighborhood near the downtown area, within walking distance
of two alternative high schools, and in close proximity to the Adult
Education Center and the community college. Court-established goals,
along with subsequent comments from the student, the program director,
and other facility staff help determine the most appropriate course of
study for individual residents. At Academy Hall, the educational
instructor assists new residents review orientation materials, reviews
the youths' files, and recommends a particular avenue for continuing
their education to the program director.

In general, residents who hope to return to the regular schools attend
one the district's alternative high schools, which provide nine-week
courses that follow state curriculum requirements. Residents who elect
to pursue a general equivalency diploma typically attend the district's
adult education center, and students who have already obtained a general
equivalency diploma often decide to enroll at a local community college
or university. Residents not attending school work with the job
development specialist to learn about seeking, securing, and maintaining
employment.

The educational coordinators at the two halfway house facilities
typically arrive for work in the afternoon when residents are returning
from school. In addition to providing tutorial assistance as needed and
helping students complete their homework, these individuals may also
take the students to and from the local library, conduct Internet
searches (students are not allowed access to the Internet), and
otherwise support students. For example, the coordinator at Academy Hall
served as a chaperon at a school dance so the students could participate
in "normal" school activities (prom night, for example).

The Juvenile Home School operates an Intensive Learning Center program
for adjudicated youth who continue to live at home or in foster homes
(Youth are bused to the site by the school system, or walk, if in the
immediate neighborhood) and a Youth Center program for full-time
residents. According to the school's administrator, "although the
majority of the youth have average intellect," most are functioning
below grade level. About one-fourth of the students require special
education, including 11 percent who have some type of learning
disability.

For students in both programs, the school day begins with breakfast at
7:30 a.m., followed by seven periods of classroom instruction. Subjects
include science, social studies, mathematics, English and reading, art,
gym, technology education, home economics, positive decision-making, and
computers. An optional class for youths aged 16 and older is "workshop,"
where they learn employability skills (teamwork, following directions,
dependability) and prepare to enter the workforce. For example, youth
assemble "packets" of materials for a local craft company (i.e., the
screws, nuts, and bolts for a birdhouse kit), work for which they are
paid. In addition to classroom instruction, learning center students
produce a school newspaper and a book of poetry. The school also fields
a boys' basketball team, invites a number of local celebrities
(including the mayor) to a Career Day program, and holds numerous school
"assemblies" (concerts, plays, dances). In their art class, students
created stained-glass pieces that they exhibited at regional craft shows
and for which some students received awards. A class field trip to view
the competition is part of the learning experience. The coordinator
writes numerous grants to secure additional resources needed to enhance
the facility's fine arts and academic curriculum.

The educational program at the county jail focuses on general
equivalency diploma preparation, an activity in which residents
participate at the expense of their recreational time. The Subpart
2-funded instructor at the jail meets with an average of five female
residents in the morning and with an average of six male residents in
the afternoon, although the number of students changes daily. Typically,
inmates attend classes four days a week, for two-to-three hours each
day. The instructor, cognizant of the sacrifice students are making to
further their education, strives to tailor the program as much as
possible.

The instructor at the jail is constantly seeking donations for books,
magazines, and computer equipment and software to supplement the scarce
resources currently at her disposal. Her typical day begins by picking
up a roster of inmates, identifying residents in the 17-21 age range,
and presenting the list to the sergeant on duty who takes a week or two
to approve or disapprove her selection based on behavior and severity of
crime committed. As part of her routine, she goes to the cell block and
"announces" that classes are in session. If a student misses class three
times, the instructor removes him or her from the roster and gives the
"slot" to another individual.

While most of her students are working toward a general equivalency
diploma (21 students completed these in school year 1998-99), many plan
to continue with postsecondary education (19 students in 1998-99), and
she helps these students complete financial aid forms for Kalamazoo
Valley Community College, as needed. She has also worked with a few
students who required Adult Basic Education, but reported that the
materials she has on hand are geared for general equivalency diploma
study.

**Program Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvement**

Consistent with federal guidelines, the district requires facility
programs to report basic demographic information on students served and
encourages the collection of additional information on student outcomes.
Although the number of students who complete general equivalency diploma
requirements or enroll in alternative high schools, is generally
available at the facility level, complete information on student
outcomes, such as gains on test scores, is frequently difficult to
obtain, due to student mobility. As one example, the instructor at the
county jail noted that of the 50 students with whom she worked at some
point during this year, 26 left jail or were barred from returning to
class before making any measurable progress. An additional factor in the
halfway house environment is the possibility of students simply not
showing up for school; during our visit, one girl had been absent
without permission for three days.

Asked for recommended improvements to the program, all of those with
whom we spoke believed the Subpart 2 program provides a much-needed
service, and many agreed that these funds provide perhaps the only
"real" education their students have ever experienced. One program
director noted that it was getting increasingly difficult to find
persons who would work part-time at the rate of pay that was being
offered\--especially if a certified teacher (or someone with a B.A.)
were to be considered for the position of tutor-educational
coordinator.[^26] While employing college-aged students is one option,
because Western Michigan University is in Kalamazoo, the director noted
that these students would likely stay with the program for only one or
two years in order to pursue full-time employment after graduation.

Most of the facility staff with whom we spoke also noted a need for
additional funding to upgrade existing computers (or to add more
state-of-the-art hardware) and to purchase new software. New equipment
and software, in turn, often necessitate additional staff training. The
instructor in the county jail program believes that any additional
funding should be used to hire a basic skills instructor to work with
residents with low skill levels on general equivalency diploma
preparation and to serve residents aged 21 and older. This instructor
said she felt less valued, because the person who administers general
equivalency diploma exams, is paid by the jail rather than KPS, and
receives twice her current hourly wage.

**Duluth Public Schools**

**Duluth, Minnesota**

In the northeast corner of Minnesota on Lake Superior, Duluth has been a
major shipping port since the 1800s. Installation of an aerial lift
bridge in the early 1900s spurred growth in the shipping industry, the
city's primary source of revenue until 20 years ago when income from
tourism increased. Duluth's economy is also supported by several
regional health facilities. The vast majority of the city's 85,500
residents are of Scandinavian descent with small percentages of African
American and Native Americans and even fewer Asian Americans and
Hispanics.

The Duluth Public Schools (DPS) Independent School District includes 14
elementary, four middle, and three high schools. The district also
operates nine alternative educational programs, including one for teen
parents, a junior and senior high school for students with behavioral
problems, two residential programs for delinquent youth, three
residential programs for neglected youth, and an area learning center.
The district serves approximately 13,000 students (89 percent white,
five percent Native American, three percent African American, two
percent Asia and Pacific Islander, and one percent Hispanic).
Approximately 20 percent of school-aged children in the district live in
families with incomes below the poverty level.

In school year 1998-99, the Duluth Public Schools received \$100,000 in
Subpart 2 funds from the state through a competitive grant process,[^27]
and used approximately \$73,000 to pay the salaries and benefits of a
full-time project coordinator and two full-time educational assistants.
These staff persons provide academic and transition services to students
in five programs located in three participating facilities: (1) Woodland
Hills residential treatment facility, which operates a long-term
residential program and also houses an intensive day treatment program
and a short-term residential treatment program, known as Chisholm House;
(2) Arrowhead Juvenile Center, and (3) Bethany Crisis Shelter.[^28] The
district used \$14,000 to purchase computers and software for the three
facilities, and nearly \$10,000 paid for the project coordinator's
travel to monitor participating students (in and out of district and
occasionally out of state).

This report presents the results of our visit to the Duluth Public
Schools in May 1999 to obtain descriptive information on district
activities under the Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 program. We collected
data about the program through a structured telephone interview with the
state education agency (SEA) Title I neglected or delinquent
coordinator, a two-day site visit to the Duluth Public Schools and the
two residential facilities, and review of program documentation (e.g.,
application for Subpart 2 funds, cooperative agreements with the
participating facilities, monitoring forms and data, and program
evaluation reports). Individuals we interviewed in Duluth included the
district's Title I coordinator, the principal of the district's
residential treatment programs, the Subpart 2 project coordinator, one
of the full-time educational assistants, and the superintendent,
principal, and teachers at one of the residential facilities.

**Program Goals and Design**

The primary goal of the DPS Subpart 2 program is to provide delinquent
students in three facilities with transition and monitoring (follow-up)
services. Another program purpose is to improve detained students'
academic achievement through the use of educational software that
supports the state's curriculum. These combined efforts help prepare
students for a successful return to their home schools. The students at
the Woodland Hills Residential Treatment Facility and at the Arrowhead
Juvenile Center most move back to their home school; students at the
Bethany Crisis Shelter either return to their home school or to an
alternative placement (often Woodland Hills or the Arrowhead Juvenile
Center).

Minnesota does not prescribe any specific statewide strategy for local
Subpart 2 programs, preferring instead to allow each district to decide
how best to use the funding to address local needs, within the
parameters established by federal guidelines.[^29] When Subpart 2
funding first became available, the principal of the Duluth Public
School's treatment programs[^30] had several conversations with the
state to understand the intent of the funding and transition programs
appeared to be a priority. District employees decided that transition
and monitoring efforts would focus on delinquent students in residential
treatment settings. During the first two years of grant funding
(1995-1997), only Woodland Hills residential students and intensive day
treatment students participated in the Subpart 2 program. At the
suggestion of the state, Arrowhead Juvenile Center students were added
in year three of program funding when that facility opened a new
residential treatment program. The state also recommended that the
district include delinquent students from the shelter, a short-term
placement facility.

A second goal of the Subpart 2 program is to assist students to improve
academically through the use of educational software. Students at all
three participating facilities are pretested in reading, language arts,
and mathematics with Plato 2000 software to determine their academic
needs. This software is integrated with the classroom teacher's
curriculum so students continue to use Plato 2000 during their treatment
stays. Arrowhead Juvenile Center and Woodland Hills students are
post-tested before exiting a facility to determine their grade gains.
Due to the short-term nature of their stay (i.e., less than a week),
students at Bethany Crisis Shelter are typically pre-tested there and
post-tested, when possible, at Woodland Hills or Arrowhead Juvenile
Center.

Prior to the most recent reauthorization of the Title I (Improving
America's Schools Act) in 1994, Bethany Crisis Shelter students did not
have access to academic software; Arrowhead Juvenile Center students
received instruction on self-esteem from the academic teachers to help
them upon release; and the Woodland Hills students used academic
software only during their library period. Moreover, the Duluth district
did not provide post-release tracking or follow-up services for these
students. Thus, the district took advantage of the flexibility afforded
by the 1994 reauthorization and designed their Subpart 2 program to fill
existing gaps in the continuum of services available to delinquent
youth.

**Students and Student Selection**

At the time of our visit, the Subpart 2 program had served a total of
313 students during the 1998-99 school year. Approximately 62 percent of
these students were white, while another 23 percent (including 59 of
Arrowhead Juvenile Center's 168 students) were Native Americans. Table 1
identifies, by facility, the number and age range of students who were
pretested on Plato 2000 --- a program service all students at Arrowhead
Juvenile Center and Woodland Hills receive and 70 percent of Bethany
Crisis Shelter students receive. Students not pretested typically bring
school work with them to complete and do not use the Plato system during
their brief stay.

