Promoting Education and Transition Success 

for Neglected and Delinquent Youth: 

An Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Program

Volume 2 

Promoting Education and Transition Success

for Neglected and Delinquent Youth: 

An Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Program

Volume 2 

March 2019 

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Prepared by:

Nicholas Read

Jennifer Loeffler-Cobia 

Kathy Sonnenfeld

Anne Diffenderffer

American Institutes for Research

Pirkko Ahonen

James Bell Associates 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDPEP-11-O-0089/Task 

Order 25 with the American Institutes for Research. Michael Fong and Erica Lee served as the 

contracting officer’s representatives. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the 

positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this 

publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains 

information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such 

information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Department of Education

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

James Blew

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Gregory Fortelny

Director

March 2019

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 Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Promoting Education and Transition Success for Neglected and Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of the 

Title I, Part D Program, Washington, DC, 2019. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at:

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content Contact:

Erica Lee

Phone: 202-260-1463

Erica.Lee@ed.gov
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

iii 

Contents

List of Exhibits..................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. vii

Appendix A. Data Collection Technical Appendix ................................................................................. 1

State and Local Agency Surveys....................................................................................................... 1

Case Studies................................................................................................................................... 22

Disclosure Review .......................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix B. Data Collection Instruments........................................................................................... 27

Part D Coordinator Surveys............................................................................................................ 29

Case Study Interview Protocols ................................................................................................... 137

Appendix C. Cross-Tabulations by Coordinator Type ........................................................................ 169
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

iv 

Exhibits

Exhibit A-1. Number of state agencies per state or territory.................................................................... 2

Exhibit A-2. Number of anticipated and received school district and local facility program 

coordinator contacts per state .............................................................................................. 3

Exhibit A-3. Number of school districts and local facility programs per state, contacts received 

and sampled........................................................................................................................... 5

Exhibit A-4. Final case dispositions for coordinator surveys................................................................... 10

Exhibit A-5. State agency coordinator survey sample distribution by region, agency type, and 

survey response status ........................................................................................................ 12

Exhibit A-6. School district coordinator survey sample by wave, region, urbanicity, and 

response status.................................................................................................................... 16

Exhibit A-7. Number of local facility programs reported in the 2015–16 Consolidated State 

Performance Report, received, and sampled by the study team, by state ......................... 18

Exhibit A-8. Local facility programs sample by wave, region, program type, duration type, and 

response status.................................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit A-9. Case study state selection weights for Subpart 1 grantee characteristics .......................... 23

Exhibit A-10. Case study state selection weights for Subpart 2 grantee characteristics .......................... 24

Exhibit C-1. State educational agency coordinators’ reported major or moderate focus on 

various Part D program planning activities, by coordinator tenure, 2016–17 .................. 171

Exhibit C-2. State educational agency coordinators’ reported major or moderate focus on 

various Part D program implementation activities, by coordinator tenure, 2016–17 ...... 171

Exhibit C-3. Percentage of local facility coordinators reporting that various factors were used 

most of the time to make decisions about the use of Part D funds, by type of 

facility, 2016–17................................................................................................................. 172

Exhibit C-4. Percentage of state agency and local facility coordinatorsreporting that various staffrelated issues were a major or moderate challenge, by type of coordinator and facility, 

2016–17 .............................................................................................................................. 172

Exhibit C-5 Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities faced major or moderate challenges retaining various 

personnel, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17................................................... 173

Exhibit C-6. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

their facilities used screenings or assessments to identify various academic and 

behavioral needs and issues, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17 ..................... 173
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

v 

Exhibit C-7. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities used computers for various educational purposes, by 

type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17 ......................................................................... 174

Exhibit C-8. Percentage of SA and LFP coordinators reporting that their facilities offered 

various career and technical education occupational programs, by type of 

coordinator and facility, 2016–17...................................................................................... 174

Exhibit C-9. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities used various services to support students with 

disabilities, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17.................................................. 175

Exhibit C-10. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

their facilities used various learning models to support English learners, by type of 

coordinator and facility, 2016–17...................................................................................... 176

Exhibit C-11. Percentage of youth with various transition plan statuses upon arrival and while in 

placement in state and local facilities, by type of facility, 2016–17.................................. 176

Exhibit C-12. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that youth were substantially involved in various aspects of transition 

planning, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17..................................................... 177

Exhibit C-13. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that parents and family members were substantially involved in various 

aspects of transition planning, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17................... 177

Exhibit C-14. Percentage of youth who had transition progress and outcomes tracked while in 

placement and after exiting state and local facilities, by type of facility, 2016–17 .......... 178

Exhibit C-15. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities offered various aftercare services to youth who 

exited placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17....................................... 178

Exhibit C-16. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting 

various durations of aftercare service provided to youth who exited facilities, by 

type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17 ......................................................................... 179

Exhibit C-17. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities collaborated with various external partners to 

support youth transition, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17 ........................... 179

Exhibit C-18. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

their facilities used various methods to measure youths’ educational outcomes 

while in placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17.................................... 180

Exhibit C-19. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

it was somewhat or very difficult for their facilities to track outcomes for youth 

who exited placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17............................... 180
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

vi

Exhibit C-20. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting whether or not facilities could track outcomes for youth after exit, by 

type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17 ......................................................................... 181

Exhibit C-21. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

their facilities faced major or moderate challenges tracking outcomes for youth 

who exited placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17............................... 181

Exhibit C-22. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that 

their facilities tracked various, long-term, education-related outcomes for youth 

who exited placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17............................... 182
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

vii 

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First, we are 

grateful for the guidance and support of the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, we thank 

Michael Fong, Erica Lee, Stephanie Stullich, Victoria Hammer, and Joanne Bogart of the Policy and 

Program Studies Service. We also would like to thank the American Institutes for Research staff who 

contributed to this report in various capacities, including Kerstin Le Floch, Sandy Eyster, Patricia Campie, 

Emily Vontsolos, Cong Ye, Yan Wang, Jingyan Xia, Alex Mendoza, Maria Payri, Rebecca Medway, and 

Elizabeth Nolan. In addition, we would like to thank the staff from our partners at James Bell and 

Associates for their expertise and assistance with the study, including Joanna DeWolfe, 

Anne Fromknecht, Kirsten Keene, and Eric Morehouse. We are grateful to the Title I, Part D coordinators

and staff at state educational agencies, state agencies, school districts, and local facilities who

participated in the surveys and interviews as part of data collection for this study. Without their efforts, 

this report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. We also would like 

to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members of our expert practitioner panel: 

Candace Mulcahy, Anthony Petrosino, Cherie Townsend, Darryl Washington, and Lois Weinberg. 

Although we appreciate the assistance and support of these individuals, any errors in judgment or fact

are the responsibility of the authors.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

viii 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

1 

Appendix A. Data Collection Technical Appendix

This appendix describes the various data sources, the procedures for sampling and collecting these data, 

and the analysis methods used. This appendix includes detailed information on the intended audiences 

for the state and local coordinator surveys, the process of creating the coordinator sampling frames and 

the sampling procedures, the survey data collection procedures, and response rates, and nonresponse 

and coverage bias analyses and weighting adjustments. The appendix also details the case study state 

and local subgrantee sampling frame and selection processes, site visit and interview procedures and 

respondents, and qualitative data review and analyses.

State and Local Agency Surveys

Study Population and Sampling Frame

State educational agency (SEA) and state agency (SA) coordinator surveys. The population of inference 

for the state agency survey is the state-level Part D programs in each state. The target population 

included the following: (1) the SEA that oversees the whole Part D program for the state, and (2) the SA 

that administers Part D, Subpart 1 programs for its respective agencies (e.g., juvenile justice, child 

welfare). 

• Sample attainment. The study team used a multistage process to build the list (frame) of state 

agencies. First, we obtained the contact information for all SEA Part D coordinators through the 

National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and 

Youth (NDTAC) website. Then we confirmed the accuracy of these contacts with NDTAC staff. 

Second, when we contacted the SEA coordinators about participating in the survey, we asked them 

to submit the list of SA contacts through an online form on a secure website. We continued to 

follow up until we received SA contacts from all 52 SEA coordinators.

• Sample size. On the basis of information from NDTAC, we estimated there would 52 SEA

coordinators and 108 SA coordinators. We estimated that each state would have two or three SAs, 

but the number by state ranged from zero to three, with a total population of 83 SAs.

1 Exhibit A-1 

shows the number of Part D SAs in each state. There is one SEA in all 50 states and in the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, for a total of 52 SEAs. 

 

1 During the survey data collection, the study team found that one of the state agencies was a duplicate; it had been merged 

into another agency.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

2 

Exhibit A-1. Number of state agencies per state or territory

State

Number 

of state 

agencies State

Number 

of state 

agencies State

Number 

of state 

agencies 

Alabama 1 Louisiana 3 Oklahoma 2 

Alaska 1 Maine 1 Oregon 1 

Arizona 2 Maryland 2 Pennsylvania 1 

Arkansas 1 Massachusetts 2 Puerto Rico 1 

California 2 Michigan 2 Rhode Island 2 

Colorado 1 Minnesota 1 South Carolina 2 

Connecticut 2 Mississippi 1 South Dakota 0 

Delaware 2 Missouri 2 Tennessee 2 

District of Columbia 1 Montana 1 Texas 2 

Florida 1 Nebraska 3 Utah 1 

Georgia 2 Nevada 2 Vermont 2 

Hawaii 2 New Hampshire 2 Virginia 2 

Idaho 2 New Jersey 3 Washington 0 

Illinois 1 New Mexico 2 West Virginia 1 

Indiana 1 New York 2 Wisconsin 1 

Iowa 2 North Carolina‡ 2 Wyoming 2 

Kansas 1 North Dakota 1 

Kentucky 2 Ohio 2 

Note: Two states, Washington and South Dakota, did not have any SAs that received Part D funds, and the other 50 states had between one 

and three agencies that we included in the survey. ‡ The study team discovered during survey data collection that the two state agencies in North Carolina had been merged into one agency. 

Source: SA contacts submitted by SEA Part D coordinators, 2016–17. 

School district and local facility program (LFP) coordinator surveys. The target local agency population 

included the following: (1) the school districts that are responsible for overseeing local program 

subgrants, and (2) the juvenile justice (delinquent) and child welfare (neglected) LFPs that receive 

Part D, Subpart 2 funds from and are overseen by a school district.

• Sample attainment. The sampling frame for the local agencies did not exist; therefore, the 

research team used a two-step process to assemble a complete list of these school districts and 

local facilities. In the first step, we asked SEAs that were providing SA contact information also 

to supply school district contact information through the online form. Of the 52 states and 

territories, 44 states received Subpart 2 grant funds for their local agencies. Therefore, we 

received school district contacts only from 44 states. In the second step of the sample attainment 

process, we contacted all school districts, regardless of whether they were selected to complete the 

survey, and requested the complete list of all LFPs with whom they worked. The project team 

continued to follow up with the school districts until we received their LFPs’ contact information. 

• Sample sizes before sampling. Although there was no sample frame for local agencies, we did 

have access to an estimated number of local agencies in each state from the 2014–15 

Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data. We were able to use those numbers to 

confirm that the number of school district and LFP contacts we received was approximately 

what we expected. We anticipated receiving a total of 2,996 contacts for local agencies. We 

received a total of 2,904 contacts (1,069 school districts and 1,835 LFPs). Exhibit A-2 shows the 

number of local agency contacts that we expected from each state and the number we received.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

3 

Exhibit A-2. Number of anticipated and received school district and local facility program coordinator 

contacts per state

State 

Total local agencies 

(school districts plus 

local facility programs) 

anticipated

Total local agencies 

(school districts plus 

local facility programs) 

received

School districts 

received

Local facility programs 

received

Total 2,996 2,904 1,069 1,835 

Alabama 74 58 25 33 

Alaska 7 12 7 5 

Arizona 5 40 17 23 

Arkansas 0 40 17 23 

California 448 214 53 161 

Colorado 26 36 15 21 

Connecticut 10 13 6 7 

Florida 197 140 31 109 

Georgia 0 7 3 4 

Idaho 26 33 17 16 

Illinois 26 40 21 19 

Indiana 68 63 29 34 

Iowa 96 50 23 27 

Kansas 40 34 12 22 

Kentucky 60 79 39 40 

Louisiana 41 46 16 30 

Maine 5 6 3 3 

Maryland 20 15 4 11 

Massachusetts 58 68 36 32 

Michigan 106 118 62 56 

Minnesota 84 88 23 65 

Mississippi 18 39 18 21 

Missouri 43 52 20 32 

Montana 8 24 12 12 

Nebraska 8 9 5 4 

Nevada 17 35 7 28 

New Hampshire 5 6 3 3 

New Jersey 18 23 9 14 

New Mexico 48 30 14 16 

New York 326 378 141 237 

North Dakota 7 8 4 4 

Ohio 215 182 77 105 

Oklahoma 121 123 44 79 

Oregon 45 41 22 19 

Pennsylvania 417 286 55 231 

South Carolina 5 73 26 47 

South Dakota 30 26 11 15 

Tennessee 30 34 4 30 

Texas 144 159 61 98 

Virginia 2 38 12 26 

Washington 21 46 26 20 

West Virginia 43 17 5 12 

Wisconsin 13 43 19 24 

Wyoming 15 32 15 17 

Note: Seven states did not receive Subpart 2 funds in 2016–17 and are not included in this table: Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, 

Hawaii, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont.

Sources: Certified data sent by the U.S. Department of Education to the National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or 

Delinquent Children and Youth, May 2015; district contacts submitted to the study team by SEA Part D coordinators, 2016–17; LFP contacts 

submitted to the study team by district Part D coordinators, 2016–17. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

4 

Sampling Design and Results

SEA and SA coordinator surveys. Given the small number of SEA and SA coordinators, it was important 

to seek data from all of them. All 52 SEA coordinators comprised the population that was asked to 

participate in the SEA survey, and all 83 SA coordinators were invited to participate in the SA survey.

School district and LFP coordinator surveys. The objective of this survey was to draw a representative 

sample of school districts and LFPs that would yield a total of about 1,200 completed surveys between 

the two samples (school districts and LFPs). The sample size was determined on the basis of the 

estimated number of local agencies in a state (both school districts and LFPs) found in the CSPR data. 

The study team implemented a sampling plan that balanced the precision of estimates in states with low 

and higher numbers of local agencies. States with 30 or fewer estimated local coordinators were 

sampled with certainty; within other states, agencies were sampled at a rate of 42 percent. The study 

team selected this sampling rate on the basis of estimated agency counts for the non-certainty states, 

with the goal of obtaining a starting sample size of 1,574. Assuming a response rate of 80 percent, we 

expected this starting sample to yield slightly more than the 1,200 target completes (school districts and 

LFPs combined). 

• School district sample. The research team received a total of 1,069 school district contacts from 

SEAs, and we sampled 654 school districts for the survey (see Exhibit A-3). The states supplied us 

with contact information for school district coordinators on a rolling basis; thus, we sampled 

school districts independently within states in three waves. We based the decision to sample a 

state or to take all school districts in a state with certainty on the anticipated total of both 

school districts and LFPs. At the time the school districts were sampled, the frame of LFPs had 

not yet been obtained; therefore, we based this decision on the total of school districts and 

estimated LFPs.

During the sampling process in Wave 1, the “sample versus take-all” decision was not correctly 

implemented because of an error that resulted in school districts in 21 states being selected 

with certainty instead of only 13. Kentucky, Missouri, Oregon, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, 

Virginia, and Colorado all were errantly sampled at a rate of 100 percent instead of 42 percent. 

The samples drawn from these eight states were medium size (i.e., the number of school district 

coordinator contacts received for each of these states ranged from 12 to 39), and when 

combined with the estimated number of LFPs, the total count of school districts and LFPs was 

expected to be greater than 30. Therefore, we should have sampled from these states rather 

than including all received contacts. Given that the oversampling occurred in medium-size 

school districts and there was still uncertainty about the total LFP sample that would be 

obtained, we decided not to adjust the sample sizes for other states in later waves. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

5 

Exhibit A-3. Number of school districts and local facility programs per state, contacts received and 

sampled 

State 

School district 

contacts received

School district 

contacts sampled

Local facility program 

contacts received

Local facility program

contacts sampled

Total 1,069 654 1,835 920 

Alaska 7 7 5 5 

Alabama 25 11 33 14 

Arkansas 17 17 23 20 

Arizona 17 8 23 16 

California 53 23 161 64 

Colorado 15 15 21 14 

Connecticut 6 6 7 7 

Florida 31 14 109 42 

Georgia 3 3 4 4 

Iowa 23 10 27 15 

Idaho 17 17 16 16 

Illinois 21 21 19 11 

Indiana 29 13 34 14 

Kansas 12 12 22 20 

Kentucky 39 39 40 16 

Louisiana 16 7 30 16 

Massachusetts 36 16 32 17 

Maryland 4 4 11 11 

Maine 3 3 3 3 

Michigan 62 27 56 22 

Minnesota 23 10 65 26 

Missouri 20 20 32 18 

Mississippi 18 18 21 20 

Montana 12 12 12 12 

North Dakota 4 4 4 4 

Nebraska 5 5 4 4 

New Hampshire 3 3 3 3 

New Jersey 9 9 14 14 

New Mexico 14 6 16 16 

Nevada 7 7 28 16 

New York 141 60 237 93 

Ohio 77 33 105 41 

Oklahoma 44 19 79 31 

Oregon 22 22 19 14 

Pennsylvania 55 24 231 91 

South Carolina 26 26 47 20 

South Dakota 11 11 15 15 

Tennessee 4 4 30 18 

Texas 61 26 98 39 

Virginia 12 12 26 14 

Washington 26 11 20 20 

Wisconsin 19 19 24 15 

West Virginia 5 5 12 12 

Wyoming 15 15 17 17 

Sources: District contacts submitted to the study team by SEA Part D coordinators, 2016–17; LFP contacts submitted to the study team by 

district Part D coordinators, 2016–17. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

6 

• LFP sample. The study team received a list of 1,835 LFPs from school district coordinators and 

sampled 920 of them, as Exhibit A-3 shows. The team determined the number of LFPs for the 

sample by subtracting the number of school districts that completed the survey from the target 

total sample size of 1,200 across both school district and LFP surveys. At the time of sampling for 

the LFP survey, 468 of the school districts had fully completed the school district survey.

Therefore, our target number of completed surveys for the LFP survey was 732 (1,200 − 468), 

resulting in a released sample size of 915 LFPs (we sampled 920 LFPs because of rounding in each 

stratum) with an expected response rate of 80 percent.

In addition to the stratification by state as discussed in the previous section, the study team 

stratified the list of facilities in each state by program type (i.e., neglected, delinquent, or other) 

in which the coordinator works.2

 

Data Collection and Data Processing 

SEA coordinator survey data collection. Data collection began November 30, 2016, and ended 

March 20, 2017. The study team used a Web survey as the sole mode of data collection. The target 

respondent for this survey was the coordinator of the Part D program for each state’s or territory’s 

department of education, and it took an estimated 30 minutes to complete the online survey. The survey 

covered the following topics: (1) agency characteristics, (2) program administration, and (3) outcome 

assessment and utilization. The survey was conducted in English.

Outreach to SEAs started with a notification letter that the U.S. Department of Education mailed to all 52 

SEA coordinators. The letter explained the purpose of the study and alerted coordinators that they would 

be asked to complete a survey on the Part D program in their state. In addition, the letter asked SEA

coordinators to provide, through an online form on a secure website, contact information for 

coordinators at all SAs and school districts that receive Part D funds in their state. This notification letter 

was followed by an electronic survey invitation on December 9, 2016, which included a unique hyperlink 

that the coordinators could use to access the survey. The study team followed up with nonresponding 

SEAs, as outlined below. 

• Between mid-December 2016 and mid-January 2017, the study team sent four email reminders 

to SEAs, one of which included a PDF copy of the questionnaire that state coordinators could 

use to complete the survey. 

• From mid-January through early February, the team placed telephone reminder calls to 

nonresponding SEAs. Trained staff made five attempts to reach the SEA coordinators on 

different days of the week and at different times of the day. The staff left voicemail messages on 

the first and third contact attempts.

• Between early February and mid-February, Department staff sent customized emails and 

followed up with telephone calls to encourage response to the survey and to solicit SA and 

school district coordinator contact information.

Survey data collection closed in mid-March 2017. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B. 

SA coordinator survey data collection. Data collection began on February 6, 2017, and ended on 

October 4, 2017. A Web survey was the sole mode of data collection. The target respondent for this 

 

2 Four cases were classified as “at risk” or “child welfare,” and 31 cases were missing program type. All 35 of these cases were 

grouped in the “Other” stratum.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

7 

survey was the coordinator of the Part D program for each SA (juvenile justice and/or child welfare) that 

receives Part D funds, and it took an estimated 60 minutes to complete the online survey. The survey 

covered the following topics: (1) agency characteristics; (2) shared agency and funded-facility decisionmaking and collaborative planning; (3) education assessments, strategies, and services in funded 

facilities; (4) instructional staff qualifications and professional development in funded facilities; 

(5) outcome assessment and utilization in funded facilities; and (6) Part D fund budgets in funded 

facilities. The survey was conducted in English.

The study team collected SA survey data in two waves because of a delay in receiving contact information 

from some SEAs. Outreach to the SAs started with a notification letter that the Department emailed to all 

83 SA coordinators. The first wave of SA notification letters was sent on February 6, and the second wave 

was sent on March 31. The letter alerted coordinators that they would be asked to complete a survey on 

the Part D program at their SA. This notification letter was followed by an electronic survey invitation on 

February 21 for Wave 1 and on April 6 for Wave 2; the letter contained a unique hyperlink that SA

coordinators could use to access the survey. The study team followed up with nonresponding SAs as 

outlined below.

• Between early March and late July, the study team sent six email reminders to SA coordinators 

in both waves of the study. One of the email reminders included a PDF copy of the 

questionnaire that state coordinators could use to complete the survey.

• Between late March and mid-April for Wave 1 and from early May to late May for Wave 2, study 

team staff made telephone reminder calls to nonresponding SAs. These staff made five attempts 

to reach the SA coordinators on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The 

staff left voicemail messages on the first and third contact attempts.

• Between early May and mid-May, the study team prepared customized email text for each 

nonresponding SA coordinator. Then Department staff sent these customized emails, copying 

the SEA coordinator for each state. The team then followed up with telephone calls throughout 

the summer and early fall to encourage response to the survey.

Survey data collection closed October 4, 2017. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.

School district coordinator survey data collection. Data collection began on February 27, 2017, and 

ended on August 28, 2017. A Web survey was the primary mode of data collection, and the study team 

also mailed paper surveys to nonrespondents. Upon receipt of the completed paper surveys, the team 

entered data into the Web survey instrument. The target respondent for this survey was the coordinator 

of the Part D program for the districts that receive Part D funds, and it took an estimated 30 minutes to 

complete the survey. The survey covered the following topics: (1) agency characteristics, (2) program 

administration, and (3) outcome assessment and utilization. The survey was conducted in English.

Some school districts require researchers to submit a research application, which must be reviewed and 

approved by the school district before data are collected from any staff at the school district. Before 

undertaking the data collection, the study team conducted searches on sampled school districts to 

determine whether they required an approved research application. For those school districts that 

required research applications, the team submitted applications and waited for a response before we 

contacted the school district about participating in the survey. The study team followed up with school 

districts that did not respond within three to four weeks of submission. We identified 100 school 

districts out of the 654 sampled (15.3 percent) that required research applications. Of these, 42 school 

districts approved the application, four rejected it, and 54 did not provide a response within the data 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

8 

collection period. We did not survey districts that rejected or did not respond to research applications; 

we treated them as eligible nonrespondents. We did, however, continue to contact these school 

districts until we received their list of LFPs to achieve a complete LFP sample frame. 

The study team collected school district survey data in three waves because of a delay in receiving 

contact information from some SEAs. Outreach to the school districts started with a notification letter 

that the Department emailed to all school district coordinators, regardless of whether they were 

selected for the survey. The letter explained the purpose of the study. The first wave of school district 

notification letters was sent on February 27, the second wave was sent on April 24, and the third on 

May 8. Two different versions of the letter were created. The first version was sent to school district 

coordinators who were not included in the survey sample and simply asked them to provide contact 

information for coordinators at eligible LFPs with whom they work. The second version of the letter was 

mailed to sampled school districts and not only asked coordinators to provide LFP contacts but also 

alerted them that they would be invited to complete a survey on the Part D program in their school 

district. This notification letter was followed by an electronic survey invitation on March 7 for Wave 1, 

April 27 for Wave 2, and May 15 for Wave 3; the letter contained a unique hyperlink that school district 

coordinators could use to access the survey. The study team followed up with nonresponding SAs as 

outlined below.

• Between mid-March and late June, the study team sent up to five email reminders to school 

district coordinators in all three waves of the study.

• Between mid-March and mid-April, the study team made telephone reminder calls to 

nonresponding Waves 1 and 2 school districts. Trained staff made five attempts to reach the 

school district coordinators on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The 

staff left voicemail messages on the first and third contact attempts.

• Between July and late August, the study team and Department staff sent emails to 

nonresponding school districts to encourage the submission of the LFP contacts and to request 

their participation in the survey. Then staff followed up with telephone calls and enlisted the 

help of the SEA coordinators in the states with nonresponding school districts. In addition to 

encouraging school district coordinators to respond to the school district survey, staff continued 

to contact (by email or telephone) the school district coordinators until at least 70 percent of 

school districts had submitted a list of LFPs.

Survey data collection closed on August 28, 2017. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.

LFP coordinator survey data collection. Data collection began on October 10, 2017, and ended on 

January 8, 2018. A Web survey was the sole mode of data collection. The target respondent for this 

survey was the coordinator of the Part D program for local programs and facilities that receive Part D

funds, and it took an estimated 60 minutes to complete the online survey. The survey covered the 

following topics: (1) agency characteristics; (2) shared decision-making and collaborative planning; (3) 

education assessments, strategies, and services; (4) instructional staff qualifications and professional 

development; (5) outcome assessment and utilization; and (6) use of Part D funds. The survey was 

conducted in English.

In some cases, several facilities included in the sample were managed by the same coordinator. That 

coordinator received invitations to complete the survey for each of his or her facilities. In some cases,

coordinators indicated that the responses would be the same for the sampled facilities they manage

because all the facilities, which are part of the same program, operate in the same way. To reduce the 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

9 

burden on these survey respondents, the study team asked these coordinators to complete a survey for 

only one of the sampled facilities and labeled the remainder of their facilities as “siblings.” When the 

data collection ended, the survey team copied the responses of the responding facility to the records of 

the nonresponding, sampled sibling facilities managed by the same coordinator.

The study team collected LFP survey data in three waves because of a delay in receiving contact 

information from some school districts. Outreach to the LFPs started with a notification letter emailed to 

all sampled LFP coordinators. The email included a PDF of a letter from the Department that explained 

the study. The first wave of LFP notification letters was sent on October 10, the second wave was sent on 

November 3, and the third wave was sent on November 29. The email alerted coordinators that they 

would be invited to complete a survey on the Part D program at their local facility or program. This 

notification email was followed by an electronic survey invitation on October 11 for Wave 1, on 

November 7 for Wave 2, and on November 30 for Wave 3. The invitation contained a unique hyperlink 

that each coordinator could use to access the survey. The team followed up with nonresponding LFPs as 

outlined below.

• Between mid-October and early January, staff sent up to 14 email reminders to coordinators in 

the three waves of the LFP sample. 

• From late November through late December, staff placed telephone reminder calls to 

nonresponding LFPs. The staff prioritized the calls on the basis of overall LFP responses; states 

with the lowest response rates were given the highest priority. Trained staff made five attempts 

to reach the LFP coordinators on different days of the week and at different times of the day. 

They left voicemail messages on the first and third contact attempts.

• Starting in mid-December, Department staff prepared and sent customized emails to LFP 

coordinators in states with a greater than 50 percent nonresponse. The study team and 

Department staff then followed up with phone calls in late December and early January to 

encourage response to the survey.

Survey data collection closed on January 8, 2018. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

Data processing. The study team processed and cleaned the survey data in preparation for analysis, and 

they used the same process for all four surveys. The team reviewed all survey items for internal 

consistency, consistency between related items, and patterns of nonresponse. In addition, they 

reviewed missing data to distinguish between questions that the respondents did not answer and 

questions that were blank due to a skip pattern in the questionnaire. Fully complete surveys were 

differentiated from partially complete surveys by a disposition code. Finally, respondent identifiers and 

other variables not needed for analyses were stripped from the file, and weights were added in 

preparation for analyses. 

Final Dispositions

After collecting the data, the study team assigned all cases a code indicating the final survey status. 

Surveys were considered complete if they were submitted as complete through the online survey software 

or responses were given to 90% or more of the questions on the instrument. School districts and LFPs that 

did not receive Part D funding during the 2016–17 school year or that were closed during 2016–17 were 

ineligible to complete the survey. Exhibits A-4 details the final case disposition for each survey.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

10

Exhibit A-4. Final case dispositions for coordinator surveys

Final case disposition SEA survey SA survey LEA survey LFP survey

Total 52 83 654 920 

Total eligible 52 82 635 864 

Survey not started 0 6 68 239 

Survey partially completed 

(less than 90% of the items answered)

0 8 32 71 

Survey completed 

(90% or more of the items answered)

52 68 477 534 

Sibling facility completed — — — 19 

Research application required, denied — — 4 — 

Research application required, no response — — 54 — 

Refused — — — 1 

Total ineligible — 1 19 56 

Duplicate agency or facility — 1 — 9 

Did not receive funding in 2016–17 — — 19 32 

Facility was closed in 2016–17 — — — 15 

Sources: SEA Coordinators survey, school year 2016–2017; SA Coordinator survey, school year 2016–2017; LEA Coordinator survey, school year

2016–2017; LFP Coordinator survey, school year 2016–2017. 

Response Rates, Nonresponse Bias Analysis, and Weighting Adjustments

The need to construct weights for each survey depended on whether the survey collected data from a 

sample of a population or all population members and whether there was substantial nonresponse to 

the survey that required nonresponse weighting adjustment. The SEA survey drew responses from all 52 

SAs in the population; as a result, no weighting was necessary. The study team attempted to collect data 

from all 83 known SAs through the survey; however, not all agencies responded. The school district and 

LFP surveys included samples of agencies and facilities, and each collection had nonresponse. The study 

team developed survey weights for the school district sample and the LFP sample separately; each set of 

weights can be used to produce estimates of the corresponding population, and the combined weights 

can produce estimates for the whole population of local agencies and facilities. 