**Table 1: Number of Students Served, by Facility, in School Year
1998-99**

+------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
| **Facility**           | **Total Number of        | **Age Range**   |
|                        | Students Served**        |                 |
+========================+==========================+=================+
| **Woodland Hills**     | 137 (95 males, 42        | 10-18 years     |
|                        | females)                 |                 |
| Long-term residential  |                          |                 |
| program                | 70                       |                 |
|                        |                          |                 |
| Intensive day          | 48                       |                 |
| treatment program      |                          |                 |
|                        | 19                       |                 |
| Short-term residential |                          |                 |
| program                |                          |                 |
+------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
| **Arrowhead Juvenile   | 168 (123 males, 45       | 10-18 years     |
| Center**               | females)                 |                 |
+------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
| **Bethany Crisis       | 8 (4 males, 4 females)   | 13-15 years     |
| Shelter**              |                          |                 |
+------------------------+--------------------------+-----------------+

Student characteristics and length of stays vary by type of facility.
Bethany Crisis Shelter students stay an average of five to seven days at
the facility. Most students are placed in the shelter by county
probation officers or social service agency staff members. Three of the
15 beds are reserved for self-referrals. Shelter students often have a
family history of behavioral or emotional problems.

The majority of all Woodland Hills students have individual education
plans and most Woodland Hills treatment students reside at the facility
for seven to nine months. Chisholm House students average a 14-21 day
stay at a residential facility downtown, and intensive day treatment
students remain in the program for an average of four months. Arrowhead
Juvenile Center, a maximum security facility, houses students who are
felons for an average of 90 days. At least one-third of the students at
Arrowhead Juvenile Center have individual education plans and five
percent return to the facility up to 12 times.

A typical student from the Arrowhead Juvenile Center or Woodland Hills
is approximately two years behind academically. In addition, 95 percent
of students have behavioral issues ranging from truancy to violent
crimes; 55 percent have run away from home or are homeless; 50 percent
of male students were involved in some form of assaultive behavior; 33
percent of students come from single parent families; 30 percent are
from low-income families; 20 percent are from families living in
poverty; and 10 percent are from upper income families.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

The principal of the district's residential treatment programs oversees
all Subpart 2 activities. However, he reports not having to spend much
time on program matters, owing to the effort, energy, and competence of
the project coordinator. The full-time Subpart 2 project coordinator is
responsible for daily program operations, coordinating both the Plato
2000 activities and all transition and monitoring activities, and
writing quarterly and annual reports. He is assisted by two full-time
educational assistants. One assistant works full-time at Woodland Hills,
where she is responsible for the computer lab and library and the pre
and post testing of students on Plato 2000. Another assistant has
similar responsibilities but serves half-time at Woodland Hills and
half-time at Arrowhead Juvenile Center. Both assistants help the project
coordinator with transition activities.

We briefly describe below each participating Subpart 2 facility,
identifying the hardware and software purchased with program funds
during the first three years of the grant. We discuss student tracking,
part of the transition and monitoring efforts, and the use of the Plato
2000 software at all three locations in greater detail in the next
section of this report (Program Services and Activities).

-   **Woodland Hills Residential Treatment Facility** is a nationally
    known, nonprofit, nonsecure facility for adolescents between the
    ages of 13-17 with behavioral or delinquency problems. The facility
    houses 70 students arranged in five groups, four groups of boys by
    grade levels and one group of girls. Students are generally
    adjudicated there and stay about seven to nine months. Five Duluth
    Public School teachers (all special education certified) provide
    daily instruction[^31] from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. in English,
    mathematics, science, social studies, health and physical education,
    and vocational education. (DPS pays for the equipment in the
    vocational classroom.) There are 12 students per class, accompanied
    by a facility staff person.

> Students in the **Intensive Day Treatment Program** and **Chisholm
> House** are brought to Woodland Hills for their daily education
> program. Four classroom teachers provide instruction to 12 students
> per class. Students take classes from all four teachers.
>
> From 1996 to 1998, the facility used Subpart 2 funds to purchase 11
> computers, four printers, and various educational software (i.e.,
> Plato 2000, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, Print Shop Deluxe, Math &
> Spelling Blaster, Learning to Type, Minnesota Career Information
> System, and Ojibwe Language). Students use computers in the school's
> library at least twice a week for one hour each visit.

-   **Arrowhead Juvenile Center**, a county-operated detention center
    established in 1972, first received program funding in 1997, after
    adding 28 residents and expanding its treatment program. Students
    attend five classes per day: English, social studies, mathematics,
    science, and transition. All five teachers are special education
    certified. A facility staff person stays with the students during
    each class. Subpart 2 funding supported the establishment of the
    transition class in which students work with staff on transition
    issues, use the computer for academic support, or receive vocational
    education services from a district specialist. The Arrowhead
    Juvenile Center computer lab has five computers, two printers, and
    one scanner, and education software, all purchased with Subpart 2
    funds.

-   **Bethany Crisis Shelter** is a nonprofit facility operated by
    Lutheran Social Services. The shelter provides short-term housing
    (five to seven-day stays) for a maximum of 15 runaways and other
    qualifying juveniles. Youths at the shelter are often court
    adjudicated to Woodland Hills or Arrowhead Juvenile Center. District
    staff provide educational instruction to students. Since the Fall of
    1996, Subpart 2 funds purchased two computers, two printers, and
    accompanying software. A DPS teacher provides students with
    computer-assisted instruction on a half-time basis.

Use of Subpart 2 funds at the three participating facilities is guided
by the terms of the Subpart 2 application, which also serves as the
formal written agreement between the facilities and the district. The
district is the fiscal agent for Subpart 2 funds, and representatives
from each facility sign a separate page of the application acknowledging
their agreement regarding grant funds. The agreement outlines the
services that will be offered to students and identifies key contact
persons by name and phone number.

Students at these facilities receive a multitude of services from
collaborating agencies. Although the county operates the juvenile
detention center (Arrowhead), DPS uses local funds to pay for the
student's academic program; the same is true at Woodland Hills and the
Bethany Crisis Shelter. Local organizations providing staff time and
services to all three participating Subpart 2 facilities include social
services, the county health department, drug and violence prevention
program, the YWCA, Duluth Technical College, homeless advocates, the
Boy's and Girl's Club, a neighborhood recreation club, the Women's
Coalition, a sexual assault center, a mental health agency, and the
county probation department. Moreover, the project coordinator has
established a working relationship with nearly all of the students'
probation officers. A local doctor provides free tatoo removal for
interested Woodland Hills students, many of whom are former gang
members.

Parental involvement in these students' education and treatment varies
widely. Arrowhead Juvenile Center students are allowed weekly visits
from their parents, but at least half of these families do not live in
the Duluth area. Some parents attend individual education plan meetings
or participate in family therapy. According to staff at Woodland Hills
and the Arrowhead Juvenile Center, by the time students enter a
facility, their parents' patience has typically run out, and they are
often relieved to transfer responsibility for their children to the
facility. Once a student is released from a participating facility and
is receiving Subpart 2 monitoring services, the project coordinator
attempts to contact parents on a weekly basis during the first month
after release, then monthly for the remainder of the year.

**Program Services and Activities**

As noted, nearly three-fourths of the district's Subpart 2 funds support
three full-time staff members who (1) conduct computer-based academic
pre- and posttesting of students using Plato 2000, and (2) provide
transition and follow-up services to students released from the
participating facilities. Table 2 displays the number of students, by
facility, who received pre- and post-testing on Plato 2000, and the
number of released students who received transition

**Table 2: Students Receiving Subpart 2 Services, in School Year
1998-99**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Facility**           **Number       **Number         **Number
                         Pretested**    Posttested**     Released**
  ---------------------- -------------- ---------------- -----------------
  Woodland Hills (all 3  137            86               111
  programs)                                              

  Arrowhead Juvenile     168            51               67
  Center                                                 

  **TOTALS**             295            137              178
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

services at the two residential treatment facilities.[^32] Nearly all
released students receive monitoring services except for the few
students who either obtain a general equivalency diploma while at a
facility or enter community college upon release.

Within the first few weeks of a student's admission to a participating
facility, Subpart 2 staff use Plato 2000 to pretest a student in
language arts, mathematics, and reading. Plato 2000 is a modular,
self-paced curriculum with a variety of assessments that allows students
and teachers to monitor a student's progress and identify problem
areas.[^33] Plato 2000 is aligned with the Metropolitan Achievement
Test, a nationally normed standardized assessment given to district
students each April. Local Subpart 2 staff members and the state's
coordinator for neglected or delinquent youths are advocating that state
establish an Internet-based testing program for students in alternative
placements regarding the state basic standards tests. Although most of
these students are required to participate in the state's achievement
testing program, it is often difficult for facility staff to comply with
the rigid testing arrangements; an Internet-based testing program would
allow more alternative students to participate in the state's testing
program.

Based on a student's pretest scores, the software suggests a personal
educational plan that staff revise as needed. Students work on the Plato
curriculum in conjunction with their regular classroom course work ---
Plato is also aligned with the state's basic graduation standards
initiative. Before students are released from the Arrowhead Juvenile
Center or Woodland Hills, they are tested on Plato 2000 to determine
their grade-level gains.[^34] According to the SEA, because the large
majority of delinquent students reside outside of Duluth, the support
from Subpart 2 funds for program elements like technology, is vital.

In addition to the DPS curriculum taught in the classrooms at each
participating facility, students at all three sites receive additional
services to address their social, emotional, and physical needs.

-   Woodland Hills residential students participate in the facility's
    Positive Peer Culture Treatment Model, which has been in use
    since 1972. Students are interviewed upon admission and assigned to
    one of five peer groups. All groups receive instruction in peer
    resolution techniques and violence prevention. Students stay with
    their assigned group throughout the day for academics, recreation,
    and group counseling sessions that focus on problem solving and
    interpersonal skills. Bi-weekly family counseling sessions are also
    conducted.

-   Bethany Crisis Shelter students receive assistance with social and
    independent living skills through their supervised daily living
    routine. They have access to recreational activities, individual
    counseling, discussion groups, and transportation to and from
    appointments during their stays. Homebound instruction is available
    for students not from Duluth or who are confined to the shelter.

-   Arrowhead Juvenile Center treatment students participate in a
    60-hour curriculum, Cognitive Skills, that focuses on behavioral
    alternatives, decision making, and problem solving. The overall
    treatment program stresses restorative justice through
    victim-offender reconciliation. Students also participate in anger
    management training, an independent living skills program, active
    parenting (as appropriate), substance abuse treatment, and for
    females, expanded life choices. Nearly a third of the center's
    students are Native Americans, and these students have regular
    access to an Indian Youth Advocate who assists students and teachers
    with cultural issues.

Transition services for students at Woodland Hills or the Arrowhead
Juvenile Center begin in the last six weeks of a student's stay at a
facility and continue for one year after release.[^35] In the six weeks
prior to release, the district's due process coordinator (located at
Woodland Hills) compiles a comprehensive academic record for the student
and forwards this report to a student's home school. Subpart 2 staff
members then schedule an initial transition meeting at the student's
home school, attended by the student, the Subpart 2 project coordinator,
the school's social worker, school counselor, assistant principal,
facility classroom teacher, facility treatment staff person, and the
student's parent or guardian. The project coordinator and social worker
ask the student questions about the skills he or she learned in
treatment and how he or she will apply these skills in problem
situations at the home school. The facility teacher reports on the
student's academic progress during his or her treatment stay, and the
counselor, with assistance from the other meeting attendees, arranges
the student's school schedule. Also during the initial transition
meeting, parents are asked to sign a release form allowing the Subpart 2
project coordinator to obtain follow-up information about their child
from school records, school staff, probation officers, and directly from
the student. Students who will stay in the Duluth area upon release from
a facility (about 18 percent of residents) may attend their home school
four hours a day during the six-week pre-release transition period and
then return to the facility.

During the first six-weeks following a student's release, the project
coordinator communicates on a weekly basis with the student, assistant
principal, counselor, social worker, and all of the student's teachers
to obtain information on the student's attendance, academic progress,
and behavior. After the six-week post-release transition period, the
project coordinator maintains monthly contact with a released student
for one year. Most of these contacts are by telephone; on a quarterly
basis, the project coordinator travels throughout the state to make
in-person visits with a student at their home school. The project
coordinator contacts a student's home school one month prior to an
on-site visit to arrange meetings with the student, an administrator,
the counselor or special education case manager, teachers, and to review
a student's report card. He also tries to schedule a visit to the
student's home.

Subpart 2 staff began providing these follow-up services to Woodland
Hills treatment students in 1996; Arrowhead Juvenile Center students
first received this service in April 1998. Most released students
receive follow-up services; those that do not include students who
receive a general equivalency diploma during their residential stays,
students who will attend a community college, or Woodland Hills students
who are administratively discharged due to court order, parental
consent, or because a student is not adhering to the treatment program.
The project coordinator provides these monitoring services to
approximately 235 students each year, and maintains an Access data base
that documents the educational and employment status of each student.

**Program Evaluation** **and Recommendations for Improvement**

The Duluth Public School's Subpart 2 program is currently in its fourth
year of operation, and staff from the project, facilities, the district,
and the state educational agency believe the project is successful. Many
of the individuals we interviewed credit the project coordinator's
dedication to the students as an important factor. "If the project
coordinator was not there for the students, they would drop out (after
release) and most people wouldn't know." Staff from students' home
schools have also noted that this is the only program they know of where
someone monitors returning students at their home schools, stating that
students enjoy the follow-up, knowing someone "really cares and is
looking out for them." Moreover, home school staff have an opportunity
to view formerly delinquent students in a positive manner.

The project's success is substantiated by data the Subpart 2 staff
collect to measure the attainment of three central project objectives:

-   Seventy percent of students will progress academically above their
    current level in math, language arts, and reading.

-   Ninety-five percent of Duluth-area delinquent students will move
    into appropriate school settings on a part-time basis at least six
    weeks prior to release from a treatment program.

-   A minimum of 70 percent of students who move into a school program
    will remain in that program for one year and receive monthly
    monitoring assistance.

To evaluate progress on these objectives, staff collect for each student
data on daily classroom work while in treatment, pre- and post-test
Plato 2000 scores, attendance, behavior reports, grades at the home
school, and anecdotal comments from students, parents, case manager,
school administrators and staff.

In the Fall of 1998, all 15 Minnesota Subpart 2 grantees completed a
three-year evaluation of their activities.^1^[^36] The state educational
agency submitted this report to the U.S. Department of Education in
January 1999. According to the Duluth evaluation, between September 1995
and June 1998, a total of 512 students returned to their home schools,
of whom 365 (71 percent) were either enrolled in school, graduated, or
working toward a general equivalency diploma. A total of 674 students
used the Plato 2000 education system. In 1996-97, 75 percent of Woodland
Hills ninth graders passed the state basic standards test in reading and
43 percent passed the math portion of the test. In 1997-98, 72 percent
of tenth grade Woodland Hills students passed the reading portion of the
basic standards test and 63 percent passed the math portion.

When asked to identify impediments to a more successful program, the
project coordinator and the principal of the residential programs both
agreed that more people, at all levels, are needed to assist students
(i.e., probation officers, social workers, staff members at a students'
home school). One employee said, "We are always working on better
communication among the staff members." Overall, staff members believe
the program is working well and had a hard time finding any faults. They
were highly complimentary of Minnesota's Title I coordinator and the
assistance he is always willing to provide. "He is very conscientious
and student-centered," one staff member said. The district's Title I
coordinator also remarked that the state coordinator "is an excellent
resource for us."

Recommendations for improving the Subpart 2 program focused on
transition and follow-up and funding issues. The district's Title I
coordinator suggests maintaining the requirement that a portion of Title
I funds be earmarked for neglected and delinquent youth. "Too often
non-targeted money goes into the general fund," she said. She hopes the
program will not become part of a block grant. The principal of the
residential programs stated that additional funds could be used to
provide transition services for neglected students and to hire
additional staff to monitor students. The state Title I neglected or
delinquent coordinator made several suggestions:

\(1\) encourage more collaboration between Title I and federal juvenile
justice programs (i.e. congruent program goals), (2) strengthen the
statute's definition of transition because this activity is critical for
student's success, (3) add funding for monitoring and follow-up services
for more students, and (4) clarify and strengthen the statute's
definition of follow-up services.

**Lincoln Public School District**

**Lincoln, Nebraska**

Lincoln is the capital of and second largest city in Nebraska (after
Omaha), with a population of approximately 209,000. Government is the
city's biggest employer, with city, county, state, and federal offices
located there. Major private industries include printing, publishing and
insurance. The median household income is \$51,900; the unemployment
rate is consistently between two and three percent.

The Lincoln Public School (LPS) district operates a total of 51 schools:
36 elementary, 10 middle, and five high schools. The district serves
approximately 31,000 students in grades pre-kindergarten ‑ 12 (87
percent white, five percent African American, four percent Asian
American, three percent Hispanic, and one percent Native American).
Lincoln is a refugee resettlement community, with 1,000 of the
district's students enrolled in an English as a Second Language (ESL)
program, representing more than 30 different languages. Twenty‑six
percent of district students participate in the free and reduced-price
lunch program.

In school year 1998‑99, the Nebraska Department of Education (NDE)
distributed \$175,348 in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds, on a formula
basis, to two eligible school districts: Omaha public schools and LPS.
Eligibility for Subpart 2 funds in prior years required districts to
house at least 15 percent of Nebraska's total delinquent student
population residing in local correctional facilities during the previous
year's October caseload count. Nebraska's Title I Part D Committee of
Practitioners established this criterion to ensure that Subpart 2 funds
supported districts with high percentages of delinquent youth, as
required by federal law. However, after the district lost Subpart 2
funding in 1996‑97 because the district's population of delinquent youth
fell below the 15 percent level, the Committee of Practitioners voted to
lower the eligibility criterion to 10 percent to ensure that the
district received funding each year.

With the exception of 1996‑97, LPS has received a Subpart 2 grant every
year since they became available. For 1998‑99, the district received
\$40,425 in program funds and allocated the total amount, as it does
every year, to the educational program at the Lancaster County Attention
Center, the only county‑operated, juvenile detention center in the
district.[^37] The center used its money to fund a new, full‑time
program specialist position with a focus on basic academic and life
skills (\$28,812) and to purchase instructional materials and office
supplies (\$11,613).

This report provides a detailed description of the district's activities
under the Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 program. We collected information
about the program from three sources: (1) a telephone interview with the
Nebraska Title I administrator, (2) a two‑day site visit to the Lincoln
district in April 1999, and (3) a review of program documentation,
including the district's application for Subpart 2 funds, state and
local Subpart 2 program evaluation reports, and the formal agreement
between the district and the Lancaster County Attention Center. During
our visit to LPS, we interviewed the district's federal programs
director and administrative assistant, as well as the Title I evaluator.
We also visited one of the Attention Center's two campuses in Lincoln,
and spoke with the director of education, two academic teachers, and the
Subpart 2 funded program specialist.

**Program Goals and Design**

The goals and design of Subpart 2 programs in Nebraska are largely the
responsibility of local districts and facilities. The Nebraska
Department of Education (NDE) strongly supports the practice of
site‑based management and therefore does not impose requirements beyond
those set forth in federal law.[^38] While there is no statewide
strategy for the design of Subpart 2 programs specifically, the state
has been instrumental in establishing general recommendations for the
development and operation of educational programs for neglected and
delinquent youth in Nebraska. For instance, in response to the 1994
reauthorization's focus on the transition of neglected and delinquent
youth, the NDE initiated a longitudinal study of current transition
procedures and outcomes. While the state never completed the study, due
to limited funding, it became the impetus for the development, in 1997,
of a multi‑agency task force,[^39] led by a state senator and the Title
I, Part D state administrator, "to develop recommendations for policies,
practices, and procedures for the education of children and youth who
are wards of the court or the state." In January 1999, the task force
produced a report presenting a model protocol for transition, which they
disseminated across the state.[^40]

More recently, the task force has explored the plausibility of using the
Portable Assisted Study Sequence (PASS) program for the education of
neglected and delinquent youth. California originally developed the PASS
program as a semi‑independent study program for middle and high school
migrant students, who, because of their movement from school to school,
needed an opportunity to earn course credits toward high school
graduation that would be accepted by schools throughout the state. At
least 30 other states have adopted the PASS program, including Nebraska,
and its use is expanding beyond migrant students to other students in
temporary placements. In fact, the Omaha district has begun to use their
Subpart 2 allocation to support the PASS program.

Historically, the education director of the Lancaster County Attention
Center determines the goals and design of the educational program, with
consultation from the district office. Currently, the two main goals of
the center's educational program are to (1) improve the educational
achievement of the students and (2) develop and implement a transition
program to assist residents to develop "life skills" that will enhance
their potential for success in the regular school environment, the
community, and employment. The center uses its Subpart 2 funds to
support both goals, the first through the purchase of instructional
materials, and the second through paying the salary for a full‑time life
skills program specialist.

The educational program director based his decision to use Subpart 2
funds to support these two goals on a belief that programs rooted in
basic academic skills and career and life skills are most effective with
this student population: "The kids we serve here are those who have not
been successful in school. They come in at all different \[academic\]
levels and they are typically two to three grade levels behind their
peers." Therefore, an individual, self‑paced instructional program
emphasizing basic skills in English, math and social studies seemed
appropriate.

Last year, the education director used Subpart 2 funds to purchase 10
computers and computer software. In his experience, traditional
instructional strategies and pencil and paper materials alone do not
work well with his students. He believes that educational programs for
delinquent youth should incorporate computer technology and software, in
conjunction with more traditional materials, in order to address
different learning styles, maintain youth's motivation and interest, and
keep pace with future trends in education. In addition, Internet access
provides youth with the opportunity to enroll in college correspondence
courses if they complete their high school credits while detained.

**Students and Student Selection**

The Attention Center serves residents of Lancaster County who are under
18 years of age and (1) temporarily detained while awaiting
adjudication, or (2) adjudicated and ordered by the court to serve a
specified period of time. The center has two campuses located within
district boundaries; one campus is more secure and houses more serious
offenders, and the other houses less serious offenders. The education
program is designed to serve all youth in residence at the two center
campuses.