The following section summarizes the sample design of the school district and LFP surveys and the responses 

received from each of the three surveys (SA, school district, and LFP), shows the results of the nonresponse 

bias analysis, describes the weighting process, and discusses the weighting results for each survey.

SA coordinator survey. The study team attempted to collect data from all 83 known agencies through 

the SA survey; however, during the survey data collection, one of the SAs was found to be a duplicate 

because it had merged into another agency. This case was not included in the response rate calculation, 

weighting adjustments, and analyses. Sixty-eight of the agencies submitted a completed survey, resulting 

in an unweighted response rate of 

AAAAAAAAAA AAAA1 =

II

II + AA + AA + AA = 68

68 + 8 + 0 + 6 = 82.9%
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

11

where I represents the count of completed interviews, P represents the count of partially completed 

interviews, R represents refusals, and O represents other nonresponse. Note that the partial completes 

did not provide sufficient data to meet the usability criteria that would allow them to be classified as 

completes (see the Data Collection and Data Processing section for details). Data from the partial 

completes were not used in the nonresponse bias analysis and weighting process, and they were 

excluded from the analysis. 

Given that this was a census survey (i.e., no sampling), sampling error and statistical testing did not

apply. However, the study team treated the nonresponse as a random phenomenon (i.e., the resulting 

sample was a random sample from the population) and produced error estimates to reflect the 

uncertainty in the estimates introduced by nonresponse. Therefore, the analysis conducted with the 

weights produced in this section used a missing-at-random assumption;

3 after controlling for the 

variables used in the weighting process, the missing data for the survey responses was random.

The two types of potential nonresponse are unit nonresponse and item nonresponse. “Unit 

nonresponse” refers to the fact that not all sampled units responded to the survey, whereas “item 

nonresponse” occurs when units that responded to the survey did not provide responses to some items. 

Only unit response is evaluated herein; no adjustments were made to account for item nonresponse. 

Hereafter in this section, the term nonresponse represents unit nonresponse for the SA survey; in the 

next two sections, this term represents unit nonresponse for the school district and LFP surveys. 

Nonresponse can threaten the accuracy of survey estimates if any difference in the outcome variable 

exists between respondents and nonrespondents. This difference can cause a systematic deviation of a 

survey estimate from the population value. This systematic deviation is called “nonresponse bias,” 

which can be measured as follows: 

where is the nonresponse bias, is the mean estimate for the respondents, is the mean estimate 

for the nonrespondents, is the number of nonrespondents, and is the total number of sampled 

units. In other words, nonresponse bias may occur if the outcome variables correlate with response 

propensity (i.e., the likelihood of response) because the formula suggests that nonresponse bias is a 

function of nonresponse rate and the difference between respondents and nonrespondents.

However, because information on the outcome variables was not available for nonrespondents, the 

study team used information on the sampling frame to assess the nonresponse bias and make weighting 

adjustments to reduce potential nonresponse bias in the analysis sample. The creation of weights relies 

on the availability of auxiliary information — variables — that are predictive of response propensity.4 For 

the SA survey, only two variables were available for both the responding and nonresponding cases and 

were expected to be related to response propensity:

3 From Rubin, Donald B. 1976. “Inference and Missing Data.” Biometrika 63, no. 3:581–592. 

4 Note that if the variables of interest in the survey data do not correlate with the response propensity, there will not be 

nonresponse bias in the estimates, and weighting will not affect the level of bias in estimates.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

12

• Region: Four regions, Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, were created, with states assigned 

in accordance with the U.S. Census Bureau definitions.5 Puerto Rico was categorized in the 

South region, although it is not included as such in the U.S. Census Bureau definition.

• Agency type: Two agency types were created — those whose names contain the words 

“correction,” “justice,” and “public safety” — and those whose names do not contain any of 

these words. 

Exhibit A-5 shows the SA sample distribution by region, agency type, and response status. As this exhibit 

reveals, survey response patterns differ by region and agency type. Note that because the data cover 

the whole population, statistical significance testing does not apply; also, because the sample size is 

small, standard statistical significance testing would not be advisable. As a result, no statistical tests 

were conducted to evaluate the observed differences. Given the observed differences, both region and 

agency type were used in the construction of nonresponse weights.

Exhibit A-5. State agency coordinator survey sample distribution by region, agency type, and survey 

response status

Variable No Yes Total

Total sample size 14 68 82

Region 

Northeast 12% 88% 17

Midwest 19% 81% 16

South 24% 76% 29

West 10% 90% 20

Agency type

Justice 9% 92% 47

Other 29% 71% 35

Source: SA Coordinator survey, school year 2016–2017. 

In a sample survey, the sampling weights typically are adjusted for nonresponse on the basis of the 

differences between the characteristics of respondents and those of all sampled members. After the 

nonresponse adjustments, the adjusted weights are calibrated to the population counts through 

poststratification, which is considered to be an effective method for obtaining more accurate estimates 

of population quantities.

6 Because the survey was a census survey of all members in the population, the 

nonresponse adjustments and calibration to the population counts were performed in one step through 

poststratification. To create these poststratification weights, the full sample, including responding and 

nonresponding cases, is sorted into cells that represent the combination of each variable used in 

nonresponse weighting adjustments. For the SA survey, there is a total of eight cells (four regions × two 

 

5 Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, and 

Pennsylvania; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota; South: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, District of 

Columbia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; West: 

Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and 

Washington (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html; accessed February 5, 2018).

6 Little, Roderick J. A. 1993. “Post-stratification: A Modeler’s Perspective.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 88:

1001–1012. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

13

agency types). Within these cells, the unit weight (for the SA survey, all cases in the population were 

sampled; therefore, the unit weight is 1 for all cases) for each respondent is inflated by a constant factor 

so that the weights of respondents in each cell sum up to the total count (responders and 

nonresponders) in each cell:

wwcccc = NNcc

NNcccc

where is the total count of respondents and nonrespondents in cell c, and is the total respondents

in cell c. Because the population is small, and a majority of the population responded to the survey, a 

finite population correction (FPC) was applied to account for the reduction in variance when a nonnegligible fraction of the population is included in an analysis. FPC was calculated as the number of 

respondents (NNcc) divided by the total number of members (NN) in the population:

ffffff = NNrr

NN . 

The final weights for the SA survey range from 1.00 for the cell of Northeast and “justice” agencies to 

1.75 for the cell of South and “Other” agencies. The final weights sum up to the total counts in each cell 

of region and agency type and in the total eligible population. 

Here is an example estimation syntax from Stata:

svyset [pw=weights], fpc(fpc) poststrata(poststrata) postweight(postweight)

svy: mean VAR

Local Agency (School District and LFP) Surveys

The target population for the local coordinator surveys (the school district survey and the LFP survey) was 

local coordinators for the school districts and the LFPs. The school district survey included a sample of 

school districts, and the LFP survey included a sample of LFPs. A goal of this study was to produce both 

national-level and state-level estimates for the coordinators of the school districts and LFPs. While the data 

are available to produce both types of estimates, only national-level estimates were used for this report.

School district survey. The unit of analysis for the school district survey was school districts that oversee 

local program (Subpart 2) subgrants from all SEAs. As discussed earlier, to conduct this survey, the study 

team first obtained a list of 1,069 school districts from all SEAs. (Some states do not receive Subpart 2 

funds; therefore, not all SEAs provided school districts, as discussed later.) Although it is possible that 

this number (1,069) does not include all eligible school districts, there is no existing source of 

information about current school districts. Therefore, we treated the received lists as the complete 

listing of our target school districts.

A focus of this study was to produce state-level estimates for school districts and LFPs, and the sampling 

design employed a hybrid approach with differential sampling depending on the number of local 

agencies and facilities in the state. For states with an estimated number7 of local agencies and facilities 

fewer than 30, all school districts were selected; for states with an estimated number of local agencies

7 The list of LFPs had not been collected at the time of the school district survey; therefore, the study team relied on estimates 

used to create the sample design.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

14

and facilities greater than 30, a proportion of school districts (42 percent or greater, due to rounding up 

to the nearest integer) were randomly selected. 

A sample of 654 school districts were selected to participate in the survey from the full list of 1,069 

school districts. 

The sampling weights were calculated as

wwsscc = NNss

NNssss

where NNss is the total counts in state s, and NNssss is the total cases picked in state s. 

Some states were slower than others to send their lists of school districts; thus, the sample was drawn 

and released in three waves. The school district survey attempted to collect data from all 654 school 

districts in the sample, but 19 (2.9 percent) were determined to be ineligible because these school 

districts indicated that they did not receive subgrant funding during the 2016–17 school year.Among the 

635 eligible school districts in the sample, 477 were completes, with an unweighted response rate of

AAAAAAAAAA AAAA1 =

II

II + AA + AA + AA = 477

477 + 32 + 58 + 68 = 75.2%

where I represents the count of completed interviews, P represents the count of partially completed 

interviews that did not provide sufficient data to meet the usability criteria that would allow them to be 

classified as “completes” (see the Data collection and Data Processing section for details), R represents 

refusals, and O represents other nonresponse. 

Only three variables were available for both the responding and nonresponding cases to assess potential 

nonresponse bias and make weighting adjustments, and they were expected to be related to response 

propensity.8 The three variables are as follows: 

• Wave: Wave indicates when the cases were released; 

• Region: Four census regions, Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, were created. Puerto Rico 

was categorized into South although it is not in the census definition; and 

• Urbanicity: The urbanicity variable was created on the basis of the locale information about the 

school district location. This locale information was obtained by linking the list of school districts 

with the U.S. Department of Education 2015–16 Common Core of Data through ZIP code 

(89.6 percent linking rate), and the rest were linked through the city and state of the school district 

mailing address (additional 8.8 percent linking rate). The remaining unlinked 17 cases (1.6 percent) 

were imputed with the urbanicity of the cases with the closest ZIP code in the same state. 

Because state estimates were desired, cases in states with a 100 percent response rate (5.8 percent of the 

635 eligible cases) were not included in the nonresponse evaluations and adjustments. Given that the 

school district survey was a sample survey, the sampling weights were first adjusted for sample 

nonresponse, and then the adjusted weights were calibrated to the population counts. As Exhibit A-6 

shows, the response patterns differ by wave, region, and urbanicity (chi-squared tests all were significant 

 

8 The state variable has too many categories that would lead to an unstable or impossible estimation of response propensities. 

Therefore, the region variable was created on the basis of the state variable. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

15

at the 0.05 level). Therefore, response propensity was estimated through a logistic model with response 

status as the dependent variable and the three variables listed above as the predictors. The estimated 

response propensities for all sampled, eligible cases were divided into five weighting classes using quintiles

by sorting the cases by the predicted response propensity and classifying the cases into five categories, 

because this produces smoother but still effective weights.9 For each weighting class, a nonresponse 

adjustment factor was calculated so that the sum of adjusted weights for the respondents was equal to 

the sum of original sampling weights of all sampled eligible cases, as follows:

nnnnwwccsscc = NNAARRcc ∗ wwccsscc

where wwccsscc is the sampling weight for case i in state s in class c, and NNAARRcc is the nonresponse adjusting 

factor for the case in class c. 

After the nonresponse adjustment, the study team performed raking adjustments to adjust the original 

nonresponse adjusted weights so that the adjusted weights summed up to the marginal totals of state 

and urbanicity in the population. Raking, a poststratification method usually employed to avoid the 

problem of small cell sizes, is an iterative process in which some weights are adjusted up and some are 

adjusted down to match the sums of the weights in each category of each variable for the respondents 

to the marginal totals of each variable in population. The raked weights were calculated as 

AAnnnnwwccsscc = AARRcc ∗ nnnnwwccsscc

where nnnnwwccsscc is the nonresponse adjusted weight in the previous step, and AARRcc is the raking factor for 

each case. 

 

9 Cochran, W. G. 1968. “Removing Bias in Observational Studies.” Biometrics 24: 295–313. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

16

Exhibit A-6. School district coordinator survey sample by wave, region, urbanicity, and 

response status

No Yes Total

Total 158 440 598

Wave

1 20% 80% 387

2 36% 66% 121

3 43% 57% 90

Region 

Northeast 44% 56% 116

Midwest 20% 80% 161

South 22% 79% 191

West 26% 74% 130

Urbanicity 

Urban 34% 66% 169

Suburban 28% 72% 152

Town 21% 79% 179

Rural 22% 78% 98

Note: This table only includes the 598 districts eligible for the school district survey that were located in states that did not achieve a 

100 percent response rate (i.e., not all sampled school districts in the state complete the survey).

Source: School district survey, school year 2016–17. 

Note that the raking adjustment can result in weights that are smaller than 1 or even 0. This is 

acceptable for the estimations but is unintuitive for data users because some cases are not even 

representing themselves. Therefore, final weights that were smaller than 1 (2 cases in Georgia, 6 cases 

in Illinois, 1 case in Kansas, 6 cases in Kentucky, 14 cases in Missouri, 3 cases in Montana, and 2 cases in 

West Virginia, with the minimum weight being 0.82 in West Virginia) were adjusted to equal 1, and the 

weights for the rest of the cases in the same state were adjusted down so that the sum of the weights 

was still equal to the total eligible cases in the state. If we assume the nonresponse adjustment model 

was correct and the raking variables highly correlate with the survey variables of interest, this additional 

adjustment reduces the effectiveness of the adjustments to ensure that each case is at least 

representing itself.

As in the SA survey, because the population is small, and a majority of the members are in the sample, a 

finite population correction (FPC) was created for variance estimation. FPC was calculated as the 

number of respondents (NNsssscc) divided by the total number of eligible school districts (NNssss) in each state:

ffffff = NNsssscc

NNssss

The final weights range from 1.00 to 5.42. The weights sum up to the total number of eligible school 

districts in each state and the total number of eligible school districts in the population. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

17

Here is an example estimation syntax from Stata:

svyset [pw=weights], strata(strata) fpc(fpc) singleunit(center)

svy: mean VAR

LFP survey. The LFP survey used a sampling frame constructed from the lists provided by state contacts 

and school district coordinators; therefore, the LFP sampling was conducted after the school district

survey finished its data collection. The study team received a list of 1,835 local facilities for sampling for 

the LFP survey and, more importantly, received a list of local facilities from each state that was expected 

to have local facilities. The number of facilities received for study was greater than the research team 

expected, based on the number of facilities reported in the 2015–16 CSPR data that states had 

submitted to the Department.10 Exhibit A-7 shows a comparison between the number of facilities 

reported in the 2015–16 CSPR and the number of LFPs received and sampled by the study team. The 

exhibit does not show states for which the 2015–16 CSPR and the lists received by the study team 

indicated no local facilities. On the basis of this comparison, the study team treated the received list as 

the true list of the 2016–17 target population and excluded ineligibles later found in the survey data 

collection efforts. As described in the Sampling Design and Results section, the proportion of facilities 

sampled in each state was determined on the basis of the number of school district respondents and the 

count of facilities received in each state, according to the following: 

• If the count of local facilities received plus school district respondents was smaller than 30, then 

all local facilities were sampled.

• Otherwise, the larger number of local facilities was sampled between the following two: 30 

minus the number of school district respondents, or 58 percent of local facilities.

• The list of facilities in each state was further stratified by the program type (i.e., neglected or 

delinquent). Facilities with missing program type were grouped in a separate, “Other” stratum 

because no other information was available for imputing the program type. There was an 

additional stratification by whether the program duration is short or long with respect to the 

youth’s length of stay or involvement with the program. Again, facilities with missing duration 

type were grouped in a separate, “Other” stratum because no other information was available 

for imputing the duration type. Within each state, the sample size per stratum was proportional 

to the numbers of facilities received in each stratum.

A sample of 920 school districts were selected to participate in the survey from the full list of 1,835 LFPs. 

The sampling weights were calculated as

wwsshcc = NNssh

NNsshss

where NNssh is the total counts in stratum h in state s, and NNsshss is the total cases picked in stratum h in 

state s. 

 

10 U.S. Department of Education. 2017. “Consolidated State Performance Report, Part I and Part II — State by State Reports.” 

Last modified February 14, 2018. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

18

Exhibit A-7. Number of local facility programs reported in the 2015–16 Consolidated State 

Performance Report, received, and sampled by the study team, by state

State 2015–16 CSPR Received Sampled 

Total 1,638 1,835 920

Alabama 43 33 14

Alaska 4 5 5 

Arkansas 0 23 20

Arizona 8 23 16

California 118 161 64

Colorado 17 21 14

Connecticut 7 7 7 

Florida 119 109 42

Georgia 0 4 4 

Idaho 11 16 16

Illinois 0 19 11

Indiana 36 34 14

Iowa 50 27 15

Kansas 22 22 20

Kentucky 29 40 16

Louisiana 30 30 16

Maine 3 3 3 

Maryland 10 11 11

Massachusetts 38 32 17

Michigan 65 56 22

Minnesota 47 65 26

Mississippi 11 21 20

Missouri 26 32 18

Montana 4 12 12

Nebraska 5 4 4 

Nevada 10 28 16

New Hampshire 2 3 3 

New Jersey 9 14 14

New Mexico 17 16 16

New York 219 237 93

North Dakota 4 4 4 

Ohio 110 105 41

Oklahoma 96 79 31

Oregon 23 19 14

Pennsylvania 243 231 91

South Carolina 3 47 20

South Dakota 14 15 15

Tennessee 24 30 18

Texas 95 98 39

Virginia 15 26 14

Washington 25 20 20

West Virginia 8 12 12

Wisconsin 11 24 15

Wyoming 7 17 17

Source: CSPR 2015–16; LFP contacts provided to the study team by school districts in 2017. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

19

The samples were selected within each state for school districts and LFPs separately with the 

assumption that the received list of school districts and the received list of LFPs were complete, that

each set of weights can produce estimates for the corresponding population, and that the combined 

weights can produce estimates for the whole population of local agencies and facilities. 

The LFP survey invitation was sent to coordinators for the 920 sampled LFPs. Some coordinators 

received multiple invitations because they manage multiple facilities. (See the LFP Survey Data 

discussion in the Data Collection and Data Processing section for a description of these “sibling” 

facilities.) When the data collection ended, the survey team copied the responses of the responding 

sibling facility to the nonsurveyed, sampled sibling facilities. 

Among the 920 LFPs, 56 (6.1 percent) were not eligible because they reported that they did not receive 

funding or were closed during the 2016–17 school year,

11 534 were completes, and another 19 were 

sibling completes. The unweighted response rate is 

AAAAAAAAAA AAAA1 =

II

II + AA + AA + AA = 553

553 + 71 + 1 + 239 = 64.0%

where I represents the count of completed interview, including sibling completes; P represents the count 

of partially completed interviews; R represents refusals; and O represents other nonresponse. Note that 

the partial interviews did not provide sufficient data to meet the usability criteria that would allow them to 

be classified as completes (see the Data Collection and Data Processing section for details). Data from the 

partial completes were not used in the nonresponse bias analysis and weighting process. 

Only four variables, which need to be non-missing for all or most of the respondents and 

nonrespondents to be useful in the weighting process, were available or constructed to evaluate their 

correlations with response propensity. The four variables are as follows:

12

• Wave: Wave indicates when the cases were released; 

• Region: Four census regions — Northeast, Midwest, South, and West — were created. Puerto 

Rico was categorized as part of the South although it is not represented as such in the census 

definition; 

• Program type: The program type classifies the program (e.g., “neglected,” “delinquent”) on 

which the coordinator works. Facilities with missing program type were randomly assigned to 

either neglected or delinquent type because the missing category has only a smaller number of 

cases (1.9 percent), which would introduce too much variance into the weights; and 

• Duration type: Facility duration type was classified by the expected duration of the youth’s 

length of stay or involvement with the program – short (e.g., juvenile detention) or long (e.g., 

juvenile correction). Facilities with missing duration type were grouped in a separate, “Other”

category. 

Because state estimates were desired, cases in states with a 100 percent response rate in the state for a 

specific program type and duration type (13.7 percent of the 864 eligible cases) were not included in the 

nonresponse evaluations and adjustments. Thus, for the cases in those states with a 100 percent 

 

11 These cases were not included in the response rate calculation, weighting adjustments, and analyses. 

12 The urbanicity variable from the U.S. Department of Education Common Core of Data was intended for school districts. 

Therefore, it was not used for weighting LFPs.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

20

response rate, the nonresponse adjusting factor was 1. In addition, the state variable has too many 

categories, which would lead to unstable or impossible estimation of response propensities. Therefore, 

the state variable was not examined or used in the response propensity estimation model. As Exhibit A-8 

shows, the response patterns differ by wave, region, program type, and duration type (chi-squared tests 

were significant at either the 0.05 level for region and program type or at the 0.10 level for wave and 

duration type). Therefore, response propensity was estimated through a logistic model with response 

status as the dependent variable and the four variables listed above as the predictors. The estimated 

response propensities for all sampled eligible cases were divided into five weighting classes using 

quintiles because this produces smoother but still effective weights.13 For each weighting class, a 

nonresponse adjustment factor was calculated so that the sum of adjusted weights for the respondents 

was equal to the sum of original sampling weights of all sampled eligible cases as follows:

nnnnwwccsshcc = NNAARRcc ∗ wwccsshcc

where wwccsshcc is the sampling weight for case i in stratum h in state s in class c, and NNAARRcc is the raking 

factor for the case in class c. 

After the nonresponse adjustment, the nonresponse adjusted weights were raked to the totals of each 

stratum of state, program type, and duration type so that the sum of the weights for the respondents 

was equal to the population totals in each stratum. Strata without any respondents were combined with 

neighboring strata in the same state and same program type, or in the same state only if the same 

program type was not possible.14 The raked weights were calculated as: 

AAnnnnwwccsshcc = AARRh ∗ nnnnwwccsshcc

where nnnnwwccsshcc is the nonresponse adjusted weight in the previous step and AARRh is the raking factor for 

stratum h. 

 

13 Cochran, W. G. 1968. “Removing Bias in Observational Studies.” Biometrics 24: 295–313. 

14 In the final strata creation, strata with only one respondent were combined in the same way for variance estimation because 

each stratum needs to have at least two responding units. Two states each have only one respondent, and they were not 

combined. In this situation, the estimation will use the population mean as the stratum mean for variance estimation.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

21

Exhibit A-8. Local facility programs sample by wave, region, program type, duration type, and 

response status

No Yes Total

Total 311 443 754

Wave

1 39% 61% 586

2 51% 49% 118

3 44% 56% 50

Region 

Northeast 39% 61% 204

Midwest 33% 67% 153

South 42% 58% 230

West 51% 49% 167

Program type

Delinquent 38% 62% 510

Neglected 46% 54% 234

Other 90% 10% 10

Duration type

Long term 51% 49% 67

Short term 36% 64% 246

Other 43% 57% 441

Note: This table does not include sampled cases in states for a specific program type and duration type with a 100 percent response rate 

(13.7 percent of the 864 eligible cases). Ineligibles also were not included.

Source: LFP survey, school year 2016–2017. 

As in the SA and school district surveys, because the population is small, and a majority of members are 

in the sample, a finite population correction (FPC) was created for variance estimation. FPC was 

calculated as the number of respondents (NNsshsscc) divided by the total number of eligible school districts 

(NNsshss) in each state:

ffffff = NNsshsscc

NNsshss

The final weights range from 1.0 to 24.0. This maximum weight of 24.0 was observed in Florida, which 

has a median weight of 7.2 and an interquartile range of 4.8. The maximum weight was not extreme 

enough to require a weight trimming on the basis of the “median plus six interquartile ranges of the 

weights” rule used in the National Immunization Survey.

15 The weights sum up to the total number of 

eligible school districts in each state and to the total population (1,779 LFPs). 

 

15 Chowdhury, Sadeq, Meena Khare, and Kirk M. Wolter. 2007. “Weight Trimming in the National Immunization Survey.” 

Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association: 2651–2658. 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

22

Case Studies

Sample Frame and Selection

The study team used a structured selection process to identify a purposive sample of five case study 

states. Criteria were used to select the Part D grantee states as well as Subpart 1-funded and Subpart 2-

funded agencies and facilities in each of the selected states that, as a group, represented a range of 

implementation strategies and practices, various geographical regions across the country, and diverse 

service populations. Data collection from the purposive sample of states yielded rich information to 

complement coordinator survey findings and to help address the study questions. Due to the purposive 

nature and the limited number of states in the sample, the case study findings cannot be generalized.

Selection of the purposive sample for the case studies took into account the following Part D program 

characteristics: 

• Comprehensive programming:

– States’ subgrantee types and characteristics (e.g., state, local, neglect, delinquent)

– States with both statewide programming for neglected youth and a large number of 

programs for delinquent youth 

• Part D student population:

– Number of children and youth participating in Part D-funded programs in each state

• Student characteristics:

– Length of stay in Part D program (e.g., rate of long-term students)

– Proportion of students who are English learners

– Proportion of students with disabilities

• Student demographics:

– Gender distribution

– Age distribution

– Native American/Alaskan Native student population 

– African American/black and Hispanic student population

• Transition services provided to participating students:

– States’ rates of youth receiving transition services

• Students’ academic and vocational performance and outcomes:

– Reading performance

– Mathematics performance

– Earned high school credits, General Education Development (GED) certificate

– Job training participation

The study team assigned all potential case study states16 a weight on each of the characteristics listed 

above and calculated total weighted scores for each state. Each state was assigned a weight (from 0 

to 5) on each variable of interest (see Exhibits A-9 and A-10). The weighting helped to determine which 

states had a range of sufficiently scaled Part D programming in place; a variety of neglected and 

 

16 To maximize the opportunity for the case study data collection to yield rich information about Part D programming at the 

local level, the selection process excluded states that did not report having any local Subpart 2 programs for either neglected 

or delinquent youth.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

23

delinquent student populations served; high rates of youth receiving transition services; and noteworthy 

academic and vocational outcomes, so that, if selected for the case studies, data collection could yield 

adequate information to address the study questions.

Exhibit A-9. Case study state selection weights for Subpart 1 grantee characteristics

Subpart 1 grantee characteristics Weights 

Number of neglect (N) programs/facilities None=0, 1–7=1, 8–15=2, 

16–23=3, 24–31=4, >31=5

Number of N students 0–99=0, 100–548=1, 549–997=2, 

998–1446=3, 1447–1895=4, >1896=5

Number of delinquent (D) students in juvenile detention (JD) facilities 0–499=0, 500–1908=1, 1909–3317=2, 

3318–4726=3, 4727–6135=4, >6135=5

Number of D students in juvenile corrections (JC) facilities 0–499=0, 500–1088=1, 1089–1677=2, 

1678–2266=3, 2267–2855=4, >2855=5

Number of N students who are American Indian/Alaskan Native 

(AI/AN) 

0=0, 1–22=1, 23–45=2, 

46–68=3, 69–91=4, >91=5

Number of N students who are black 0=0, 1–213=1, 214–427=2, 

428–641=3, 642–855=4, >855=5

Number of D students who are AI/AN 0–9=0, 10–22=1, 23–45=2, 

46–68=3, 69–91=4, >91=5 

Number of D students who are black 0–99=0, 100–876=1, 877–1653=2, 1654–

2430=3, 2431–3207=4, >3207=5

Number of English learners 0–19=0, 20–39=1, 40–59–=2, 

60–79=3, 80–99=4, >99=5

Number of students identified under the Individuals With Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) students

0=0, 1–200=1, 201–400=2, 

401–600=3, 601–800=4, >800=5

Percentage of students in N and D facilities receiving transition services 0=0, 1–20%=1, 21–40%=2, 

41–60%=3, 61–80%=4, >80%=5

Percentage of students with reading performance improvement of 

more than one grade level from pre- to post-test exams

0=0, 1–13%=1, 14–27%=2, 

28–40%=3, 41–53%=4, >53%=5

Percentage of students with negative grade level change in reading 

performance

0=5, 1–6%=4, 7–12%=3, 

13–18%=2, 19–24%=1, >25%=0

Percentage of students with mathematics performance improvement 

of more than one grade level from pre- to post-test exams

0=0, 1–12%=1, 13–25%=2, 

26–37%=3, 38–49%=4, >50%=5

Percentage of students with negative grade level change in 

mathematics performance

0=5, 1–8%=4, 9–16%=3, 

17–24%=2, 25–32%=1, >33%=0

Percentage of students who earned high school course credits 0=0, 1–20%=1, 21–40%=2, 

41–60%=3, 61–80%=4, >81%=5

Percentage of students who earned General Education Development 

(GED) certificates

0=0, 1–8%=1, 9–16%=2, 

17–24%=3, 25–32%=4, >33%=5

Percentage of students enrolled in job training 0=0, 1–17%=1, 18–34%=2, 

35–51%=3, 52–68%=4, >68%+=5
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

24

Exhibit A-10. Case study state selection weights for Subpart 2 grantee characteristics

Subpart 2 grantee characteristics Weights 

Number of N programs/facilities 0=0, 1–22=1, 23–44=2, 45–66=3, 

67–88=4, >88=5

Number of N students 0–499=0, 500–1368=1, 1369–2237=2, 

2238–3106=3, 3107–3975=4, >3975=5

Number of D students in JD facilities 0–999=0, 1000–8561=1, 

8562–16122=2, 16123–23683=3, 23684–

31244=4, >31245=5

Number of D students in JC facilities 0–999=0, 1000–3087=1, 3088–5174=2, 

5175–7261=3, 7262–9348=4, >9348=5

Number of N students who are AI/AN 0–9=0, 10–75=1, 76–141=2, 142–207=3, 

208–273=4, >273=5

Number of N students who are black 0–99=0, 100–596=1, 597–1093=2, 1094–

1590=3, 1591–2087=4, >2088=5

Number of D students who are AI/AN 0–99=0, 100–222=1, 223–345=2, 

346–468=3, 469–591=4, >592=5

Number of D students who are black 0–999=0, 1000–3146=1, 3147–5293=2, 

5294–7440=3, 7441–9587=4, >9588=5

Percentage of all ND students who are AI/AN 0=0, 1–10%=1, 11–19%=2, 20–29%=3, 

20–38%=4, >39%=5

Percentage of all ND students who are black 0=0, 1–16%=1, 17–32%=2, 33–48%=3, 

49–64%=4, >64%=5

Number of ELs (34 in "N") 0–99=0, 100–246=1, 

247–393=2, 394–539=3, 540–685=4, 

686+=5 

Percentage of ND students who are LEP students 

(5 equal portions based on 22 percent in “total”]) 

0=0, 1–4%=1,5–8%=2, 9–12%=3, 

13–16%=4, 17%+=5

Percentage of ND students who are identified under IDEA 0=0, 1–18%=1, 19–36%=2, 37–54%=3,

55–72%=4, >73=5

Percentage of all ND students who are female 0=0, 1–20%=1, 21–40%=2, 41–60%=3, 

61–80%=4, >80%=5

Percentage of all ND students who are “young” (11–14) 0=0, 1–7%=1, 8–15%=2, 16–22%=3, 

23–30%=4, >30%=5

Percentage of all ND students who are “older” (18–21) 0=0, 1–15%=1, 16–30%=2, 31–46%=3, 

47–61%=4, >61%=5

Percentage of students in N and D facilities receiving transition 

services

0=0, 1–20%=1, 21–40%=2, 41–60%=3, 

61–80%=4, >80%=5

The initial selection process resulted in a list of 12 candidate states. The study team then worked with

the Department to approve the final selection of five states. Next, the team selected a sample of local 

programs (school districts and neglect and delinquent facilities) in each state using an iterative process 

aimed at balancing urbanicity, school district size, student demographics and academic performance, 

and types of Part D facilities within each selected state (i.e., neglect, delinquent, or both). 

Data Collection

As with the coordinator surveys, the study team relied on the literature review and extant data analysis 

findings and the conceptual framework to develop case study data collection protocols. This shared 

foundation between data collection instruments allowed for the triangulation of data across the surveys 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

25

and case studies for a more comprehensive examination of the study questions. Once finalized, the 

interview protocols were tailored for each respondent type (e.g., program administrators, instructional 

and education support staff). The study team also developed a protocol for use in the review of 

administrative documents collected at the case study sites. As with the interview protocols, development 

of the document review protocol was guided by the study questions and key constructs of interest.

In each case study state, the team conducted interviews at the SEA; one or two SAs that received 

substantial Part D, Subpart 1 funds; two school districts and selected local neglect and delinquent 

facilities that receive Subpart 2 allocations from the respective district (see Exhibit A-12). The study 

team conducted a total of 111 interviews, ranging from 17 to 30 per state. Most interviews were with 

individuals; however, 22 interviews included two or more staff each. Most of the interviews were audio 

recorded and subsequently transcribed; however, respondents in 14 interviews did not consent to 

recording. In these interviews, the team took extensive notes focused on capturing each respondent’s 

verbatim responses. In addition, the study team conducted follow-up telephone interviews with six 

respondents to obtain missing information and used information from the review of administrative 

documents to clarify and provide context for the interview data as needed. Respondents included 

program administrators, facility and school directors, instructional and support personnel, counselors, 

and others who provide education and transition services to youth. Site visits also included collection 

and review of documents and materials such as relevant planning documents, program budgets, and 

student tracking systems or forms

Data Analysis

The first phase of analysis consisted of site-specific data aggregation. The study team completed a 

preliminary data capture document, and coded interview transcripts with a predetermined set of “tags” 

(or codes) aligned to the study’s conceptual framework and linked with the interview topics guided by 

the study questions. Transcripts were then produced, organized by key study constructs for each case 

study state. The team also created a unique identifier for each agency or facility and respondent for 

internal analytic and quality control purposes.

Further analyses of the case study data involved a series of steps that included identifying, coding, and 

categorizing key information found in the data. To facilitate data analysis, information gathered during 

site visits was entered into Dedoose, a qualitative software program used to support coding, comparison 

of coded data across interviews, and organizing and producing data reports at multiple levels. The team 

used a three-level coding process to organize data and a process of iterative investigation to derive 

thematic categories within the data. 

In level-1 coding (i.e., initial coding), the data were organized by applying a code to each key topic of 

inquiry (e.g., agency characteristics, collaboration and shared decision-making, services provided, 

institution-wide programming, implementation challenges). The team explored patterns, categories, and 

themes in order to develop level-2 codes. Level-2 coding (i.e., focused coding) consisted of coding 

responses to each protocol question, resulting in the development of categories based on patterns in 

the data.

On the basis of the study team’s thorough collaborative review of level-1 and level-2 codes, a third level 

of coding (i.e., thematic coding) was conducted to highlight themes that emerged across the case study 

states. Level-3 coding consisted of conceptual and relationship codes that identified domains and 

relationships between the constructs. Throughout the coding process, the team kept analytic memos to 

facilitate the analysis process across the coders, highlighting salient patterns in coders’ results and ideas 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

26

that warranted further explanation, and to elaborate on themes that emerged from the data. The team 

tested emergent categories and themes through continuous review of data across the case study states. 

A comparative analysis of constructs was conducted to assess whether certain constructs, relationships 

among constructs, or perspectives were more apparent or different among the case study states. 

Disclosure Review

The study team used responses to the survey to summarize findings in an aggregate manner (across 

groups or sites) or to provide examples of program implementation in a manner that does not associate 

responses with a specific site or individual. As such, no agency, facility, or staff member is named in the 

reporting of these data. In preparation for analysis, we removed all identifiers from the data file. The 

study team may refer to the generic title of an individual (e.g., Part D administrator or program 

coordinator) in the results, but we use neither the site name nor the individual name. We made a 

conscious effort to describe the site in general terms to avoid revealing its identity. In addition, the 

research team reviewed responses to each survey item for potential disclosure risk and suppressed the 

reporting of the responses as necessary.
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

27

Appendix B. Data Collection Instruments

Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

29

Part D Coordinator Surveys
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 30

A. Agency Characteristics 

A1. What is your current job title at your agency? 

Enter job title

A2. In a typical week, what percentage of your work hours are spent working on tasks related to 

Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 20%

 20–39%

 40–59%

 60–79%

 80% or more 

A3. How many years have you worked as a Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency? 

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 1 year

 1–3 years

 4–6 years

 7–10 years

 More than 10 years

A4. Around the first of October, 2016, what were the unduplicated counts (Subpart 1 and Subpart 

2) of children and youth in all ESSA Title I, Part D−funded facilities/programs in your state? 

This information can be found in your Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data. 

Please enter the counts in the boxes below. 

Unduplicated count of children and youth served in Subpart 1 (state agency) 

programs

Unduplicated count of children and youth served in Subpart 2 (local education 

agency) programs

A5. For school/fiscal year 2016-17, approximately what percentage of your state’s total education 

funding comes from Title I, Part D?

Please enter the percentage in the box below.

Percentage of total state education funding from Title I, Part D
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 31

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration 

SHARED DECISION MAKING AND COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

B1. What is your level of collaboration with each of the following federal agencies with regard to

programs or other efforts for the children and youth who are neglected and/or delinquent in 

your state?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at All 

Collaborative

Not Very 

Collaborative

Somewhat 

Collaborative

Very 

Collaborative

Not Applicable

a. Administration for 

Children and Families 

(U.S. Department of 

Health and Human 

Services) 

1 2 3 4 NA

b. Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services 

Administration (U.S. 

Department of Health 

and Human Services) 

1 2 3 4 NA

c. U.S. Department of 

Education 1 2 3 4 NA

d. U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development

1 2 3 4 NA

e. U.S. Department of 

Justice 1 2 3 4 NA

f. U.S. Department of 

Labor 1 2 3 4 NA

g. Other, please specify 

below. 1 2 3 4 NA
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 32

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B2. What is your level of collaboration with each of the following state agencies/partners with 

regard to programs or other efforts for the children and youth who are neglected and/or 

delinquent in your state?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at All 

Collaborative

Not Very 

Collaborative

Somewhat 

Collaborative

Very 

Collaborative

Not 

Applicable

a. Department of Child and 

Family/Health and Human 

Services 

1 2 3 4 NA

b. Department of 

Mental/Behavioral Health 

Services 

1 2 3 4 NA

c. Department of Juvenile 

Justice/Corrections 1 2 3 4 NA

d. Department of Adult 

Justice/Corrections 1 2 3 4 NA

e. Department of 

Housing/Urban 

Development

1 2 3 4 NA

f. Department of Labor 1 2 3 4 NA

g. Other, please specify 

below. 1 2 3 4 NA

B3. How often does your agency use the following program/department coordination or 

interagency collaboration practices in support of education and related services for children 

and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Interagency meetings 1 2 3 4

b. Memorandum of understanding/agreement or 

other formal document ensuring 

coordination/collaboration

1 2 3 4

c. braided funding or other resource sharing 1 2 3 4

d. Co-training of staff (e.g., training teachers and 

security staff together) 1 2 3 4

e. Co-location of staff (e.g., mental health agency 

employees who regularly work in a juvenile 

justice facility)

1 2 3 4

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 33

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B4. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following program planning activities a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Ensuring that the Title I, Part D program is included 

in statewide education planning 1 2 3 4 

b. Creating/modifying a state-level strategic plan for 

the Title I, Part D program 1 2 3 4 

c. Setting Title I, Part D program timelines/deadlines 1 2 3 4 

d. Developing Title I, Part D program applications 1 2 3 4

e. Reviewing Title I, Part D program applications 1 2 3 4

f. Requesting revisions to Title I, Part D program 

applications as needed 1 2 3 4

g. Assisting state agencies in their Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 1 program planning 1 2 3 4 

h. 

Assisting local education agencies (school 

districts) in their Title I, Part D, Subpart 2

program planning

1 2 3 4 

i. 

Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4

B5. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following program implementation activities a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Coordinating, overseeing, or other involvement in 

academic instruction in facilities/programs 1 2 3 4 

b. Providing training and technical assistance to 

facility/program staff 1 2 3 4 

c. Conducting program (including fiscal)

monitoring 1 2 3 4 

d. Conducting student progress monitoring 1 2 3 4

e. Conducting/coordinating required program data 

collection 1 2 3 4

e.

Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 34

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

USES OF FUNDS

B6. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following activities related to subgrantees’ use of funds a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Approving uses of Title I, Part D funds in 

subgrantee applications 1 2 3 4 

b. Approving uses of Title I, Part D funds as 

requested by subgrantees (after funding allocation) 1 2 3 4 

c. 

Providing guidelines or technical assistance for 

subgrantees to determine for themselves allowable 

and/or appropriate uses of Title I, Part D funds

1 2 3 4 

d.

Creating a list(s) of or otherwise disseminating list 

of allowable and/or unallowable uses of Title I, Part 

D funds

1 2 3 4

e. Ensuring that Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds are 

used supplementally 1 2 3 4

f. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4

B6a. How are Title I, Part D funds (Subpart 2 subgrants only) allocated to local facilities/programs 

through your agency? 

Please select only one answer.

 All funds are allocated by formula, based on facility/program child counts.

 All funds are allocated competitively/by discretion of my agency.

 Some funds are allocated by formula AND some funds are allocated competitively/by discretion.

 Other, please specify below. 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 35

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

EDUCATION ASSESSMENTS, STRATEGIES, AND SERVICES

B7. To what extent is your state focused on each of the following with regard to the education of 

children and youth served under the Title I, Part D programs (both state and local)?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Improving education quality 1 2 3 4

b. Using evidence-based educational practices 1 2 3 4 

c. Increasing high school graduation rates 1 2 3 4 

d. Increasing rates of high school equivalency 

certificates earned (e.g., GED, TASC, HiSET) 1 2 3 4

e. Increasing access to post-secondary education 1 2 3 4 

f. Increasing access to career and technical 

education 1 2 3 4 

g. Increasing access to arts education 1 2 3 4

h. Increasing access to social and emotional 

learning education 1 2 3 4

i. Improving independent living and other “life” skills 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 36

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B8. Do state or local policies (e.g., legislation) regulate any of the following within state and local 

Title I, Part D programs? 

Please select one answer for state agency programs and one answer for local programs in each row.

State Agency Programs Local Programs

Yes No Yes No

a. The timing of academic assessments (e.g., preand post-tests) 1 0 1 0

b. The test(s) used for academic assessment 1 0 1 0

c. Whether academic assessment results are shared 

with a child’s/youth’s subsequent placement 1 0 1 0

d. The academic curricula used 1 0 1 0

e. The instructional practices used 1 0 1 0

f. The supplemental use of Title I, Part D funds 1 0 1 0

g. The length of the instructional day 1 0 1 0

h. The length of the school year 1 0 1 0

i. Participation/engagement by parents or other family 

members/caregivers in a child’s/youth’s education 1 0 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 1 0 1 0
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 37

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B9. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following activities related to educational and related programming a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Setting or translating statewide education 

goals/priorities for Title I, Part D programs (e.g., 

increased high school graduation rates, college 

and career readiness)

1 2 3 4

b. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for academic screening 

and assessment to Title I, Part D subgrantees

1 2 3 4 

c. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for academic instruction

to Title I, Part D subgrantees

1 2 3 4 

d. Observing classroom instruction in Title I, 

Part D−funded facilities/programs 1 2 3 4 

e. Identifying and/or helping subgrantees identify 

areas of academic need within student populations 

served by the Title I, Part D program

1 2 3 4 

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 

SPECIAL EDUCATION

B10. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, how often do you coordinate 

with the Special Education office within your state education agency for each of the following 

purposes?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Coordinating program planning 1 2 3 4

b. Coordinating or consolidating program funding 1 2 3 4

c. Coordinating program monitoring 1 2 3 4

d. Using each program’s data for program 

improvement or other future program planning or 

efforts

1 2 3 4

e. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 38

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B11. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following activities related to serving students with special needs a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Ensuring that subgrantees understand the federal 

requirement of providing a free, appropriate, public 

education to all children and youth with disabilities 

served by Title I, Part D programs

1 2 3 4

b. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for the education of 

students with disabilities (e.g., appropriate 

accommodations, valid and reliable alternative 

assessments, education in the least restrictive 

environment)

1 2 3 4 

c. Ensuring that subgrantees work with the school 

districts and schools to which children and youth 

with disabilities return following involvement in Title 

I, Part D programs

1 2 3 4 

d. Ensuring that teachers and other instructional staff 

have the necessary qualifications/credentials to 

teach children and youth with disabilities

1 2 3 4 

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 39

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

INSTITUTION-WIDE PROJECTS

B12. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following activities related to institution-wide projects (IWPs) within state juvenile 

correctional facilities a focus of your work? 

1 My state does not implement any Title I, Part D IWPs. (If selected, go to Question B13.)

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Supporting the needs assessment process within 

facilities 1 2 3 4

b. Providing and/or encouraging professional 

development for facility staff on IWP 

implementation

1 2 3 4

c. Creating indicators to assess IWP 

implementation/compliance and including the 

indicators in monitoring 

1 2 3 4 

d. Providing data and/or assisting facilities in using 

data to identify innovative institution-wide practices 1 2 3 4

e. Helping facilitate communication and collaboration 

between agencies/departments within facilities 1 2 3 4 

f. Helping facilitate communication and collaboration 

between juvenile correctional education 

providers and the community

1 2 3 4 

g. Identifying alternative or additional funding sources 

for incorporation into IWPs 1 2 3 4

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 40

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

TRANSITION PLANNING AND SUPPORT

B13. Do state or local policies (e.g., legislation) regulate any of the following within state and local 

Title I, Part D programs? 

Please select one answer for state agency programs and one answer for local programs in each row.

State Agency Programs Local Programs

Yes No Yes No

a. Whether all students (i.e., not just students eligible 

for special education) are required to have transition 

plans

1 0 1 0

b. The timing of the exchange of student records 

between placements 1 0 1 0

c. Whether facilities/programs must employ a 

dedicated transition coordinator or staff person with 

dedicated responsibility for transition planning and 

support

1 0 1 0

d. Whether child welfare or juvenile justice 

agencies/facilities may have contact with children 

and youth following exit

1 0 1 0

e. How Title I, Part D funds are to be used for 

transition planning, services, and/or support 1 0 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0 1 0
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 41

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B14. Thinking about your role as the state Title I, Part D Coordinator, to what extent are the 

following activities related to transition planning and support a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major 

Focus

a. Creating a statewide transition plan for 

subgrantees 1 2 3 4

b. Providing and/or encouraging professional 

development for facility staff on transition planning 

and support

1 2 3 4 

c. Creating indicators to assess transition planning 

and support and including the indicators in 

monitoring

1 2 3 4 

d. Providing data and/or assisting facilities in using 

data to identify innovative transition practices 1 2 3 4 

e. Facilitating and/or encouraging communication/ 

coordination between Title I, Part D−funded 

facilities and local school districts 

1 2 3 4

f. Assisting Title I, Part D-funded facilities in 

overcoming barriers/challenges to student 

record/information sharing

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 42

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

C1. Does the state require the assessment of educational outcomes for students served by Title I, 

Part D funds?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C2. Even if your state does not require the use of educational outcomes measures, do you use 

them in your state- and locally-operated facilities/programs that receive Title I, Part D funds? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C3.

 No, Go to Question C6, on page 16.

C3. How are educational outcomes measured in the state- and locally-operated 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds in your state? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Standardized, summative assessments (e.g., state 

end-of-year assessment) 1 0

b. Standardized, formative assessments (e.g., formal 

and informal assessment procedures conducted by 

teachers during the learning process to modify 

teaching and learning to improve student attainment)

1 0

c. Informal assessments (e.g., teacher observation, 

student work) 1 0

d. Course grades 1 0

e. Course credits 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 43

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

C4. Are outcomes measured for any of the following specific subpopulations of students within 

state and/or local Title I, Part D−funded facilities/programs?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Students with disabilities 1 0

b. English language learners 1 0

c. Black students 1 0

d. Hispanic/Latino students 1 0

e. American Indian and/or Alaska Native students 1 0

f. By gender 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C5. Which of the following post-exit, education-related outcomes does your state track for 

children and youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. High school course credits awarded 1 0

b. High school graduation rates and/or diplomas 

awarded 1 0

c. High school equivalency certificates earned (e.g., 

GED, TASC, HiSET) 1 0

d. High school dropout rates 1 0

e. Post-secondary education acceptance/enrollment 1 0

f. Post-secondary education dropout/incompletion rates 1 0

g. Career and technical certificates awarded 1 0

h. Technical/training school acceptance/enrollment 

and/or apprenticeships 1 0

i. Employment or other labor market outcomes 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 44

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

C6. Has your state education agency developed a formal program monitoring and/or program 

improvement process (e.g., continuous quality improvement) toward achieving statewide 

outcomes for students served by Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C7. 

 No, Go to Question C8.

C7. Does your state education agency require a formal program monitoring and/or program 

improvement process for its Title I, Part D subgrantees?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C8. To what extent do you think your state is meeting its goal of improving educational outcomes 

for children and youth in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems? 

Please select only one answer.

 Not at all

 To a slight extent

 To some extent

 To a great extent

C9. How often does your agency use process data (e.g., data that track delivery of services to 

students, such as adherence to curriculum or children and youth participation in education 

activities, etc.) collected by your state agency and/or by subgrantees for each of the 

following?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing fidelity to subgrantee applications 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when state and/or subgrantee 

goals/outcomes are not met 

1 2 3 4
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 45

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

C10. How often does your agency use outcome data (e.g., data that track gains in reading and 

mathematics, high school course credits awarded, or community school reenrollment) 

collected by your state agency and/or by subgrantees for each of the following?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing progress toward achieving state 

and/or subgrantee goals/outcomes 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when state and/or subgrantee 

goals/outcomes are not met

1 2 3 4

C11. Are there any comments or thoughts that you would like to share about your experiences 

with Title I, Part D funds?

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 46

A. Agency Characteristics 

A1. What is your current job title at your state agency? 

Enter job title

A2. In what type of state agency is your current position located?

Please select only one answer.

 State Department of Education

 State Department of (Juvenile) Justice/Corrections

 State Department of Child and Family Services/Child Welfare

 Other (please specify):

A3. In a typical week, what percentage of your work hours are spent working on tasks related to 

Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 20%

 20–39%

 40–59%

 60–79%

 80% or more 

A4. How many years have you worked in as a Title I, Part D Coordinator at your state agency? 

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 1 year

 1 year – less than 3 years

 3 years – less than 6 years

 6 years – less than 10 years

 10 years or more

A5. On or around October 1, 2016, how many Title I, Part D–funded facilities/programs are under 

your state agency’s jurisdiction? 

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of Title I, Part D facilities/programs
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 47

A. Agency Characteristics, continued 

A6. On or around October 1, 2016, how many children and youth were served* with Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 1 funds by your state agency on October 1, 2016? 

*“Served” refers to students who meet the following criteria: (1) in a program for children and youth

who are neglected or delinquent, including juvenile and adult correctional facilities and community 

day programs; (2) enrolled in a state-funded regular program of instruction; (3) enrolled in a program 

that meets the length-of-stay requirements for the program type; and (4) 21 years of age or younger.

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth served with Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 funds

A7. Around October 1, 2016, what was the unduplicated count of children and youth in all Title I, 

Part D−funded facilities/programs under your state agency?

This information can be found in the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data. 

Please enter the count in the box below. 

Unduplicated count of children and youth served by Title I, Part D

A8. Of the children and youth served by Title I, Part D funds by your state agency on October 1, 

2016, how many were:

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.” Please assign each child/youth to one race/ethnicity 

category so they are not double-counted.

Please make sure the total in this table matches the number you reported in A7.

Number of Children and Youth 

Race/Ethnicity

a. Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race  None

b. American Indian or Alaska Native, not Hispanic or Latino  None

c. Asian, not Hispanic or Latino  None

d. Black or African American, not Hispanic or Latino  None

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or Latino  None

f. White, not Hispanic or Latino  None

g. Two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino  None

h. Total
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 48

A. Agency Characteristics, continued

A9. Of the children and youth served by Title I, Part D funds by your state agency around October 

1, 2016, how many were male? How many were female?

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.”

Please make sure the total in this table matches the number you reported in A7.

Number of Children and Youth 

a. Male  None

b. Female  None

c. Total

A10. Of the children and youth served by Title I, Part D funds by your state agency around October 

1, 2016, how many were in the following age groups?

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.”

Please make sure the total in this table matches the number you reported in A7.

Number of Children and Youth 

a. 0–5 years old  None

b. 6–12 years old  None

c. 13–17 years old  None

d. 18–21 years old  None

e. 22 years old or older  None

f. Total

A11. On or around October 1, 2016, what was the overall ratio of children and youth to 

instructional staff (e.g., teachers, teaching assistants) in facilities/programs receiving 

Title I, Part D funds through your state agency? 

Please report the number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs); a full-time staff member would count as 1, 

while a staff member who works 20 hours a week would count as 0.50.

Please provide a number in each applicable row for both columns.

Children and Youth to Instructional Staff Ratio

Program Type Number of Children and Youth Number of Instructional Staff 

Adult corrections : 

Juvenile corrections : 

Juvenile detention : 

Neglected : 
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 49

A. Agency Characteristics, continued 

A12. On or around October 1, 2016, what was the overall ratio of children and youth to support 

services staff (e.g., counselors, psychologists, physical therapists, transitional specialists) 

in facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency? 

Please report the number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs); a full-time staff member would count as 1, 

while a staff member who works 20 hours a week would count as 0.50. Please provide a number in each row for 

both columns.

Children and Youth to Support/Related Services Staff Ratio

Program Type Number of Children and Youth Number of Support/Related

Services Staff

Adult corrections : 

Juvenile corrections : 

Juvenile detention : 

Neglected programs : 

Other programs : 

A13. For the school/fiscal year 2016-17, approximately what percentage of your state agency’s 

total education funding comes from Title I, Part D?

To calculate your response to this question, please divide your state agency’s total Title I, Part D allocation by your 

state agency’s total education funding, from all other sources and across all purposes and student populations. Then, 

multiple that number by 100 for your percentage. For example, if you receive $25,000 in Title I Part D funding and your 

total state agency funds are $1,000,000, then your response to this question would be 2.5% (i.e., $25,000/$1,000,000 

x 100=2.5%). 

Please enter the percentage in the box below.

Percentage of state agency’s education funds received from Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent

Programs 

A14. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth in your state 

agency’s Title I, Part D programs were eligible for services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B? 

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth eligible for services under IDEA, Part B

A15. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth in your state 

agency’s Title I, Part D facilities/programs had been identified as English language learners?

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth identified as English language learners

A16. How many facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funding through your state agency 

have a library for use by children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please enter the number in the box below.

Number of facilities/programs with a library
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 50

A. Agency Characteristics, continued 

A17. How many facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funding through your state agency 

have a computer lab for use by children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please enter the number in the box below.

Number of facilities/programs with a computer lab

A18. For each type of educational technology hardware and networks listed, please indicate if it is

used in your state agency’s facility/program with children and youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Local area network(s) (LAN) (network limited to office, 

building, or facility)

1 0

b. Statewide or wide area network(s) (WAN) (network

connected across a geographical area, such as one that 

connects to other facilities or offices)

1 0

c. Smartboards (standalone or networked) 1 0

d. Desktop computers (standalone or networked) 1 0

e. Laptop computers 1 0

f. E-readers, tablets, or other mobile devices 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 51

A. Agency Characteristics, continued 

A19. Please indicate if the children and youth served by Title I, Part D use computers in your 

state agency’s facilities/programs in any of the following ways.

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Curriculum delivery 1 0

b. Credit recovery programs 1 0

c. Online college courses 1 0

d. Supplemental instruction or intervention (e.g., IXL, Voyager, 

Accelerated Reading/Mathematics) 1 0

e. State-mandated end-of-year assessments 1 0

f. Summative assessments (evaluate student learning 

outcomes at the conclusion of an instructional period, such 

as a unit or semester)

1 0

g. Benchmark or interim assessments (short tests 

administered throughout the school year; a tool to measure 

student growth)

1 0

h. Performance-based assessment 1 0

i. Tracking progress toward transition plan outcomes 1 0

j. Word processing 1 0

k. Career development (e.g., job searching, aptitude testing) 1 0

l. Recreation (e.g., social media, e-mail, instant messaging, 

games) 1 0

m. Life skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem solving) 1 0

n. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 52

B. Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Planning 

B1. During your state agency’s most recent needs assessment, as required under ESEA 

Section 1414(c)(6), how involved were the following stakeholders?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at All

Involved

Somewhat

Involved

Very

Involved

a. Agency administrators/program managers 1 2 3 

b. Agency education director/coordinator(s) 1 2 3

c. Neglect and/or delinquent facility director(s) 1 2 3 

d. Agency data coordinators 1 2 3 

e. External stakeholders (e.g., outside public safety 

partners, community-based service providers, 

local business representatives)

1 2 3

f. Parents, family members, and/or other 

caregivers 1 2 3

g. Children and youth/young adults 1 2 3

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3

B2. How often does your state agency use the following program/department coordination or 

interagency collaboration practices in support of education and related services for children 

and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Interagency/interdepartmental or cross-staff 

meetings 1 2 3 4

b. Memorandum of understanding/agreement or 

other formal document ensuring 

coordination/collaboration

1 2 3 4

c. Blended or braided funding or other resource 

sharing 1 2 3 4

d. Co-training of staff (e.g., training teachers and 

security staff together) 1 2 3 4

e. Cross-departmental staffing/co-staffing (e.g., 

treatment or line staff assisting in the 

classroom) 

1 2 3 4

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 53

B. Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Planning, continued

B3. What is the level of collaboration with each of the following agencies/partners with regard to 

programs or other efforts for the children and youth who are neglected and/or delinquent

served by your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at All 

Collaborative

Not Very 

Collaborative

Somewhat 

Collaborative

Very 

Collaborative

Not 

Applicable

a. State Department of 

Child and Family 

Services, Child 

Welfare, Public 

Welfare (or the like) 

1 2 3 4 NA

b. State Department of 

Mental/Behavioral 

Health (or the like) 

1 2 3 4 NA

c. State Department of 

Housing (or the like) 1 2 3 4 NA

d. State Department of 

(Juvenile) Justice/ 

Corrections (or the 

like)

1 2 3 4 NA5

e. State Department of 

Labor 1 2 3 4 NA

f. Other, please specify 

below. 1 2 3 4 NA
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 54

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services 

SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT

C1. Does your state agency use child and youth risk/needs screenings and assessments within 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds for any of the following reasons? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Identifying whether a student is performing at grade level 1 0 

b. Identifying academic content areas or skill gaps the student needs to 

address 1 0 

c. Identifying mental health issues 1 0

d. Identifying behavioral concerns 1 0

e. Assessing English language proficiency 1 0

f. Identifying or evaluating the need for special education 1 0

g. Identifying alcohol or other substance problems 1 0

h. Other, please specify below: 

1 0

C2. Typically, at what point after children and youth are placed in facilities/programs receiving 

Title I, Part D funds from your state agency are risk/needs screenings and assessments 

conducted?

Please select only one answer.

 Within 24 hours

 After 24 hours but within 48 hours

 After 48 hours but within the first week

 After the first week but within the first month

 Other, please specify below.
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 55

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C3. Which of the following types of risk/needs screenings or assessments are conducted at 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Back on Track (BOT) 1 0 

b. Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment (BYI) 1 0 

c. Behavioral Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2) 1 0

d. Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) Screening 1 0

e. Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) 1 0

f. Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument — Version 2 (MAYSI-2) 1 0

g. Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) 1 0

h. Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory — Adolescent 2 (SASSI-A2) 1 0

i. Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) System 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C4. Are there state or local (e.g., school district) guidelines and/or regulations about which preor post-tests your state agency can use for reading and English language arts? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. State guidelines 1 0 

b. State regulations 1 0 

c. Local guidelines 1 0 

d. Local regulations 1 0 

C5. Are there state or local (e.g., school district) guidelines and / or regulations about which preor post-tests your state agency can use for mathematics? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. State guidelines 1 0 

b. State regulations 1 0 

c. Local guidelines 1 0 

d. Local regulations 1 0 
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 56

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C6. Do the facilities/programs in your state use academic assessments for the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C7.

 No, Go to Question C10 on page 14.

C7. Which academic assessments are used by facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds 

through your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. The state’s mandated academic assessment 1 0

b. Basic English Skills Test (BEST) 1 0

c. Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) 1 0

d. Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) 1 0

e. Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) 1 0

f. Renaissance Learning STAR assessments 1 0

g. Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) 1 0

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C8. Typically, at what point are academic pre-tests administered within the facilities/programs 

receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency?

Please select only one answer.

 Within 24 hours of facility entry/program enrollment

 After 24 but within 48 hours of facility entry/program enrollment

 After 48 hours but within the first week of facility entry/program enrollment

 More than one week after facility entry/program enrollment 

C9. Typically, at what point are academic post-tests first administered within the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 30 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 30 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 Between 31 and 60 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 Between 61 and 90 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 More than 90 days after facility entry/program enrollment
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 57

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

GENERAL EDUCATION SERVICES AND STRUCTURE

C10. Across the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funding through your state agency, 

who is primarily responsible for providing education and related services to the children and 

youth?