The center admits more than 1,000 youth each year. However, this total
counts twice

youth who were admitted more than once within a year. Moreover,
approximately 20 percent of juveniles admitted are released within the
first 24 hours. Therefore, the number of individual students served by
the educational program is considerably smaller than the number of
admissions. Last year, 386 youth participated in the educational
program. Currently, the average daily student population ranges from 45
to 62 students. The age of the students ranges from 12 to 18 years, with
an average age of 15.5 years. Approximately 70 percent of the center's
residents are males. In comparison to the district's overall student
population, students at the Attention Center are more likely to be
minority males, from low‑income families, and eligible for special
education programs.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

Lancaster County uses state funding to contract with LPS to provide a
year-round education program at the Attention Center.[^41] The center's
education director and teachers are all employees of the district. The
district's administrative assistant for federal programs is responsible
for coordinating the Subpart 2 program at the district level. Her role
in this capacity is limited to periodic informal meetings with the
center's educational director, an annual meeting to amend the terms of
the formal Subpart 2 agreement (if necessary) for the next year, and
coordination of the yearly evaluation of Subpart 2 programs required by
the state. She reported spending an average of one to two hours per week
administering the Subpart 2 program.

The only staff member at the Center supported by Subpart 2 funds is the
new life skills program specialist, who allocates 100 percent of his
time to developing and implementing the curriculum for the life skills
component of the educational program. The academic component of the
educational program, which receives Subpart 2 support only through the
purchase of instructional materials, employs five certified teachers, a
paraprofessional, and a secretary. Two teachers and the secretary
operate the educational program at the more secure campus downtown, and
the remaining staff provide instruction on the second campus. In
addition to the education staff, three to four security guards patrol
the classroom floor at all times during the school day.

As district employees, teachers must attend all districtwide teacher
meetings and district-mandated training. One training session required
of all district teachers is Individual Teacher Decision-Making (IDM),
which is based on Madeline Hunter's clinical supervision model. Teachers
at the center also participate in the Juvenile Jail Standards Program,
which consists of four to six hours of additional training each year.
The center's teachers find it difficult to participate in elective
training opportunities offered by the district because of a shortage of
substitute teachers in the district.[^42]

A cooperative agreement between the center and the district requires
teachers to maintain a working relationship with the youth's home
school[^43] to ensure the comparability of the center's education
program with LPS's education programs. Both of the teachers we
interviewed formerly taught at district high schools and therefore have
close working relationships with many of the district high school
teachers. These teachers regularly check with students' home schools to
find out if they will accept work and credits students complete at the
center. Youth attending school regularly prior to being detained
sometimes prefer to continue working on their home school assignments so
that they can keep up with their classes. In these situations, the
student's parents must arrange for the home teacher to prepare
assignments and the parents are responsible for bringing the assignments
and materials to the center.

Although coordination between the district and the center works well
with respect to entering students, there is no comprehensive program in
place to help a student move back into the regular school. While center
teachers send an exit letter to the student's parents and home school,
they rely on staff at the home school to ensure that the student is
appropriately placed and that the transition is successful. However,
center teachers believe that their former students probably do not
receive the attention required to ensure a successful transition because
the home school counselors and teachers are already overburdened. Center
teachers would like to see transition classrooms established at each
district school, as a way of improving the re-entry process.

The educational director at the center would also like to see a better
approach to transition, whereby center staff, probation and parole
officers, and staff members from students' home schools are all involved
in ensuring a successful transition. However, he recognizes that lack of
time and limited resources are barriers to this vision. Although he has
read the state's model protocol for transition, he believes it pays
inadequate attention to working within the constraints of the juvenile
justice system.

As an initial step in developing a more formal re-entry system, the
educational director assigned one of the teachers to serve as a
'tracking coordinator' one day a week. Beginning in September of 1998,
this teacher collected information on each student's first placement
after being released from the center. However, since most students have
multiple placements once they enter the juvenile justice system, the
information generated is quite limited. The education director would
like to hire someone full time to track exiting students, but current
resource levels are inadequate to support such a position.

**Program Services and Activities**

As noted earlier, Subpart 2 funds support two basic services at the
center; instructional materials used in the facility's academic program,
and a full-time specialist to implement a life skills program. The main
goal of the life skills component, which is entirely funded by Subpart
2, is "to expose the kids to alternative ways of thinking and behaving."
The program consists of a one-hour "Coping Skills" group that convenes
two nights a week at each campus, with periodic weekend groups and
activities. The program targets the development of communication,
problem-solving, emotional management, and other basic life skills, and
explores topics such as goal setting, identifying resources, developing
a plan, and managing anger.

As this is the first year of the program, the life skills program
specialist is still in the process of reviewing available curriculum in
an attempt to design a structured, yet fluid, program. Toward that end,
the facility purchased the Philip Roy Life Skills curriculum, a series
of lessons that focus on social issues, employability, and consumer
skills. Specific lessons include "Apartment Seeking" and "How To Apply
for a Bank Account." One advantage of this curriculum is that each
lesson is self-contained, a useful feature when students are constantly
moving in and out of the program. Another means he uses to overcome
student mobility and provide a structured program is to build strong
cooperative student groups and to rely on more experienced students to
help newer students adjust to the group.

The specialist noted that a major disadvantage of this curriculum is
that some of the content and strategies presented are too advanced for
his students, who are at a basic level of academic functioning.
Consequently, he modifies some of the lessons to better fit the specific
needs of his students. In addition to Philip Roy's curriculum, the
center has purchased a 12-hour curriculum plus video[^44] on how to
survive in the regular school setting, which the program specialist has
not yet incorporated. The specialist has also adapted information from
*Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles and Guidelines for
Practice* (Dunst, Trivette, and Deal, 1988) and Stephen Covey's (1990)
*Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,* to design lessons for his
program.

As an undergraduate, the program specialist received training in the
Reggio Emilia approach to education, which emphasizes the responsibility
of the entire community in educating the child. The program specialist
would like to see that type of approach in place at the center and hopes
to somehow resolve the philosophical division between the educational
staff at the center, who focus on helping the students achieve, and the
rest of the staff, who primarily focus on disciplining the students. In
his opinion, all of the center's staff need to recognize their role and
responsibility in educating residents, and to work toward a more
"seamless" union of education and safety and security staff.

In addition to developing a life skills curricula, the specialist spends
time talking with individuals at agencies in the community to identify
guest speakers. "I try to talk to folks who can relate to this
population. I want to expose the kids to folks like themselves who have
changed," he said. So far this year, he has brought in students from the
local university and a probation officer to speak with the residents;
arranged for Campus Life (a Christian program) to conduct a two-hour
spiritual program; established ties to the Lincoln Action Program (a
community action agency), which serves as an information resource; and
is working with the Department of Health to present a drug education
program. "I spend a lot of time begging and trading for services," he
said. Many residents also participate in Project Youth, a
community-based recreation program that is offered to residents at the
detention center. "This is someone else from the outside to remind them
of what they are missing."

The academic component of the center's program, which Subpart 2 supports
through the purchase of materials, consists of four, hour‑long, academic
periods daily ( math, English, social studies, and an individual study
hour), and a one‑hour study period monitored by the life skills program
specialist and an intern from the University of Nebraska. Instruction is
individual, allowing each student to work at his or her own academic
level and pace. A general equivalency diploma program is also available
to students, and arrangements are in place with Southeast Community
College to provide on-site testing.

When district students enter the program, teachers review their prior
academic record to determine their levels of academic achievement. If a
student is from another district or state, staff members contact the
student's home school to obtain the student's records or ask parents or
guardians to provide the information. In most cases, youth who come to
the center have not attended school regularly prior to their detainment.
Teachers administer assessments in math and English for these students
and assign them individual study packets appropriate to their level of
achievement. The study packets, based on the district's regular
curriculum, were originally developed for use at the district's
alternative high school.

Only about five percent of instruction at the center is computer-based.
However, through the purchase of basic skills software with Subpart 2
funds, the education director is working to build a greater capacity for
computerized instruction. Currently, students must earn the privilege of
working on computers by completing assignments and demonstrating good
behavior. Students now use computers primarily for researching
information and writing papers. Students must be closely monitored while
using the Internet and teachers are working on establishing an
electronic library with pre-screened pages that the students may use to
conduct research on the Internet.

The center's education program has a special education service agreement
with the district, whereby the district will provide a special education
teacher to work with the student at the center for up to one hour per
day, two to three times per week, depending upon the individual
education program and the availability of trained staff. While the
center did make use of this service once during the past year, teachers
reported that in most cases, they are able to meet the needs of special
education students themselves. Moreover, they believe that the special
education students actually benefit more by not being singled out for
special instruction.

Teachers indicated that they struggle to provide adequate services for
students who are low functioning (i.e., students who are developmentally
delayed in terms of their social, cognitive, and educational
development). As a preliminary attempt to better meet the needs of these
students, the staff have purchased first, second, and third grade
instructional materials. They have also conferred with a staff member at
the Behavior Skills Program (a within-district private alternative
school), who subsequently came over to work with a student. However,
coordinating with other district programs to provide services for
students at the center is reportedly difficult because the teachers
never know how long a student will reside at the center. Although the
education agreement between LPS and the Attention Center states that
"all interventions available to at-risk students in the district become
part of the Attention Center education program," the teachers, education
director, and district administrative assistant for federal programs all
acknowledged that, to date, there has been no coordination with district
at-risk programs.[^45]

The education director anticipates numerous changes in the education
program in the next couple of years, particularly when a new facility
will be built. The layout of the educational space at the new facility
will permit the expansion of the program. The education director
reported that he will continue to build the technology- and
computer-based component of the program and that he is looking into the
possibility of incorporating the PASS program, as recommended by the
state. In addition, the district administrative assistant for federal
programs is encouraging center teachers to attend a state-funded
training in a new instructional strategy entitled High Scope, an
instructional model for adolescents (out of Ypsilanti, MI) based on the
Perry Preschool Model that emphasizes student choice and responsibility.
The administrative assistant for federal programs believes that this
model might provide teachers with another useful strategy in working
with detention center students.

**Program Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvement**

The Lincoln district first attempted to conduct a three-year evaluation
of the program in 1996-97. They failed to complete the evaluation due to
the loss of Subpart 2 funding that year, the lack of guidelines from the
state regarding Subpart 2 evaluations, and limited data. The district's
Title I evaluator completed the first formal evaluation of the education
program at the Lancaster County Attention Center for the 1997‑1998
school year. The evaluator collected (1) demographic information through
the district's database for those students who previously attended
Lincoln Public Schools^1^[^46] and (2) data on academic progress (i.e.,
study packets completed and credits earned) from records kept by the
center's education staff and submitted to the district's coordinator
each month. The results of the evaluation revealed the following:

-   Approximately 46 percent of the youth detained were of high school
    age.

-   Eighty-eight percent (306 out of 347) of youth detained at the
    center successfully completed one or more study packets.

-   Fifty-two percent of detainees in grades 9‑12 earned credit toward
    high school graduation, with an average of five credits per student.