Please indicate the number of facilities/programs for which each entity is responsible. 

If education is provided by a private entity, please include the facility/program in the count for the agency that contracts 

with the private provider.

If none, please “0.”

Agency Primarily Responsible for Providing Education and Related 

Services

Number of 

Facilities/Programs

Your state agency

The state Department of Education

Another stage agency

A local school district

Other, please specify below.

C11. What is the average length of the instructional day in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, 

Part D funds through your state agency? 

Please enter the number of hours in the box below.

Average number of hours in the instructional day

C12. What is the average length of the instructional year in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, 

Part D funds through your state agency?

Please enter the number of days in the box below.

Average number of days in the instructional year
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 58

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C13. During the current fiscal/school year (2016-17), to what extent have the following strategies to 

help improve academic outcomes for students served by Title I, Part D been a focus of the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate 

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Using student achievement data (e.g., standardized 

academic assessment or collected behavioral data) to 

inform instruction and academic supports 

1 2 3 4 

b. Aligning curriculum and instruction with state standards 

and/or assessments 1 2 3 4 

c. Implementing evidence-based instructional approaches 

or curricula in reading/English language arts 1 2 3 4 

d. Implementing evidence-based instructional approaches 

or curricula in mathematics 1 2 3 4 

e. Implementing credit recovery programs 1 2 3 4 

f. Providing individualized instruction to all students 1 2 3 4 

g. Providing individualized instruction to special student 

populations (e.g., students with disabilities and English 

language learners)

1 2 3 4 

h. Supplementing core instruction with additional supports 

(e.g., tutoring, computer-based instruction) 1 2 3 4 

i. Incorporating education technology in the classroom 

(e.g., using tablets to support instruction, delivering 

content by means of interactive whiteboards)

1 2 3 4 

j. Ensuring instructional time for all students (e.g., by 

limiting classroom removals for code of conduct 

infractions or treatment sessions)

1 2 3 4 

k. Implementing classroom and behavior management 

strategies that foster positive climates for learning (e.g., 

positive behavioral interventions and supports)

1 2 3 4 

l. Implementing strategies for increasing parents’/family 

involvement in children’s and youth’s education 1 2 3 4 

m. Using strategies for appropriately including students in

their own educational planning 1 2 3 4 

n. Incorporating skills learned in the classroom across other 

areas of the facility (e.g., applying intrapersonal problemsolving skills within dormitories)

1 2 3 4 

o. Coordinating with treatment staff to mitigate challenges to 

learning and reinforce academic concepts/skills 1 2 3 4 
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 59

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

C14. Thinking about managing student behavior, please indicate if any of the following strategies 

are in use in the facilities/programs with children and youth served by Title I, Part D funds 

from your state agency.

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Individualized student behavior management plans 1 0

b. Classroom behavior management procedures 1 0

c. Posted behavioral expectations 1 0

d. Incentives or positive consequences for positive behavior 1 0

e. Sanctions or negative consequences for negative behavior 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

SPECIAL EDUCATION

C15. Are any of the following types of services provided to children and youth with disabilities in 

the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Self-contained special education class/classroom (students 

with disabilities are taught in a class made up solely of 

students with disabilities for the entire instructional day)

1 0

b. Pull-out services (students with disabilities are provided 

instruction in a separate setting by a special education 

teacher for part of the instructional day)

1 0

c. In-class services (a special education teacher provides 

instructional or related services to students with disabilities, 

individually or in small groups, in the general education 

setting)

1 0

d. Team teaching (a general and special education teacher 

share teaching responsibilities for all or part of the 

instructional day)

1 0

e. Modified curriculum delivered by a general education 

teacher 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 60

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

C16. Do any of the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency serve 

any children and youth who are English language learners? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C17

 No, Go to Question C19, on page 18

C17. Which of the following models are provided to the children and youth identified as English 

language learners in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state

agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. English as a second language (ESL) pull-out (students who are English 

language learners are removed from the general education setting and 

provided ESL instruction in a separate setting by an ESL teacher for part 

of the instructional day)

1 0

b. Sheltered instruction (ESL content-area classes with English immersion 

mainstreaming) 1 0

c. Newcomer program or high-intensity language training (students who 

are English language learners receive ESL instruction for the majority of 

the day, with mainstream electives)

1 0

d. Dual immersion (two languages taught throughout the day) 1 0

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C18. Which of the following types of learning domains are emphasized with the children and youth 

identified as English language learners in facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds 

from your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Oral comprehension 1 0

b. Reading comprehension 1 0

c. Writing proficiency 1 0

d. Visual literacy (i.e., looking at a picture or video to gauge meaning) 1 0

e. Interpersonal learning 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 61

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

Social emotional learning is the process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, 

attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for 

others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.

C19. Do the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency teach 

(formally or informally) social emotional skills or competencies to the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, in all facilities/programs

 Yes, in some facilities/programs

 No

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

C20. In which level of career and technical education (CTE) courses do the children and youth in 

the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency participate?

Please select only one answer.

 Secondary level only

 Post-secondary level only

 Both secondary and post-secondary levels

 The facilities/programs do not offer CTE courses Go to Question C22, on page 19

C21. Which occupational program areas do the CTE programs the facilities/programs receiving 

Title I, Part D funds from your state agency offer? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Agriculture and natural resources 1 0

b. Business 1 0

c. Communications and design 1 0

d. Computer and information sciences 1 0

e. Construction and architecture 1 0

f. Consumer and culinary services 1 0

g. Engineering technologies 1 0

h. Health sciences 1 0

i. Manufacturing 1 0

j. Marketing 1 0

k. Public services 1 0

l. Repair and transportation 1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 62

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

INSTITUTION-WIDE PROGRAMMING 

If you are Title I, Part D Coordinator with a juvenile justice corrections agency, 

go to Question C22. Otherwise, please go to Question C32 on page 24.

C22. Do any of the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency

operate institution-wide projects (IWPs*)? 

*Institution-wide projects allow agencies to flexibly use Title I, Part D and other federal and state 

funds to serve all children and youth in, and upgrade the entire educational effort of, state 

juvenile correctional institutions or programs.

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question C23 below

 No, Go to Question C32 on page 23

C23. How many facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency 

operate IWPs? 

Please enter the number in the box below.

Number of facilities operating IWPs

C24. Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the IWP planning team? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Facility administrators 1 0

b. Instructional staff 1 0

c. Agency and/or facility data coordinator(s) 1 0

d. Support services staff (e.g., counseling and health staff) 1 0

e. External stakeholders (e.g., outside public safety partners, 

community-based service providers, local business representatives) 1 0

f. Parents/family members 1 0

g. Children and youth 1 0

h. Other, please specify below.

1 0

C25. Were new policies and procedures developed during the IWP planning phase?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes

 No
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 63

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C26. Which of the following reasons best explains why facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D 

funds from your state agency implement IWPs? 

Please select only one answer.

 Funding flexibility

 Adopting strategies that improve overall facility educational programming rather than providing add-on services for 

individual students (i.e., targeted assistance)

 Conducting a more focused evaluation of the facility’s needs

 Address state academic content standards

 Other, please specify below.

C27. In your opinion, is it difficult for the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from

your state agency to coordinate funds for IWP implementation?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C28. In your opinion, is it difficult for the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from

your state agency to sustain suitable partnerships for IWP implementation?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C29. How much of a challenge is each of the following for sustaining programs in the IWPs 

operated by the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. Conducting a facilities/program 

needs assessment 1 2 3 4

b. Developing a facilities/program 

comprehensive plan 1 2 3 4

c. Conducting high-quality, on-site 

professional development for all 

involved staff

1 2 3 4

d. Evaluation of the IWP from all staff 

involved and external experts from 

the field

1 2 3 4

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 64

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C30a. Does your agency consolidate funding sources under the IWPs?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question C30b, below

 No, Go to Question C32 on page 23

C30b. Considering all of the IWPs operated by the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D 

funds from your state agency, which of the following funding sources are consolidated 

under the IWPs?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grants (other than 

Second Chance Act) 1 0

b. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Title I, Part D 1 0

c. ESSA, Title II, Part A 1 0

d. Federal Second Chance Act (SCA) grants 1 0

e. IDEA, Part B 1 0

f. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grants 1 0

g. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) grants 1 0

h. State correctional education funds 1 0

i. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Title II (also 

known as the Adult Education Family Literacy Act) 1 0

j. Other, please specify below.

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 65

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C31. How much of a challenge is each of the following for coordinating/consolidating funds from 

Title I, Part D and other state/federal programs in the IWPs operated by the facilities/programs 

receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Type of Challenge Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. State accounting rules require 

separate accounting for federal 

program funds

1 2 3 4

b. Concern about potential audit 

findings 1 2 3 4

c. Lack of information about how to 

coordinate/consolidate funds 1 2 3 4

d. Concern for, or lack of 

understanding of, how to maintain 

program fidelity with 

coordinated/consolidated funds 

1 2 3 4

e. Need for more training and 

understanding of IWPs by agency 

finance staff

1 2 3 4

f. Lack of strong facility leadership to 

successfully coordinate/consolidate 

funds

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 66

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

TRANSITION PLANNING AND SUPPORT

C32. Approximately what percentage of the children and youth served by Title I, Part D in the 

facilities/programs receiving funds from your state agency...

Please enter a percentage in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.” Your best estimate is fine.

Percentage of Children and 

Youth

a. Enter the facility/program with a transition plan from a prior placement? %  None

b. Have a transition plan created upon arrival? %  None

c. Have a transition plan modified while in the facility/program? %  None

d. Are monitored for progress at regular intervals toward transition plan outcomes? %  None

e. Are assessed for progress toward transition goals/outcomes prior to exit? %  None

f. Are assessed for progress toward transition goals/outcomes after exit? %  None

C33. In the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency, how involved 

are children and youth in the following transition planning activities?

Please select one answer in each row.

Limited or Not

at All Involved

Moderately

Involved 

Substantially

Involved 

a. Identifying their own strengths and needs 1 2 3 

b. Identifying their goals and objectives 1 2 3 

c. Informing education plans 1 2 3

d. Requesting or suggesting subsequent placements 1 2 3

e. Creating their own transition plan 1 2 3

C34. In the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency, how involved 

are parents and family members in the following transition planning activities?

Please select one answer in each row.

Limited or Not

at All Involved

Moderately

Involved 

Substantially

Involved 

a. Identifying child’s/youth’s strengths and needs 1 2 3 

b. Identifying child’s/youth’s goals and objectives 1 2 3 

c. Deciding education plans 1 2 3

d. Deciding new placements 1 2 3

e. Creating child’s/youth’s transition plan 1 2 3
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 67

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C35. In your opinion, how closely do the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from 

your state agency partner with local community organizations to assist in children and youth

transition activities?

Please select only one answer.

 Very closely

 Somewhat closely

 Not very closely

 Not at all

C36. In your opinion, how closely do the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from 

your state agency collaborate with the following external partners to support transition 

planning and services for the children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Partners Not at All Not Very 

Closely

Somewhat 

Closely Very Closely

a. Community-based organizations 1 2 3 4 

b. Community schools/school districts 1 2 3 4

c. Employers 1 2 3 4

d. Health services (including 

mental/behavioral) 1 2 3 4

e. Justice/law enforcement 1 2 3 4

f. Social service/child and family services 1 2 3 4

g. Workforce development (e.g., job 

training/placement) 1 2 3 4

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4

C37. Are transition plans shared with the educational or career training agencies that children and 

youth will attend upon exit? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes

 No

C38. Approximately how many months after exit do the children and youth served by Title I, Part D 

funds from your state agency receive transition follow-up (aftercare) services?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 2 months

 2 months – less than 6 months

 6 months – less than 8 months

 8 months or more
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 68

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C39. Which of the following aftercare supports do the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D 

funds from your state agency provide to children and youth after exit? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Financial support (e.g., cash or vouchers for housing 

assistance, assistance through TANF or SNAP) 1 0

b. General education support 1 0

c. Job training 1 0

d. Mental health counseling 1 0

e. Substance abuse counseling 1 0

f. Career and technical education support 1 0

g. Other, please specify below.

1 0

C40. In your opinion, how difficult is it for the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds 

from your state agency to track children and youth who have left the facility/program? 

Please select only one answer.

 Not very difficult

 Somewhat difficult

 Very difficult
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 69

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C41. How much of a challenge has each of the following been for tracking children and youth after 

exit in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. State laws or other regulations that 

prohibit contact with children and 

youth after exit

1 2 3 4

b. Federal, state, or local privacy 

policies 1 2 3 4

c. Lack of facility/program staff, 

funding, or other resources to track 

children and youth

1 2 3 4

d. Lack of willingness/cooperation from 

children/youth after exit 

placement(s) 

1 2 3 4

e. Lack of student information systems 1 2 3 4

f. Disconnected/siloed student 

information systems 1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 70

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development

D1. What is the average number of years of experience for teachers in the facilities/programs 

receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Less than 1 year

 1 year – less than 3 years

 3 years – less than 6 years

 6 years – less than 8 years

 8 years or more

D2. What is the lowest level of education required when hiring new instructional staff for the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Associate’s degree

 Bachelor’s degree

 Master’s degree

 Doctoral degree

D3. Which of the following credentials are required by the state for teachers in the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Professional educator licensure 1 0 

b. Education specialist endorsement (such as reading specialist, 

learning behavioral specialist) 1 0 

c. Content-area endorsements (such as science, mathematics, English) 1 0 

d. Other, please specify below.

1 0

D4. Which of the following credentials are required by the state for related service providers in 

the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Mandatory licensure (requires practitioners to have a license for 

providing a service) 1 0 

b. Title licensure (requires practitioners to have credentials before using 

a professional title) 1 0 

c. Registration (requires practitioners to provide information about their 

training and experience to a state consumer agency) 1 0 

d. Other, please specify below.

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 71

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D5. How much of a challenge has each of the following staff-related issues been in the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a Challenge Minor Challenge Moderate 

Challenge Major Challenge

a. Instructional staff often teach outside the 

content area in which they are credentialed. 1 2 3 4

b. Shortage of qualified instructional staff. 1 2 3 4

c. Shortage of qualified support services staff. 1 2 3 4

d. Instructional staff lack qualifications to teach 

students with disabilities. 1 2 3 4

e. Instructional staff lack qualifications to teach 

English language learners. 1 2 3 4

f. Instructional, related, and/or support staff lack 

experience and/or training working in a secure 

care, residential, or similar alternative 

education setting.

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4

D6. Do instructional staff in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state 

agency receive professional development at least annually? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question D7, below

 No, Go to Question D8 on page 29

D7. On average, across all facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state 

agency, what is the total number of hours of annual professional development provided per 

full-time equivalent (FTE) instructional staff?

Please enter the number in the box below.

Total annual professional development hours per FTE instructional staff
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 72

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D8. Do support services staff in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your 

state agency receive professional development at least annually? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question D9

 No, Go to Question D10a

D9. On average, across all facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state 

agency, what is the total number of hours of annual professional development provided per 

FTE support services staff? 

Please enter a number in the box below.

Total annual professional development hours per FTE support/ services staff

D10a. Have any of the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds provided professional 

development in the past three years? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question D10b

 No, Go to Question D11 on page 30

D10b. Considering all instructional AND support services staff in the facilities/programs receiving 

Title I, Part D funds from your state agency, which of the following areas of professional 

development have been provided in the last three years? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Areas of Professional Development Yes No

a. Reading/English language arts content or curricula 1 0 

b. Mathematics content or curricula 1 0 

c. Other academic subjects (e.g., science, social 

studies, foreign language) 1 0

d. Instructional strategies for English language 

learners 1 0

e. Instructional strategies for students with 

individualized education programs (IEPs) 1 0

f. Student behavioral management or positive 

behavior strategies 1 0

g. Analyzing and interpreting student data 1 0

h. Using educational technology 1 0

i. Program management and planning 1 0

j. Program budgeting 1 0

k. Other, please specify below. 1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 73

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D11. Does your state agency and/or the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your 

state agency have a staff recruitment or staff assignment policy specifically for staff who 

work with children and youth who are neglected or delinquent? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Staff recruitment policy 1 0 

b. Staff assignment policy 1 0 

D12a. Does your state agency and/or facilities/programs offer incentives to hire or retain staff for 

the Title I, Part D program? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question D12b

 No, Go to Question D13

D12b. Does your state agency and/or the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your 

state agency offer any of the following incentives to hire or retain staff? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Signing bonuses 1 0 

b. Relocation assistance or housing 1 0 

c.. Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher 

referrals 1 0

d. Student loan forgiveness 1 0

e. Continuing or graduate education reimbursement 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0

D13. In your opinion, during the past three years, how much of a challenge has it been for the

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds from your state agency to retain staff in each 

of the following personnel categories?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a Challenge Minor Challenge Moderate Challenge Major Challenge

a. Instructional staff 1 2 3 4

b. Support services staff 1 2 3 4

c. Administrators or managers 1 2 3 4
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 74

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

E1. Does your state require the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds to assess 

educational outcomes for the children and youth served by Title I, Part D while they are 

enrolled?

 Yes, Go to Question E2

 No, Go to Question E4 on page 35

E2. How are educational outcomes measured in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D 

funds through your state agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Standardized, summative assessments (e.g., state endof-year assessment) 1 0 

b. Standardized, formative assessments (e.g., formal and 

informal assessment procedures conducted by teachers 

during the learning process to modify teaching and 

learning to improve student attainment)

1 0 

c. Informal assessments (e.g., teacher observation, student 

work) 1 0

d. Course grades 1 0

e. Course credits 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 75

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

E3a. Do facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds measure outcomes for any specific 

subpopulations of students (e.g., by gender or race/ethnicity)?

 Yes, Go to Question E3b

 No, Go to Question E4

E3b. Are outcomes measured for any of the following specific subpopulations of students within 

the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Students with disabilities 1 0

b. English language learners 1 0

c. Black students 1 0

d. Hispanic/Latino students 1 0

e. American Indian and/or Alaska Native students 1 0

f. By gender 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

E4. Are the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your state agency able to 

track student outcomes for children and youth served by Title I, Part D post-exit? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, for all students, Go to Question E5, below

 Yes, for some students, Go to Question E5, below

 No, Go to Question E6 on page 33

E5. Which of the following post-exit, education-related student outcomes does your state agency

track for students served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. High school course credits awarded 1 0

b. High school graduation rates and/or diplomas 

awarded 1 0

c. High school equivalency certificates earned (e.g., 

GED, TASC, or HiSET) 1 0

d. High school dropout rates 1 0

e. Postsecondary education acceptance/enrollment 1 0

f. Postsecondary education dropout/incompletion rates 1 0

g. Career and technical certificates awarded 1 0

h. Technical/training school acceptance/enrollment 

and/or apprenticeships 1 0

i. Employment or other labor market outcomes 1 0

j. Other, please specify below.

1 0
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 76

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

E6. Has your state agency developed a formal process to monitor program progress toward 

achieving state- and/or agency-wide educational and related outcomes (e.g., continuous 

quality improvement, or CQI*) for the children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

*Continuous quality improvement is a process to ensure that programs are systematically and intentionally using data 

to make evidence-informed decisions about improving services that ultimately affect outcomes for the children and 

youth they serve.

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question E7

 No, Go to Question E10

E7. Does the State Education Agency require your state agency to implement a formal program 

monitoring and/or program improvement process for the Title I, Part D program?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes 

 No

E8. How often does your state agency use process data (e.g., data that track delivery of services 

to students, such as adherence to curriculum or children and youth participation in 

education activities, etc.) collected by your state agency and/or by subgrantees for each of 

the following?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing fidelity to facility/program Part D program 

plans. 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery improvement

when state and/or facility/program Part D 

goals/outcomes are not met. 

1 2 3 4

E9. How often does your agency use outcome data (e.g., data that track gains in reading and 

mathematics, high school course credits awarded, community school reenrollment) collected 

by your state agency and/or by subgrantees for each of the following?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing progress toward achieving state and/or 

facility/program Part D goals/outcomes 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery improvement 

when state and/or facility/program Part D 

goals/outcomes are not met

1 2 3 4

E10. In your opinion, how important are improved education-related outcomes for the children and 

youth in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems a priority for your state agency? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Very important

 Important

 Somewhat important

 Not important
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 77

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds 

Title I, Part D programs are funded primarily through subgrants to state agencies (Subpart 1) and local 

education agencies (Subpart 2). Each subgrant has its own fiscal requirements regarding the use of 

funds. Title I, Part D funds are meant to be supplemental to the core instructional program provided by 

the state or locality to children and youth who are neglected or delinquent.

F1. Please use the table below to provide additional detail on the use of Title I, Part D dollars 

spent at your state agency in last fiscal/school year 2015–16. 

Please enter the dollar amount in each row to the nearest $500 (e.g., $100,500). 

If there are no dollars to report, please enter $0.

TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT AT YOUR STATE AGENCY Autopopulated in Web 

Version

PERSONNEL 

TOTAL DOLLARS — PERSONNEL SPENDING Autocalculated in Web 

Version

a. Core Teacher FTE salaries (content areas) $ 

b. Supplemental Teacher FTE salaries (above and beyond the core program) $ 

c. Student Health and Nutrition Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

d. Psychology and Therapy Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

e. Counseling Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

NON PERSONNEL

TOTAL DOLLARS — NONPERSONNEL SPENDING Autocalculated in Web 

Version

a. Professional Development fees (contracted services, conference registration, travel, 

per diems, etc.)

$ 

b. Instructional Materials $ 

c. Other Equipment, including technology hardware and software $ 

d. Programs that serve children and youth returning from correctional facilities $ 

e. Dropout prevention programs $ 

f. Coordinated health and social services not reflected in personnel $ 

g. Mentoring and peer mediation programs $ 
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 78

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds, continued 

F2. Approximately what percentage of your state agency’s Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 funding for 

last fiscal/school year 2015–16 was spent for transition services and support? 

Please enter the percentage in the box below.

Percentage of state agency’s Subpart 1 allocation spent for transition 

activities

F3. Of the funds allocated to transition activities for last fiscal/school year 2015–16, what dollar 

amount was used for programs and services?

Enter an amount in each row. If $0, select “None.” If you do not know, please select “Don’t know.” 

Amount

a. Projects that facilitate transition to schools served by local 

education agencies (LEAs) (ESEA § 1418(a)(1)) $  None

 Don’t know

b. Projects that facilitate re-entry following secondary 

diploma (ESEA § 1418(a)(2)) $  None

 Don’t know

c. Preplacement programs in colleges, universities, or 

community colleges $  None

 Don’t know

d. Worksite schools (higher education institutions and 

employer partnership) $  None

 Don’t know

e. Children and youth support services (personal, vocational, 

academic counseling; college placement; student financial 

aid counseling; job placement services)

$ 

 None

 Don’t know

f. Family support services (family engagement, family 

counseling, skill building, rehabilitative) $  None

 Don’t know

F4. In your opinion, are Title I, Part D funds allocated from your state agency to the recipient

facilities/programs in a timely manner? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes

 No
STATE AGENCY (SA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 79

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds, continued 

F5. Thinking about your state agency’s last fiscal/school year (2015–16), were any Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 1 funds carried over into the current fiscal/school year (2016–17)? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question F6

 No, Go to Question F8

F6. What percentage of your agency’s last fiscal/school year (2015–16), Title I, Part D, Subpart 1

funds were carried over into the current fiscal/school year (2016–17)? 

Please enter a valid percentage (0-100).. 

Percentage of funds carried over from last fiscal/school year 2015–16

F7. Thinking about your agency’s last fiscal/school year, 2015–16, what were the main reasons 

that Title I, Part D funds were carried over into the current fiscal/school year, (2016–17)? 

Please select all that apply.

Facility/program closure(s) and/or merger(s)

Decrease in number of eligible students

Delay/failure to replace staff supported by Part D funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds were unsure of the accounting and/or reporting requirements for uses of funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds requested to use funds in ways that did not meet program goals or requirements

Other, please specify below.

F8. Are there any final comments or thoughts that you would like to share about on your 

experiences with Title I, Part D funds?

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 80

A. Agency Characteristics 

A1. What is your current job title at your local educational agency? 

Enter job title

A2. In a typical week, what percentage of your work hours are spent working on tasks related to 

Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 20%

 20–39%

 40–59%

 60–79%

 80% or more 

A3. How many years have you worked as a Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency? 

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 1 year

 1 year – less than 3 years

 3 years – less than 6 years

 6 years – less than 10 years

 10 years or more

A4. On or around October 1, 2016, what was the unduplicated count of children and youth in all of 

the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds through your agency? 

This information can be found in your Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) data. 

Please enter the count in the box below. 

Unduplicated count of children and youth served in Subpart 2–funded programs

A5. For school/fiscal year 2016-17, approximately what percentage of your agency’s total 

education funding comes from Title I, Part D?

To calculate your response to this question, please divide your district’s total Title I, Part D allocation by your district’s 

total education funding, from all other sources and across all purposes and student populations. Then, multiply that 

number by 100 for your percentage. For example, if you receive $25,000 in Title I Part D funding and your total 

district funds are $1,000,000, then your response to this question would be 2.5 (i.e., $25,000/$1,000,000 x 

100=2.5%). 

Please enter the percentage in the box below. 

Percentage of agency’s education funds received from Title I, Part D Neglected or 

Delinquent Programs
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 81

A. Agency Characteristics, continued

A6. What is the standard ratio of children and youth to instructional staff (e.g., teachers, teaching 

assistants, librarians, principals) for children and youth in facilities/programs receiving Title I, 

Part D funds through your agency? 

Please report the number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs); a full-time staff member 

would count as 1, while a staff member who works 20 hours a week would count as 0.50. 

Please provide a number in each column. 

Children and Youth to Instructional Staff Ratio

Number of 

Children and 

Youth

Number of 

Instructional Staff

: 

A7. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth served by Title I, 

Part D through your agency had been identified as English language learners? 

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth who are English language learners

A8. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth served by Title I, 

Part D in this facility/program were eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), Part B?

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth eligible for services under IDEA, Part B

A9. For each type of educational technology hardware and network listed, please indicate if it is 

used in facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency.

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Local area network(s) (LAN) (network limited to office, 

building, or facility) 1 0

b. Statewide or wide area network(s) (WAN) (network 

connected across a geographical area, such as one that 

connects to other facilities or offices)

1 0

c. Smartboards (standalone or networked) 1 0

d. Desktop computers (standalone or networked) 1 0

e. Laptop computers 1 0

f. E-readers, tablets, or other mobile devices 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 82

A. Agency Characteristics, continued 

A10. Please indicate if the children and youth in facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D through 

your agency use computers in any of the following ways. 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Curriculum delivery 1 0

b. Credit recovery programs 1 0

c. Online college courses 1 0

d. Supplemental instruction or intervention (e.g., IXL, Voyager, 

Accelerated Reading/Mathematics) 1 0

e. State-mandated end-of-year assessments 1 0

f. Summative assessments (evaluate student learning 

outcomes at the conclusion of an instructional period, such 

as a unit or semester)

1 0

g. Benchmark or interim assessments (short tests 

administered throughout the school year; a tool to measure 

student growth)

1 0

h. Performance-based assessment 1 0

i. Tracking progress toward transition plan outcomes 1 0

j. Word processing 1 0

k. Career development (e.g., job searching, aptitude testing) 1 0

l. Recreation (e.g., social media, e-mail, instant messaging, 

games) 1 0

m. Life skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem solving) 1 0

n. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 83

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration 

SHARED DECISION MAKING AND COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

B1. What is your level of collaboration with each of the following agencies/partners with regard to

programs or other efforts for the children and youth who are neglected and/or delinquent in 

your local educational agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at All 

Collaborative

Not Very 

Collaborative

Somewhat 

Collaborative

Very 

Collaborative

Not 

Applicable

a. Department of Child and 

Family/Health and Human 

Services 

1 2 3 4 NA

b. Department of 

Mental/Behavioral Health 

Services 

1 2 3 4 NA

c. Department of Juvenile 

Justice/Corrections 1 2 3 4 NA

d. Department of Housing/Urban 

Development 1 2 3 4 NA

e. Department of Labor 1 2 3 4 NA

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 NA
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 84

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B2. How often does your agency use the following program/department coordination or

interagency collaboration practices in support of education and related services for children 

and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Meetings with the state Title I, Part D 

Coordinator 1 2 3 4

b. Interagency meetings 1 2 3 4

c. Memorandum of understanding/agreement or 

other formal document ensuring 

coordination/collaboration

1 2 3 4

d. Blended or braided funding or other resource 

sharing 1 2 3 4

e. Co-training of staff (e.g., training teachers and 

security staff together) 1 2 3 4

f. Co-location of staff (e.g., mental health agency 

employees who regularly work in a juvenile 

justice facility)

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 85

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B3. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following program planning activities a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Ensuring that the Title I, Part D program is included 

in districtwide education planning 1 2 3 4 

b. Creating/modifying a district-level strategic plan for 

the Title I, Part D program 1 2 3 4 

c. Setting Title I, Part D program timelines/deadlines 1 2 3 4 

d. Responding to the state’s Title I, Part D program 

application 1 2 3 4

e. Reviewing local facility/program Title I, Part D 

program plans 1 2 3 4

f. Requesting revisions to local facility/program 

Title I, Part D program plans as needed 1 2 3 4

g. Assisting local facilities/programs in their Title I, 

Part D program planning 1 2 3 4 

h.

Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4

B4. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following program implementation activities a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Coordinating, overseeing, or other involvement in 

academic instruction in facilities/programs 1 2 3 4 

b. Providing training and technical assistance to 

facility/program staff 1 2 3 4 

c. Conducting program (including fiscal) monitoring 1 2 3 4 

d. Conducting student progress monitoring 1 2 3 4

e. Conducting/coordinating required program data 

collection 1 2 3 4

f.

Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 86

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

USES OF FUNDS

B5. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following activities related to local facilities’/programs’ use of funds a focus of your 

work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Approving uses of Title I, Part D funds in 

facility/program Part D program plans 1 2 3 4 

b.

Approving uses of Title I, Part D funds as 

requested by local facilities/programs (after 

funding allocation)

1 2 3 4 

c. 

Providing guidelines or technical assistance for 

local facilities/programs to determine for 

themselves allowable and/or appropriate uses of 

Title I, Part D funds

1 2 3 4 

d.

Creating a list(s) of or otherwise disseminating list 

of allowable and/or unallowable uses of Title I, Part 

D funds

1 2 3 4

e. Ensuring that Title I, Part D funds are used 

supplementally in local facilities/programs 1 2 3 4

f. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4

B6. How are Title I, Part D funds allocated to local facilities/programs through 

your agency? 

Please select only one answer.

 All funds are allocated by formula, based on facility/program child counts.

 All funds are allocated competitively/by discretion of my agency.

 Some funds are allocated by formula AND some funds are allocated competitively/by discretion.

 Other, please specify below. 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 87

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B7. During the past three fiscal/school years, has your agency experienced a decrease in Title I, 

Part D funding?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question B8.

 No, Go to Question B9.

B8. What is the cause(s) for the Title I, Part D funding decrease(s) your agency experienced 

during the past three fiscal/school years? 

Please select one response in each row.

Yes No

a. Decrease in the count of children and youth who are neglected or delinquent in 

residential placement in the state 1 0

b. Decrease in the count of children and youth who are neglected or delinquent in 

residential placement in this school district 1 0

c. Carryover funds not drawn down in a timely manner and were revoked by the state 

education agency 1 0

d. Change in state or local funding formulas 1 0

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

B9. Thinking about your agency’s last fiscal/school year (2015–16), were any Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 2 funds carried over into the current fiscal/school year (2016–17)? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question B10.

 No, Go to Question B12 on page 11.

B10. What percentage of the last fiscal/school year (2015–16) Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds were 

carried over into the current fiscal/school year (2016–17)?

Please enter a valid percentage (0-100).

Percentage of funds carried over from last fiscal/school year 2015–16

B11. Thinking about your agency’s last fiscal/school year (2015–16), what were the main 

reasons that Title I, Part D funds were carried over into the current fiscal/school year 

(2016–17)? 

Please select all that apply.

Facility/program closure(s) and/or merger(s)

Decrease in number of eligible students

Delay/failure to replace staff supported by Part D funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds were unsure of the accounting and/or reporting requirements for uses of funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds requested to use funds in ways that did not meet program goals or requirements

Other, please specify below. 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 88

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

B12. Does your agency provide annual professional development to instructional staff in the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question B13. 

 No, Go to Question B14. 

B13. Which of the following areas of professional development has your agency provided in the 

past three years to instructional staff in the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D 

funds?

Please select one answer in each row.

Professional Development Yes No

a. Reading/language arts/English 1 0 

b. Mathematics 1 0 

c. Other academic subjects (e.g., science, social studies, foreign language) 1 0

d. Instructional strategies for English language learners 1 0

e. Instructional strategies for students with individualized education 

programs (IEPs) 1 0

f. Student behavioral management or positive behavior strategies 1 0

g. Analyzing and interpreting student data 1 0

h. Using educational technology 1 0

i. Program management and planning 1 0

j. Program budgeting 1 0

k. 

Other, please specify below.

1 0

B14. Does your agency have a staff recruitment or staff assignment policy specifically for staff who 

work with children and youth who are neglected or delinquent? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Staff recruitment policy 1 0 

b. Staff assignment policy 1 0 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 89

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B15. Does your agency offer any of the following incentives to hire or retain staff for the Title I, 

Part D program?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Signing bonuses 1 0 

b. Relocation assistance or housing 1 0 

c. Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher 

referrals 1 0

d. Student loan forgiveness 1 0

e. Continuing or graduate education reimbursement 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0

g. Analyzing and interpreting student data 1 0

B16. During the past three fiscal years, how much of a challenge has it been to retain staff in each 

of the following personnel categories?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. Instructional staff 1 2 3 4 

b. Support services staff 1 2 3 4 

c. Administrators and/or 

managers

1 2 3 4
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 90

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

EDUCATION ASSESSMENTS, STRATEGIES, AND SERVICES

B17. To what extent is your state focused on each of the following with regard to the education of 

children and youth served under the Title I, Part D programs?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not 

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Improving education quality 1 2 3 4

b. Using evidence-based educational practices 1 2 3 4 

c. Increasing high school graduation rates 1 2 3 4 

d. Increasing rates of high school equivalency 

certificates earned (e.g., GED, TASC, HiSET) 1 2 3 4

e. Increasing access to post-secondary education 1 2 3 4 

f. Increasing access to career and technical 

education 1 2 3 4 

g. Increasing access to arts education 1 2 3 4

h. Increasing access to social and emotional 

learning education 1 2 3 4

i. Improving independent living and other “life” skills 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 91

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B18. Do state or local policies (e.g., legislation) regulate any of the following within the local 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency? 

Please select one answer for state policies and one answer for local policies in each row.

State Policies Regulate Local Policies Regulate

Yes No Yes No

a. The timing of academic assessments (e.g., pre- and posttests) 1 0 1 0

b. The test(s) used for academic assessment 1 0 1 0

c. Whether or not academic assessment results are shared 

with a child’s/youth’s subsequent placement 1 0 1 0

d. The academic curricula used 1 0 1 0

e. The instructional practices used 1 0 1 0

f. The supplemental use of Title I, Part D funds 1 0 1 0

g. The length of the instructional day 1 0 1 0

h. The length of the school year 1 0 1 0

i. Participation/engagement by parents or other family 

members/caregivers in a child’s/youth’s education 1 0 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 1 0 1 0
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 92

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B19. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following activities related to educational and related programming a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Translating statewide education goals/priorities for 

Title I, Part D programs (e.g., increased high 

school graduation rates, college and career 

readiness) for the local facilities/programs

1 2 3 4

b. Setting or translating districtwide education 

goals/priorities for Title I, Part D programs (e.g., 

increased high school graduation rates, college 

and career readiness) for the local 

facilities/programs

1 2 3 4

c. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for academic screening 

and assessment to the facilities/programs 

receiving Title I, Part D funds

1 2 3 4 

d. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for academic instruction

to facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds

1 2 3 4 

e. Observing classroom instruction in facilities/ 

programs receiving Title I, Part D funds 1 2 3 4 

f. Identifying and/or helping the facilities/programs 

identify areas of academic need within student 

populations served by the Title I, Part D program

1 2 3 4 

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 93

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

SPECIAL EDUCATION

B20. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, how often do you 

coordinate with the Special Education office within your local educational agency for each of 

the following purposes?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Coordinating program planning 1 2 3 4

b. Coordinating or consolidating program funding 1 2 3 4

c. Coordinating program monitoring 1 2 3 4

d. Using each program’s data for program improvement or 

other future program planning or efforts 1 2 3 4

e. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4

B21. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following activities related to serving students with special needs in local 

facilities/programs a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Ensuring that local facilities/programs understand 

the federal requirement of providing a free, 

appropriate, public education to all children and 

youth with disabilities served by Title I, Part D 

programs

1 2 3 4

b. Providing training/technical assistance on best/ 

evidence-based practices for the education of 

students with disabilities (e.g., appropriate 

accommodations, valid and reliable alternative 

assessments, education in the least restrictive 

environment)

1 2 3 4 

c. Ensuring that local facilities/programs work with the 

school districts and schools to which children and 

youth with disabilities return following involvement 

in Title I, Part D programs

1 2 3 4 

d. Ensuring that teachers and other instructional staff 

have the necessary qualifications/credentials to 

teach children and youth with disabilities

1 2 3 4 

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 94

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

TRANSITION PLANNING AND SUPPORT

B22. Do state or local policies (e.g., legislation) regulate any of the following within the 

facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency? 

Please select one answer for state policies and one answer for local policies in each row.

State Policies Regulate Local Policies Regulate

Yes No Yes No

a. Whether all students (i.e., not just students eligible for 

special education) are required to have transition plans 1 0 1 0

b. The timing of exchange of student records between 

placements 1 0 1 0

c. Whether facilities/programs must employ a dedicated 

transition coordinator or staff person with dedicated 

responsibility for transition planning and support

1 0 1 0

d. Whether child welfare or juvenile justice agencies/facilities 

may have contact with children and youth following exit 1 0 1 0

e. How Title I, Part D funds are to be used for transition 

planning, services, and/or support 1 0 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0 1 0
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 95

B. Title I, Part D Program Administration, continued 

B23. Thinking about your role as the Title I, Part D Coordinator at your agency, to what extent are 

the following activities related to transition planning and support a focus of your work? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Creating a districtwide transition plan for 

facilities/programs 1 2 3 4

b. Providing and/or encouraging professional 

development for facility staff on transition planning 

and support

1 2 3 4 

c. Creating indicators to assess transition planning 

and support and including the indicators in program 

monitoring

1 2 3 4 

d. Providing data and/or assisting facilities/programs 

in using data to identify innovative transition 

practices

1 2 3 4 

e. Facilitating and/or encouraging communication/ 

coordination between Title I, Part D-funded 

facilities/programs in this or other school districts 

1 2 3 4

f. Assisting Title I, Part D-funded facilities/programs 

in overcoming barriers/challenges to student 

record/information sharing

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 96

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

C1. Does the state require your local educational agency to assess educational outcomes for 

students served by Title I, Part D funds?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C2. Even if your state does not require the use of educational outcomes measures, do you use 

them in facilities/programs for students served by Title I, Part D funds? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C3.

 No, Go to Question C5 on page 20.

C3. How are educational outcomes measured in the local facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part

D funds through your agency? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Standardized, summative assessments (e.g., state end-of-year assessment) 1 0

b. Standardized, formative assessments (e.g., formal and informal assessment 

procedures conducted by teachers during the learning process to modify 

teaching and learning to improve student attainment)

1 0

c. Informal assessments (e.g., teacher observation, student work) 1 0

d. Course grades 1 0

e. Course credits 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0

C4. Are outcomes measured for any of the following specific subpopulations of students within 

the local facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Students with disabilities 1 0

b. English language learners 1 0

c. Black students 1 0

d. Hispanic/Latino students 1 0

e. American Indian and/or Alaska Native students 1 0

f. By gender 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 97

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

C5. Are the facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part D funds through your agency able to 

track student outcomes for children and youth served by Title I, Part D post-exit? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question C6.

 No, Go to Question C7.

C6. Which of the following post-exit, education-related student outcomes does your agency track

for children and youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. High school course credits awarded 1 0

b. High school graduation rates and/or diplomas 

awarded 1 0

c. High school equivalency certificates earned (e.g., 

GED, TASC, HiSET) 1 0

d. High school dropout rates 1 0

e. Post-secondary education acceptance/enrollment 1 0

f. Post-secondary education dropout/incompletion rates 1 0

g. Career and technical certificates awarded 1 0

h. Technical/training school acceptance/enrollment 

and/or apprenticeships 1 0

i. Employment or other labor market outcomes 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 1 0

C7. Has your agency developed a formal program monitoring and/or program improvement 

process (e.g., continuous quality improvement) toward achieving state- and/or districtwide 

outcomes for students served by Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question C8.

 No, Go to Question C9 on page 21.

C8. Does your state education agency require your agency to have a formal program monitoring 

and/or program improvement process for the local facilities/programs receiving Title I, Part 

D?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes

 No
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) COORDINATOR SURVEY

page 98

C. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

C9. To what extent do you think your agency is meeting its goal of improving educational 

outcomes for children and youth in the juvenile justice and/or child welfare systems? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Not at all

 To a slight extent 

 To some extent

 To a great extent

C10. How often does your agency use process data (e.g., data that track delivery of services to 

students, such as adherence to curriculum or children and youth participation in education 

activities, etc.) collected by your agency and/or by local facilities/programs for each of the 

following?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing fidelity to facility/program Part D 

program plans 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when state and/or district 

Part D goals/outcomes are not met 

1 2 3 4

C11. How often does your agency use outcome data (e.g., data that track gains in reading and 

mathematics, high school course credits awarded, community school reenrollment) collected 

by your agency and/or by local facilities/programs for each of the following?

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing progress toward achieving state 

and/or district Part D goals/outcomes 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when state and/or district 

Part D goals/outcomes are not met

1 2 3 4

C12. Are there any final comments or thoughts that you would like to share about your 

experiences with Title I, Part D funds?

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY! 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 99

A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics 

A1. What is your current job title at your facility/program and agency/organizational affiliation? 

Enter Job Title and Affiliation

A2. In what setting is your current position located?

Please select only one answer.

 Juvenile corrections

 Juvenile detention

 Child welfare/neglect program

 At-risk program

 Other, please specify below. 

A3. Which of the following best describes the type of program in which you work? 

Please select only one answer.

 Education program in an institution that houses neglected and/or delinquent youth

 Community day program (a regular program of instruction that educates, but does not house, youth) 

A4. In a typical week, what percentage of your work hours are spent working on tasks related to Title 

I, Part D?

 Less than 20%

 20 – 39%

 40 – 59%

 60 – 79%

 80% or more 

A5. How many years have you worked as a Title I, Part D Coordinator? 

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 1 year

 1 year – less than 3 years

 3 years – less than 6 years

 6 years – less than 10 years 

 10 years or more
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 100

A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics, continued 

A6. On or around October 1, 2016, how many children and youth were SERVED with Title I, Part 

D, Subpart 2 funds in your facility/program?

“Served” refers to students who meet the following criteria: (1) living in local institutions for 

children and youth who are delinquent or in adult correctional institutions; (2) eligible for services 

under Title I, Part A and Part C OR identified as “at-risk” (e.g., migrant youth, immigrant youth, 

gang members, and pregnant or parenting youth); (3) 21 years of age or younger. 

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth served with Title I, Part D Subpart 2 funds

A7. Of the children and youth placed in your program on or around October 1, 2016, how many 

were:

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.” 

Please assign each child/youth to one race/ethnicity category so they are not double-counted.

On question A6, you indicated that you serve [amount from A6] children and youth in your facility/program with Part D 

funds. Please make sure that the totals in this table match that number.

Number of Children and Youth 

Race/Ethnicity

a. Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race  None

b. American Indian or Alaska Native, not Hispanic or Latino  None

c. Asian, not Hispanic or Latino  None

d. Black or African American, not Hispanic or Latino  None

e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or Latino  None

f. White, not Hispanic or Latino  None

g. Two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino  None

h. Total

A8. Of the children and youth placed in your facility/program on or around October 1, 2016, how 

many were:

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.”

On question A6, you indicated that you serve [amount from A6] children and youth in your facility/program with Part D 

funds. Please make sure that the totals in this table match that number.

Number of Children and Youth 

a. Male?  None

b. Female?  None

c. Total
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 101

 A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics, continued

A9. Of the children and youth placed in your facility/program on or around October 1, 2016, how 

many were in the following age groups:

Please provide a number in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.”

On question A6, you indicated that you serve [amount from A6] children and youth in your facility/program with Part D 

funds. Please make sure that the totals in this table match that number.

Number of Children and Youth 

a. 0–5 years old?  None

b. 6–12 years old?  None

c. 13–17 years old?  None

d. 18–21 years old?  None

e. 22 years old or older?  None

A10. On or around October 1, 2016, what was the overall ratio of children and youth to 

instructional staff (e.g., teachers, teaching assistants) in your facility/program? 

Please report the number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs); a full-time staff member would count as 1, 

while a staff member who works 20 hours a week would count as 0.50. 

Please provide a number in each column. 

Children and Youth to Instructional Staff Ratio

Number of 

Children and 

Youth

Number of 

Instructional Staff

: 

A11. On or around October 1, 2016, what was the overall ratio of children and youth to support

services staff (e.g., counselors, psychologists, physical therapists, transitional specialists) in 

your facility/program? 

Please report the number of staff in terms of full-time equivalents (FTEs); a full-time staff member would count as 1, 

while a staff member who works 20 hours a week would count as 0.50. 

Please provide a number in each column. 

Children and Youth to Support Staff Ratio

Number of 

Children and 

Youth

Number of Support 

Staff 

: 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 102

A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics, continued 

A12. For the 2016-17 school/fiscal year, approximately what percentage of your

facility’s/program’s education funding came from the Title I, Part D program? 

To calculate your response to this question, please divide your facility’s/program’s total Title I, Part D allocation by 

your state agency’s total education funding, from all other sources and across all purposes and student populations. 

Then, multiple that number by 100 for your percentage. For example, if you receive $25,000 in Title I Part D funding 

and your total facility’s/program’s total education funds are $1,000,000, then your response to this question would be 

2.5% (i.e., $25,000/$1,000,000 x 100=2.5%). 

Please enter the percentage in the box below.

Percentage of facility’s/program’s education funds received from Title I, Part D Neglected or 

Delinquent Programs

A13. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth served by Title I, 

Part D in your facility/program were identified as English language learners?

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth who are English language learners

A14. On or around October 1, 2016, approximately how many children and youth served by Title I, 

Part D in your facility/program were eligible for services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B?

Please enter the count in the box below.

Number of children and youth eligible for services under IDEA, Part B

A15. Does your facility/program have a library available for use by the children and youth served by 

Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

A16. Does your facility/program have a computer lab available for use by the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 103

A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics, continued 

A17. For each type of educational technology hardware and networks listed, please indicate if they 

are used at your facility/program with children and youth served by Title I, Part D.

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Local area network(s) (LAN) (network limited to office, 

building, or facility)

1 0

b. Statewide or wide area network(s) (WAN) (network 

connected across a geographical area, such as one that 

connects to other facilities or offices)

1 0

c. Smartboards (standalone or networked) 1 0

d. Desktop computers (standalone or networked) 1 0

e. Laptop computers 1 0

f. E-readers, tablets, or other mobile devices 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 104

A. Local Facility/Program Characteristics, continued 

A18. Please indicate if the children and youth served by Title I, Part D use computers in your 

facility/program in any of the following ways. 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Curriculum delivery 1 0

b. Credit recovery programs 1 0

c. Online college courses 1 0

d. Supplemental instruction or intervention (e.g., IXL, Voyager, 

Accelerated Reading/Mathematics) 1 0

e. State-mandated end-of-year assessments 1 0

f. Summative assessments (evaluate student learning 

outcomes at the conclusion of an instructional period, such 

as a unit or semester)

1 0

g. Benchmark or interim assessments (short tests 

administered throughout the school year; a tool to measure 

student growth)

1 0

h. Performance-based assessment 1 0

i. Tracking progress toward transition plan outcomes 1 0

j. Word processing 1 0

k. Career development (e.g., job searching, aptitude testing) 1 0

l. Recreation (e.g., social media, e-mail, instant messaging, 

games) 1 0

m. Life skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem solving) 1 0

n. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 105

B. Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Planning 

B1. During your facility’s/program’s most recent program planning for Title I, Part D, how 

involved were the following stakeholders?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not At All

Involved

Somewhat

Involved

Very

Involved

a. Instructional staff 1 2 3 

b. Support/related services staff (e.g., counseling and 

mental health) 1 2 3 

c. Facility/program administrators 1 2 3 

d. Facility/program data coordinators 1 2 3

e. External stakeholders (e.g., outside public safety 

partners, community-based service providers, local 

business representatives)

1 2 3

f. Parents, family members, and/or other caregivers 1 2 3

g. Children and youth/young adults 1 2 3

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3

B2. How often does your facility/program use the following program/department coordination or 

interagency collaboration practices in support of education and related services for children 

and youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Interagency/interdepartmental or cross-staff 

meetings 1 2 3 4

b. Memorandum of understanding/agreement or 

other formal document ensuring 

coordination/collaboration

1 2 3 4

c. Blended or braided funding or other resource 

sharing 1 2 3 4

d. Co-training of staff (e.g., training teachers and 

security staff together) 1 2 3 4

e. Cross-departmental staffing/co-staffing (e.g., 

treatment or line staff assisting in the 

classroom) 

1 2 3 4

f. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 106

B. Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Planning, continued

B3. What is your facility’s/program’s level of collaboration with each of the following partners 

with regard to the Title I, Part D program? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Not At All 

Collaborative

Not Very 

Collaborative

Somewhat 

Collaborative

Very 

Collaborative

Not 

Applicable

a. Department of Child and 

Family/Health and Human 

Services 

1 2 3 4 NA

b. Department of Mental/Behavioral 

Health Services 1 2 3 4 NA

c. Security/line staff 1 2 3 4 NA

d. School district/education 1 2 3 4 NA

e. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4 NA
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 107

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services 

EDUCATION SERVICES AND STRATEGIES

C1. Does your facility/program use child and youth risk/need screening and assessments for the 

children and youth served by Title I, Part D for any of the following?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Identifying whether a student is performing at grade level 1 0 

b. Identifying academic content areas or skill gaps the student needs to 

address 1 0 

c. Identifying mental health issues 1 0

d. Identifying behavioral concerns 1 0

e. Assessing English language proficiency 1 0

f. Identifying or evaluating the need for special education 1 0

g. Identifying alcohol or other substance problems 1 0

h. Other, please specify below: 

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 108

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C2. Typically, at what point after children and youth are placed in your facility/program are 

risk/needs screenings and assessments conducted?

Please select only one answer.

 Within 24 hours

 After 24 hours but within 48 hours

 After 48 hours but within the first week

 After the first week but within the first month

 Other, please specify below.

C3. Does your facility/program conduct risk/needs screenings or assessments for the youth 

served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C4

 No, Go to Question C7, on page 13

C4. Which of the following types of risk/needs screening or assessments are conducted in your 

facility/program for the youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Yes No

a. Back on Track (BOT 1 0 

b. Beck Youth Inventories of Emotional & Social Impairment (BYI) 1 0 

c. Behavioral Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2) 1 0

d. Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) Screening 1 0

e. Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) 1 0

f. Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument — Version 2 (MAYSI-2) 1 0

g. Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) 1 0

h. Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory — Adolescent 2 (SASSI-A2) 1 0

i. Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory System (YLS/CMI) 1 0

j. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 109

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C5. Are there state or local (e.g., school district) guidelines and / or regulations about which preor post-tests your facility/program can use for reading and English language arts? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. State guidelines 1 0 

b. State regulations 1 0 

c. Local guidelines 1 0 

d. Local regulations 1 0 

C6. Are there state or local (e.g., school district) guidelines and / or regulations about which preor post-tests your facility/program can use for mathematics? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. State guidelines 1 0 

b. State regulations 1 0 

c. Local guidelines 1 0 

d. Local regulations 1 0 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 110

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C7. Does your facility/program use academic assessments for the youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C8

 No, Go to Question C11 on page 14

C8. Which academic assessments are used by this facility/program for the youth served by Title 

I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. The state’s academic assessment 1 0

b. Basic English Skills Test (BEST) 1 0

c. Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) 1 0

d. Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) 1 0

e. Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) 1 0

f. Renaissance Learning STAR assessments 1 0

g. Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) 1 0

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C9. Typically, at what point are academic pretests administered to children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D in your facility/program?

Please select only one answer.

 Within 24 hours of facility entry/program enrollment

 After 24 but within 48 hours of facility entry/program enrollment

 After 48 hours but within the first week of facility entry/program enrollment

 More than one week after facility entry//program enrollment

 C10. Typically, at what point are academic post-tests first administered to children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D in your facility/program?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 30 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 30 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 Between 31 and 60 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 Between 61 and 90 days after facility entry/program enrollment

 More than 90 days after facility entry/program enrollment
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 111

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

GENERAL EDUCATION SERVICES AND STRUCTURE

C11. Who is primarily responsible for providing education and related services to the children and 

youth served by Title I, Part D in your facility/program?

Please select only one answer.

 A school district within the same geographical/catchment area as this facility/program

 A school district outside the geographical/catchment area of this facility/program

 The state Department of Education

 A private education provider

 A juvenile justice agency

 A child welfare agency

 Other, please specify below.

C12. What is the average length of the instructional day in your facility/program? 

Please enter the count in the box below.

Average number of hours in the instructional day

C13. What is the average length of the instructional year in your facility/program?

Please enter the count in the box below.

Average number of days in the instructional year
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 112

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C14. Are any of the following teaching strategies used for reading/English language arts or 

mathematics with students served by Title I, Part D in your facility/program? 

Please indicate ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for both reading/English language arts AND mathematics in each row.

Reading / English 

language arts

Mathematics

Yes No Yes No

a. Direct/scripted instruction (a teacher-directed 

method that uses straightforward, explicit teaching 

techniques, such as lectures)

1 0 1 0 

b. Inquiry-based learning (a student-directed method 

whereby a teacher poses questions that students 

investigate to problem solve)

1 0 1 0 

c. Online/hybrid learning (typically a student-directed 

method wherein all or part of the content instruction 

takes place through digital or online media)

1 0 1 0

d. Collaborative learning (e.g., small-group work) 1 0 1 0

e. Interdisciplinary learning (e.g., teaching across 

content areas) 1 0 1 0

f. Other, please specify below.

1 0 1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 113

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C15. During fiscal/school year 2016-17, to what extent were the following strategies to help 

improve academic outcomes for students served by Title I, Part D a focus of your 

facility/program?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not

a Focus

Minor

Focus

Moderate 

Focus

Major

Focus

a. Using student achievement data (e.g., standardized 

academic assessment or collected behavioral data) to 

inform instruction and academic supports 

1 2 3 4 

b. Aligning curriculum and instruction with state standards 

and/or assessments 1 2 3 4 

c. Implementing evidence-based instructional 

approaches and/or curricula in reading/English 

language arts 

1 2 3 4 

d. Implementing evidence-based instructional 

approaches and/or curricula in mathematics 1 2 3 4 

e. Implementing credit recovery programs 1 2 3 4 

f. Providing individualized instruction to all students 1 2 3 4 

g. Providing individualized instruction to special student 

populations (e.g., students with disabilities and English 

language learners)

1 2 3 4 

h. Supplementing core instruction with additional 

supports (e.g., tutoring, computer-based instruction) 1 2 3 4 

i. Incorporating education technology in the classroom 

(e.g., using tablets to support instruction; delivering 

content through interactive whiteboards)

1 2 3 4 

j. Ensuring required instructional time for all students 

(e.g., by limiting classroom removals for code of 

conduct infractions or treatment sessions)

1 2 3 4 

k. Implementing classroom and behavior management 

strategies that foster positive climates for learning 

(e.g., positive behavioral interventions and supports)

1 2 3 4 

l. Implementing strategies for increasing parents’/family 

involvement in child’s/youth’s education 1 2 3 4 

m. Using strategies for appropriately including students in 

their own educational planning 1 2 3 4 

n. Incorporating skills learned in the classroom across 

other areas of the facility (e.g., applying intrapersonal 

problem-solving skills within dormitories)

1 2 3 4 

o. Coordinating with treatment staff to mitigate challenges 

to learning and reinforce academic concepts/skills 1 2 3 4 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 114

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

C16. Thinking about managing student behavior, please indicate if any of the following strategies 

are in use in your facility/program with the children and youth served by Title I, Part D 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Individualized student behavior management plans 1 0

b. Classroom behavior management procedures 1 0

c. Posted behavioral expectations 1 0

d. Incentives or positive consequences for positive behavior 1 0

e. Sanctions or negative consequences for negative behavior 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C17. Does your facility/program use a tiered model of behavioral management with the children 

and youth served by Title I, Part D, in which responses are tailored to the severity of the 

violation?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

 Not sure
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 115

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

SPECIAL EDUCATION

C18. Does your facility/program provide any of the following types of services to students with 

disabilities served by Title I, Part D?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Self-contained special education class/classroom (students with disabilities are 

taught in a class made up solely of students with disabilities for the entire 

instructional day)

1 0

b. Pull-out services (students with disabilities are provided instruction in a separate 

setting by a special education teacher for part of the instructional day) 1 0

c. In-class services (a special education teacher provides instructional or related 

services to students with disabilities, individually or in small groups, in the general 

education setting)

1 0

d. Team teaching (a general and special education teacher share teaching 

responsibilities for all or part of the instructional day) 1 0

e. Modified curriculum delivered by a general education teacher 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C19. How often does your facility’s/program’s individualized education program (IEP) team meet 

to discuss changes to student IEPs for the children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

 My facility/program does not have an IEP team

OR

Please select only one answer.

 More than once a week

 Once a week

 Every other week

 Once a month

 Once a quarter

 Less than once a quarter

C20. How frequently do facility/program staff communicate with parents concerning the IEPs of 

the children and youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Once a month or more

 Every other month

 Every three months

 Every six months or less

 Staff do not communicate with parents
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 116

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

C21. Does your facility/program have any children and youth served by Title I, Part D who are 

English language learners? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C22

 No, Go to Question C26 on page 21

C22. Which of the following models are used in this facility/program for the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D who are English language learners? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No6

a. English as a second language (ESL) pull-out (students who 

are English language learners are removed from the 

general education setting and provided ESL instruction in a 

separate setting by an ESL teacher for part of the 

instructional day)

1 0

b. Sheltered instruction (ESL content-area classes with 

English immersion mainstreaming) 1 0

c. Newcomer program or high-intensity language training 

(students who are English language learners receive ESL 

instruction for the majority of the day, with mainstream 

electives)

1 0

d. Dual immersion (two languages taught throughout the day) 1 0

e. Other, please specify below. 

1 0

C23. Which of the following types of learning domains are emphasized with the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D who are English language learners? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Oral comprehension 1 0

b. Reading comprehension 1 0

c. Writing proficiency 1 0

d. Visual literacy (i.e., looking at a picture or video to gauge 

meaning) 1 0

e. Interpersonal learning 1 0

f. Other, please specify below. 1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 117

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C24. How often in your facility/program do the children and youth served by Title I, Part D who are 

English language learners receive individualized instructional support?

Please select only one answer.

 Multiple times per day

 Daily

 More than once a week

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Other, please specify below. 

C25. For the children and youth in your facility/program served by Title I, Part D who are English 

language learners, how often are English language proficiency skills assessed throughout a 

student’s placement?

Please select only one answer.

 Only upon entry

 Only upon exit

 Only upon entry and exit

 Monthly

 Biweekly

 Weekly
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 118

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING

Social emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, 

attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for 

others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.

C26. Does your facility/program teach (formally or informally) social emotional skills or 

competencies to the children and youth served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

C27. How often do staff members in your facility/program recognize (formally or informally) the 

children and youth served by Title I, Part D for positive behaviors?

Please select only one answer.

 Multiple times per day

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Less often than monthly

C28. How often do staff members in your facility/program encourage the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D to think about how their actions affect others?

Please select only one answer.

 Multiple times per day

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

C29. Do staff members in your facility/program require the children and youth served by Title I, 

Part D to set educational and related goals for themselves?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 119

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

C30. Does your facility/program offer career and technical education services for the children and 

youth served by Title I, Part D?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question C31

 No, Go to Question C32

C31. At which level(s) of career and technical education courses do the children and youth served 

by Title I, Part D in your facility/program participate?

Please select only one answer.