As this was the first evaluation of the program, the district will use
these data as a baseline against which to measure future progress.

Program staff use different indicators to informally assess program
effectiveness. For many students in the center, the only school credits
they have earned are earned while detained, leading teachers to conclude
that they are making a difference. According to these teachers, the
students thrive on individual attention and a safe structured
environment. Additionally, they respond well to incentives, such as
having their name on the board when they earn credit.

The district has not formally evaluated the new life skills training
program. The district's Title I evaluator envisions working with the
life skills program specialist to develop the criteria for conducting a
formative evaluation. This process will start with the identification of
reasonable indicators of success for students participating in the life
skills program. The program specialist identified two "products" that he
strives to attain for each student through the life skills component.
The first is upward mobility through a structured program whereby
residents earn privileges by learning and abiding by the center rules,
and move through four levels of achievement: orientation, honors,
seniors, and masters. Recently, approximately 10 residents advanced to
the masters level, an accomplishment the program specialist attributes
to the life skills program.

The second product is increased awareness of negative and positive
behaviors. The program specialist judges progress in this area by
watching for changes in a youth's thought process, behavior, and
actions. He looks for behavior that shows that residents are thinking
about the group as a whole through such actions as helping out a peer.
The program specialist also conducts more formal evaluation (i.e.,
tests) as students complete lessons in the life skills component.

The district would like to see long-term state and federal involvement
in developing a transition plan that addresses the real problems in
detention centers, such as the brief stays of many youth and resource
shortages. They believe basing allocations on a one-day count of youth
who will reside in an institution for at least 30 days results in
dramatically inadequate funding. District staff believe Subpart 2
funding should be based on the total number of adjudicated youth, not
only on those who reside in an institution. They report that many youth
obtain remedial and support services through community‑based centers and
believe that if the state or federal government provided greater funding
for these youth, the number who eventually enter a residential program
might decrease over time.

District administrators also recognize a need for increased national
collaboration. They reported that the last national conference on Title
I, Part D convened in 1992, and that, in light of statutory and
programmatic changes since then, it would be useful to know how
officials in other states are using their Subpart 2 funds. District
staff members also would like to have a consultant at the U.S.
Department of Education, with whom they could discuss such issues as
funds allocation. Finally, district employees expressed an interest in
federally sponsored training on administering and evaluating Subpart 2
programs.

**San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District**

**San Marcos, Texas**

San Marcos is the largest city in Hays County, Texas, with a population
of approximately 39,200 (roughly 47 percent white, 46 percent Hispanic,
six percent African American, and one percent of other ethnic origin).
It is located directly in the center of the Austin-San Antonio corridor,
an area with one of the most rapidly expanding regional economies in the
nation. The median family income in San Marcos is \$42,831, and the rate
of unemployment is 3.3 percent. Major employers in the area include
Southwest Texas State University and the San Marcos Consolidated
Independent School District (CISD).

The San Marcos CISD has one high school (grades 9 -- 12), two junior
high schools (grades 7 and 8), one intermediate school (grades 5 and 6),
four elementary schools (grades kindergarten - 4), one pre-kindergarten
center, and an alternative discipline program for students in grades
5-12. The district also operates three other alternative educational
programs: (1) the PRIDE Academic Center, an alternative high school on
the grounds of the regular high school, (2) the Youth Shelter Classroom,
an instructional program located in district administrative offices for
homeless youth who reside at the greater San Marcos Youth Shelter, and
(3) an education program for residents of the Hays County Juvenile
Detention Center. The district currently serves a total of 6,863
students (61 percent Hispanic, 33 percent white, five percent African
American, and one percent other). Forty-six percent of the district's
school-aged children live in families with incomes below the poverty
level.

In school year 1998-99, the San Marcos CISD allocated approximately
\$162,000 in program funding[^47] to provide (1) a dropout prevention
program at the high school (\$133,783), (2) tutoring programs at the
district's two junior high schools (\$13,000), (3) instructional
materials and supplies, and staff development at the three
district-operated alternative educational programs (\$4,200), and (4)
academic supplies at a private residential psychiatric facility for
adolescents (\$7,579), about 44 percent of whom are adjudicated youth
who, along with the residents of the county juvenile detention center,
generate the district's Subpart 2 funding totals.

This report presents the results of our visit to the San Marcos CISD in
late March 1999 to obtain descriptive information on district activities
under the Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 program. We collected data about
the program through an interview with the state education agency Title
I, Part D Coordinator, a visit to the San Marcos CISD, and review of
program documentation. Individuals we interviewed in San Marcos included
the district's Title I coordinator, special populations director, and
assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction; the principals
of the alternative high school and both junior high schools; the
assistant principal and two Subpart 2-funded teachers of the regular
high school; and the educational coordinator of the programs at the
detention center and Youth Shelter Classroom.

**Program Goals and Design**

The primary goal of the Subpart 2 program, according to the district's
Title I coordinator, is to help high school and junior high school
students pass the state competency exam, the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS). The TAAS measures student mastery of the
statewide curriculum (the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills \[TEKS\])
in mathematics and reading in grades 3, 8, and exit level; in writing in
grades 4, 8, and exit level; and in social studies and science in grade
8. "Satisfactory performance" on the TAAS exit level tests is required
for a high school diploma. The statewide assessment program includes the
TAAS test and end-of-course examinations in four high school courses
tied to the Texas requirements. Five years ago, the assistant
superintendent for curriculum and instruction helped establish benchmark
measurements for students in grades kindergarten - 8 to assess mastery
of the curricula at regular intervals between the state mandated TAAS
and end-of-course tests. The district now tests students at all grade
levels on TEKS benchmarks every six weeks, with other benchmark
assessments taken weekly or bimonthly.

The district operates a comprehensive assessment, coordination, and
planning process within the central office, as well as at individual
schools, that provides administrators with a good understanding of
individual student performance and remedial needs. The assessment
process allows administrators to dissagregate TAAS scores by teacher,
school, test taken, student ethnicity, and the student's socioeconomic
status (i.e, whether the student is from an economically disadvantaged
home). Administrators initially reviewed these data to identify
elementary students who failed the TAAS, and to target part of their
Title I, Part A allocation to provide these students with instruction
from a reading specialist, and before- and after-school tutorial help.
The elementary school program operates through campus coordination teams
that review the total welfare of the child, including academic data,
school behavior, medical and emotional needs, and family support, before
prescribing specific instructional practices and interventions.
According to district staff, the Title I, Part A coordination of
services and student review initiative produced "a tremendous up surge
in TAAS scores."

In light of the success of the elementary school effort, district
administrators decided to use Subpart 2 funds to support similar
programs for junior high and high school students, which, in combination
with existing initiatives, would establish a continuum of supplementary
instruction for students at all grade levels. An assistant
superintendent said "It is a faulty assumption that if students get help
at the elementary level with reading problems they will not need help
later." At the junior high and high schools, campus improvement teams
decide the specifics of how Subpart 2 program funds will be used to
support the broader districtwide goal of improved TAAS scores. The high
school team used program funds to implement a dropout prevention program
called Strike Zone (Striving to Recover Idealism, Knowledge, and
Enthusiasm) that targets a select group of highly at-risk students in
the tenth grade. The two junior high schools decided to establish
after-school tutoring programs for students who have not passed the
TAAS. These programs, initiated in March 1998, form the core of the
district's Subpart 2 program.

The junior high tutoring program and the Strike Zone program build upon
and reinforce the high school's focus on assisting ninth-grade students
to complete the core academic program required by the TEKS. The high
school has implemented a school-within-a-school program, called the
Ninth Grade Center, that provides a variety of services to assist all
ninth grade students complete the core academic program. All ninth
graders take core academic subjects (i.e., English, mathematics, science
and social studies) at the center, and elective classes in other areas
of the school. The principal noted that students are more likely to
graduate from high school if they obtain four core credits in ninth
grade and four additional core credits in tenth grade. The Ninth Grade
Center serves approximately 500 students each year, 180 of whom have
failed the ninth grade at least once, and 30-40 of whom are nonreaders.

Thus, the district designed the Subpart 2 program to be an important
component of the district's overall effort to assist students at all
grade levels to master the statewide curriculum and to pass the TAAS. At
the elementary school level, the district uses Title I, Part A funding
to provide reading and math instruction and tutoring to targeted
students; the junior high schools use Part D funds to provide tutoring
services for students identified as in danger of failing the TAAS; all
ninth grade students obtain assistance completing the core curriculum
requirements through a school-within-a-school; and Part D funds allow
the district to help entering tenth grade students who remain in danger
of failing the TAAS. Finally, some Part D funds enable the alternative
high school (PRIDE) to purchase computer hardware and software to
support the education of eleventh and twelfth grade students who believe
they are better served in an alternative setting.

The PRIDE Center, the Juvenile Detention Center, and the Youth Shelter
Classroom based their funding decisions on needs identified in their
1998-99 campus improvement plans. The Youth Shelter Classroom uses these
materials to support their dropout prevention efforts, while materials
purchased with Subpart 2 funds at the Juvenile Detention Center and the
San Marcos Treatment Center support their efforts at improving academic
achievement.

**Students and Student Selection**

Table 1 identifies the seven recipients of Subpart 2 funds, the number
of males and females served through each program, and the criteria used
to select students for participation.

**Table 1: Number of Students Served and Selection Criteria, by School
or Facility**

+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| **Recipient**       | **Number of       | **Target Population**     |
|                     | Students Served** |                           |
+=====================+===================+===========================+
| San Marcos High     | 65 (35 females,   | Tenth graders with one or |
| School              | 30 males)         | no credits, high risk of  |
|                     |                   | dropping out, academic    |
|                     |                   | failure, low attendance,  |
|                     |                   | and committed to          |
|                     |                   | participation             |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Goodnight Junior    | 98 (54 females ,  | Failed all sections on    |
| High School         | 44 males)         | TAAS in reading and math  |
|                     |                   | for last two or three     |
|                     |                   | years                     |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Miller Junior High  | 77 ( 33 female,   | Close to passing TAAS,    |
| School              | 44 males)         | barely passing district   |
|                     |                   | benchmarks                |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Private treatment   | 73 (18 females,   | All 12-17- year-old       |
| center              | 55 males)         | adjudicated students      |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| PRIDE Academic      | 76 (42 females,   | All students:             |
| Center              | 34 males)         | 16-20-year-olds who       |
|                     |                   | believe they are better   |
| (Alternative high   |                   | served in an alternative  |
| school)             |                   | setting; at-risk of       |
|                     |                   | dropping out and academic |
|                     |                   | failure                   |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Youth Shelter       | 99 (51 females,   | All students: homeless    |
| Classroom           | 48 boys)          | 6-18-year-olds, placed by |
|                     |                   | the courts or other       |
|                     |                   | social service agency.    |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+
| Hays County         | 67 males          | All students:             |
|                     |                   | 12-17-year-old            |
| Juvenile Detention  |                   | adjudicated males         |
| Center              |                   |                           |
+---------------------+-------------------+---------------------------+

A total of 555 students receive program services; 322 males (58 percent)
and 233 females (42 percent). Included in this total are all 242
students enrolled in one of the three alternative education programs
operated by the district, who benefit from the use of instructional
materials purchased with program funding, and 73 students residing at
the private treatment center (44 percent), selected for participation
because of their status as adjudicated youth. A total of 175 junior high
school students (17 percent), and 65 tenth grade students (14 percent)
at San Marcos High School participated in program activities.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

We briefly describe below, for each of the seven schools or facilities
that participate in the San Marcos CISD Subpart 2 program, the amount of
funding received in the last school year, and the principal uses of
program funds. We discuss the junior high and high school programs in
greater detail in the next section of this report (programs services and
activities).

-   **San Marcos High School** used \$133,783 in program funds to
    operate Strike Zone, a dropout prevention program for 65 at-risk
    students who have made a commitment to stay in school. Strike Zone
    is a pull-out program in which students receive individual
    instruction in math and language arts. Subpart 2 funds pay for the
    salaries of one math teacher, one reading and language arts teacher,
    staff development, and instructional supplies.

-   **Goodnight Junior High School** expended \$6,500 in program funds
    to operate an after-school tutoring program for 98 students (18
    percent of total enrolled) who failed the TAAS. A total of 21
    teachers volunteered to participate as tutors in the last year, six
    of whom serve as substitutes for any of the other 15 regular
    teachers and tutors. Program funds allow the school to pay each
    tutor \$20 per hour to instruct students for 30 minutes per day,
    three days each week, on TAAS objectives and test-taking strategies.

-   **Miller Junior High School** used its \$6,500 in program funds to
    operate a similar after-school tutoring program for 77 students (15
    percent of total enrolled) who are close to passing the TAAS. Eight
    teachers provide one hour of instruction three days each week. The
    school uses Subpart 2 funds to pay these teachers \$20 per hour and
    to provide transportation home to participating students. The
    previous year (its first year of participation), the school used
    Subpart 2 funds to purchase Accelerated Reader[^48], a
    computer-assisted program for use by all students for the purpose of
    academic improvement.

-   **The San Marcos Treatment Center** is a private psychiatric
    residential facility for adolescents, approximately 44 percent of
    whom are adjudicated youth. The center operates a private school
    (grades 6--12) on the center campus that offers year-round programs
    in regular academic classroom work, special education, general
    equivalency diploma preparation and completion, and vocational
    training and work experiences. The center used \$7,579 in Subpart 2
    money to purchase academic supplies for the school under the terms
    of a cooperative agreement with the district.

-   **PRIDE Academic Center**, an alternative high school located on the
    grounds of the San Marcos High School, serves 76 at-risk students in
    grades 11-12 who choose an alternative setting for their education.
    The center is staffed by a principal and five certified teachers
    (math, science, social studies, language arts, and vocational and
    elective arts) and offers two, four-hour academic sessions daily for
    students. Academic instruction at PRIDE is individual and frequently
    computer-based. The center used Subpart 2 funding of \$1,500 to
    purchase computer software and other supplies.

-   **The Youth Shelter Classroom** is an alternative education program
    operated by the school district for 99 residents of the Greater San
    Marcos Youth Shelter for homeless children. The Youth Shelter
    Classroom, located in the district's administrative offices,
    provides computer-assisted instruction in all academic subjects from
    first to twelfth grade. The district supplies one teacher, who is
    certified in both special education and bilingual education. The
    Greater San Marcos Youth Council pays for a case manager. The
    program expended \$1,700 in Subpart 2 funding to purchase computer
    software.

-   **The Hays County Juvenile Detention Center** houses 67 adjudicated
    boys, aged 12‑17. The educational program operated by the district
    at the detention center self-paced and consists of three hours of
    academic classes each day. Classes are conducted in two portable
    classroom buildings located on the center campus within the Hays
    County Jail. Two certified teachers (employed by the district)
    provide individual and computer-assisted instruction in math,
    language arts, social studies, and science. The center used \$500 of
    Subpart 2 funds to purchase supplies and another \$500 to support
    staff development.

The district Title I coordinator oversees all Subpart 2 activities;
building-level principals are responsible for the program on their
campuses. An assistant superintendent said "Subpart 2 is one of the
spokes of the wheel." The district coordinates its Subpart 2 program
with these federal programs: Title I, Part A, migrant, Eisenhower (Title
II), Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Title VI. For example, the juvenile
detention center teachers attended training funded from Title II.
District coordination of programs was helped by the superintendent's
recent reorganization of the central office --- all federal programs are
now under a single special populations department. District personnel
spoke highly of this change, "Now everyone is at the same table, looking
at all the data from the various programs. There is a high level of
coordination," one staff member said.

Coordination is further enhanced through regular meetings of district
and school and facility employees. Weekly, each central office program
administrator visits two school campuses to talk informally with
students and staff and to observe classrooms. Every two weeks program
administrators meet with the assistant superintendent for curriculum and
instruction and every two months they meet with the superintendent. The
assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction and the director
of personnel meet with the superintendent weekly. Additionally,
principals meet bimonthly with the superintendent.

Although the county operates the juvenile detention center, the district
pays for the academic program out of local funds, and teachers at the
center are district employees. There are informal coordination efforts
between the center's education program and the students' home schools.
(Most of the students come from other districts, several from other
states.) The secretary serves as the liaison and contacts the home
schools to obtain records when students transfer into the center; she
also notifies the schools when students are soon to return to their home
schools. The secretary and the teachers serve as advocates for the boys
with their home schools. "We stay in very close contact with the home
schools," one said.

Use of Subpart 2 funds by the San Marcos Treatment Center is guided by
the terms of a formal written agreement between the center, whose
residents help generate district funding through the Subpart 2 program,
and the San Marcos district. The agreement requires the center to adhere
to statutory requirements governing locally operated facility
participation in the program (e.g., coordinate with other federally
funded programs, notify the local school of youths' need for special
education services, provide transition assistance). This agreement also
identifies the amount of funding the center will receive and specifies
that the center use these resources for "educational materials" for
"students eligible to participate in the Title I, Part D program." The
district, as fiscal agent for the Subpart 2 money, asks the San Marcos
Treatment Center (and the other alternative programs that use their
money for materials\-- Hays County Juvenile Detention Center, PRIDE
Center, and Youth Shelter) for a list of items they want the district to
purchase with the funds. The district then buys and distributes the
requested items.

**Program Services and Activities**

As noted, Subpart 2 funds primarily support academic services to
selected students at the two junior high schools and at the high
school.[^49] At the junior high schools, targeted students receive
instruction in test-taking strategies and TAAS objectives three days a
week after school. At Goodnight Junior High School, each of the fifteen
teachers who volunteer to participate is responsible for instruction on
one TAAS objective, and the students rotate (through the week) among the
teachers. Class size for these 30-minute sessions is limited to eight
students who are matched by skills and age.

Last year the Goodnight principal used school funds to purchase two
compact disc player 'boom-boxes,' which were used as incentives for
students to achieve a 90 percent attendance rate in the after-school
program. A random drawing was held at the end of the year for eligible
students. All students who participated were rewarded with a pizza
party. This year, the principal instituted a performance-based incentive
program. Each day teachers give students who 'work well' a coupon. At
the end of the week, all coupons (with the student's names) are put in
jar for a drawing. Prizes are primarily coupons from fast-food
restaurants or movie passes. According to the principal, "These students
need extrinsic rewards and they respond to prizes such as these."

At Miller Junior High, four reading and four math teachers volunteered
for the program and assist students for one hour in teaching teams.
Subpart 2 funds pay for the transportation of Miller school students to
their homes following after-school tutoring sessions. Students are
provided with a small snack: parents make popcorn, the home economics
students bake cookies, and the school supplies sodas. The Miller junior
high principal has also instituted a reward system for attendance and
performance, using stickers instead of coupons, that allows students to
reward other students with a sticker for good work.

At the high school, Subpart 2 funds the two full-time Strike Zone
teachers.[^50] The school administrators purposefully hired two teachers
with elementary school backgrounds because most of the students read on
an elementary school level, and because he believes these teachers are
typically more child-centered and nurturing than high school teachers.
The assistant principal said, "It is absolutely critical to have the
right people implementing this program; otherwise, it won't work,
especially with at-risk students." Students selected for this program
receive four or five hours a day of instruction from either or both of
these teachers, depending on the content area. The curriculum used in
the Strike Zone program is the same as the curriculum used in the
regular high school for mathematics, English I, II, and III;
additionally, a reading course is available for those Strike Zone
students who require remedial assistance.

Strike Zone classes are held in a portable building that also houses a
computer room that is not yet fully operational. Only 20 students are
allowed in each class. The students also attend regular academic and
elective classes at the high school (e.g., science, geography, world
history). Additionally, these students (and other high school students
who are marginally passing) are required to attend an extra month of
school in order to receive continued academic instruction from the two
Strike Zone teachers.

Increased attendance and passing the state competency exam are both
elements of the dropout prevention focus of the Subpart 2 program
overall. According to these Strike Zone teachers, "Our number one
priority is attendance. We will call students to wake them up if
necessary. We ask them to call us if they are not going to be in school.
Our second goal is preparation for TAAS." The teachers also noted that
their students have to overcome a lot of social problems; many students
do not live at home, and some are living out of their cars or moving
from one friend's house to another's. One teacher said, "We do not want
the kids to fail but we also aren't going to cut them any slack. We try
to get them to feel secure with us, to realize that the classroom is a
safe, fun place."

**Program Evaluation** **and Recommendations for Improvement**

Despite the infancy of the Subpart 2 programs in this LEA, both district
and school staff believe their programs are successful. The principal at
Goodnight Junior High School, which started the after-school tutoring
program last year, reported that 35 of the 47 students who participated
(75 percent) passed at least one part of the TAAS, exceeding by far the
goal of a 50 percent passing rate. Because of last year's success, he
raised this year's goal to 80 percent, which matches districtwide
benchmarks. The other junior high school started an after-school
tutoring program just this school year; however the principal has set
the same goal for his students, which matches district benchmarks.
Students are scheduled to take the TAAS in April.

The high school Strike Zone teachers, whose students started the school
year with a 10 percent attendance rate, report that "So far this school
year, we have had an 85 percent attendance rate." Last year the teachers
gave students a piece of candy if they were on time each day for class
and provided pizza at the end of the week for good attendance. This year
the teachers provided a lot of rewards at the beginning of the year and
have decreased the amount and frequency of external rewards as the
months passed. "The students do not ask for rewards now. We have begun
to change their attitudes."

In February 1999, all but one of the 15 Strike Zone students who took
the TAAS reading exam earned a passing score. On the math test, a few
students missed passing by only one point. "We told the students that if
they passed both portions of the TAAS they would be eligible to attend
Fiesta Texas. We decided to take all of them because they all tried so
hard for the three days (it took to complete the TAAS)."

Although the state has adopted statewide academic standards and
objectives for all public schools, the SEA Title I coordinator noted
that these are not applicable to all students. "Some students \[served
by the Subpart 2 program\] take the TAAS, others don't, and we (the SEA)
do not keep track of which \[Subpart 2 students\] do and don't."
Principals for the PRIDE Center and the detention center said their
students follow an alternative accountability system that allows their
students to have slightly lower overall TAAS passing rates and credits
accrued than required by the statewide standards.