 Secondary level only

 Postsecondary level only

 Both secondary and postsecondary levels

C32. Which occupational program areas does your facility’s/program’s career technical education 

program address? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Agriculture and natural resources 1 0

b. Business 1 0

c. Communications and design 1 0

d. Computer and information sciences 1 0

e. Construction and architecture 1 0

f. Consumer and culinary services 1 0

g. Engineering technologies 1 0

h. Health sciences 1 0

i. Manufacturing 1 0

j. Marketing 1 0

k. Public services 1 0

l. Repair and transportation 1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 120

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

TRANSITION PLANNING AND SUPPORT

C33. Approximately what percentage of the children and youth served by Title I, Part D in your 

facility/program...

Please enter a percentage in each row. If “0,” select the box “None.” Your best estimate is fine.

Percentage of Youth 

a.

Enter the facility/program with a transition plan from a 

prior placement? %  None

b. Have a transition plan created upon arrival? %  None

c. Have a transition plan modified while in placement? %  None

d. Are monitored for progress at regular intervals toward 

transition plan outcomes? %  None

e. Are assessed for progress toward transition 

goals/outcomes prior to exit? %  None

f. Are assessed for progress toward transition 

goals/outcomes after exit? %  None

C34. In your facility/program, how involved are the children and youth served by Title I, Part D in

the following transition planning activities?

Please select one answer in each row.

Limited or Not

At All Involved

Moderately

Involved 

Substantially

Involved 

a. Identifying their own strengths and needs 1 2 3 

b. Identifying their goals and objectives 1 2 3 

c. Informing education plans 1 2 3

d. Requesting or suggesting subsequent placements 1 2 3

e. Creating their own transition plan 1 2 3
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 121

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C35. In your facility/program, how involved are the parents and family members of children and 

youth served by Title I, Part D in the following transition planning activities? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Limited or Not

At All Involved

Moderately

Involved 

Substantially

Involved 

a. Identifying children and youth strengths and needs 1 2 3 

b. Identifying children and youth goals and objectives 1 2 3 

c. Deciding education plans 1 2 3

d. Deciding new placements 1 2 3

e. Creating children’s/youth’s transition plan 1 2 3

C36. In your opinion, how closely does your facility/program collaborate with the following 

external partners to support transition planning and services for the children and youth 

served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Partners Not At All Not Very 

Closely 

Somewhat 

Closely

Very 

Closely

a. Community-based organizations 1 2 3 4 

b. Community schools/school districts 1 2 3 4

c. Employers 1 2 3 4

d. Health services (including 

mental/behavioral) 1 2 3 4

e. Justice/law enforcement 1 2 3 4

f. Social service/child and family services 1 2 3 4

g. Workforce development (e.g., job 

training/placement) 1 2 3 4

h. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 122

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C37. Are the transition plans of children and youth served by Title I, Part D shared with the 

child’s/youth’s next placement? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question C38

 No, Go to Question C40, on page 26

C38. When are the transition plans of children and youth served by Title I, Part D shared with the 

child’s/youth’s next placement?

Please select only one answer.

 Prior to exit

 Day of exit

 The first week after exit

 The first month after exit

 The first three months after exit

 More than three months after exit

C39. Approximately how many months after exit do the children and youth served by Title I, Part D 

by your facility/program receive transition follow-up (aftercare) services?

Please select only one answer.

 Less than 2 months

 2 months – less than 6 months

 6 months – less than 8 months

 8 months or more
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 123

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C40. Thinking about the children and youth served by Title I, Part D, please indicate if your

facility/program provides any of the following resources after exit to reduce the risk of 

returning to placement

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Financial support (e.g., cash or vouchers for housing 

assistance, assistance through TANF or SNAP) 1 0

b. General education support 1 0

c. Job/employability training 1 0

d. Mental and/or behavioral health counseling 1 0

e. Substance abuse counseling 1 0

f. Career and technical education support 1 0

g. Other, please specify below.

1 0

C41. In your opinion, how difficult is it for your facility/program to track children and youth who 

have left the facility/program? 

Please select only one answer.

 Not very difficult

 Somewhat difficult

 Very difficult
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 124

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services, continued 

C42. How much of a challenge is each of the following for tracking children and youth after exit

from this facility/program?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. State laws or other regulations that 

prohibit contact with children and 

youth post-exit

1 2 3 4

b. Federal, state, or local privacy 

policies 1 2 3 4

c. Lack of facility/program staff, 

funding, or other resources to track 

children and youth

1 2 3 4

d. Lack of willingness/cooperation from 

child’s/youth’s post-exit placement(s) 1 2 3 4

e. Lack of student information systems 1 2 3 4

f. Disconnected/soiled student 

information systems 1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 

1 2 3 4
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 125

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development

D1. What is the average number of years of experience for teachers in your facility/program? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Less than 1 year

 1 year – less than 3 years

 3 years – less than 6 years 

 6 years – less than 8 years 

 8 years or more 

D2. What is the lowest level of education your facility/program requires for instructional staff?

Please select only one answer. 

 Associate’s degree

 Bachelor’s degree

 Master’s degree

 Doctoral degree

D3. How much of a challenge is each of the following for the Title I, Part D program at your 

facility/program? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Issue

Not a 

Challenge

Minor 

Challenge

Moderate 

Challenge

Major 

Challenge

a. Instructional staff often teach outside the 

content area in which they are credentialed. 1 2 3 4

b. Shortage of qualified instructional staff. 1 2 3 4

c. Shortage of qualified related services or 

support services staff. 1 2 3 4

d. Instructional staff lack qualifications to teach 

students with disabilities. 1 2 3 4

e. Instructional staff lack qualifications to teach 

students who are English language learners. 1 2 3 4

f. Instructional, related, and/or support staff lack 

experience and/or training working in a 

secure care, residential, or similar alternative 

education setting.

1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify below. 1 2 3 4
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 126

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D4. Do instructional staff in your facility/program receive annual professional development? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question D5

 No, Go to Question D6

D5. On average, what is the total number of hours of annual professional development provided

per full-time equivalent (FTE) instructional staff?

Please enter the number in the box below.

Total annual professional development hours per FTE instructional staff

D6. Do support staff in your facility/program receive annual professional development? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question D7

 No, Go to Question D8, on page 30

D7. On average, what is the total number of hours of annual professional development provided 

per FTE support services staff? 

Please enter the number in the box below.

Total annual professional development hours per FTE support services staff
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 127

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D8. Considering all instructional AND support services staff in your facility/program, please 

indicate if any of the following areas of professional development have been provided in the 

past three fiscal/school years (2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17)? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

Reading/English language arts content or curricula 1 0 

Mathematics content or curricula 1 0 

Other academic subjects (e.g., science, social 

studies, foreign language) 1 0

Instructional strategies for English language 

learners 1 0

Instructional strategies for students with 

individualized education programs (IEPs) 1 0

Student behavioral management or positive 

behavior strategies 1 0

Analyzing and interpreting student data 1 0

Using educational technology 1 0

Program management and planning 1 0

Program budgeting 1 0

Other, please specify below. 1 0

D9. Does your facility/program have a staff recruitment or staff assignment policy?

Please select one answer per row. 

Yes No

Staff recruitment policy 1 0 

Staff assignment policy 1 0 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 128

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development, 

continued

D10. Does your facility/program offer any of the following incentives to hire or retain staff? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

Signing bonuses 1 0 

Relocation assistance or housing 1 0 

Finder’s fee to existing staff for new teacher 

referrals 1 0

Student loan forgiveness 1 0

Continuing or graduate education reimbursement 1 0

Other, please specify below. 1 0

D11. In your opinion, in the past three fiscal/school years (2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17), how much 

of a challenge has it been to retain staff in each of the following personnel categories?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a Challenge Minor Challenge Moderate Challenge Major Challenge

a. Instructional staff 1 2 3 4

b. Support/related staff 1 2 3 4

c. Administrators and/or managers 1 2 3 4

D12. How many instructional staff members elected not to return to your facility/program after the 

2015–16 fiscal/school year? 

Please enter a headcount, not FTEs, in the box below.

Total count of non-returning instructional staff

D13. How many support services staff members elected not to return to your facility/program after 

the 2015–16 fiscal/school year? 

Please enter a headcount, not FTEs, in the box below.

Total count of non-returning support/related staff

D14. How many administrators or managers elected not to return to your facility/program after the 

2015–16 fiscal/school year? 

Please enter a headcount, not FTEs, in the box below.

Total count of non-returning administrators or manager
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 129

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

E1. Is your facility/program required by the state to assess educational outcomes for the 

students served by Title I, Part D while they are enrolled?

 Yes

 No

E2. Even if your state does not require the use of educational program outcomes measures, do 

you use them facilities/program for students served by Title I, Part D funds?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No, Go to Question E5, on page 33

E3. How are educational outcomes for student served by Title I, Part D funds measured in your 

facility/program? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

Standardized, summative assessments (e.g., state end-of-year 

assessment) 1 0 

Standardized, formative assessments (e.g., formal and informal 

assessment procedures conducted by teachers during the learning 

process to modify teaching and learning to improve student attainment)

1 0 

Informal assessments (e.g., teacher observation, student work) 1 0

Course grades 1 0

Course credits 1 0

Other, please specify below. 1 0

E4. Are outcomes measured for any of the following specific subpopulations of students served 

by Title I, Part D in your facility/program?

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Students with disabilities 1 0

b. English language learners 1 0

c. Black students 1 0

d. Hispanic/Latino students 1 0

e. American Indian and/or Alaskan Native students 1 0

f. By gender 1 0

g. Other, please specify below. 1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 130

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

E5. Is your facility/program able to track student outcomes for children and youth served by Title 

I, Part D post-exit? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, for all students Go to Question E6

 Yes, for some students Go to Question E6

 No, Go to Question E7, on page 34

E6. Which of the following post-exit, education-related student outcomes does your 

facility/program track for students served by Title I, Part D? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. High school course credits awarded 1 0

b. High school graduation rates and/or diplomas 

awarded 1 0

c. High school equivalency certificates earned (e.g., 

GED, TASC, or HiSET) 1 0

d. High school dropout rates 1 0

e. Postsecondary education acceptance/enrollment 1 0

f. Postsecondary education dropout/incompletion rates 1 0

g. Career and technical certificates awarded 1 0

h. Technical/training school acceptance/enrollment 

and/or apprenticeships 1 0

i. Employment or other labor market outcomes 1 0

j. Other, please specify below.

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 131

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

E7. Has your facility/program developed a formal program monitoring and/or program 

improvement process (e.g., continuous quality improvement, or CQI*) toward achieving state, 

district, or facility educational and related outcomes for students served by Title I, Part D?

*Continuous quality improvement is a process to ensure that programs are systematically and 

intentionally using data to make evidence-informed decisions about improving services that 

ultimately impact outcomes for the youth they serve.

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question E8

 No, Go to Question E9

E8. Does the local educational agency (school district) that allocates Title I, Part D funds require

your program/facility to implement a formal program monitoring and/or program 

improvement process for the Title I, Part D program?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

E9. How often does your facility/program use process data (e.g., data that track delivery of 

services to students, such as adherence to curriculum or children and youth participation in 

education activities, etc.) collected for each of the following?

Please select one answer in each row. 

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing fidelity to facility/program Part D 

program plans. 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when facility/program Part D 

goals/outcomes are not met. 

1 2 3 4

E10. How often does your facility/program use outcome data (e.g., data that track gains in reading 

and mathematics, high school course credits awarded, or community school reenrollment) 

for each of the following?

Please select only one answer in each row.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often 

a. Reviewing progress toward achieving 

facility/program Part D goals/outcomes 1 2 3 4

b. Identifying areas for service delivery 

improvement when facility/program Part D 

goals/outcomes are not met

1 2 3 4
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 132

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization, continued 

E11. In your opinion, how important are improved education-related outcomes for the children and 

youth served by Title I, Part D for your facility/program? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Very important

 Important

 Somewhat important

 Not Important

E12. In your opinion, how important are improved education-related outcomes for children and 

youth served by Title I, Part D for the local educational agency (school district) that allocates 

funds?

Please select only one answer.

 Very important

 Important

 Somewhat important

 Not Important
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 133

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds 

F1. Please indicate how often the following are used to make decisions about the use of Title I, 

Part D funds at your facility/program. 

Please select one answer in each row.

Most of the Time

Some of the 

Time Rarely or Never

a. The budget aligns with identified activities 

under the state’s Title I, Part D plan. 1 2 3

b. The funded initiatives meet the state’s 

Title I, Part D goals as outlined in the state 

agency application.

1 2 3

c. The funded initiatives prioritize focus on 

certain types of offenders. 1 2 3

d. The funded initiatives emphasize providing 

evidence of recidivism reduction. 1 2 3

F2. Please use the table below to provide additional detail on the use of Title I, Part D funds in 

your facility/program in the 2015–16 fiscal/school year. 

Please enter the dollar amount in each row to the nearest $500 (e.g., $100,500). 

If there are no dollars to report, please enter $0.

TOTAL DOLLARS SPENT AT YOUR PROGRAM OR LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY Autopopulated in 

Web Version

PERSONNEL 

TOTAL DOLLARS — PERSONNEL SPENDING

Autocalculated in 

Web Version

$ 

Core Teacher FTE salaries (content areas) $ 

Supplemental Teacher FTE salaries (above and beyond the core program) $ 

Student Health and Nutrition Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

Psychology and Therapy Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

Counseling Services FTE salaries or contracted providers $ 

NONPERSONNEL

TOTAL DOLLARS — NONPERSONNEL SPENDING

Autocalculated in 

Web Version

$ 

Professional Development fees (contracted services, conference registration, travel, per 

diems, etc.)

$ 

Instructional Materials $ 

Other Supplies and Materials, including technology hardware and software $ 

Programs that serve children and youth returning to school from correctional facilities $ 

Dropout prevention programs $ 

Coordinated health and social services not reflected in personnel $ 

Mentoring and peer mediation programs $ 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 134

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds, continued 

F3. Does your facility/program use Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds to conduct transition 

activities? 

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question F4

 No, Go to Question F6

F4. Approximately what percentage of your facility’s/program’s Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds for 

the 2015–16 fiscal/school year were devoted to transition services and support? 

Please enter a percentage in the box below.

Percentage of Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds devoted to transition activities

F5. Of the funds allocated to transition activities, what percentage was used for:

Enter an amount. If $0, select “None.” If you do not know, please select “Don’t know.” 

Amount

g. Programs to assist in transition of children and youth 

leaving correctional facilities to school environment, and 

help them remain in school [ESEA § 1424(1)]

$ 

 None

 Don’t know

h. Dropout prevention programs to serve at-risk children and 

youth [ESEA § 1424(2)] $  None

 Don’t know

i. Coordinated health and social services (e.g., mental 

health counseling, day care for pregnant or parenting 

children and youth)

$ 

 None

 Don’t know

j. Family support services (family engagement, family 

counseling, skill building, rehabilitative) $  None

 Don’t know

k. Substance abuse prevention programs $  None

 Don’t know

F6. Has your facility/program ever experienced an interruption in Title I, Part D–funded services 

because of the lack of timely disbursement of funds?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes

 No
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 135

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds, continued 

F7. In the past three fiscal/school years (2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17), has your facility/program 

experienced a decrease in funding?

Please select only one answer. 

 Yes, Go to Question F8

 No, Go to Question F9 on page 39

F8. Please indicate if any of the following contributed to the funding decrease your 

facility/program experienced in the past three fiscal/school years (2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–

16)? 

Please select one answer in each row.

Yes No

a. Decrease in the count of neglected or delinquent youth in 

residential placement in the state 1 0

b. Decrease in the count of neglected or delinquent youth in 

residential placement in the funding school district 1 0

c. Carryover funds were not drawn down in a timely manner 

and were revoked by the funding school district 1 0

d. Other, please specify below. 

1 0
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) COORDINATOR SURVEY

Please note: Unless otherwise stated, questions refer to the 2016–17 fiscal/school year.

page 136

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds, continued 

F9. Thinking about your facility/program in fiscal/school year 2015–16, were any Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 2 funds carried over into fiscal/school year 2016–17? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, Go to Question F10

 No, Go to Question F12

F10. What percentage of your facility’s/program’s Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 funds from 

fiscal/school year 2015–16 were carried over into fiscal/school year 2016–17? 

Please enter a valid percentage (0-100). 

Percentage of funds carried over from fiscal/school year 2015–16 to 2016–17

F11. Thinking about your facility/program in fiscal/school year 2015-16, what were the main 

reasons that Title I, Part D funds were carried over into fiscal/school year 2016-17? 

Please select all that apply.

Facility/program closure(s) and/or merger(s)

Decrease in number of eligible students

Delay/failure to replace staff supported by Part D funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds were unsure of the accounting and/or reporting requirements for uses of funds

Facilities/programs receiving funds requested to use funds in ways that did not meet program goals or requirements

Other, please specify below.

F12. Are there any final comments or thoughts that you would like to share about on your 

experiences with Title I, Part D funds?

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY! 
Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

137

Case Study Interview Protocols

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 139

A. Agency Characteristics

1. [P, I] 17 Please describe your role in the State’s Part D program. What are your 

responsibilities? [[T, D: Please describe your role within the State Education Agency. What 

are your responsibilities?] 

Probe 

a. [T] Where does the Title I, Part D program fit in?

b. [T, D] Please also describe your role with the State’s Title I, Part D program. What 

are your responsibilities?

c. [T] How do you work with the State’s Title I, Part D (ND) Coordinator? 

2. [P] How long has your agency operated the Part D program? 

Probe 

a. [P] Has your or the agency’s role changed in that time? Please explain.

3. [P] What agencies, departments, and/or facilities within the State are involved in the Part D 

program? 

a. [P] Which students are served by the Title I, Part D program? 

4. [P] How does the State education agency work with each of the sub-grantees (i.e., 

facilities/programs receiving Part D funds)? 

Probe 

a. [P] What is the overall structure for supporting these programs in your state? 

B. Shared Decision-Making & Collaborative Planning 

1. [P, I, T] Have you been involved in the planning for your State’s Part D program? 

If yes  Please describe the planning for your agency’s Part D program, including who else 

was involved, any challenges, and outcomes? 

Probe 

a. [P] Were any new policies or procedures developed during the planning phase? 

b. [P, T] Could you describe any challenges encountered during the planning phase and 

what strategies were used to try to resolve them?

c. [P] How is it structured? 

d. [P] How are decisions made? 

e. [P] How often does major planning take place? 

2. [P, I] What were the major priorities addressed during the past year or during the most recent 

planning phase? 

a. [P, I] How were the priorities identified (for example: federal initiatives, state 

priorities, local challenges, a recent needs assessment)? 

b. [P, I] How were the priorities addressed? 

3. [P, I] Please describe how and with which facilities/programs/agencies your agency 

collaborates to provide Part D programming to N or D students. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Have you experienced any barriers to communication, collaboration, or 

coordination with other systems or agencies working with N or D students? 

 

17 P = SEA Part D Coordinator; I = Staff who oversee Instruction; T = Title I Coordinator/Director; D = Data person
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 140

b. [P, I] What strategies are used to try to resolve the challenges? 

 [T] N or D students are involved in multiple systems, which may make coordination and 

communication challenging. Have you experienced barriers to communication, 

collaboration, or coordination with other systems or agencies that work with N or D 

students? 

Probe 

a. [T] If so, please describe how you have handled these challenges.

b. [T] Is there anything that could be done to help improve interagency communication, 

collaboration, or coordination?

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services

Screening and Risk Assessments

1. [P, I] Please describe the process of how the children and youth come to the Part D 

program/Title I programs in your State/agency? 

[[T: Please describe the process of how the children and youth come to the Title I programs 

in your State.] 

Probe 

a. [P, I, T] How are neglected or delinquent, children and youth identified as needing 

the Part D program services? 

2. [I, T] What are the most frequent educational issues or problems of children and youth who 

come to the program? 

Probe 

a. [I, T] How have these problems and issues been identified? And by whom? 

3. [P, I, T] Are any standardized assessments used in identifying educational risks or needs? 

4. [D] How are statewide data on youth who participate in Title I, Part D program collected? 

Probe 

a. [D] For example, does your state support the use of common screening and risk or 

academic assessment instruments? 

b. [D] How are they used? 

General Education Services and Structure

1. [P, I] What types of services and programs are supported by your state agency? (i.e., Please 

describe the educational services and programs provided by your Title I, Part D program.) 

a. [I] Do your State’s Part D programs support academic instruction?

b. [I] Credit recovery programs?

c. [I] Are any other education-related services funded by Part D in your State? If so, 

please describe the services.

2. [I] Please describe any intensive or highly structured reading instruction included in your 

State’s Title I, Part D programming? 

Probe 

b. [I] Approaches used? Any “name brand” programs (e.g., READ 180 or Corrective 

Reading)? 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 141

3. [I] Please describe any standardized mathematics instructional approaches included in your 

State’s Title I, Part D programming? 

For example, 1) explicit instruction/direct instruction, 2) strategy instruction, including 

mnemonic and schema-based instruction, 3) technology-based instruction and real-world 

problem solving, 4) graduated instructional sequence, 4) graduated instructional 

sequence, 5) peer-mediated instruction, or 6) instructional adaptation of self-monitoring, 

graphic organizers, and cue cards. 

4. [P, I, T] What kinds of technical assistance and monitoring services does this SEA provide to 

sub-grantees? Please describe.

5. [D] How does the State Education Agency use data to monitor the sub-grantees? 

: 4

6. [D] What types of technical assistance related to student data does the State education agency 

provide to sub-grantees?

7. [P, T] Does your State Education Agency have a role in the support of priority educational 

issues or problems (for Title I programs? Including Title I, Part D)? For example, does the 

state specifically support youth with any of the following issues: behavior management, 

special education, English language learners, social emotional learning, or career and 

technical education? 

Probe 

a. [P] Does the state provide training and technical support in any of those areas? Please 

describe. 

8. [D] Does your State Education Agency use data to identify and support Title I, Part D 

priority educational concerns? For example, does the state track the percentage of youth in 

Part D programs with any of the following issues: behavior management, special education, 

English language learners, social emotional learning, or career and technical education? 

Probe 

a. [D] [If not mentioned] Does the state provide training and technical support in any of 

those areas? Can you describe it? 

Behavior Management 

1. [I] Please describe your Part D program’s approach to managing student behavior? 

Probe 

a. [I] How are conduct problems addressed for students who participate in your Part D 

program? 

b. [I] What behavior management strategies are used in the classroom?

c. [I] Are any positive behavioral interventions and supports used? If so, please describe 

these interventions. 

Special Education

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children and youth with special needs, including 

students with disabilities? 

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided to youth with learning disabilities? 

b. [I] How are students identified for individualized education programs (IEPs) and how 

are the IEPs developed? 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 142

c. [I] Has/have your State encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students in juvenile justice and/or child welfare settings? 

English Language Learner 

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children who are English language learners? 

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided to youth who are English language learners? 

b. [I] Has your program encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students? 

Social Emotional Learning

1. [I] Could you describe how Part D programs address the social and emotional needs of 

students (e.g., managing emotions, setting and achieving positive goals, feeling and showing 

empathy)? 

Probe 

a. [I] Are any specific social and emotional learning programs provided for these 

students? 

Career and Technical Education

1. [I] Please describe any vocational education, career technical education, or job training 

services provided as part of your Part D program. 

Probe 

a. [I] How do students access these services?

b. [I] What outcomes have you seen for students who participate in the career and 

technical education services? For example, do they experience increased connections 

to employment following release from placement? Are their rates of high school and 

other diplomas earned higher compared to other students who are N or D?

i. [I] Do you have data to support the changes you have seen? 

Institution-wide Programming (IWP) 

1. [P] Does your State’s Title I, Part D programming include institution-wide Part D projects? 

If No  go to next item, then skip to next subsection (Transition Planning) 

If Yes  skip next question and cover remaining IWP questions) 

2. [P] Have you considered implementing IWPs? 

If Yes  What potential benefits do you see with IWPs versus traditional Part D projects? 

Potential challenges or barriers to implementation?

If No  Please describe why not? 

3. [T] Are you involved in any way with Title I, Part D Institution-wide Programs (if the State 

has IWPs)? Please describe.

Probe 

a. [T] In addition to Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 funds, what other funding sources 

(Federal, State, and/or other) does your State use for coordinated support of IWPs? 

b. [T] Is there anything else that you think would be important for us to know about 

your role or your experience with IWPs? 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 143

4. [P] Could you describe the IWP(s) that have been implemented in your State? 

Probe 

a. [P] How is/are your State’s IWP(s) different from traditional Part D programs?

5. [P] Is there anything that we have not yet discussed that you think would be important for us 

to know about your experience with planning, implementing, and/or operating IWPs? 

Transition Planning

1. [P, I, T] How does the State support/track transition planning at the local level? [of children 

and youth who are N or D back into community-based academic settings] (Please describe.) 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Please describe the transition services or practices that your Part D programs 

implement to support youths’ academic/career/behavioral needs as they move into or 

out of custodial settings. 

b. [D] Does the State collect data on the different transition services or practices that 

Part D programs implement to support youths’ academic/career/behavioral needs as 

they move into or out of custodial settings? 

c. [P, I, D] Are data collected specifically on: high-quality transition planning, youth 

and family involvement in planning, or identification or use of community-resources 

in plans? Please describe. 

d. [D] What do the data indicate are the most promising or effective transition services 

(beyond transition plans) provided by the (Part D program) sub-grantees/programs? 

i. [D] How do you know/what data show evidence that these are effective? 

2. [P] How does the State address challenges experienced at the local level regarding obtaining 

or sharing educational information or records as the youth enters or leaves the custodial 

setting? 

Probe 

a. [P] Are there standard requirements regarding components or timing of transitional 

planning? 

3. [P] Does your agency/SEA monitor transition plans or transition planning processes? Please 

describe your monitoring practices.

4. [P, I, T] How does the State support collaboration and coordination work across agencies 

(juvenile justice, child welfare, and education systems) on transition planning and services? 

Probe 

a. [P] Who does your agency collaborate with on transition services? 

b. [P] What is the nature and the roles of collaborations and partnerships for transition 

services? 

c. [T] Does the State have specific expectations or support with regard to: high-quality 

transition planning, youth and family involvement in planning, or identification or use 

of community-resources in plans? Please describe.

5. [P, I] Do you have a formal/structured transition planning model or approach that is expected 

to be followed by all Part D program agencies and facilities statewide? Please describe.
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 144

Probe 

a. [P, I] What does your agency expect of sub-grantees/programs in terms of the 

development and application of transition plans? 

b. [P, I] Are there standard requirements regarding components or timing of 

transition planning? 

6. [I] Where do you see gaps in terms of transition services among the sub-grantees/programs?

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development

1. [I] What are the general qualifications for instructional staff in Part D programs?

Probe 

a. [I] Do staff need any special qualification or certifications to work with N or D 

youth? If so, what are they? 

2. [P, D] How does the State support a qualified pool of instructors available to teach for Part D 

programs across the State? 

[[T: How does the State support the professional development of instructional staff across 

Title I programs? Is there specific support for staff in Part D programs?] 

3. [P, I] How does the State support the professional development of instructional staff in Part 

D programs across the State? 

[[T: Is there a State level focus on the development of a qualified pool of instructors available 

to teach for Title I programs? Title I, Part D programs? Please describe.] 

[[D: How does the State use data to identify professional development needs of instructional 

staff in Part D programs?]

4. [P, I] Please describe any State monitoring of curricula and high quality teaching in Part D 

programs. 

5. [T] Is there a State level focus on ensuring that curricula (used with Title I, Part D programs) 

are aligned with required State and school district content standards? 

6. [P] What policies are in place at the State level that support retention of highly qualified and 

effective teachers? 

[[D: How does the State measure success with regard to policies that are in place that support 

retention of highly qualified and effective teachers?]

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

1. [P, I] Please describe any State-level guidelines or legislation that guide the local Part D 

programs’ assessment of educational outcomes.

If no guidelines, Probe  

a. [P, I] Are programs able to select their own assessments to track educational 

outcomes? 

b. [P, I] In your opinion, are there benefits and/or challenges related to the use of 

different assessments across programs? (e.g., Can data from these assessments be 

aggregated at the State level to look at trends in educational outcomes across 

programs?) 
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 145

2. [T] Is there a State level focus on tracking outcomes for students who participate in Title I 

programs, including Part D programs versus those who do not? Please describe.

a. [T] Do you coordinate with other agencies and/or programs to track long-term 

educational outcomes? Please describe who you coordinate with and any policies or 

procedures that facilitate tracking long-term outcomes.

3. [D] Please describe the extent to which there are State guidelines for how Part-D funded 

educational programs use assessments for testing achievement of educational outcomes?

Probe 

a. [D] [If guidelines] In your opinion, are there benefits and/or challenges related to the 

State guidelines around assessments? 

b. [D] [If no guidelines] Please confirm whether programs are able to select their own 

assessments to track educational outcomes? 

i. [D] In your opinion, are there benefits and/or challenges related to the use of 

different assessments across programs? (e.g., Can data from these assessments 

be aggregated at the State level to look at trends in educational outcomes 

across programs?) 

4. [D] What key challenges have you encountered in assessing educational outcomes for 

students while they are participating in Part D-funded educational program(s)? 

Probe 

a. [D] Please describe challenges related to assessing outcomes for specific subpopulations such as students with disabilities or English language learners or in 

specific settings (e.g., correctional institutions, child welfare)?

5. [P, I] Does your State continue to follow students after they leave correctional institutions or 

child welfare facilities in order to track long-term educational outcomes? If yes, please 

describe the key long-term educational outcomes and the process for tracking them. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How do agencies coordinate and are there any policies or procedures that 

facilitate tracking long-term outcomes?

b. [P, I] Who is responsible for data collection? 

c. [P, I] How far out after they have left correctional institutions or child welfare 

facilities are you able to follow students to track these outcomes? (e.g., 90 days?) 

6. [D] What key successes have you experienced in assessing long-term educational outcomes 

for students after they have participated in Part D-funded educational program(s)? 

a. [D] Please describe who you coordinate with and any policies or procedures that 

facilitate tracking long-term outcomes.

7. [D] To what extent are you able to compare educational outcomes for students participating 

in Part D-funded educational programs with those for their peers who are receiving 

community-based services? Please describe.

8. [D] To what extent are you able to compare educational outcomes of students in Part Dfunded programs with students in juvenile and child welfare facilities within the State who do 

not participate in Part D-funded programs? Please describe.
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (SEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 146

9. [P, I, D] Are there educational outcomes (short or longer term) that you are not currently 

tracking, but would like to? Why are these outcomes of interest to you? 