Three years ago, the state revised its Subpart 2 application to include
program evaluation results and grantees must now identify the objectives
for participating students and multiple assessment measures for each
objective (at least two for each). A list of data sources is also
required. Finally, grantees must state what they believe will be the
level of program impact (limited, moderate, great). The state has
refrained from defining these three levels because of differences in
local districts. However, the 1999-2000 Subpart 2 application will
require districts to indicate how they determine a program's effect. In
the San Marcos Subpart 2 application, the coordinator checked "great"
for the effect the district expects of its programs. The indicators she
will use to assess the program's effectiveness include: (1) the number
of students served by the Subpart 2 programs, (2) the number of high
school students attending the extended (school) year program, (3) the
number of credits program students accrue, (4) the number of students
who pass the TAAS, and (5) the attendance and graduation rates of
Subpart 2 served students.

Central office administrators in the San Marcos district repeatedly
credited their accountability system as the means to ensure that all
staff in the system have the information needed to make decisions about
student needs and resource allocation. This system includes: the
district benchmark measurements, the standardization of staff
development activities, and the comprehensive communication mechanisms
in place throughout the district and in the schools. The district Title
I coordinator stated that this system has allowed her to target the
Subpart 2 money "to fill a hole we knew about from district data."

State, district, and school-level personnel we spoke with all responded
"increase the funding" when asked to suggest program improvements. The
district Title I coordinator said, "I would like to know at the
beginning of the year the exact amount of Subpart 2 funds. We budget
this money to the penny and the SEA can make some changes in the
allocation. We would like the Subpart 2 money to be awarded with a
hold-harmless clause to aid in our program planning that occurs nine to
twelve months before the receipt of funds."

The SEA's Title I coordinator also suggested implementation of a
nationwide automated follow-up system for these students, much like the
current federal migrant student tracking system. District and school
staff would also like to see a change in the restrictions on the use of
the Subpart 2 funds, allowing them to use a small portion (perhaps 10
percent) of the money to buy incentives for the students and other items
used for extrinsic rewards. The high school assistant principal said,
"these students do not understand the long-term reward of education. The
reward must be immediate for them to get over the hill. We're hoping to
teach these kids to convert their success in Strike Zone to other
aspects of their lives."

**Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union**

**Bennington, Vermont**

Bennington County, a mostly rural area with scattered small towns or
villages, has a population of about 3,500, only one percent of whom are
minorities. The town of Bennington, where nearly half of the county's
residents live, has a shrinking economy that relies primarily on retail
and tourism. The median family income in Bennington is \$31,513; the
area's unemployment rate is about 10 percent.

The Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union (SVSU), which serves six school
districts, is the local education agency (LEA) in Bennington. The SVSU
operates a total of eight elementary (kindergarten-grade 5), one middle
(grades 6-8), and one high school (grades 9-12), serving 4,159 students.
The agency also operates a Career Development Center on the high school
campus, to provide technical and workplace skills for high school and
adult education students, and provides Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds
for supplemental instruction at a residential program for delinquent
youth known as 204 Depot.

As the only LEA to receive Subpart 2 funding in the state in school year
1998-99,[^51] SVSU allocated its entire allotment of \$17,707 to the 204
Depot. The Depot, an intensive, transition-to-community program
accommodating residents for an average of between 12-18 months, used
these funds to partially support the salary of a full-time instructor to
coordinate the facility's educational program. Located in a mixed
residential and commercial area of Bennington, the program serves 12
adolescent males.

This report presents the results of our visit to Bennington in April
1999 to obtain descriptive information about SVSU activities under the
Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 program. We learned about the program through
a structured telephone interview with the state education agency (SEA)
Title I director, on-site interviews with the LEA's Title I Coordinator
and facility staff, and a review of program documentation (e.g.,
application for Subpart 2 funds, program descriptions).

**Program Goals and Design**

Established in 1971 to serve youth in the Bennington area, the Depot
program experienced early success and eventually became a statewide
resource for the relatively few adjudicated youth in the state. The
central purpose of 204 Depot is to improve the psychosocial functioning
of its residents, many of whom have deficits in several areas. A
majority of Depot residents have learning disabilities and require
individual education plans. Many come from abusive homes, and many
others have a history of alcohol or drug abuse. In view of these and
other deficits, program administrators believe most residents are
unlikely to return to their regular schools or to pursue postsecondary
education. Thus, the educational component of the Depot emphasizes life
skills, general equivalency diploma preparation, and vocational
experience rather than traditional academic instruction.

**Students and Student Selection**

The Depot may serve up to 14 youth at one time. At the time of our
visit, 12 males, aged 15-18, resided at the facility, only one of whom
is a minority. During all of last year the program served a total of 23
youth. Potential Depot residents are referred to the facility primarily
by case workers with the state's Department of Social and Rehabilitative
Services (SRS).

Prior to admission, prospective residents, and their parents if
permitted by SRS or the court, tour the facility and discuss the program
with facility staff. Staff at the facility provide youth with a
resident's handbook outlining facility rules and expectations. The case
worker, social worker, probation officer, parent(s), and child then
decide if a facility placement would be in the child's best interest.
Staff have never rejected a potential resident when space was available.
Once admitted to the program, the resident signs an agreement to adhere
to facility policies and rules.

**Program Structure and Staffing**

The 204 Depot Program is a nonprofit organization governed by a board of
directors, with an operating budget of \$523,734. Facility staff include
a program manager, an education coordinator, five counselors, a case
manager, and a psychologist. The average staff tenure is about 15 years.
The educational coordinator, whose position is partially funded by
Subpart 2, has been with the program since 1988.

Staff of 204 Depot meet weekly to discuss the progress of each resident
and to coordinate education, counseling, and vocational services. The
first 60 days of residence at the facility are considered an evaluation
period, during which the case manager meets with the resident's family.
The case manager then stays in contact with resident's family throughout
his stay at the facility, coordinates with SRS as needed, and evaluates
the youth's case with social workers or probation officers every six
months.

Students' time at the facility is heavily structured, with every hour of
the day scheduled for specific activities, such as meals, instruction,
work programs within and outside the facility, daily household chores
(i.e., cleaning rooms), recreation, and quiet hours. After the first 60
days at the Depot, residents are eligible for furloughs (weekend visits
to their homes). Residents earn furloughs through appropriate behavior,
as articulated in the resident's handbook*.* Residents may earn one
furlough (generally lasting from 4 p.m. Friday through 5 p.m. Sunday)
for every calendar month; as residents near completion of the program,
furloughs may become more frequent.[^52] To successfully complete the
Depot program, a resident must follow facility rules, accept
responsibility for his own actions, and have an acceptable plan for his
future that includes a vocational or educational goal, workable living
arrangements, and a budget.

Depot residents benefit from a variety of linkages the facility has
established with other resources in the Bennington community. For
example, one student whose test scores indicated marked improvement in
academic achievement is allowed to attend the district's regular high
school. If a student requires additional tutoring to prepare for a
general equivalency diploma exam, the educational instructor refers
students to the Tutorial Center (a local Adult Basic Education program).
The education coordinator may also enroll students who require basic
literacy skills in this program.[^53] Finally, as we discuss in the next
section, area employers provide Depot residents with an opportunity to
gain work experience and earn an income.

**Program Services and Activities**

Services and activities available to Depot residents include educational
instruction, counseling, employment opportunities, and field trips. As
noted, the facility's educational program has a pragmatic focus intended
to support the overall program emphasis on the acquisition of life
skills. The education coordinator noted that his teaching methodology is
based on William Glasser's "reality-based theory." "Teaching students to
balance a checkbook and working on a monthly living budget becomes math
instruction," said the coordinator.

The education coordinator believes the regular public school system has
let these kids down and that many of the youth have negative views of
teachers. To counter this problem, he spends the initial weeks with each
student attempting to explain the fundamental importance of an education
to success in all areas of life. The educational coordinator works with
each student to determine an appropriate course of study and then
provides one-to-one, or small group, tutorial assistance. He ensures
that students are tested according to state requirements, uses the
district's special education staff to administer the assessments, and
assists all students identified as in need of special education to meet
the goals of their individual education plans. At the time of our visit,
one facility resident attended the district's high school, while the
remainder worked on general equivalency diploma preparation.[^54]

Residents receive between three and four hours of instruction per day in
science, social studies, math, reading, and language arts. Instruction
at the facility takes place in a single room that contains two computers
and minimal software (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets, graphic
packages) students use to complete their assignments. Most of the
instructional materials are general equivalency diploma texts and
workbooks, along with a small library of fiction donated by staff or
community groups. Recently, the educational coordinator wrote a grant
proposal to a private foundation requesting \$2,500 for new hardware
(e.g., compact disc player, scanner, digital camera) and software (e.g.,
graphic design, desktop publishing). He believes that these youth will
be "returned to a world where even a truck driver will need to know how
to use a computer."

Student counseling occurs in daily group therapy sessions conducted by
the program manager and one of the counselors, both of whom have
bachelor's degrees in psychology. In these sessions, residents are
encouraged to discuss whatever is on their mind\--anything from
schoolwork, the food served for dinner, or psychosocial issues related
to living at the facility or resulting from a visit home. Once each
month a family counselor conducts a home visit with the youth and parent
or guardian. Additionally, a psychologist meets with each student for
one hour two times each week; if psychological testing is required, the
local hospital psychologist (paid as a consultant) provides assistance.

Employment opportunities in the community for residents 16 years or
older are provided by local construction companies and fast food
restaurants. The work supervisor is responsible for driving youths to
and from their jobs and for monitoring their work habits, ethics, and
hours. The program manager is responsible for administration of the
income the students earn. Employers pay the Depot for all students' work
(typically minimum wage), and the program manager deposits the money in
individual savings accounts. All residents who do not attend school
full-time (and thus work) must prepare a budget during their 60-day
evaluation period that is based upon anticipated expenses, as if the
residents were living independently. The facility then withholds a
percentage of the students' income for projected expenses such as rent,
utilities, and food, and places it into individual saving accounts for
the residents to use after leaving the facility.

The manager places any remaining income into a Depot Residents Account
from which the resident is expected to pay for his own clothing and
incidentals, and from which he may draw an allowance of up to \$25 per
week, if funds are available.[^55] The Depot program does not accept
clothing and allowance money from the state, and also discourages
parents and others from giving residents money, believing it is best for
students to earn their own money for clothing and incidentals. This
allowance is used as a reward for good behavior and each Tuesday in
group sessions, a resident may request that funds be taken out of
savings to buy clothing or incidentals. The program manager noted that a
resident who works and resides at the facility for a year or more can
leave the program with \$2,000 or more in savings.

Field trips to community sites, such as the library, are another
component of the Depot's life skills and transition focus. The education
coordinator recalled that one of the youth from Bennington had "been on
the steps of the library but never inside it." He attempts to integrate
students' experiences during field trips into his instruction. For
example, trips to local museums or plays are linked to American history
units, and students read and write poetry after visiting the grave of
Robert Frost, which is located in Bennington. Depot residents and staff
also take an annual camping and fishing trip to Canada, and staff report
that students find this trip to be one of their most rewarding
experiences. In their previous school history the behavioral problems of
most facility residents precluded their participation in field trips or
other special activities.

The district's Title I coordinator and the facility's program manager
and educational coordinator agreed that more educational resources are
needed at the facility. While they would welcome more traditional
materials, such as paperback books, workbooks, and magazines, they noted
that residents especially need computers and associated software. Staff
members believe that Internet access and a wider variety of software
would help them to more fully engage students in the learning process
and to allow students to better express themselves. To illustrate this
point the educational coordinator recalled a student who was having
difficulty living up to the terms of his agreement and was asked to
write about how he felt and to share it with the group the next day.
With the aid of a computer he checked his work for spelling and grammar.
He also added clip art, which gave him greater confidence in his work
and made it easier for him to share with the group.

**Program Evaluation**

The Title 1 Coordinator collects and provides to the SEA the total
number of students served by the program, broken down by age and
ethnicity. Pre-and posttesting of students, beyond what is required for
obtaining a general equivalency diploma, while done, is not routinely
completed for every student, owing primarily to the staff's inability to
know when a particular student will leave the facility. A total of 34
residents have earned their general equivalency diplomas this way since
the educational coordinator began keeping records 10 years ago,
including 15 over the last five years. In a common area (parlor) of the
facility, a plaque has the names of youth engraved for those who have
obtained their general equivalency diplomas.

Program staff members noted that older youths tend to be more successful
because they realize that they soon had to survive on their own, while
younger teens typically enter the facility with more of an attitude of
resistance to the program's structure. The staff also noted that to
succeed, the youth had to stay with the program almost a year. Agency
and facility personnel hope that the report of a recently organized
dropout prevention task force will help the education coordinator and
other facility staff members better address residents' needs. The report
will present the findings of a survey of 20 dropouts, 16 at-risk
students, 16 truant students, and 15 parents of at-risk students. Survey
items for students address their best and worst memories of school,
whether they found school difficult, and a number of other questions
whose aim was to identify the sources of student difficulty. Other
questions solicit information on the educational background of parents
and their perceptions of their children's ability to get along with
others. The survey also asks parents what would most help their children
fare better in school.

The program manager noted that many students tend to be artistic, and he
would like to see the program offer them more opportunities to develop
that skill. He has tried to find employers in the community that would
reinforce this talent (e.g., graphic design businesses, or pottery
makers) with no success. He believes that if the facility's computer
equipment could be enhanced with software, digital cameras and scanners,
the educational coordinator would be more successful in showcasing his
students' talents, and that enrolling students in the local community
college for art classes would become more of a possibility.

[^1]: ^?^P.L. 103-382, Part D, Subpart 2, sec.1421.

[^2]: ^?^A total of 45 SEAs received Subpart 2 funding.

[^3]: 1 ^1^The state education agency (SEA) awards local funds on a
    formula basis and affords local districts broad discretion in the
    design and operation of their programs.

[^4]: 2 ^2^The tutoring program also served 716 social service students
    (i.e., neglected or abused) and nine homeless students.

[^5]: 3 ^3^One of the SEA Title I coordinator's priorities is the
    development of a statewide system for post-release tracking of
    students; she is currently considering how to establish an automated
    database that protects student confidentiality.

[^6]: 1 ^1^Another new facility will receive program funding next year.

[^7]: 2 ^2^Many detained youth arrive from Orlando or Tampa. The
    juvenile court system sentences these youth to detention in Polk
    County in an effort to avoid concentrating members of specific urban
    gangs in city facilities.

[^8]: 3 ^3^The FCAT requirement became effective in 1996.

[^9]: 4 ^4^Data on the number of students served throughout the entire
    year, as well as aggregate counts of students by gender and
    ethnicity, were not available.

[^10]: 5 ^5^The five-day interim period between arrival and testing is
    designed to avoid testing students while the emotional impact of
    incarceration is likely to affect performance.

[^11]: 6 ^6^This individual is studying for certification as a physical
    education teacher.

[^12]: 7 ^7^One objective of the DJJ-operated aftercare program is to
    assist students obtain employment.

[^13]: 8 ^8^Students wear different colored hats to signal their level
    of achievement.

[^14]: 1 ^1^The school just received verification of its Subpart 2
    funding for the 1999-2000 school year. Until they received this
    notification, they were unable to notify the alternative classroom
    staff of the status of their jobs. However, there was enough funding
    for the 1999-2000 school year to secure their jobs for another year.

[^15]: 2 ^2^The 1997-98 academic year was the first year that all of the
    girls at the home attended the regular public schools in the
    district. Prior to that year, the more 'difficult' students were
    educated on site at Elms Acres by a tutor.

[^16]: 3 ^3^Students assigned to the alternative classroom for purely
    academic reasons are not subject to the point system.

[^17]: 4 ^4^The alternative classroom operates on an hourly basis just
    for points; otherwise, it does not use hourly periods. Students are
    allowed to work at their own pace.

[^18]: 5 ^5^Two years ago, the state of Kansas combined all of its
    federally funded programs (Title 1, At-Risk, Title VI, etc.) into
    one consolidated program

[^19]: 6 ^6^The vice principal is considering providing the staff with
    MANDT training, a program that addresses disruptive students and
    volatile situations.

[^20]: 1 ^1^Nineteen districts had eligible students. However, if
    administrators had distributed funds to all 19, some would have
    received grants of less than \$6,000. According to our state-level
    contact, districts usually need to receive grants of around \$10,000
    in order to justify the financial reporting and monitoring involved.

[^21]: 2 ^2^Buechel is a secured facility with metal detectors and
    security guards. Students wear "uniforms" (white shirt and khaki
    pants or skirts) and are not allowed to bring purses, coats with
    pockets, or backpacks into the school.

[^22]: 3 ^3^Not all students at Buechel, however, are involved in the
    program.

[^23]: 4 ^4^Students must have an 85 percent attendance record and no
    out-of-school suspensions, pass most of their classes, and have
    teacher approval.

[^24]: 5 ^5^Kentucky's Learning Goals and Academic Expectations and
    Kentucky Core Content Standards*.*

[^25]: 6 ^6^The state is using a new assessment system, the Commonwealth
    Accountability Test System (CATS) beginning in 1999.

[^26]: 1 ^1^The educational coordinator at Park Place had only recently
    been hired at the time of our visit, and the program had not
    employed a steady tutor for more than a year.

[^27]: 1 ^1^Of the 367 districts in Minnesota, 21 applied for a portion
    of the state's \$875,000 funds for 1998-99. Fifteen districts
    received grants; a majority of grantees had previously received
    awards.

[^28]: 2 ^2^Unless otherwise noted, all references to 'Woodland Hills'
    includes all three programs at this facility.

[^29]: 3 ^3^No district is required to operate a dropout prevention
    program as no local facility has 70 percent of its students
    returning to school within district boundaries.

[^30]: 4 ^4^For the purpose of this Subpart 2 program, the principal of
    the DPS treatment programs functions in a role similar to a district
    Title I coordinator.

[^31]: 5 ^5^The curriculum at Woodland Hills and Arrowhead Juvenile
    Center is the same one used in regular DPS schools.

[^32]: 6 ^6^The table includes students served through April 1999 and
    does not include students at the Bethany Crisis Shelter, eight of
    whom received a pre-test, because post-testing and traditional
    transition services often occur after these students enter another
    facility.

[^33]: 7 ^7^Duluth's alternative junior and senior high schools used
    Plato 2000 prior to the Subpart 2 grant.

[^34]: 8 ^8^The majority of released students are posttested. Facility
    staff do not always notify Subpart 2 staff when a student is
    scheduled for release. Subpart 2 staff receive advance release
    notification anywhere from one hour to a few weeks.

[^35]: 9 ^9^Due to the short stays of students at the Bethany Crisis
    Shelter, transition for these students differs; program staff assist
    center staff to prepare a student to return to their home school or
    to a residential treatment facility.

[^36]: 0 ^10^Twelve of the grantees had received funding for three
    years, three had received funds for two years, and one grantee was
    funded for a single year.

[^37]: 1 ^1^Despite the fact that more than 90 percent of youth at the
    center are district residents, the district does not use any program
    funds for at-risk students in any of LPS's regular schools.
    According to the administrative assistant for federal programs, the
    district has traditionally decided against retaining a portion of
    the money to operate or support a drop‑out prevention program
    because of the relatively minimal funding amount and the greater
    need of the Attention Center.

[^38]: 2 ^2^ NDE has established a Title I, Part D Committee of
    Practitioners, which meets periodically to review changes in the
    federal law and approve any guidance for state and local agencies
    regarding programs supported by Title I, Part D.

[^39]: 3 ^3^The task force is supported, in part, by funds from Title I,
    Part D, and is chartered by six state agencies: (1) Health and Human
    Services; (2) Department of Education; (3) Crime Commission; (4)
    Department of Corrections; (5) Probation; and (6) Voices for
    Children.

[^40]: 4 ^4^The LPS administrative assistant for federal programs was
    not aware of this report.

[^41]: 5 ^5^In Nebraska, local districts are not fiscally responsible
    for the education of delinquent youth.

[^42]: 6 ^6^Substitutes, as well as volunteers, must attend a half-day
    orientation to the facility.

[^43]: 7 ^7^For the majority of center youth, this is a school within
    LPS.

[^44]: 8 ^8^Neither curricula were purchased with Subpart 2 funds.

[^45]: 9 ^9^The county provides related services, such as counseling and
    mental health services, to center residents.

[^46]: 0 ^10^Demographic data were only available only for current and
    former district students (206 of the students).

[^47]: 1 ^1^The district received \$94,253 from the state educational
    agency in 1998 and carried over an additional \$67,734 in program
    funding from the previous year that remained unspent owing to delays
    in grant awards.

[^48]: 2 ^2^This program supplements the district-adopted *Project
    Read*, a research-based language arts program that addresses reading
    comprehension and written expression.

[^49]: 3 ^3^The district Title I coordinator has already informed the
    junior high schools that they will not receive Subpart 2 funds in
    the coming school year, a decision made by the district improvement
    team, due to the anticipated decrease in Subpart 2 funds. Both
    junior high school principals voiced their commitment to the
    after-school tutoring programs and are seeking alternative funding
    sources to continue their programs.

[^50]: 4 ^4^Subpart 2 funds also pay for substitute teachers when the
    classroom teachers receive staff training during school hours.

[^51]: 1 ^1^SVSU is the only school district in Vermont that responded
    to the state's request for proposals for Subpart 2 funding.

[^52]: 2 ^2^Free time in the community is closely monitored as many
    residents are on drug therapy for Attention Deficit Disorder, or are
    overcoming an addiction to drugs.

[^53]: 3 ^3^The facility does not use volunteers to teach literacy
    skills because the complexity of issues its students face demands a
    level of staff continuity and frequency of contact most volunteers
    are unable to provide.

[^54]: 4 ^4^The one student attending the local high school had been
    retested and found to have improved sufficiently, thereby not
    requiring an individual education plan.

[^55]: 5 ^5^This deposit is made after the facility deducts payment for
    worker's compensation insurance.