F. Use of ESEA Title I, Part D Funds

1. [P] What is the overall structure for distributing Title I, Part D funds in your state? (e.g., How 

are Part D funds used?) 

2. [P] How does your State make decisions about how to spend Part D funds? 

3. [P] Who is involved in making resource allocation decisions? 

4. [P] How is Title I, Part D funding most useful in supporting state goals and outcomes for 

youth? 

5. [P] What is challenging about how the funding is structured and used? 

Probe 

a. [P] Has the State been able to work around these challenges? If so, how? 

6. [P] Has the role or use of Title I, Part D funding changed over time? Please explain. 

G. Overall Facilitators, Challenges, and Perceived Benefits 

1. [P, I] In terms of implementing Part D program activities, what has gone well overall? What 

has facilitated implementation of program activities? 

2. [P, I] What have been the key challenges in implementing Part D program activities overall 

(in addition to what we have already covered in this interview)? Please describe. 

3. [P, I, T] In your opinion, what have been some of the key benefits for children and youth 

involved in the Title I, Part D programming? 

Probe  

a. [P, I, T] What evidence is available to document these benefits?

4. [P, I, T, D] Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we have 

talked about?

THANK YOU!
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 147

A. Agency Characteristics

1. [P, I] 18 Please describe your role in the agency’s Part D program. What are your 

responsibilities? 

2. [P] How long has your agency operated the Part D program? 

Probe 

a. [P] Has your or the agency’s role changed in that time? Please explain. 

3. [P] What agencies, departments, and/or facilities within the State are involved in the Part D 

program? 

a. [P] Which students are served by the Title I, Part D program? 

4. [P] How does your agency work with each of the facilities/programs receiving Part D funds)? 

Probe 

a. [P] What is the overall structure for supporting these programs in your state? 

5. [P, I] Please briefly describe the services and programs provided by your agency’s Part D 

program. 

B. Shared Decision-Making & Collaborative Planning 

1. [P] Have you been involved in the planning for your State’s Part D program? 

If yes  Please describe the planning for your agency’s Part D program, including who else 

was involved, any challenges, and outcomes? 

Probe 

a. [P] Were any new policies or procedures developed during the planning phase? 

b. [P] Could you describe any challenges encountered during the planning phase and 

what strategies were used to try to resolve them?

c. [P] How is it structured? 

d. [P] How are decisions made? 

e. [P] How often does major planning take place? 

2. [P] What were the major priorities addressed during the past year or during the most recent 

planning phase? 

a. [P] How were the priorities identified (for example: federal initiatives, state priorities, 

local challenges, a recent needs assessment)? 

b. [P] How were the priorities addressed? 

3. [P, I] Please describe how and with which facilities/programs/agencies your agency 

collaborates to provide Part D programming to N or D students. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Have you experienced any barriers to communication, collaboration, or 

coordination with other systems or agencies working with N or D students? 

b. [P, I] What strategies are used to try to resolve the challenges? 

 

18 P = SA Part D Coordinator; I = Staff who oversee Instruction
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 148

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services

Screening and Risk Assessments

1. [P, I] Please describe the process of how the children and youth come to the Part D program 

in your agency? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How are neglected or delinquent, children and youth identified as needing the 

Part D program services? 

2. [P, I] What are the most frequent educational issues or problems of children and youth who 

come to the program? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How have these problems and issues been identified? And by whom? 

3. [P, I] Are any standardized assessments used in identifying educational risks or needs? 

General Education Services and Structure

1. [P, I] Please describe the educational services and programs provided by your Title I, Part D 

program. 

a. [P] Do your State’s Part D programs support academic instruction?

b. [P] Credit recovery programs?

c. [P] Are any other education-related services funded by Part D in your State? If so, 

please describe the services.

2. [I] Please describe any intensive or highly structured reading instruction included in your 

facilities’ Title I, Part D programming? 

Probe 

a. [I] Approaches used? Any “name brand” programs (e.g., READ 180 or Corrective 

Reading)? 

3. [I] Please describe any standardized mathematics instructional approaches included in your 

facilities’ Title I, Part D programming. 

For example, 1) explicit instruction/direct instruction, 2) strategy instruction, including 

mnemonic and schema-based instruction, 3) technology-based instruction and real-world 

problem solving, 4) graduated instructional sequence, 4) graduated instructional 

sequence, 5) peer-mediated instruction, or 6) instructional adaptation of self-monitoring, 

graphic organizers, and cue cards. 

4. [P] What kinds of technical assistance and monitoring services does your State agency 

provide to facilities receiving Title I, Part D funds? Please describe.

Behavior Management

1. [I] Please describe your Part D program’s approach to managing student behavior? 

Probe 

a. [I] How are conduct problems addressed for students who participate in your Part D 

program? 

b. [I] What behavior management strategies are used in the classroom?

c. [I] Are any positive behavioral interventions and supports used? If so, please describe 

these interventions.
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 149

Special Education

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children and youth with special needs, including 

students with disabilities? 

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided to youth with learning disabilities? 

d. [I] How are students identified for individualized education programs (IEPs) and how 

are the IEPs developed? 

e. [I] Has your agency encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these students in 

juvenile justice and/or child welfare settings? 

English Language Learner 

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children who are English language learners? 

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided to youth who are English language learners?

c. [I] Has your program encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students? 

Social Emotional Learning

1. [I] Could you describe how Part D programs address the social and emotional needs of 

students (e.g., managing emotions, setting and achieving positive goals, feeling and showing 

empathy)? 

Probe 

a. [I] Are any specific social and emotional learning programs provided for these 

students? 

Career and Technical Education

1. [I] Please describe any vocational education, career technical education, or job training 

services provided as part of your Part D program. 

Probe 

a. [I] How do students access these services?

c. [I] What outcomes have you seen for students who participate in the career and 

technical education services? For example, do they experience increased connections 

to employment following release from placement? Are their rates of high school and 

other diplomas earned higher compared to other students who are N or D?

i. [I] Do you have data to support the changes you have seen? 

Institution-wide Programming (IWP) 

1. [P, I] Does your agency’s Title I, Part D programming include institution-wide Part D 

projects? 

If No  go to next item, then skip to next subsection (Transition Planning) 

If Yes  skip next question and cover remaining IWP questions) 

2. [P] Have you considered implementing IWPs? 

If Yes  What potential benefits do you see with IWPs versus traditional Part D projects?

Potential challenges or barriers to implementation?

If No  Please describe why not? 

3. [P] Please describe the IWP planning process, what kinds of activities were conducted and 

the key issues that were addressed during the IWP planning phase. 
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 150

4. [P, I] Please describe the IWP(s) that have been implemented in your Part D-funded 

facilities? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How are the IWPs different from traditional Part D programs?

5. [P] Does the SEA and/or your agency encourage and support IWPs? If so, how? 

6. [P] In addition to Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 funds, what other funding sources (Federal, State, 

and/or other) do your facilities use for coordinated support of IWPs? 

7. [P, I] What factors facilitated implementation of IWP(s) in your facilities? Please describe. 

8. [P, I] What types of implementation challenges/barriers have your facilities encountered in 

implementing IWP(s)? Please describe.

Probe 

a. [P, I] How were these challenges addressed? 

9. [P, I] Is there anything that we have not yet discussed that you think would be important for 

us to know about your experience with planning, implementing, and/or operating IWPs? 

Transition Planning

1. [P, I] How does the agency support transition planning of children and youth who are N or D 

back into community-based academic settings? (Please describe.) 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Please describe the transition services or practices that your Part D programs 

implement to support youths’ academic/career/behavioral needs as they move into or 

out of custodial settings. 

b. [P] Are data collected specifically on: high-quality transition planning, youth and 

family involvement in planning, or identification or use of community-resources in 

plans? Please describe.

2. [P, I] How does the State support collaboration and coordination work across agencies 

(juvenile justice, child welfare, and education systems) on transition planning and services? 

Probe 

a. [P] Who does your agency collaborate with on transition services? 

b. [P] What is the nature and the roles of collaborations and partnerships for transition 

services? 

3. [P, I] Do you have a formal/structured transition planning model or approach that is expected 

to be followed by all Part D-funded facilities? Please describe.

Probe 

a. [P, I] What does your agency expect of facilities in terms of the development and 

application of transition plans? 

b. [P, I] Are there standard requirements regarding components or timing of transition 

planning? 

4. [P] What supports does your agency provide to help facilities develop high-quality transition 

plans (e.g., TA, training, funding, resources)? 
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 151

5. [P, I] Where do you see gaps in terms of transition services among the facilities?

6. [P] What is your agency’s process for ensuring that the quality and accessibility of 

community resources to support youth/families in the educational transition? 

a. [P] Who monitors the community services/resources?

b. [P] What information sources or data are used in the quality assurance process? How 

are findings applied?

7. [P, I] Are there state-level interagency working groups or committees who facilitate or 

oversee/monitor outcomes associated with transition services? Please describe.

8. [P] How do the transition services provided as part of Part D programs intersect with other 

Federal, State, and/or local initiatives and programs? [e.g., if the State has other re-entry 

initiatives or initiatives focused on child welfare involved transition-age youth, etc.] 

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development

1. [P, I] What are the general qualifications for instructional staff in Part D programs?

Probe 

a. [P, I] Do staff need any special qualification or certifications to work with N or D 

youth? If so, what are they? 

2. [P, I] How does the agency support a qualified pool of instructors available to teach for Part 

D programs across the agency? 

3. [P, I] How does the agency support the professional development of instructional staff in Part 

D programs? 

4. [P, I] What efforts are made to ensure that curricula (used with Title I, Part D programs) are 

aligned with required State and school district content standards? 

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

1. [P, I] Please describe any State-level guidelines or legislation that guide the agency’s Part D 

programs’ assessment of educational outcomes.

If no guidelines, Probe  

a. [P, I] Are facilities able to select their own assessments to track educational 

outcomes? 

b. [P, I] In your opinion, are there benefits and/or challenges related to the use of 

different assessments across programs? (e.g., Can data from these assessments be 

aggregated at the State level to look at trends in educational outcomes across 

programs?) 

2. [P, I] Does your agency (or facilities) continue to follow students after they leave

correctional institutions in order to track long-term educational outcomes? If yes, please 

describe the key long-term educational outcomes and the process for tracking them. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Who is responsible for data collection? 
STATE AGENCY (SA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 152

b. [P, I] How far out after they have left correctional institutions are you able to follow 

students to track these outcomes? (e.g., 90 days?) 

c. [I] Please describe who you coordinate with and any policies or procedures that 

facilitate tracking long-term outcomes.

3. [P, I] Are there educational outcomes (short or longer term) that are not currently tracked, but 

that you would like to? Why are these outcomes of interest to you? 

F. Use of ESEA Title I, Part D Funds

1. [P] How are Part D funds used at the agency and facility levels? 

2. [P] How does your State agency make decisions about how to spend Part D funds? 

3. [P] Who is involved in making resource allocation decisions? 

4. [P] How is Title I, Part D funding most useful in supporting state, agency, and facility goals 

and outcomes for youth? 

5. [P] What is challenging about how the funding is structured and used? 

Probe 

a. [P] Has the agency been able to work around these challenges? If so, how? 

6. [P] Has the role or use of Title I, Part D funding changed over time? Please explain. 

G. Overall Facilitators, Challenges, and Perceived Benefits 

1. [P] In terms of implementing Part D program activities, what has gone well overall? What 

has facilitated implementation of program activities? 

2. [P] What have been the key challenges in implementing Part D program activities overall (in 

addition to what we have already covered in this interview)? Please describe. 

3. [P, I] In your opinion, what have been some of the key benefits for children and youth 

involved in the Title I, Part D programming? 

Probe  

a. [P] What evidence is available to document these benefits?

4. [P, I] Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we have talked about?

THANK YOU!
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 153

A. Agency Characteristics

1. [P, I]19 Please describe your role in the Title I, Part D program. What are your 

responsibilities?

2. [P, I] Which students are served by the district’s Title I, Part D program?

Probe 

a. [P, I] Are students “at-risk” of neglect or delinquency served by the Title I, Part D 

program? 

B. Shared Decision-Making & Collaborative Planning

1. [P] Have you been involved in the planning during this last school year for your agency’s 

Part D program? 

If yes  Please describe the planning for your agency’s Part D program, including who else 

was involved, any challenges, and outcomes. 

Probe 

a. [P] Were any new policies or procedures developed during the planning phase? 

b. [P] Could you describe any challenges encountered during the planning phase and 

what strategies were used to try to resolve them?

2. [P, I] Are you aware of the 2014 guidance document, Guiding Principles for Providing HighQuality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings that was released by the U.S. 

Departments of Education and Justice in 2014? 

If yes  Have the uses of Part D funds changed in any way since the 2014 guidance was 

released? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Has your district encountered any challenges implementing these guiding 

principles?

b. [P, I] Has your district received any technical assistance on implementing these 

guiding principles? 

c. [P, I] What additional assistance could be provided to help your district implement 

the guiding principles? 

3. [P, I] N or D students are involved in multiple systems, which may make coordination and 

communication challenging. Have you experienced barriers to communication, collaboration, 

or coordination with other systems or agencies that work with N or D students?

Probe 

a. [P, I] If so, please describe how you have handled these challenges.

b. [P, I] Is there anything that the State Education Agency or your district could do to 

help improve interagency communication, collaboration, or coordination?

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services 

Screening and Risk Assessments

1. [P] Could you describe the process of how the children and youth come to the Part D 

program? 

 

19 LEA “Part D Coordinator”; I = Staff who oversee Instruction
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 154

Probe 

a. [P] How are neglected or delinquent children and youth identified as needing the Part 

D program services? 

2. [P, I] Does your Part D program use any reading or math assessments? If so, which ones? 

Are these consistently used within your Part D program?

Probe 

a. [P, I] Please describe how they are administered and how the results are used.

b. [P, I] Does the State require the use of particular tests?

3. [P, I] Does your Part D program do any other education-related screening or assessment? If 

so, what? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Please describe how they are administered and how the results are used.

General Education Services and Structure

1. [P] Please describe the (educational) services and programs that your Part D program 

provides. 

Probe 

a. [P] Is academic instruction part of the services provided? 

b. [P] Are credit recovery programs include in your Part D program? 

c. [P] What other education-related services are funded by Part D in your district? 

2. [P] If your School District operates a Title I, Part A program, how are services for at-risk 

youth coordinated with the Part D program? 

Probe 

a. [P] Do the services provided to students at-risk of neglect or delinquency differ in any 

way from N or D students? 

3. [I] Please describe the reading instruction that is used with students. For example are any 

“name brand” programs used (e.g., READ 180 or Corrective Reading)

Probe 

a. [I] Have your students experienced improved academic performance in reading after 

participating in these programs? 

b. [I] Have there been any changes in students’ attitudes towards reading?

c. [I] Do you have data to support the changes you’ve seen? 

4. [I] Please describe your program’s mathematics instructional approaches. For example, 1) 

explicit instruction/direct instruction, 2) strategy instruction, including mnemonic and 

schema-based instruction, 3) technology-based instruction and real-world problem solving, 

4) graduated instructional sequence, 4) graduated instructional sequence, 5) peer-mediated 

instruction, or 6) instructional adaptation of self-monitoring, graphic organizers, and cue 

cards.

Are any “name brand” approaches used?

Probe 

a. [I] Have your students experienced improved academic performance in math [I] after 

participating in these programs? 

b. [I] Have there been any changes in students’ attitudes towards math?

c. [I] Do you have data to support the changes you’ve seen? 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 155

5. [P, I] What efforts are made to maintain the learning conditions (environment) that promote 

learning in your Part D program for all participating students?

Probe 

a. [P, I] How do teachers provide learning support to students? 

b. [P, I] How are students made to feel safe, both physically and emotionally? 

c. [P, I] What efforts are made to develop teacher-student rapport?

6. [P, I Please describe how your Part D program addresses the unique educational and 

culturally related educational needs of racial and/or ethnic minorities in the program.

Probe 

a. [P, I] Hispanic and/or Latino students 

b. [P, I] American Indian and/or Alaskan Native students 

c. [P, I] Other cultural and/or ethnic groups 

d. [P, I] If your district includes a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school within its 

boundaries, how are services for Native American youth coordinated with the Part D 

program? 

Behavior Management 

1. [I] Could you describe your Part D program’s approach to managing student behavior? 

Probe 

a. [I] How are conduct problems addressed for these students? 

b. [I] What behavior management strategies are used in the classroom?

c. [I] Are any positive behavioral interventions and supports used? If so, please describe 

these interventions.

Special Education

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children and youth with learning and other 

disabilities?

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided? 

b. [I] How does your district identify students for individualized education programs 

(IEPs) and how are the IEPs developed? 

c. [I] Has your district encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these students? 

English Language Learner 

1. [I] How does your Part D program support children who are English language learners? 

Probe 

a. [I] What specific services are provided? 

b. [I] Has your program encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students? 

Social Emotional Learning

1. [I] Please describe how your district addresses the social and emotional needs of students 

(e.g., managing emotions, setting and achieving positive goals, feeling and showing 

empathy). 

Probe 

a. [I] Are any specific social and emotional learning programs provided for these 

students? 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 156

Career and Technical Education

1. [I] Please describe any vocational education, career technical education, or job training 

services provided as part of your Part D program. 

Probe 

a. [I] How do students access these services?

b. [I] What outcomes have you seen for students who participate in these services? 

For example, do they experience increased connections to employment following release 

from placement? Are their rates of high school and other diplomas earned higher 

compared to other students who are N or D?

i. [I] Do you have data to support the changes you have seen?

Transition Planning

1. [P] Please describe the transition services and supports that your Part D program provides.

Probe 

a. [P] What are the intended outcomes of your program’s transition services? 

b. [P] What transition services are provided to youth: (a) as they enter placement, (b) while 

they are in placement, and (c) after they leave placement? For example, adult 

mentor/advocate, orientation or information/counseling to prepare for transition back to 

school, training while in program, pre-release visit to school/employment setting, etc.?

c. [P] Do you feel that these transition services and supports are effective? Why or why not? 

What information or data lead you to this conclusion? 

i. [P] If not, what do you think could be done to make them more effective?

d. [P] Does the School District have a formal/structured transition planning model or 

approach for the Part D program? If yes, what model(s)/approach(es)? 

Probe 

i. [P] Is this an established model?

e. [P] (At the district level,) who is involved in transition planning for the Part D program 

and how? 

Probe 

i. [P] Is there an individual who leads the coordination process or is a team formed? If 

a team, who are the members and to what degree is the team individualized to the 

youth/family? 

2. [P] [If not mentioned] Do facilities/programs involve youth in transition planning? 

Probe 

a. [P] If so, how involved are youth in transition planning? 

b. [P] What are some of the challenges to involving youth? 

3. [P] [If not mentioned] Do facilities/programs involve parents/family members/caregivers (in 

the case of neglected youth, maybe surrogates or advocates) in transition planning? 

Probe 

a. [P] If so, how involved are they? 

b. [P] What are some of the challenges to involving “parents”?

4. [P, I] What types of educational information or records are provided or obtained when youth 

enter the custodial setting?

Probe 

a. [P, I] How are the youth’s prior educational information/records obtained? 
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 157

b. [P, I] Are there any challenges/issues with students’ records? [For example, delayed 

receipt, missing records, missing/incomplete/inaccurate information?]

i. [P, I] What issues arise regarding consents, authorizations, understanding of 

related legislation (e.g., FERPA)? 

We would now like to discuss the specifics of these transition services and supports.

5. [P, I] Do facilities/programs create/use formal (written) transition plans for youth in the Part 

D program? 

If so, Probe 

a. [P, I] Do you know what is typically included in those plans? 

i. [P, I] Educational or career and technical activities while in residence?

ii. [P, I] Re-enrollment of youth in school or vocational settings upon release? 

OR Alternative educational placements for youth who cannot return to 

traditional educational settings?

iii. [P, I] Connections with needed community resources and aftercare support? 

Including: 

Family services and supports?

Mental health counseling/treatment?

Academic support/tutoring/mentoring? 

Substance use prevention/treatment?

Prosocial activities/supports?

6. [P, I] How are the results of educational (needs) assessments or screenings [completed prior 

to or during a youth’s placement] used in your transition planning and supports? 

Probe 

a. [P, I] [If not mentioned] What kinds of assessment or screening information might be 

available? [academic, vocational/career technical assessments, disabilities, learning 

style/study skills] 

7. [P, I] What challenges or barriers has your school district experienced in transition planning 

(and supports)? How has the school district worked to address these challenges? Have the 

strategies proven successful?

8. [P] If your district serves youth at risk for neglect or delinquency, does your Part D program 

provide transition services for these youth, or are these separate service populations?

9. [P] What aftercare/post exit services does your Part D program provide (directly)? 

Probe 

a. [P] Are facilities/programs responsible for aftercare [do they employ transition 

coordinators]? And/or does/how does the School District play a role? 

b. [P] What is the extent, nature, and frequency of contact with youth and families 

during the aftercare period?

c. [P] How are the community services/aftercare plans determined? 

d. [P] What challenges or barriers does your School District encounter with aftercare 

services/supports?

10. [P, I] Is the School District required to evaluate your transition services, strategies, and youth 

outcomes? If so, please describe how this is accomplished.
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 158

Probe 

a. [P, I] What have been your program’s key findings regarding provision of transition 

services and strategies, and youth outcomes? 

i. [P, I] What have you learned about the efficacy of the Part D program’s 

transition strategies? 

ii. [P, I] How are these data used to inform transition-related activities?

b. [P, I] What is the process of monitoring youths’ outcomes? Who is responsible? 

c. [P, I] How long after exit are individual youths’ outcomes assessed?

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development

1. [P, I] Please describe the qualifications for instructional staff in your Part D program. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] Do staff need any special qualifications or certifications to work with N or D 

youth? If so, what are they? 

b. [P, I] What, if any, additional qualifications are required for staff that teach English 

language learners?

i. [P, I] Does each Part D-funded facility/program include at least one 

instructional staff certified to teach English?

c. [P, I] What, if any, additional qualifications are required for staff that teach students 

with disabilities?

i. [P, I] Does each Part D-funded facility/program include at least one 

instructional staff certified to teach students with disabilities?

2. [P, I] What efforts are made to ensure that curricula used in your district for Part D programs 

are aligned with required State content standards? 

3. [P, I] Are there opportunities for instructional staff and administrators in Part D-funded 

facilities/programs to participate in professional development?

If yes, Probe 

a. [P, I] Are these staff invited to/included in professional development offered to all 

instructional staff in the School District?

b. [P, I] How often and what types of professional development are offered? 

c. [P, I] Is any professional development focused on/tailored for serving neglected and 

delinquent youth? (For example, understanding and addressing the unique 

educational and related needs of youth who are N or D, providing education in 

institutional settings, supplementing traditional pre-service and in-service training, 

transition planning, and how to align State and school district curricula) 

d. [P, I] What challenges or barriers has the School District encountered regarding 

training/professional development for the Part D program? How has the district 

addressed these challenges? 

e. [P, I] What types or topic areas of training/professional development have seemed to 

be effective?

4. [P, I] What strategies does the School District use to retain highly qualified and effective 

instructional staff within the Part D Program?

Probe 

a. [P, I] Does the district have trouble with staff retention in Part D−funded 

facilities/programs?
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 159

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization

1. [P, I] Please describe the key educational outcomes for students participating in Part Dfunded educational programs. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How are the outcomes measured? What assessments are used (are they 

standardized)? Is the assessment of any specific educational outcomes required (e.g., 

improvement in reading/math, high school course credits earned)? 

b. [P, I] Who is responsible for collecting the data? 

c. [P, I] How often does data collection take place? (e.g., pre-post?) 

d. [P, I] Are some educational outcomes measured specifically for certain subpopulations of students (e.g., students with disabilities or English language learners) 

or in specific settings (e.g., correctional institutions, child welfare)? 

2. [I] Please describe any State- and/or local-level guidelines or legislation that guide your 

assessment of specific educational outcomes for participating students (including those with 

disabilities or English language learners).

Probe 

a. [I] Any assessments that are required?

b. [I] Which outcomes are assessed and when are you required to assess them?

c. [I] Are there benchmarks or requirements around demonstrating “improvement” in 

certain educational outcomes? If so, what happens if those benchmarks are not met?

3. [P, I] How are educational process and outcome data analyzed and reported by the School 

District?

Probe 

a. [P, I] How are findings utilized by the district? 

4. [P, I] What key (successes and) challenges has the school district experienced in assessing 

educational outcomes for students while they are participating in Part D-funded educational 

program(s)? 

5. [P] Are you able to continue to follow students after they leave residential 

placement/custodial settings in order to track (long-term) educational outcomes? 

If yes, Probe 

a. [P] What outcomes are tracked? [For example, outcomes of certain sub-populations 

of students (e.g., students with disabilities or English language learners) or specific 

settings (e.g., correctional institutions, child welfare), high school completion rates 

for students who have participated in Part D-funded educational programs] 

b. [P] How are the outcomes assessed? 

c. [P] Are any specific assessment instruments used? 

d. [P] Does the School District coordinate with other agencies and/or programs to track 

(long-term) educational outcomes? If so, who does the district coordinate with and 

are there any policies or procedures that facilitate tracking (long-term) outcomes?

If no, Probe  

a. [P] What are the major barriers to following students?
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY (LEA) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 160

6. [P, I] Are there educational outcomes (short or longer term) that the School District is not 

currently tracking, but would like to? Why are these outcomes of interest? Why are they not 

being tracked? 

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds

1. [P] How does the School District make decisions about how to allocate Part D funds? 

Probe 

a. [P] Do funds go to specific facilities/programs/schools, and if so, how are decisions 

made about who receives Part D funding? 

b. [P] Who is involved in making resource allocation decisions? 

c. [P] Are any Part D funds retained by the School District for administrative use? 

2. [P] Are Part D funds blended/braided or otherwise coordinated with other Federal or private 

funding? 

If yes  What are the other funding sources and approximate amount/% allocation (e.g., 

Title I, Part A funding).

G. Overall Facilitators, Challenges, and Perceived Benefits 

1. [P, I] In terms of implementing the key Part D program activities, what has gone well 

overall? What has facilitated implementation of program activities? 

2. [P, I] What have been the key challenges in implementing Part D program activities overall 

(in addition to what we have already covered in this interview)? Please describe. 

Probe 

a. [P, I] How have these challenges been handled? Please describe.

3. [P, I] In your opinion, what have been some of the key benefits for children and youth 

involved in the Part D programming? 

Probe  

a. [P, I] What evidence is available to document these benefits?

4. [P, I] Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we have talked 

about? 

THANK YOU!
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 161

A. Agency Characteristics

1. [P, I, O]20 Please describe your role in the Title I, Part D program. What are your 

responsibilities? 

2. [P] How long has your facility operated the Part D program? 

Probe 

a. [P] Has your or the facility’s role changed in that time? Please explain.

3. [P, I, O] Please briefly summarize the (educational) services and programs that your facility 

provides as part of the Part D program. 

B. Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Planning 

1. [P] Have you been involved in the planning during this last school year for this facility’s Part 

D program? 

If yes  Please describe the planning for your facility’s Part D program, including who else 

was involved, any challenges, and outcomes. 

Probe 

a. [P] Were any new policies or procedures developed during the planning phase? 

b. [P] Could you describe any challenges encountered during the planning phase and 

what strategies were used to try to resolve them?

2. [P] Are you aware of the 2014 guidance document, Guiding Principles for Providing HighQuality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings, that was released by the U.S. 

Departments of Education and Justice in 2014? 

If yes  Have the uses of Part D funds changed in any way since the 2014 guidance was 

released?

Probe 

a. [P] Has your facility encountered any challenges implementing these guiding 

principles?

b. [P] Has your facility received any technical assistance on implementing these guiding 

principles? 

3. [P] Please describe how and with which programs/agencies your facility (and/or funding 

school district) collaborates to provide Part D programming to N or D students. 

Probe 

a. [P] Have you experienced any barriers to communication, collaboration, or 

coordination with other systems or agencies working with N or D students? 

C. Education Assessments, Strategies, and Services 

Screening and Risk Assessment 

1. [P, I, O] Please describe the process of how the children and youth come to your Part D 

program. 

2. [I, O] Does your Part D program use any educational risk assessments? If so, what?

Probe 

a. [I, O] Please describe how they are administered and how the results are used.

 

20 LFP “Part D Coordinator”; I = Staff who oversee Instruction; O = General instruction or Other staff
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 162

3. [I, O] N or D students often have high rates of mobility. What strategies are used to maintain 

program consistency as students may join and leave the Part D program frequently? 

Probe 

a. [I, O] How does your Part D program handle students who have incomplete, 

inaccurate, and/or missing student records?

b. [I, O] How does your Part D program ensure youth have the most appropriate 

educational placements?

4. [P] What are the most frequent educational issues or problems of children and youth who 

come to the program? 

Probe 

a. [P] How have these problems and issues been identified? And by whom? Are any 

standardized assessments used in identifying educational risks or needs? 

General Education Services and Structure

1. [P, I, O] Please describe the (educational) services and strategies that Title I, Part D funds 

support at your facility.

Probe 

a. [P] Is academic instruction part of the services provided? 

b. [P] Are credit recovery programs included? 

c. [P] What other education-related services are funded by Part D in your district? 

2. [O] What efforts are made to maintain the learning conditions (environment) that promote 

learning in your Part D program for all participating students?

3. [I, O] Could you describe a typical instructional day for your program’s N or D students? 

4. [I, O] Please describe the reading instruction that is used with students participating in Part 

D-funded program. 

5. [I, O] Please describe Part D program’s mathematics instructional approaches. 

6. [I, O] How do you maintain the learning conditions (environment) that promote learning in 

your Part D program for all participating students?

Probe 

a. [I, O] How does your facility/program/agency support this? 

b. [I, O] Please describe your efforts to develop teacher-student rapport?

c. [I, O] Do you think that the students feel supported by you and their other teachers? 

Please explain.

d. [I, O] Do you think that students feel like they can approach you and their other 

teachers for support?

7. [I, O] Please describe how your Part D program addresses the unique educational and 

culturally related educational needs of racial and/or ethnic minorities in the program.

Probe 

a. [I, O] Hispanic and/or Latino students 

b. [I, O] American Indian and/or Alaskan Native students 

c. [I, O] Other cultural and/or ethnic groups 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 163

d. [I, O] If your district includes a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) school within its 

boundaries, how are services for Native American youth coordinated with the Part D 

program? 

Behavior Management 

1. [P, I, O] Could you describe your Part D program’s approach to managing student behavior? 

Probe 

a. [P, I, O] How are conduct problems addressed for these students? 

b. [P, I, O] What behavior management strategies are used in the classroom?

c. [P, I, O] Are any positive behavioral interventions and supports used? If so, please 

describe these interventions.

Special Education 

1. [P, I, O] How does your Part D program support children and youth with learning and other 

disabilities?

Probe  

a. [P, O] What specific services are provided to youth with learning disabilities? 

b. [P] How does your program identify students for individualized education programs 

(IEPs) and how are the IEPs developed? 

c. [P] Has your program encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students? 

English Language Learners 

1. [P, I, O] How does your Part D program support children who are English language learners? 

Probe  

a. [P, I, O] What specific services are provided to youth who are English language 

learners?

b. [P] Has your program encountered any challenges or barriers to serving these 

students? 

Social Emotional Learning 

1. [P, I, O] Please describe how your facility’s Part D program addresses the social and 

emotional needs of students (e.g., managing emotions, setting and achieving positive goals, 

feeling and showing empathy). 

Probe  

a. [P, I, O] Are any specific social and emotional learning programs provided for these 

students? 

Career and Technical Education 

1. [P, I, O] Please describe any vocational education, career technical education, or job training 

services provided as part of your Part D program. 

Probe  

a. [P, I, O] How do students access these services?

b. [P] What outcomes have you seen for students who participate in these services? For 

example, do they experience increased connections to employment following release 

from placement? Are their rates of high school and other diplomas earned higher 

compared to other students who are N or D?

i. Do you have data to support the changes you have seen? 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 164

Collaborative Planning (for overall educational programming)

1. [P] Please describe any collaborative efforts within your facility/program to improve the 

overall educational programming and transition services for all children involved in your 

facility (including those who are not N or D students). 

Probe  

a. [P] What types of services or strategies are planned and implemented collaboratively? 

For example, facility-wide needs assessment, professional development opportunities, 

comprehensive approaches that meet the educational needs of all children 

b. [P] Who is involved in the collaborative planning process? 

c. [P] Were any new policies or procedures developed through this collaborative 

planning process? 

d. [P] What types of funding are blended or coordinated to support these collaborative 

efforts? For example those of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

Title II—Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs, Title IV—21st 

Century Schools, etc., as well as State funds.

2. [P] In terms of implementing these facility-wide collaborative strategies and services, what 

has gone well? 

Probe for facilitators.

3. [P] What types of implementation challenges/barriers has your facility encountered in 

coordinating around your facility’s overall educational programming? Please describe. 

Probe  

a. [P] How have you addressed these challenges? 

4. [P] Has your facility seen any changes in academic, vocational, transitional, and other related 

outcomes for children and youth in your facility as a result of these coordinated efforts? 

Probe  

a. [P] Do you have data to support the changes you have seen? 

Transition Planning 

1. [P] Please describe the transition services and supports that your Part D program provides. 

[I, O] How are you involved in the transition services and supports that your Part D program 

provides? 

Probe  

a. [P] What are the intended outcomes of your program’s transition services? 

b. [P, I, O] What transition services are provided to youth: (a) as they enter placement, 

(b) while they are in placement, and (c) after they leave placement? For example, 

adult mentor/advocate, orientation or information/counseling to prepare for 

transition back to school, training while in program, pre-release visit to 

school/employment setting, etc.?

c. [P] Do you have a formal/structured transition planning model or approach for the 

Part D program? If yes, what model(s)/approach(es)?

Probe 

ii. [P] Is this an established model? 

d. [P] (At the district level) who is involved in transition planning for the Part D 

program and how? 

Probe 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 165

iii. [P] Is there an individual who leads the coordination process or is a team 

formed? If a team, who are the members and to what degree is the team 

individualized to the youth/family? 

2. [P, O] [If not mentioned] To what extent are youth and family members/caretakers involved 

in transition planning? 

Probe  

a. [P] What role do they play in the identification of youth’s transition goals, strengths, 

needs, and educational or vocational placement decisions? 

b. [P] Are the transition plans reviewed with the youth? With family 

members/caregivers?

c. [P] What challenges or barriers has your program experienced related to youth or 

family/caregiver involvement in transition planning and participation in transition 

services? 

d. [P] What strategies have you employed to address challenges, and how successful 

were they?

3. [P] Does the transition planning process involve the development of a formal (written) 

transition plan? 

If yes, Probe 

a. [P] What are the key elements included or addressed in the written plans? For 

example, youth strengths/challenges, academic level/needs and goals, special 

needs/disabilities and related services/supports, community resources, etc.

b. [P] What transition services or strategies (i.e., content) are included in transition 

plans? Do/how do the plans address: 

i. [P] Educational or vocational activities while in residence?

ii. [P] Re-enrollment of youth in school or vocational settings upon release? 

Alternative educational placements for youth who cannot return to traditional 

educational settings?

iii. [P] Connections with needed community resources and aftercare support? 

Including: 

Services and supports for the family? 

Mental health counseling/treatment?

Academic support/tutoring/mentoring? 

Substance use prevention/treatment?

Prosocial activities/supports?

c. [P] How are decisions made about the plans/services that are included in the 

transition plan? 

d. [P] When does transition planning/development of the written transition plan begin? 

e. [P] What is the typical length (duration) of transitional services covered in youths’ 

transition plans? 

f. [P] How is youth’s progress noted or tracked within the transition plan?

4. [P] How are the results of educational (needs) assessments or screenings [completed prior to 

or during a youth’s placement] used in your transition planning and supports? 

Probe

a. [P] [If not previously mentioned] What kinds of assessment or screening information 

might be available? [academic, vocational/career technical assessments, disabilities, 

learning style/study skills]
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 166

5. [P] What challenges or barriers has your program experienced in transition planning (and 

supports)? How have you addressed these challenges? Have the strategies proven successful?

6. [P, O] What aftercare/post exit services are included in the Part D program (directly)?

Probe

a. [P] Is there a transition specialist who remains involved in providing support and 

coordination of services? If yes, what is the level, type, and timing of aftercare 

involvement? 

b. [P, O] What is the extent, nature, and frequency of contact with youth and families 

during the aftercare period?

c. [P] What challenges or barriers does your facility encounter with aftercare 

services/supports? 

d. [O] How are the community services/aftercare plans determined? 

7. [P] What strategies does your program employ to prevent dropout for youth who will return 

to an educational setting upon exiting custody? 

8. [P] What have you learned about the efficacy of your transition strategies? 

Probe 

a. [P] How have these lessons and findings informed transition-related activities?

D. Instructional Staff Qualifications and Professional Development 

1. [P] Please describe the educational team for your Part D Program. 

Probe

a. [P] Who are the team members (e.g., teachers/instructional staff and administrators)? 

Are they facility staff or contracted staff? Who does the educational team report to? 

i. [P] [If facility contracts with LEA to provide educational services] Please 

describe the level of involvement and support your facility receives from the 

school district. 

2. [P] Please describe the qualifications for instructional staff in your Part D Program.

Probe

a. [P] Do staff need any special qualifications or certifications to work with N or D 

youth? If so, what are they? 

b. [P] What, if any, additional qualifications are required for staff that teach English 

language learners? 

i. [P] Does your program include at least one instructional staff certified to teach 

English language learners? 

c. [P] What, if any, additional qualifications are required for staff that teach students 

with disabilities? 

i. [P] Does your program include at least one instructional staff certified to teach 

students with disabilities? 

3. [P] Are there opportunities for instructional staff and administrators to participate in 

professional development? 

If yes, Probe 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 167

a. [P] What are your perceptions on the availability and usefulness of professional 

development opportunities? 

i. [P] [If not mentioned] What types are offered and how often? 

4. [I, O] Do you have opportunities to participate in professional development related to your 

work with youth who participate in the Part D program? 

Probe 

a. [I, O] If so, how often and what types of professional development? (For example, 

understanding and addressing the unique educational and related needs of youth who 

are N or D, providing education in institutional settings, supplementing traditional 

pre-service and in-service training, and how to align State and school district 

curricula, transition planning) 

b. [I, O] How has the professional development improved your teaching? 

c. [I, O] Are there areas/topics in which you would benefit from professional 

development, but that have not been previously available to you? 

E. Outcome Assessment and Utilization 

1. [P] Please describe the key educational outcomes for students participating in your Part D 

program that your program measures. 

Probe 

a. [P] How are the outcomes measured? What assessments are used (are they 

standardized)? Is the assessment of any specific educational outcomes required (e.g., 

improvement in reading/math, high school course credits earned)? 

b. [P] Who are responsible for collecting the data? 

c. [P] How often does data collection take place? (e.g., pre-post?) 

d. [P] Are some educational outcomes measured specifically for certain sub-populations 

of students (e.g., students with disabilities or English language learners) or in specific 

settings (e.g., specific to correctional facilities)? 

2. [P] Please describe any State- and/or local-level guidelines or legislation that guide your 

assessment of specific educational outcomes for participating students (including those with 

disabilities or English language learners).

Probe 

a. [P] Any assessments that are required?

b. [P] Which outcomes are assessed and when are you required to assess them? 

c. [P] Are there benchmarks or requirements around demonstrating “improvement” in 

certain educational outcomes? If so, what happens if those benchmarks are not met? 

3. [P] Please describe any (successes and) challenges that you may have experienced in 

assessing educational outcomes for students while they are participating in your Part Dfunded educational program. 

Probe 

a. [P] Please also describe challenges related to specific sub-populations such as 

students with disabilities or English language learners or in specific settings (e.g., 

specific to correctional facilities).

4. [P] Are you able to continue to follow students after they leave your facility in order to track 

(long-term) educational outcomes? 
LOCAL FACILITY PROGRAM (LFP) INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Page 168

If yes, Probe  

a. [P] Please describe the key (long-term) educational outcomes and your process for 

tracking them. 

b. [P] How far out after they have left your facility are you able to follow students to 

track these outcomes? (e.g., 90 days?) 

c. [P] Are some (long-term) educational outcomes measured specifically for certain subpopulations of students (e.g., students with disabilities or English language learners) 

or specific settings (e.g., specific to correctional facilities)? 

5. [P] What challenges have you encountered in assessing (long-term) educational outcomes for 

students who have left your facility? 

Probe 

a. [P] Are there challenges related to tracking specific (long-term) outcomes? For 

example, retention and high school completion? 

6. [P] Are there educational outcomes (short or longer term) that your facility is not currently 

tracking, but would like to? Why are these outcomes of interest? Why are they not being tracked?

F. Use of ESSA Title I, Part D Funds

1. [P] Please describe how Part D funds are used within your facility. For example, 

instructional salaries, professional development, technology and other types of supports. 

Probe 

a. [P] How does your facility make decisions about how to spend Part D funds? 

b. [P] Who is involved in making resource allocation decisions? 

2. [P] Are Part D funds blended/braided or otherwise coordinated with other Federal, State, 

local, or private funding? 

If yes, Probe  What are the other funding sources and approximate amount/% allocation 

(e.g., Title I, Part A funding). 

G. Overall Facilitators, Challenges, and Perceived Benefits 

1. [P] In terms of implementing the key Part D program activities, what has gone well overall?

Probe for facilitators.

2. [P] What have been the key challenges in implementing Part D program activities overall (in 

addition to what we have already covered in this interview)? Please describe. 

Probe 

a. [P] How have these challenges been handled? Please describe. 

3. [P, I, O] In your opinion, what have been some of the key benefits for children and youth 

involved in the Part D programming? 

Probe  

a. [P, I, O] What evidence is available to document these benefits?

4. [P, I, O] Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the topics we have talked 

about? 

THANK YOU!
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

169

Appendix C. Cross-Tabulations by Coordinator Type

Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

171

Exhibit C-1. State educational agency coordinators’ reported major or moderate focus on various 

Part D program planning activities, by coordinator tenure, 2016–17

Activity 

Less than 

1 year 1–3 years 4–6 years

7–10 

years 

More 

than 10 

years All SEA

1. Ensuring that the Part D program is included in 

statewide education planning

12 10 7 1 4 34 

2. Creating or modifying a state-level strategic plan for 

the Part D program

13 9 6 1 4 33 

3. Setting Part D program timelines and deadlines 16 12 6 3 6 43 

4. Developing Part D program applications 16 12 7 3 6 44 

5. Reviewing Part D program applications 17 12 9 3 6 47 

6. Requesting revisions to Part D program applications 

as needed

16 12 9 3 6 46 

7. Assisting state agencies in their Subpart 1 program 

planning

11 13 7 2 6 39 

8. Assisting school districts in their Subpart 2 program 

planning

13 9 6 3 6 37 

Exhibit reads: Twelve SEA coordinators with less than one year of experience reported that ensuring that the Part 

D program was included in statewide education planning was a major or moderate focus of their Part D program 

planning work.

Note: There were differences of varying statistical significance between SEA coordinators of different tenures across all activities of at least 

p < .05.

Source: SEA Coordinator survey, item B4 (n = 51). 

Exhibit C-2. State educational agency coordinators’ reported major or moderate focus on various 

Part D program implementation activities, by coordinator tenure, 2016–17

Activity 

Less 

than 1 

year 

1–3 

years 

4–6 

years 

7–10 

years 

More 

than 10 

years All SEA

1. Coordinating, overseeing, or other involvement in 

academic instruction in facilities or programs

28 50 60 33 33 41 

2. Providing training and technical assistance to facility or 

program staff

53 86 70 33 33 62 

3. Conducting program (including fiscal) monitoring 83 86 70 100 83 82 

4. Conducting student progress monitoring 22 36 44 33 33 32 

5. Conducting or coordinating required federal program 

data collection

78 100 60 100 100 84 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight percent of SEA coordinators with less than one year of experience reported that 

coordinating, overseeing, or other involvement in academic instruction in facilities or programs was a major or 

moderate focus of their Part D program implementation work. 

Note: There were differences of varying statistical significance between SEA coordinators of different tenures across all activities of at least 

p < .05.

Source: SEA Coordinator survey, item B5 (n = 51). 
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

172

Exhibit C-3. Percentage of local facility coordinators reporting that various factors were used most of 

the time to make decisions about the use of Part D funds, by type of facility, 2016–17

Factor 

LFP 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. The budget aligns with identified activities under the state’s Title I, Part D

plan*

88 91 79 

2. The funded initiatives meet the state’s Title I, Part D goals as outlined in the

state agency application

90 91 87 

3. The funded initiatives prioritize focus on certain types of offenders 25 22 31 

4. The funded initiatives emphasize providing evidence of recidivism reduction 27 31 24 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-eight percent of LFP coordinators (91 percent of juvenile justice LFP coordinators and 

79 percent of child welfare LFP coordinators) reported that decisions about how to use Part D funds were, most of 

the time, based on whether the budget aligned with activities identified under the state’s Part D plan. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05.

Source: LFP Coordinator survey, item F1 (n = 531).

Exhibit C-4. Percentage of state agency and local facility coordinators reporting that various staff-related 

issues were a major or moderate challenge, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Challenge

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

5. Instructional staff often teach

outside the content area in

which they were credentialed

37 32 34 38 28 34 

6. Shortage of qualified

instructional staff

54 41 52* 60 43* 29 

7. Shortage of qualified related 

services or support services staff

49 47 35* 69 47 40 

8. Instructional staff lack

qualifications to teach students

with disabilities

32 23 23* 51 14* 26 

9. Instructional staff lack

qualifications to teach students

who are language learners

45 29 47* 48 26 21 

10. Instructional, related, and/or 

support staff lack experience 

and/or training working in a 

secure care, residential, or similar 

alternative education setting

39 24 36* 51 17 23 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of SA coordinators and 32 percent of LFP coordinators reported that 

instructional staff often teaching outside the content area in which they were credentialed was a major or 

moderate challenge in their facilities.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05.

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item D5 (n = 63); LFP Coordinator survey, item D3 (n = 521).
Evaluation of the ESEA Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Programs: Final Report

173

Exhibit C-5 Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities faced major or moderate challenges retaining various 

personnel, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Challenge to retain

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Instructional staff 52 40 49* 50 42* 29 

2. Support and related staff 40 42 34* 59 28* 59 

3. Administrators and/or 

managers 

41 19 40* 49 14 20 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-two percent of SA coordinators and 40 percent of LFP coordinators reported that retaining 

instructional staff was a major or moderate challenge in their facilities.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item D13 (n = 62); LFP Coordinator survey, item D11 (n = 538).

Exhibit C-6. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that their 

facilities used screenings or assessments to identify various academic and behavioral 

needs and issues, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Purpose

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Identifying whether a student is 

performing at grade level

99 93 98 100 97* 85 

2. Identifying academic content 

areas or skill gaps the student 

needs to address

99 92 98 100 96* 83 

3. Identifying mental health issues 72 77 85* 62 77 82 

4. Identifying behavioral concerns 74 85 82* 65 83 86 

5. Assessing English language 

proficiency

85 73 81 80 86* 68 

6. Identifying or evaluating the 

need for special education

93 86 90 90 91* 80 

7. Identifying alcohol or other 

substance problems

76 68 88* 61 71 69 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-nine percent of SA coordinators and 93 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their 

funded facilities used youth risk and needs screenings and assessments to identify whether a student was 

performing at grade level.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05.

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C1 (n = 63); LFP Coordinator survey, item C1 (n = 543).
Exhibit C-7. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities used computers for various educational purposes, by type 

of coordinator and

facility, 2016–17

Purpose

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Curriculum delivery 85 88 80 77 88 84 

2. Credit recovery programs 62 67 59* 80 62 66 

3. Supplemental instruction or 

intervention 

85 78 90* 68 78 75 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-five percent of SA coordinators and 88 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their funded 

facilities used computers for curriculum delivery. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item A19 (n = 63); LFP Coordinator survey, item A18 (n = 546).

Exhibit C-8. Percentage of SA and LFP coordinators reporting that their facilities offered various 

career and technical education occupational programs, by type of coordinator and 

facility, 2016–17

Program

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Agriculture and natural 

resources

56 55 66 57 59 47 

2. Business 64 49 71* 41 48 32 

3. Communication and design 39 43 42* 31 54* 32 

4. Computer and information 

sciences

68 58 72* 71 61* 40 

5. Construction and architecture 79 40 94* 35 42* 26 

6. Consumer and culinary 

services

78 64 82 81 67* 50 

7. Engineering technologies 20 25 24* 10 24 18 

8. Health sciences 20 43 18* 41 32* 51 

9. Manufacturing 33 29 44* 11 27 29 

10. Marketing 29 22 27* 46 18 24 

11. Public services 28 35 27 25 22 34 

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of SA coordinators and 55 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their funded 

facilities offered career and technical education occupational programs in agriculture and natural resources. 

Notes: LFP respondents include only those coordinators who responded affirmatively to a previous question about whether CTE programs were 

offered: LFP Coordinator survey, item C30 (n = 553). All SA coordinators were asked about the types of CTE programs offered. Asterisks indicate 

a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05.

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C21 (n = 60); LFP Coordinator survey, item C32 (n = 261). 
Exhibit C-9. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities used various services to support students with disabilities, 

by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Service or support

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Self-contained special 

education class/classroom 

(students with disabilities are 

taught in a class made up solely 

of students with disabilities for 

the entire instructional day)

34 22 34 29 16* 27 

2. Pull-out services (students with 

disabilities are provided 

instruction in a separate setting 

by a special education teacher 

for part of the instructional day)

67 51 74 63 56 46 

3. In-class services (a special 

education teacher provides 

instructional or related services 

to students with disabilities, 

individually or in small groups, 

in the general education 

setting)

91 75 91 91 84* 57 

4. Team teaching (a general and 

special education teacher share 

teaching responsibilities for all 

or part of the instructional day)

70 53 74* 64 58* 44 

5. Modified curriculum delivered 

by a general education teacher

91 77 87 90 86* 61 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-four percent of SA coordinators and 22 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their 

funded facilities used self-contained special education classes or classrooms to support students with disabilities. 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C15 (n = 63); LFP Coordinator survey, item C18 (n = 539). 
Exhibit C-10. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that their 

facilities used various learning models to support English learners, by type of coordinator

and facility, 2016–17

Service or support

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators 

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. English as a second language 

(ESL) pullout (students who are 

English language learners are 

removed from the general 

education setting and provided 

ESL instruction in a separate 

setting by an ESL teacher for 

part of the instructional day)

57 38 67 44 46* 16 

2. Sheltered instruction (ESL 

content-area classes with 

English immersion 

mainstreaming)

39 53 41* 0 49 54 

3. Newcomer program or highintensity language training 

(students who are English 

language learners receive ESL 

instruction for the majority of the 

day, with mainstream electives)

19 9 13* 0 9 5 

4. Dual immersion (two languages 

taught throughout the day)

13 7 19* 0 7 6 

Exhibit reads:Of those whose facilities served English learners, 57 percent of SA coordinators and 38 percent of LFP 

coordinators reported that their facilities used English as a second language pullout instruction to support English learners. 

Notes: Respondents include only those coordinators who responded affirmatively to a previous question about whether they served youth who 

were English learners: SA Coordinator survey, item C16 (n = 64) and LFP Coordinator survey, item C21 (n = 553). Asterisks indicate a statistically 

significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C17 (n = 39); LFP Coordinator survey, item C22 (n = 217). 

Exhibit C-11. Percentage of youth with various transition plan statuses upon arrival and while in 

placement in state and local facilities, by type of facility, 2016–17

Transition plan status

State 

facilities

Local 

facilities

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

facilities

State child 

welfare 

facilities

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

facilities

Local child 

welfare 

facilities

1. Enter the facility/program with 

a transition plan from a prior 

placement

15 25 19* 15 16* 38 

2. Have a transition plan created 

upon arrival

56 60 55 61 65 55 

3. Have a transition plan modified 

while in placement

65 54 75 68 53* 66 

Exhibit reads: Fifteen percent of youths in state facilities and 25 percent of youths in local facilities entered the 

facility with a transition plan from a prior placement. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 
Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C32 (n = 53); LFP Coordinator survey, item C33 (n = 520).

Exhibit C-12. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that youth were substantially involved in various aspects of transition 

planning, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Transition planning activity

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Identifying their own strength 

and needs

72 63 85 59 61 74 

2. Identifying their goals and 

objectives

75 63 85 74 63 72 

3. Informing education plans 65 46 78* 56 51 49 

Exhibit reads: Seventy-two percent of SA coordinators and 63 percent of LFP coordinators reported that youth 

were substantially involved in identifying their own strengths and needs as part of transition planning. 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C33 (n = 62); LFP Coordinator survey, item C34 (n = 540).

Exhibit C-13. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that parents and family members were substantially involved in various 

aspects of transition planning, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Transition planning activity

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Identifying children and youth 

strength and needs

16 23 12* 47 27 30 

2. Identifying children and youth 

goals and objectives

14 21 11* 37 27 19 

3. Deciding education plans 16 18 15 37 24 16 

Exhibit reads: Sixteen percent of SA coordinators and 23 percent of LFP coordinators reported that parents and 

family members were substantially involved in identifying children and youths’ strengths and needs as part of 

transition planning.

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C34 (n = 62); LFP Coordinator survey, item C35 (n = 540).
Exhibit C-14. Percentage of youth who had transition progress and outcomes tracked while in 

placement and after exiting state and local facilities, by type of facility, 2016–17

Transition tracking status 

State 

facilities

Local 

facilities

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

facilities

State child 

welfare 

facilities

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

facilities

Local child 

welfare 

facilities

1. Are monitored for progress at 

regular intervals toward 

transition plan outcomes

77 76 85* 66 73 78 

2. Are assessed for progress 

toward transition 

goals/outcomes prior 

to exit

76 72 83* 62 68 72 

3. Are assessed for progress 

toward transition 

goals/outcomes 

after exit

31 30 41* 23 35 31 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-five percent of youths in juvenile or adult justice state facilities and 66 percent of youths in 

child welfare state facilities were monitored at regular intervals toward transition plan outcomes. 

Notes: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C32 (n = 53); LFP Coordinator survey, item C33 (n = 520).

Exhibit C-15. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities offered various aftercare services to youth who exited 

placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Aftercare service

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Financial support 36 12 47* 19 13 15 

2. General education support 59 51 66 68 63* 42 

3. Job/employability training 47 23 48 46 28 24 

4. Mental and/or behavioral 

health counseling

49 48 57* 46 46 52 

5. Substance abuse counseling 48 32 55* 46 29 35 

6. Career and technical education 

support

48 28 59* 37 28 29 

Exhibit reads: Thirty-six percent of SA coordinators and 12 percent of LFP coordinators reported that instructional 

staff often teaching outside the content area in which they were credentialed was a major or moderate challenge 

in their facilities.

Notes: TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Asterisks indicate a statistically 

significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C39 (n = 60); LFP Coordinator survey, item C40 (n = 538). 
Exhibit C-16. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting various 

durations of aftercare service provided to youth who exited facilities, by type of 

coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Aftercare duration

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Less than 2 months 45 49 57* 44 41 48 

2. 2 months - less than 6 months 17 13 12* 29 13 6 

3. 6 months - less than 8 months 7 5 7* 17 10* 2 

4. 8 months or more 12 9 14 10 8* 15 

No response 19 24 9 0 27 29 

Exhibit reads: Forty-five percent of SA coordinators and 49 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their 

facilities provided aftercare services for less than two months.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C38 (n = 54); LFP Coordinator survey, item C39 (n = 497). 

Exhibit C-17. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting that their facilities collaborated with various external partners to support 

youth transition, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

External partner

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Community-based organizations 70 72 72 74 73 80 

2. Community schools and 

districts

60 88 56 61 89 91 

3. Employers 45 35 42 41 32 39 

4. Health services 80 82 81 79 81 84 

5. Justice and law enforcement 76 81 74 77 87* 66 

6. Social services and child and 

family services

63 87 68 74 83* 96 

7. Workforce development 72 49 70 79 47 55 

Exhibit reads: Seventy percent of SA coordinators and 72 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their facilities 

collaborated closely with community-based organizations to support youth transition. 

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C39 (n = 60); LFP Coordinator survey, item C40 (n = 538). 
Exhibit C-18. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that their 

facilities used various methods to measure youths’ educational outcomes while in 

placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Outcome measurement method

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Standardized summative 

assessments

84 85 89* 100 81 85 

2. Standardized formative 

assessments

93 90 94* 100 91 93 

3. Informal assessments 95 96 97* 90 100* 95 

4. Course grades 76 92 76* 90 91 85 

5. Course credits 73 89 68* 90 90 86 

Exhibit reads: Of those with facilities that measured youths’ education outcomes while in placement, 84 percent of 

SA coordinators and 85 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their facilities used standardized summative 

assessments.

Notes: Respondents include only those coordinators who responded affirmatively to a previous question about whether they assessed youths’ 

educational outcomes while in placement: SA Coordinator survey, item E1 (n = 64) and LFP Coordinator survey, item E2 (n = 553). Asterisks 

indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item E2 (n = 61); LFP Coordinator survey, item E3 (n = 466). 

Exhibit C-19. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that it was 

somewhat or very difficult for their facilities to track outcomes for youth who exited 

placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Level of difficulty

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Somewhat or very difficult 88 94 93 91 92* 97 

No response 4 1 0 0 0 1 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-eight percent of SA coordinators and 94 percent of LFP coordinators reported that it was 

somewhat or very difficult for their facilities to track outcomes of youth who exited placement.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C40 (n = 62); LFP Coordinator survey, item C41 (n = 547). 
Exhibit C-20. Percentage of state agency coordinators and local facility program coordinators 

reporting whether or not facilities could track outcomes for youth after exit, by type of 

coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Ability to track

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. Yes, for some or all youth 41 53 47* 37 62* 39 

No response 1 1 0 0 0 3 

Exhibit reads: Forty-one percent of SA coordinators and 53 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their 

facilities were able to track outcomes for some or all youth after exit.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item E4 (n = 64); LFP Coordinator survey, item E5 (n = 553).

Exhibit C-21. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that their 

facilities faced major or moderate challenges tracking outcomes for youth who exited 

placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Challenge

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. State laws or other regulations 

that prohibit contact with youth 

post-exit

63 49 63 64 43 48 

2. Federal, state, or local privacy 

policies

64 49 59* 72 41 56 

3. Lack of facility/program staff, 

funding, or other resources to 

track youth

82 72 81 81 65 74 

4. Lack of willingness/cooperation 

from youth’s post-exit 

placement(s)

84 66 85* 91 67 64 

5. Lack of student information 

systems

75 65 77* 81 66 68 

6. Disconnected/soiled student 

information systems

77 59 74* 90 65 57 

Exhibit reads: Sixty-three percent of juvenile or adult justice SA coordinators and 64 percent of child welfare SA 

coordinators reported state laws or other regulations prohibiting contact with youth post-exit was a major or 

moderate challenge to tracking outcomes for youth who exited placement.

Note: Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item C41 (n = 63); LFP Coordinator survey, item C42 (n = 529). 
Exhibit C-22. Percentage of state agency and local facility program coordinators reporting that their 

facilities tracked various, long-term, education-related outcomes for youth who exited 

placement, by type of coordinator and facility, 2016–17

Outcome 

SA 

coordinators

LFP 

coordinators

State 

juvenile or 

adult justice 

coordinators

State child 

welfare 

coordinators

Local 

juvenile 

corrections 

or detention 

coordinators

Local child 

welfare 

coordinators

1. High school course credits 

awarded

54 76 35* 100 77 69 

2. High school graduation rates 

and/or diplomas awarded

63 74 51* 100 64 79 

3. High school equivalency 

certificates earned

68 69 67* 74 73 64 

4. High school dropout rates 27 55 19 53 47 60 

5. Postsecondary education 

acceptance/enrollment

61 54 62 47 37* 64 

6. Postsecondary education 

dropout/incompletion rates

30 30 30* 0 25 40 

7. Career and technical certificates 

awarded

50 46 46 24 45 40 

8. Technical or training school 

acceptance, enrollment, or 

apprenticeships

50 47 51 24 50 46 

9. Employment and other labor 

market outcomes

65 42 62* 100 30* 57 

Exhibit reads: For those with facilities that could track youth outcomes after exit, 54 percent of SA coordinators and 

76 percent of LFP coordinators reported that their facilities tracked high school course credits awarded.

Notes: Respondents include only those coordinators that responded affirmatively to a previous question about whether they could track longterm outcomes for students after exiting placement: SA Coordinator survey, item E4 (n = 64) and LFP Coordinator survey, item E5 (n = 553).

Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between justice and child welfare coordinators: *p < .05. 

Sources: SA Coordinator survey, item E5 (n = 29); LFP Coordinator survey, item E6 (n = 274). 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov