ED622828

California’s Students in
Foster Care
Challenges and Promising Practices
Dion Burns, Danny Espinoza, Julie Adams, and Naomi Ondrasek
JULY 2022
California’s Students in
Foster Care: Challenges
and Promising Practices
Dion Burns, Danny Espinoza, Julie Adams, and Naomi Ondrasek
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the California Department of Education staff, who provided the data underlying
this report and guidance in using it. The authors also thank Katherine Elliot, Researcher at the
California Department of Social Services; Michelle Francois, Senior Director of Compassionate
Education Systems at the National Center for Youth Law; and Danielle Wondra, Senior Policy
and Outreach Associate, Child Welfare at Children Now for sharing their insights and advice.
The authors also thank our Learning Policy Institute colleagues Jennifer McCombs, Caitlin Scott,
and Patrick Shields for their advice and feedback on the study. We thank interns Jee Young Bhan,
Sharoon Negrete Gonzalez, and Darian Rice for support in reviewing literature. We thank the
members of the LPI Communications Team for their invaluable support in editing, designing, and
disseminating this report. Without their generosity of time and spirit, this work would not have
been possible.
This research was supported by the Stuart Foundation. Core operating support for the Learning
Policy Institute is provided by the Heising-Simons Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation, Raikes Foundation, Sandler Foundation, and MacKenzie Scott and Dan Jewett. We are
grateful to them for their generous support. The ideas voiced here are those of the authors and not
those of our funders.
External Reviewers
This report benefited from the insights and expertise of three external reviewers: Michelle Lustig,
Program Director of Foster Youth Technical Assistance Program at the Los Angeles County Office
of Education; Lois Weinberg, Professor of Special Education at California State University, Los
Angeles; and Wendy Weigmann, Project Director of the California Child Welfare Indicators Project
at the University of California, Berkeley. We thank them for the care and attention they gave
the report.
Suggested citation: Burns, D., Espinoza, D., Adams, J., & Ondrasek, N. (2022). California students in foster
care: Challenges and promising practices. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/118.471
This report can be found online at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/

california-students-foster-care.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Document last revised July 25, 2022
ii LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. v
Introduction................................................................................................................................................1
Educational Challenges Faced by Students Living in Foster Care..................................................1
Educators’ Role in California’s Foster Care System........................................................................3
Key State and Federal Policies to Support Children and Youth in Foster Care..............................5
Overview of This Study....................................................................................................................5
California Students in Foster Care..........................................................................................................7
Educational Experiences and Outcomes of Students in Foster Care.................................................8

Educational Experiences................................................................................................................8
Educational Outcomes................................................................................................................. 12
What Are the Challenges, and What Works to Support Students in Foster Care?....................... 16
Challenges................................................................................................................................... 16
Promising Practices..................................................................................................................... 24
Summary of Findings and Policy Considerations.............................................................................. 31
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: Methods............................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix B: Data Tables....................................................................................................................... 43
Endnotes.................................................................................................................................................. 48
About the Authors.................................................................................................................................. 57
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Percentage of Students at Proficiency Standards Levels on CAASPP English
Language Arts and Mathematics, 2018–19................................................................ 12
Figure 2 Percentage of Students Eligible for Special Education and English Learners
Meeting or Exceeding State Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics,
by Foster Status, 2018–19........................................................................................... 13
Figure 3 Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding State Standards in English
Language Arts and Mathematics by Mobility, 2018–19.............................................. 14
Table 1 School Mobility and Enrollment..................................................................................... 10

Table 2 Absenteeism and Suspension Rates, 2018–19........................................................... 11
Table 3 Student Achievement on CAASPP by Suspension and School Poverty Rate,
2018–19....................................................................................................................... 15
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care iii

iv LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care
Executive Summary
In California, the approximately 47,000 students in foster care (in 2018–19, around 0.7% of
the student population) face complex challenges arising from the instability of their living
arrangements and an increased likelihood of trauma from maltreatment and removal from the
home. The reasons for entry into foster care are multiple, complex, and often intertwined with the
social and environmental challenges associated with poverty.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the social and environmental challenges facing
students. Because many schools, child welfare agencies, courts, and other businesses and agencies
closed for much of the 2019–20 and 2020–21 school years, students in foster care experienced
reduced access to in-person education and supports. As the state and schools work to recover from
the pandemic, sustained attention will be necessary to ensure these students have access to the
services they need to succeed.
Using pre-COVID-19 statewide education data and interviews with foster youth services
coordinators at county offices of education, this report examines the school conditions and
education outcomes for students in foster care; the organizational, logistical, and data challenges
to providing coordinated support; and promising practices for future supports. Our analysis of
education data for 2018–19 found:
• Students in foster care were more likely to move schools within the school year than other
students (34% vs. 5%), and many moved multiple times.
• Nearly half of all students in foster care were enrolled in the highest-poverty schools,
those in which more than 80% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Furthermore, students in foster care were more likely than their peers to be enrolled in the
lowest-performing schools, those targeted for Comprehensive Support and Improvement
pursuant to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.
• Nearly 28% of students in foster care were chronically absent (missing 10% of school days
or more), as compared to an average of 12% for students not in foster care.
• Students in foster care were more than 4 times as likely to be suspended than their non-
foster counterparts (15% vs. 3.4%). Suspension rates were especially high among African
American students in foster care (22%).
• Just 24% of students in foster care met or exceeded standards in English language arts on
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress in 2018–19 as compared
to 51% for other students. For mathematics, the percentage of students in foster care
meeting or exceeding standards was even lower—15% (compared to 40% for other
students). Students in foster care who were highly mobile, in multiple high-need groups
(e.g., English learners in foster care), or attending high-poverty schools had even lower
achievement rates.
• Students in foster care graduated at lower rates (56%) than youth not in foster care (85%).
Among graduates and other high school completers, students in foster care were less likely
than their peers to attend college (48% vs. 64%).
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care v

Addressing the education needs of students in foster care requires the effective coordination and
collaboration of agencies and organizations at multiple levels. Analysis of interviews and focus
groups with county coordinators identified organizational, logistical, and data challenges to this
coordination and support. Among these challenges are the following:
• Data systems are often insufficient to support individual student case management and
collaboration between schools and districts and child welfare agencies. Current systems are
also inadequate for evaluating program impact by analyzing trends in aggregated data. For
example, integrated data from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/
CMS), the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), and district
student information systems (SIS) are not readily available in many counties or for all
students in foster care.
• The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) raises the visibility of students in foster care
but does not necessarily provide additional resources to meet their needs. Further, because
students in foster care are small in number and their needs may span multiple systems,
districts may struggle to address their individualized needs.
• Lack of transportation options is a barrier to school stability for students in foster care.
Students in foster care have a right to stay in their schools of origin, and the data show that
they have better school outcomes when they are able to do so. However, when students are
placed in resource homes (i.e., out-of-home foster care placements) outside the attendance
area of their schools of origin, the time and costs of transportation can make continued
attendance at those schools challenging.
• Capacity constraints in the child welfare system, such as high caseloads among social
workers and lack of placement options, especially for students with the greatest needs, can
make it challenging to prioritize education in placement decisions, can limit available time
for best interest determinations, and can contribute to students changing schools.
Despite these challenges, coordinators identified the following research-aligned programs and
processes (i.e., promising practices) that can inform future supports:
• Developing one-stop resource centers can help provide a ready web of supports.
Co-locating education and child welfare staff (i.e., sharing office space) can also
strengthen interagency coordination and communication, which can, in turn, improve
individual student case management.
• Enacting school-level practices that promote trusting relationships with students in foster
care can be a promising way to improve their educational opportunities. Some districts
prioritized strong school–student relationships and employed school-based liaisons trained
to support students in foster care. Liaisons get to know students deeply through frequent
interactions, can assist with credit recovery, and can ensure that students in foster care
understand their rights.
• Providing students in foster care with targeted social, emotional, and academic services as
part of a tiered system of support can help address the range of challenges they face.
vi LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

These findings point to the need for systems and practices that provide students with access to a ready
web of supports so that students in foster care can receive help as soon as they need it. We suggest the
following policy recommendations to better serve the educational needs of students in foster care:
1. Implement organizational structures that support cross-system collaboration.

Collaborative interagency structures grounded in shared objectives and responsibility for students
and families are needed to ensure that students in foster care receive supports quickly and efficiently.
• Create or empower cross-agency structures to improve collaboration and delivery

of services. A formalized cross-agency team, such as a children’s cabinet, could improve
state-level coordination and alignment. Such a body could be empowered to support the
development of policies that remove barriers to interagency collaboration and break down
silos from different categorical funding and service streams; it could also establish shared
goals for California’s children and families and support effective implementation of existing
laws and protections for students in foster care.
• Support strong implementation of community schools. One model for delivering multi-
tiered, integrated supports is through community schools, which are both a place and a set
of partnerships between the education system, the nonprofit sector, and local government
agencies. Access to supports offered by community schools—such as interdisciplinary teams
that coordinate outreach to families, counseling and mental health services, high-quality
tutoring, and transportation—can be critical to students in foster care due to their often
wide-ranging needs.
California’s multi-year $4.1 billion Community Schools Partnership Program will transform
all high-poverty schools, where most students in foster care are concentrated, into community
schools. The program will also fund several technical assistance centers to support community
school implementation. It is important that this technical assistance develop an infrastructure
to identify and disseminate best practices among grantees and build on lessons learned from
existing initiatives, including the Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program.
• Support the development of local interagency transportation agreements to

decrease school mobility arising from changes in foster care placements. State
technical assistance through the interagency System of Care Team, such as transportation
memorandum of understanding templates and best practices for implementing them, could
support the development of local transportation agreements to facilitate school stability.
Another function of state technical assistance could be identifying barriers that might
require additional state action, including the cost of transportation.
2. Explore revising the LCFF to provide additional funding for students in multiple high-
need groups.
The state could explore revising the LCFF to provide additional funding in a way that better
accounts for students in multiple high-need groups—students from low-income families, students
in foster care, students experiencing homelessness, and English learners—by examining evidence-
based weighting for different needs. Such a reform could more equitably fund districts to support
the range of needs students face, benefiting all students needing access to a web of supports.
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care vii

3. Identify and implement strategies to improve student case management.
Disseminating best practices from existing efforts to connect a fragmented data ecosystem—
namely, CWS/CMS, CALPADS, and district SIS—and increasing opportunities for interagency
collaboration are critical steps that the state and counties can pursue to operationalize a web of
supports and improve outcomes for students in foster care.
• Establish a state grant program to support the development and statewide

dissemination of best practices for data-informed, collaborative case management.
Effective local data systems are critical both for individual student case management and for
understanding trends in student achievement, stability, and access to services and supports.
Existing case management systems can connect otherwise fragmented data, but these
systems are often not used by both education and child welfare staff. And when they are
used, incomplete or missing data can hamper their usefulness. The state could help cultivate
the development, implementation, and dissemination of best practices for data-informed,
collaborative case management for students in foster care by establishing a program similar to
California’s Homeless Innovative Programs Grant, which is intended to identify and scale up
innovative practices for supporting students experiencing homelessness.
• Co-locate education and child welfare office staff. Counties could consider co-locating
education liaisons in child welfare offices, which can facilitate rapid communication of
changes in a student’s foster care placement as well as urgent education, health, and mental
health needs. This strategy can help provide educationally relevant information to ensure
educational needs are considered in decisions about foster care placements.
4. Implement school designs and practices that allow for prompt identification and stronger
support of student needs.
To support ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, district and school leaders can use
resources, such as the $13.5 billion for California districts in the American Rescue Plan Act, to
implement school and district practices that allow for prompt identification and support of student
needs. Creating relationship-centered, trauma-informed schools grounded in the science of learning
and development will be important for improving outcomes for students in foster care.
• Implement relationship-centered school practices as part of a tiered intervention

system. Districts could organize schools to focus on relationship-centered practices that
ensure each student is connected to caring adults who can identify and secure supports
when they are needed. Relationship-centered schools involve strategies such as advisories,
“looping,” and team scheduling that increases time for teacher collaboration. When
implemented as part of the foundational tier in a multi-tiered system of support, these
practices can support students in foster care by buffering the stresses of school and home
instability and by connecting them to personalized supports and interventions.
• Increase access to professional development that equips school staff to address the needs
of students in foster care. School staff need access to professional development that equips them
to respond to the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs of students in foster care.
Training could help staff understand the educational rights of students in foster care and focus
on strategies grounded in the science of learning and development, including trauma-informed
practices, restorative practices, and social and emotional learning. To support this, districts can
leverage the $1.5 billion in funding provided through the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant.
viii LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Introduction
The foster care system in California is a key part of the state’s system for protecting vulnerable
children from harm. The goal of the foster care system is to ensure children’s safety, protect
children from maltreatment and neglect, place children in family-like settings, and provide families
support so children can safely return home whenever possible.
While California’s foster care system is administered at the county level by child welfare
agencies, county education agencies, districts, and school officials play a role in responding to the
educational needs of students living in foster care. This report examines the needs, characteristics,
and outcomes of California students living in foster care and the challenges and promising practices
of educators working to support them. First, however, we discuss the educational challenges facing
students in foster care, the role of educators in the foster care system, and the key policies that
frame the support for this student group.
Educational Challenges Faced by Students Living in Foster Care

Children in foster care face complex challenges to their learning arising from the instability of their
living arrangements coupled with the increased likelihood of having experienced trauma. Numerous
studies find that students in foster care typically achieve at considerably lower rates than their
non-foster counterparts and are less likely to graduate from high school and less likely to attend
college.1 Further, children aging out of foster care, especially those without a high school diploma or
GED credential, are at increased risk of social and economic instability and homelessness.2
School mobility disrupts learning

Although students in foster care have a right to remain in their schools of origin (see “Best Interest
Determination” on p. 2), removal from the family home or changes in foster care placement can
often result in students changing schools or even districts.3 Children are then faced with the double
burden of adjusting to a new school and a new home situation.4 Research finds that unstable foster
care placement can lead to students changing schools multiple times.5
Changing schools interrupts students’ learning progression. On top of navigating new transportation
arrangements and a new campus, school changes mean adjusting to new curricula and teachers.
Students may find that they have missed some topics or material already covered at their new school,
may encounter significant differences in teaching styles and teacher expectations, and may be less
able to take advantage of resources at the new school.6 Missing, incomplete, or delayed transfer of
transcripts, assessments, and attendance information—especially when students change schools
midsemester—can result in lost academic credits and challenge the receiving school’s ability to serve
transferring students.7 Timely records transfer is especially important for those with an Individualized
Education Plan, as reassessment in the new school or adoption of the existing plan may take some time.
Changing schools midyear can also disrupt supportive social relationships. Moving school and
home at the same time can involve cutting ties with peer and friend communities, including
extracurricular activities or sports. These losses reduce students’ sense of belonging, which can
lead to disengagement from school.8 Students in foster care who change schools may have a fear
of stigmatization in their new school and may experience feelings of isolation.9 Moreover, home
instability and the associated emotional burden can make prioritizing school difficult.10
LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 1

Previous research finds that students who change schools, especially those who do so multiple
times, are at an increased risk of lower achievement and of leaving school without graduating.11
Other studies find that when school moves take place during the school year, are involuntary, or are
accompanied by family disruption—circumstances more frequent with students in foster care—the
negative impact on learning outcomes is more likely to be severe.12
Best Interest Determination

Students in foster care have a right to remain enrolled in their current school—known as the school
of origin—when they are placed in foster care or experience a change in foster care placement.
Under federal law, it is assumed that students will remain at their schools of origin, unless a school
transfer is determined to be in their best interest.13 The best interest determination (BID) is the
process by which this decision is made.
The educational rights holder (ERH) is the person who holds the right to make educational decisions
on behalf of the child. This may be a parent, a foster parent, or an individual appointed by a court.
Under California law and rules of court, the ERH and the student have the right to make school
placement decisions, in consultation with the child welfare agency and the district.14 Under federal
law, educational stability must be included in the child’s case plan, including assurance that the
child welfare or placing agency and local educational agency (LEA) have coordinated to ensure
the child remains in the school of origin or, if remaining is not in the best interest of the child, is
provided immediate and appropriate enrollment in a new school.15 The LEA (typically the foster
liaison) consults with the student and ERH, and if a school change is recommended, the liaison
must provide a written explanation stating why the recommendation is in the child’s best interest.16
In the event of a school move, the liaison must facilitate proper placement and assist transfer,
including school credits, records, and grades.
The distance from the new foster placement to the school of origin and the appropriateness of
the educational setting are among the factors that must be considered in a BID. Other factors can
include the child’s or the parent’s or ERH’s preferences, placement of siblings, relationships with
peers and school staff, availability and quality of services, previous history of school transfers,
length of commute and its impact on the child, transportation options, and whether the student has
English learner or special education needs. It is important to note that transportation cost should
not be a factor in determining best interest.17
The effects of trauma can inhibit students’ ability to learn

The experience of trauma is also a key barrier to students’ educational success.18 Students in
foster care are more likely than their peers to have experienced trauma due to family separation
and/or the circumstances that led to being placed in foster care. While many children in foster
care exhibit resilience, traumatic events can take a toll. Compared to other students, those in
foster care may be at greater risk for adverse effects of trauma. For example, a study of data
from the National Survey of Children’s Health found that children in foster care were 4 times
more likely to have diagnosed anxiety and 5 times more likely to have diagnosed depression
than their non-foster peers, even after accounting for differences in a range of individual and
household characteristics.19
2 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

The experience of trauma can inhibit students’ abilities to concentrate and to take in new
information and, especially in young children, can have consequences for their long-term
development, school readiness, and learning.20 Among students in foster care, the experience of
trauma can also lead to behavioral issues, which can include both demanding or attention-seeking
actions and “withdrawn, anxious or over-compliant behaviors.”21
Behavioral challenges that may be symptomatic of trauma can be easily misunderstood as

calculated action, which can lead to exclusionary discipline and reduced access to learning
opportunities. As one study of the experiences of students in foster care noted, “Youth voiced
the importance for teachers to consider that a student in foster care may have an underlying
trauma history that impacts their ability to function appropriately at school, rather than taking a
perspective that the student is acting purely out of choice or malcontent.”22 Previous research finds
that students in foster care are suspended at much higher rates than their peers.23 There are also
large racial disparities in the use of exclusionary discipline nationally, with students of color more
likely to be suspended than their white peers and with African American boys experiencing the
highest rates of suspension.24 A study of students in foster care found similar results: Students of
color in foster care were suspended at considerably higher rates than their white counterparts, and
these rates were higher still for students who were male and eligible for special education services.25
For students in foster care, feelings of affective engagement with school are a key predictor of
school success;26 however, mobility, trauma, and exclusionary discipline can work in concert
to negatively impact student learning. High student mobility can lead to disengagement and
feelings of isolation and can exacerbate trauma and lead to problematic behaviors and suspension
that, in turn, lead to further disengagement and a risk for lower achievement. Yet each of these
challenges may also be amenable to policy
intervention.27 Research finds that differences
in learning outcomes between students in foster
Research finds that differences
care and their peers are substantially lower in learning outcomes between
after accounting for in-school factors—such students in foster care and their
as feelings of belonginess, participation in
school activities, adult support, and attending peers are substantially lower after
class.28 Schools and districts can thus play an accounting for in-school factors—
important part in mitigating these risks and
such as feelings of belonginess,
supporting learning for students in foster care
by developing a positive school climate, by participation in school activities,
adopting restorative justice approaches rather adult support, and attending class.
than exclusionary discipline,29 and by working
in close partnership with child welfare and
community agencies.
Educators’ Role in California’s Foster Care System

Children and youth in foster care in California are primarily those whose care is overseen by a
juvenile dependency court. This typically occurs following a report of suspected abuse or neglect,
substantiation of the report by a child welfare agency, and concern for the safety of the child. Foster
care is intended as a temporary arrangement to ensure the safety of children until they can return
home or until a new, permanent home can be found. For purposes of California’s educational rights

and protections, children in foster care include those removed from the home and those living with
family subject to a family reunification or family maintenance plan developed by a child welfare
agency.30 While child welfare agencies and dependency courts lead the determination of whether
foster care placement is called for—and where that placement will be—and ensure the well-being of
children placed in foster care, educators play a role in supporting these students in school.
Educators play a key role in identifying students who may be at risk of harm. Teachers, principals,
and other school and district employees are “mandated reporters”; that is, they are required by law
to report when there is concern for a child’s safety. Educators make up one of the largest groups
reporting child maltreatment in California, accounting for approximately 20% of reports pre-
pandemic and 14% of reports in the period after the onset of COVID-19.31
In addition, educators are responsible for identifying and supporting the educational needs of
students who have entered foster care. County offices of education operate a Foster Youth Services
Coordinating Program (FYSCP) that helps local educational agencies (LEAs) within its jurisdiction
identify needs and provide educational supports to students in foster care. At the district level,
all LEAs designate a foster youth education liaison, with responsibility to facilitate access to
students’ educational rights and assist with school placement, enrollment, and transfer. (See also
“Best Interest Determination” on p. 2) Understanding when a student has entered foster care
requires matching data from the California Department of Social Services with data systems at the
Department of Education, a process that occurs each week. Students identified through a local (i.e.,
county-level) match can also be entered into the system.
Under California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), a child in foster care is any one of
the following:
• a child subject to a juvenile dependency court petition, whether or not removed from
the home;
• a youth who is the subject of a juvenile delinquency court petition and has been removed
from the home and placed in foster care;
• a youth age 18–21 in “extended foster care” enrolled in high school;
• a youth removed from the home under a voluntary placement agreement (between the
parents and the county welfare department); or
• a youth who is a dependent of a tribal court.32
Districts with students in foster care receive LCFF funding to support their learning needs. In
particular, districts receive increased funding based on the unduplicated percentage of enrolled
students from low-income families, English learners, and students in foster care. However, students
in foster care do not actually generate additional funding because they are already considered
eligible for free meals.33 Nonetheless, their inclusion in LCFF unduplicated counts brings important
visibility to this student group and means that the needs of students in foster care should be
considered in Local Control Accountability Plans, in which districts specify learning goals for
included student groups and create plans to achieve those goals. County offices of education must
also include measures of progress for students in foster care in the California School Dashboard, the
state’s accountability system.34

Key State and Federal Policies to Support Children and Youth in Foster Care
Over the past couple of decades, policy developments at both the state and federal levels have made
progress in elevating the needs of youth in foster care and creating structures to enable counties
and districts to provide targeted supports. Foundational among these is Assembly Bill (A.B.) 490.
Passed in 2003, this first-in-the-nation law created a series of educational rights for students in
foster care in California, including an entitlement to remain in their schools of origin following a
placement change (see “Best Interest Determination” on p. 2), a right to immediate enrollment,
and credit and grade protections connected to absences caused by placement changes.35
The California legislature passed other significant legislation to improve agency collaboration to
support youth in foster care in subsequent years. In 2015, the state passed A.B. 854, establishing
the FYSCP and requiring data sharing between the Department of Education and the Department
of Social Services. The same year saw the Continuum of Care Reform (A.B. 403), which sought to
improve the state’s child welfare system by providing more appropriate services and supports in
home-based settings and to reduce time spent in congregate care, a placement setting linked to
higher dropout rates for youth in foster care.36
Later, in 2018, A.B. 2083 built on the Continuum of Care Reform by developing a coordinated,
timely, and trauma-informed system-of-care approach for children in foster care who have
experienced severe trauma.37 This law requires each county to develop and implement a
memorandum of understanding establishing the roles and responsibilities of agencies and other
entities that serve children and youth in foster care who have experienced severe trauma. The law
aimed to eliminate agency silos by creating an interagency leadership team that could facilitate
more seamless coordination of services across agencies.
While state policies provide the most detailed guidance on supporting youth in foster care,
policy advancements at the federal level also provide some supports. For example, transportation
provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) outline the need to help students in foster
care remain in their schools of origin when experiencing foster care placement changes.38 Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act also provides supports for youth in foster care. It is the primary federal
funding source to support state foster care and adoption assistance programs. Amended in 2018, the
law now allows states to use these funds for preventive services for children at risk of removal from
home in order to stay with their parents or relatives.
Overview of This Study

This report is intended to provide additional information to stakeholders regarding the educational
status of California students living in foster care and the issues the education system faces in
meeting their needs and to offer research-based policy recommendations on how to improve
services for these students. It examines the following research questions:
• What are the characteristics of California students living in foster care?
• What are the educational experiences and outcomes of students living in foster care?
• What challenges are faced by education officials seeking to support students living in
foster care?
• What promising practices (i.e., programs and processes aligned with research) have
education officials adopted to support students living in foster care?

To answer these questions about the educational experiences and outcomes of students living in
foster care, we conducted descriptive analyses of publicly available and restricted-use data from
2018–19 (prior to the pandemic) from the California Department of Education. To understand
the key supports provided to students in foster care, the challenges in providing support prior to
and during the pandemic, and the promising practices for supporting students in foster care, we
interviewed 11 FYSCP coordinators across three focus groups and two individual interviews.39
Interviews were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021. (See Appendix A for full
details on our methodology.)
While this report provides much-needed information about California students living in foster
care, it is limited in that it is focused on education. It does not include data from the California
Department of Social Services; nor did we interview social service agency officials. Future research
could investigate the combined associations of child welfare and education variables on student
learning outcomes and the perspectives from child welfare and other agencies.
In this report, we first examine the characteristics and educational outcomes of students living in
foster care. We then turn to the challenges education agencies face in supporting students living
in foster care and the promising practices for addressing the needs of these students. We conclude
with a set of policy recommendations and reflections.

California Students in Foster Care
Children and youth in foster care represent a small group of students in California, but one with
complex needs. The number of students in foster care in grades k–12 in 2018–19 was 46,810, or
around 0.7% of students, down from 62,610 students, or around 1%, in 2015–16.40
The majority of students in foster care are students of color, and African American students are
disproportionately represented. In 2018–19, around 18% of California’s k–12 youth in foster care
were African American, compared to just 5% African American students in the overall student
population. The majority of students in foster care were Latino/a (55%), which matches the
percentage of Latino/a students in the statewide student population.41 The underlying reasons for
the disproportionality of African American students are multiple and include a higher incidence of
child poverty, racial bias, and systemic racism; uneven availability of resources in the child welfare
system; and geography.42 As one study described, “Race and ethnicity is a marker for a complex
interaction of economic, social, political, and environmental factors that influence the health
of individuals and communities.”43 Although beyond the scope of this report, addressing these
underlying factors will be critical to closing racial disparities in the foster care system.
California students in foster care are also more likely than the general population to identify as
LGBTQ. A 2019 study using a statewide sample of California students ages 10–18 found that 30% of
students in foster care identified as LGBTQ, compared to an estimated 11% among similar-age non-
foster students.44 Students in foster care are also disproportionately likely to be eligible for special
education services. In 2018–19, 31% of students in foster care were eligible for special education,
compared to just 13% of their non-foster peers.45 Students in foster care also include “dual system”
students—those involved with both the child welfare and the juvenile justice systems.
The reasons for entry into foster care cover a wide range of circumstances, although issues related
to poverty often play a role. Consider the following: Families earning low incomes are far more
likely to be involved in the foster care system.46 Research has long noted that poverty is a risk factor
for neglect.47 As one study concludes, “The most effective way to reduce child abuse and neglect is
to reduce poverty and its attendant material hardships.”48 Many children become involved with the
foster care system due to reasons of neglect only—such as a family in poverty struggling to provide
adequate food, housing, or clothing or a working mother who cannot find child care and has to leave
young children unsupervised.49 Data for 2019 show that neglect was among the reasons for entry
into foster care in more than 4 out of 5 cases in California.50 An inability to cope was a reason in
1 in 5 cases, parental substance abuse was cited in 1 in 10 cases, and inadequate housing was stated
as a reason in 1 out of 25 cases. Other reasons for entry into foster care included physical violence,
cited in 1 in 5 cases, and sexual abuse, cited in 1 out of 33 cases. Other research finds that physical
violence and sexual abuse were reported more frequently among students in foster care ages 17 and
over and among females.51
Together, these data suggest that the reasons for entry into foster care are multiple, complex,
and often intertwined with a range of social and environmental factors associated with poverty.
Proactively addressing the root causes of poverty is a promising strategy to support families before
the risk of neglect or abuse becomes more serious and family separation is necessary.

Educational Experiences and Outcomes
of Students in Foster Care
In this section, we use both publicly available data and restricted-use data to provide insight into
the education of California’s students in foster care and their learning outcomes. We analyze
administrative data, including enrollment records and achievement data provided by the California
Department of Education, from 2018–19, the most recent year of publicly available data prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic. We first present findings for the educational experiences of students
in foster care, focusing specifically on the following: student mobility (the frequency with which
students change schools), characteristics of the schools in which students are enrolled, rates of
chronic absenteeism, and rates of suspension. We then turn to educational outcomes, looking at
rates of achievement on state assessments and graduation rates. We also explore how achievement
on these state assessments varies with school mobility and suspension rates—understood to be key
correlates of achievement.
Educational Experiences
As described earlier, frequent school changes are disruptive to students’ academic progress. While
some school moves for students in foster care may be in students’ best interests, such as those to
an educational setting better suited to students’ particular learning needs, others may not. High
mobility may disrupt student learning as well as social connections and access to other supports.
Using enrollment records, we counted the total number of school moves that took place during the
school year to understand the extent of that disruption.52
We also explored characteristics of the schools that students in foster care attended. Prior research
shows that high-poverty schools—those with large proportions of students eligible for free or
reduced-price meals (FRPM)—tend to have higher rates of teacher turnover and higher percentages
of teachers who are not fully certified.53 High teacher turnover can disrupt both collegial staff
relationships that support a coherent approach to teaching and teacher–student relationships that
are especially important to students at risk of disengagement.54
Table 1 shows our analysis of student mobility as well as student enrollment in high-poverty and
low-performing schools.
Within the 2018–19 school year, students in foster care were more likely to change schools
than other students, and many moved multiple times. We defined mobility as the number of
school moves that took place during the
school year (between September 1 and
June 1).55 We found that while 95% of all
While 95% of all non-foster students
non-foster students stayed in the same stayed in the same school throughout
school throughout the 2018–19 school year, the 2018–19 school year, just 66% of
just 66% of students in foster care did so.
Moreover, 13% of students in foster care students in foster care did so.
(more than 1 in 8) changed schools more
than once during the school year.

Over 4 school years, half of all students in foster care changed schools more than once.
We calculated mobility among students enrolled in each of the 4 school years from 2015–16 to
2018–19, again counting only those moves that took place during the school year. Seventy-one
percent of students in foster care in 2018–19 changed schools during the school year in at least 1 of
those 4 years, compared to 15% among all other students. Indeed, more than a fifth (22%) of youth
who were in foster care in 2018–19 had four or more such moves over the 4-year period, compared
to less than 1% among all other students.
Nearly half of all students in foster care are enrolled in the highest-poverty schools.
High-poverty schools tend to experience greater resourcing challenges, including higher teacher
turnover.56 We calculated the proportion of students in foster care in schools by the proportion of
its population eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FRPM). Nearly half (49%) of all students in
foster care were enrolled in schools in which the percentage of students eligible for FRPM was 80%
or above, compared to 32% of their non-foster peers.57 A further 26% of students in foster care were
enrolled in schools in which the FRPM percentage was between 60% and 80% (compared to 22%
for all other students). (See Appendix B.) By contrast, less than 3% of students in foster care were
enrolled in the lowest-poverty schools—those in which the percentage of students eligible for FRPM
was below 20%—compared to 12% of their non-foster peers.
Students in foster care are more likely than other students to be enrolled in the
lowest-performing schools. We looked at the enrollment of students in schools targeted for
Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) pursuant to ESSA.58 These are schools that
have either had low graduation rates (less than 67%) over 2 consecutive years or were among
the lowest-performing Title I schools. We found that 12% of all students in foster care had a
CSI school as their main primary enrollment, more than twice the rate of non-foster students
(5%). This indicates that students in foster care are more frequently attending schools with poor
outcomes for students. Around a quarter of CSI schools are continuation schools; that is, schools
for students ages 16 and over who are at risk of not graduating and may be behind in high school
credits59—a common challenge for many students in foster care and other highly mobile students.

Table 1
School Mobility and Enrollment
Students in Foster Care Students Not in Foster Care
Total School Moves, Single Year (2018–19)
No Moves 66% 95%
At Least 1 Move 34% 5%

• 1 move 21% 4%
• 2 moves 8% < 1%
• 3+ moves 5% < 1%
Total School Moves, 4 Years (2015–16 to 2018–19)
No Moves 29% 85%
At Least 1 Move 71% 15%

• 1 move 21% 11%
• 2 moves 17% 3%
• 3 moves 11% 1%
• 4+ moves 22% < 1%
Percentage Enrolled in High-Poverty

49% 32%
Schools, (2018–19)
Percentage Enrolled in Comprehensive

Support and Improvement Schools, 12% 5%
(2018–19)
Notes: High-poverty schools are those with 80% or more students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Figures may not
total to 100% due to rounding.
Data sources: Data provided by the California Department of Education through a special request; Public School and District
data files and Free or Reduced-Price Meal data files downloaded from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/downloadabledata.
asp; ESSA Assistance Status Data Files downloaded from https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/essaassistdatafiles.asp
Using publicly available data for 2018–19, we also looked at rates of absenteeism as well as
suspension from school. Together with suspension rates, rates of chronic absenteeism are
indicative of students’ engagement with school and their opportunities to learn. Research has
long found that chronic absenteeism is associated with lower academic performance.60 Moreover,
students who experience changes in foster care placement or school are more likely to experience
higher rates of absence and have an elevated risk of disengagement.61
In California, chronic absenteeism is defined as missing 10% or more of the school days in which a
student was enrolled and school was taught (typically 18 days in a 180-day school year).62 We find
striking disparities in the rates of chronic absenteeism, in the average number of days absent, and
also in the rates of suspension. These are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Absenteeism and Suspension Rates, 2018–19
Students in Foster Care Students Not in Foster Care
Average Days Absent
• All grades 15 10
• Grades k–8 12 9
• Grades 9–12 23 12
Chronic Absenteeism Rate
• All students 28% 12%
Suspension Rate
• All grades 15% 3%
• African American 22% 9%
Data source: California Department of Education, DataQuest. https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Students in foster care are more than twice as likely to be chronically absent compared
to other students. Publicly available data show that, on average, students in foster care were
absent 15 days in the 2018–19 school year, compared to 10 days for all other students. Moreover,
absenteeism was especially high among students in foster care in high school. Students in foster
care in grades 9–12 were absent an average of nearly 23 days, meaning that these students missed
1 out of every 8 school days. This was almost twice as many days absent as both their same-grade
peers and as students in foster care in grades k–8. In total, nearly 28% of students in foster care
were chronically absent, while for non-foster students, this was just 12%.
Students in foster care were more likely to be suspended than their non-foster
counterparts. In addition to absenteeism, we also looked at suspension rates for California
students in foster care. Exclusionary discipline can drive a self-reinforcing cycle of disengagement
if it is not disrupted. Lack of engagement can lead to further disciplinary incidents, and the lost
learning time also reduces students’ engagement with schooling and academic motivation.63
For students in foster care, feelings of affective engagement with school are a key predictor of
school success,64 while exclusionary discipline is associated with lower educational outcomes.65
In addition, suspension from school does not address the underlying issues that may be behind
challenges in the first place.
The suspension rate (in school and out of school) for students in foster care in 2018–19 was
15%, about the same rate as for the previous 2 years. This rate was more than 4 times the
rate for non-foster students (3.4%). Suspension rates were especially high among African
American students, both for students in foster care (22%) and not (9%). More than half of
African American students in foster care who were suspended in 2018–19 were suspended
multiple times. As we show in Figure 1, high rates of suspension are negatively correlated with
achievement rates on state assessments.

Educational Outcomes
We explored whether mobility and suspension are associated with the percentage of students
meeting or exceeding state standards on the 2018–19 California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP), administered to students in grades 3–8 and 11.
Students in foster care were less likely than other students to meet or exceed state standards
on CAASPP. We found stark differences in achievement between students in foster care and other
students. Just 24% of students in foster care met or exceeded state standards in English language
arts (ELA) (compared to 51% of other students), and just 15% met or exceeded state standards in
mathematics (compared to 40% of other students). (See Figure 1.) Of particular concern is that
53% of students in foster care received scores in the lowest category in ELA—“standard not met”—
compared to 26% of non-foster counterparts. For mathematics, this percentage was even higher,
with 63% scoring in the “standard not met” category compared to 35% for all other students. (See
also Appendix B.)
Figure 1
Percentage of Students at Proficiency Standards Levels on CAASPP English
English
LanguageLanguage
Arts andArts and Mathematics,
Mathematics, 2018–192018–19
100% 4%
6%
11% 20%
23%
18%
80%
23%
20%
23% 29%
60%
25%
40%
22%
63%
53%
20%
35%
26%
0%
Students in foster care Students not in foster care Students in foster care Students not in foster care
English Language Arts Mathematics
Standard exceeded Standard met Standard nearly met Standard not met
Notes: Percentages
Notes: Percentagescalculated
calculatedfor
forstudents
studentsiningrades
grades3–8
3–8and
and1111with
with valid
valid CAASPP
CAASPP scores.
scores. Some
Some figures
figures maymay
notnot total
total to to
100% due
100% due to
torounding.
rounding.
Data
Data source:
source:Data
Dataprovided
providedby
bythe
theCalifornia
CaliforniaDepartment
DepartmentofofEducation
Education through
througha special request.
a special request.

For students in foster care eligible for special education and for those who are English learners,
performance levels were even lower. Of students in foster care eligible for special education, 7%
met or exceeded state standards in ELA, and 5% met or exceeded state standards in mathematics
(compared with 16% and 13%, respectively, for non-foster students with disabilities). (See Figure 2.)
As noted earlier, nearly one third of students in foster care (31%) are eligible for special education
services. Among students in foster care who were English learners, only 7% met or achieved
standards in ELA, and 6% did so in mathematics. These findings suggest that many students in
foster care may need multiple supports to achieve their educational goals.
Figure 2
Percentage
Percentage ofof Students
StudentsEligible
Eligiblefor
for Special
Special Education
Educationand
andEnglish
EnglishLearners
Learners
Meeting or Exceeding State Standards in English Language Arts
Meeting or Exceeding State Standards in English Language Arts and and
Mathematics,
Mathematics,by byFoster
FosterStatus,
Status,2018–19
2018–19
20%
16%
15% 13% 13% 13%
10%
7% 7%
6%
5%
5%
0%
Special Education English Learners Special Education English Learners
Students in foster care Students not in foster care
Datasource:
Data source:Data
Dataprovided
providedbybythe
theCalifornia
California Department
Department of of Education
Education through
through a special
a special request.
request.
High mobility is associated with lower outcomes on CAASPP. Among students in foster care
who stayed in the same school throughout the school year, 26% met or exceeded state standards
in ELA, and 17% did so in mathematics. By contrast, each school move was associated with a lower
score in each of the tested subjects. (See Figure 3.) For example, among students in foster care who
moved twice or more (around 13% of all students in foster care), less than 15% met or exceeded
state standards in ELA, and just 7% did so in mathematics. High mobility was also associated with
lower achievement on CAASPP for students who were not in foster care, though students in foster
care were more likely than other students to change schools during the school year.

Figure 3
Percentage of
Percentage of Students
StudentsMeeting
Meetingor
orExceeding
Exceeding State
State Standards
Standards in
in English
English
LanguageArts
Language Artsand
andMathematics
Mathematicsby
byMobility,
Mobility,2018–19
2018–19
30%
26%
25%
19%
20% 17%
16%
15%
11% 11%
10% 8%
6%
5%
0%
0 moves 1 move 2 moves 3+ moves 0 moves 1 move 2 moves 3+ moves
Note:Percentages
Note: Percentagescalculated
calculatedforforstudents
studentsin in grades
grades 3–8
3–8 and
and 1111 with
with valid
valid CAASP
CAASP scores.
scores.
Data
Datasource:
source:Data
Dataprovided
providedbybythe
theCalifornia Department
California of of
Department Education through
Education a special
through request.
a special request.
Suspension from school is associated with lower outcomes on CAASPP. Among students in
foster care who received an in-school or out-of-school suspension, 11% met or exceeded state
standards in ELA, and just 6% did so in mathematics. (See Table 3.) This compares to 26% and 16%,
respectively, for students in foster care who were not suspended. While the percentage of students
meeting or achieving state standards was also lower for non-foster youth who were suspended, it is
of particular importance for students in foster care given that they are suspended at around 4 times
the rate of their non-foster peers.
Importantly, the lower rates of achievement among students who were suspended does not imply a
direct causal relationship. For example, students who are suspended from school may be those who
are already struggling academically. However, this finding nonetheless underscores the importance
of providing supports to students who exhibit problematic behaviors and who may be at risk of
disengaging from school.
Achievement rates were higher for those students in foster care in low-poverty schools.
While just 2.5% of students in foster care attended the lowest-poverty schools, among students in
foster care in those schools, nearly 40% met or exceeded standards in ELA, and nearly 28% did so in
mathematics. This compares to 21% in ELA and just 13% in mathematics among students in foster
care in the highest-poverty schools. (See Table 3.)
Students in foster care graduate at lower rates than students who are not in foster care,
and those who do graduate are less likely than their peers to meet the entry requirements
to California’s 4-year public universities. In addition to measures of achievement on state
assessments, we also looked at rates of educational attainment. For 2018–19, the 4-year adjusted

cohort graduation rate for students in foster care was 56%; for other students, the rate was 85%.
While that rate is low relative to their peers, the graduation rate among students in foster care
increased 5 percentage points between 2016–17 and 2018–19 (from 51% to 56%).
Upon graduation, students in foster care were less likely than their non-foster peers to have met
the requirements for entry to a University of California or California State University campus.
Among students who graduated in 2018–19, the percentage of graduating students in foster care
meeting the A-G requirements was just 20%, compared to 51% for all other graduating students.66
This means that just 11% of students in foster care in the class of 2019 graduated from high school
prepared for a 4-year state university.
Table 3
Student Achievement on CAASPP by Suspension and School Poverty
Rate, 2018–19
Students in Foster Care: Percentage Meeting or
Exceeding State Standards
Suspended During School Year
• No 26% 16%
• Yes 11% 6%
School Eligibility for FRPM
• 0 to <20% 40% 28%
• 20% to <40% 31% 19%
• 40% to <60% 28% 17%
• 60% to <80% 23% 14%
• 80% to 100% 21% 13%
Data source: Data provided by the California Department of Education through a special request.
Students in foster care were less likely than their peers to attend college upon completing high
school. A different measure of educational attainment is the college-going rate, or the proportion
of students completing high school in a given academic year who are enrolled in higher education
the subsequent year. Among high school completers, 48% of California students in foster care were
enrolled in a postsecondary institution within 12 months of completing high school.67 For all other
students, this rate was above 64%. (These data are for 2017–18, the most recent year available.)
Taken together, these findings illustrate the considerable challenges to school success facing
students in foster care. For example, the strong negative relationship with educational outcomes
for students in foster care who change schools multiple times underscores the importance of
school stability. Additionally, not only are students in foster care less likely to finish high school
than their peers, but if they do, they are also less likely to subsequently enroll in a postsecondary
institution. In the next sections, we provide data from foster youth services coordinators, outlining
the challenges to effectively supporting this student group as well as identifying several promising
practices from which others may learn.

What Are the Challenges, and What Works
to Support Students in Foster Care?
Our quantitative analyses show the educational impact of some of the challenges students in foster
care face. (See also Appendix B.) To better understand how districts work to coordinate support
for students in foster care and the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of school services, we
interviewed 11 Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program (FYSCP) coordinators. (See Appendix A
for details.) These county-level coordinators play a key role in supporting students in foster care.
They ensure records transfer properly for youth who change schools, work across agencies at the
county level, and work with districts and schools to build capacity and ensure that students in
foster care have access to the services they require. Common services that students in foster care
may require include instructional support, counseling, tutoring, mentoring, emancipation services,
training for independent living, and transition to postsecondary education.68 In interviews with
FYSCP coordinators, we were particularly interested in learning the challenges to supporting
students in foster care, additional issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, and promising practices
aligned with research to support the education of students in foster care in California.
Challenges
Our interviews revealed several challenges that negatively impact the effectiveness of educational
supports for students in foster care: insufficient data systems and data management, funding
concerns, high costs and the time associated with coordinating transportation for students to
attend their schools of origin, and capacity constraints in the child welfare system. As described
below, some of these challenges were amplified in 2020–21 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Insufficient data systems and data management are barriers to supporting students in
foster care.
Students in foster care live at the intersection of multiple agencies and programs. State law,
therefore, mandates some data sharing between local educational agencies (LEAs) and child welfare
agencies. For example, LEAs must share education records, which can include grades, credits
earned, and the number of school transfers, with child welfare agencies. In return, child welfare
agencies must share records related to a student’s educational needs and notify LEAs any time a
placement change occurs.69 Despite laws requiring interagency data sharing, coordinators identified
two major challenges in this area: First, inadequate availability of integrated data systems impeded
efficient case management; and second, issues in accessing aggregated data inhibited evaluating
program impact and conducting data-based planning.
Effective case management relies on the availability of timely student-level data. These data are
different than summative, end-of-year data typical of standardized assessments. Data useful in
case management are more likely to be real-time, easily accessible, and provide a broader picture
of a student’s performance and well-being. They may include information on student attendance,
grades, assessments, and progress toward educational goals.

Interviews revealed that the quality of data systems varied across counties. In some cases, these
systems worked well. For example, two coordinators described using custom integrated data
systems for effective data sharing across agencies. In one case, the county office of education and
the local department of children and family services collaboratively designed the data system
specifically to share information on students in foster care.
More frequently, however, coordinators highlighted gaps in data systems that resulted in poor data
quality and impeded educators’ abilities to effectively share and receive data on students in foster
care. For example, integrated data from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/
CMS), the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), and district student
information systems (SIS) are not readily available in many counties or for all students in foster
care. Consequently, some county education staff
needed to use multiple data systems to accomplish
In one case, up to seven
a single objective. In one case, up to seven different
systems were needed to bring together data, different systems were needed
such as attendance, case management plans, to bring together data, such as
and discipline incidents, for a single student. An
integrated data system jointly used by education
attendance, case management
and child welfare agencies could enable more plans, and discipline incidents,
effective case management to support students in for a single student.
foster care. To maximize the system’s benefit, these
staff could be supported with joint professional
development on data use.
Coordinators also described challenges related to missing information in data systems. For example,
two coordinators highlighted that there were many instances in which data on the educational
rights holder (ERH)—the person responsible for making educational decisions based on the best
interest of the child—were not included or were not available to LEAs and their data systems.
One report found a wide variation in the quality and completeness of ERH data across counties,
suggesting that the issue of inaccessible or missing ERH data may not be uncommon in California.70
Similarly, another report examining one Bay Area county found that in 2019, ERH information
was available in court records, but was not readily available to LEAs, for approximately 90% of
students in foster care in the county. After identifying this issue, county education and court staff
collaborated to increase ERH identification rates.71 Inaccessible or missing ERH information can
create obstacles to providing adequate and individualized supports for students in foster care, since
some decisions must be approved by the ERH.
While student-level data are needed to provide individualized supports, aggregate data at the
district or county level are useful to see broader trends and to assess the quality of program
offerings. However, coordinators described issues in accessing aggregated data, a second data
systems challenge.
Many counties with small districts and those with few students in foster care experience unique
challenges when trying to access aggregate data. For example, rural districts may lack adequate
county-level data systems and may instead rely on the California School Dashboard to fill gaps.
This statewide dashboard provides summative data on how schools and districts are meeting
student needs based on state and local indicators.72 While useful for understanding trends in
student performance, the dashboard is not well suited for assessing program impact. Further,

because the number of students in foster care in a given district may not meet the dashboard’s
minimum “n-size” reporting limit of 15, these data may not make the performance of students in
foster care fully visible.73 Students in foster care in small districts can, in effect, become invisible
without county-level grouping and reporting. In one case, there was no straightforward way for
educators to understand the academic needs of students in foster care, including attendance
patterns, discipline rates, or school moves at the county level. Instead, they had to look at
individual student files and draw inferences about county-level academic needs for students
in foster care. Coordinators stressed the need for a safe, secure, and streamlined way to access
aggregate data on students in foster care while ensuring that only those who need to know that
data have access to it.
More detailed school mobility data is one area for improvement of aggregated data several
coordinators discussed. County data systems may not capture the reason behind a school
move—as documented in a best interest determination (BID) process—only that a school change
happened. This leads to an incomplete picture. For example, current data reporting focuses on
school stability, only showing when a student changes schools but not whether the change was
made in the student’s educational best interest. This represents a gap in data reporting, as one
coordinator noted:
It doesn’t feel like we as a state have gotten a great [handle] on if the provisions
that have been applied regarding school stability are making a difference for the
number of youth staying in their schools of origin or if it’s changing outcomes
related to graduation rate[s].
Coordinators, districts, and counties need data systems that are able to document additional
details to better assess the impact of school moves for individual students and broader efforts
to support school stability. Without more detail, districts, educators, and coordinators struggle,
at the aggregate level, to distinguish school moves that may have a positive educational impact,
such as attending a school with siblings or having increased access to specific courses, programs,
extracurricular activities, or more suitable special education services. By contrast, educationally
disruptive school moves, such as a foster care placement that is far from the school that the
student was attending and wishes to continue attending, may negatively impact a student’s
education. Each of these, among others, is a factor to be considered during the BID process.74
Together, this evidence suggests that inefficient data systems and data-sharing processes are
significant challenges hindering agencies’ abilities to support students in foster care. Though some
coordinators felt data systems worked well, many expressed that data systems did not provide
accurate, complete information. There was no consensus on a single data system or approach to
information sharing that could best serve students in foster care. For example, one large county
designed its own system because an existing proprietary system available statewide was too
expensive for all of its districts to adopt. However, smaller counties may not be able to develop
custom systems with existing resources.

The LCFF raises the visibility of students in foster care but does not necessarily provide
additional resources to meet their needs.
While the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) has increased attention on students in foster care,
coordinators in rural counties and those with smaller numbers of students in foster care described
the persistent challenges that districts face in meeting the individualized needs of students in foster
care. They noted that the additional LCFF dollars for high-need students, including students in
foster care, may be insufficient to support their unique and, at times, intensive needs. As discussed
above, students in foster care are categorically eligible for free school meals.75 Thus, despite higher
needs, their identification as a student in foster care does not yield additional funds to the district
beyond that of students from low-income backgrounds.
Coordinators from more rural parts of the state described some challenges this can create. Smaller
districts face financial hurdles in their efforts to support this student group because it is small in
number. One coordinator explained:
I appreciate that LCFF has lifted up foster youth as an unduplicated pupil group.
For [small] districts of our size and with our number of foster youth, it just doesn’t
really make a financial difference.… Districts really struggle to figure out what they
are going to do that is only for foster youth [with the money available].
The coordinator added that students in foster care deserve individualized advocacy and support,
“but it’s not realistic to expect a school district to take that on with [the current level] of
supplemental money a year.” Without adequate resources, districts may be unable to provide the
individualized supports these students often need to overcome disruptions and barriers to their
learning. In small districts or ones with few students in foster care, it is especially challenging to
provide programs tailored to the needs of students in foster care.
Coordinators expressed concern about bunching distinct high-need student groups together.
Because students in foster care make up only a small portion of California’s student population—
less than 1% of all k–12 students, compared to students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds (60%) or English learners (18%)—their needs may not get as much attention as other
student groups. As one coordinator described:
Those three student groups get lumped together, and each one has very unique
needs. And generally, what we see is that districts do a blanket support system for
all of those students that doesn’t necessarily fit for each group, and so it can make
those academic supports difficult for foster youth.
As this coordinator explained, because the LCFF requires unduplicated counts, it does not distribute
additional resources to districts in a way that reflects the unique and compound challenges that
students in multiple high-need groups face.
Transportation is a barrier to school stability for students in foster care.

While in foster care, a student may experience placement changes. As discussed earlier, our analyses
found that around a third of students in foster care changed schools during the 2018–19 school year.
Further, the data show that students in foster care, on average, have worse school outcomes when
they experience school changes.

Multiple FYSCP coordinators identified the
time and distance required for transportation Multiple FYSCP coordinators
as a frequent barrier to keeping students identified the time and distance
in their schools of origin after a foster care
placement change. Coordinators explained that
required for transportation as a
when determining the educational option that frequent barrier to keeping students
is in the child’s best interest, ERHs, in some in their schools of origin after a
cases, must weigh the benefits of maintaining
school stability against daily multi-hour foster care placement change.
commutes for any student with a placement
that is far from their school of origin.
Foster care placement changes can mean that a student moves to live within the bounds of a
different school district from their school of origin, or even to an entirely different county. A
limited supply of foster care placement options exacerbates this problem. Data from the California
Child Welfare Indicators Project show that around 22% of children were not placed in their
supervising counties in 2020. This varied somewhat by placement type, with a larger percentage of
out-of-county placements for those placed in group homes or short-term residential therapeutic
programs (45%).76
Transportation cost is a significant factor in school stability. Coordinators noted that rural counties
or small school districts, in particular, may have less flexibility to reroute existing buses. Partnering
with private transportation offered useful flexibility in some counties but could also be prohibitively
expensive in others. As one coordinator remarked, “For districts that don’t have their own
transportation, they may be contracting with a private transportation company.… It’s disgustingly
expensive.” A 2020 report found that per-student transportation costs for students in foster care
varied from as low as $167 a year to as high as $4,000 a year.77 These high costs mean that many
districts cannot provide adequate transportation for students in foster care, which could lead to
a school move even when it is in the student’s best interest to remain in their school of origin.
Moreover, transportation reimbursement rates for caregivers need to be regularly updated so as not
to act as a barrier to transportation.78
Interagency and interdistrict transportation agreements are a related challenge. Federal law
requires child welfare agencies and school districts to adopt agreements for transporting students
in foster care to school. In practice, many counties find it more effective to adopt countywide
agreements that districts sign on to. Still, counties are experiencing challenges in establishing
transportation memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between their districts and local child
welfare agencies. As of 2019, just 55% of counties had an ESSA-mandated transportation plan
in place.79 Misaligned priorities about transportation agreements can complicate county agency
collaboration. Even when there is a shared commitment to developing an agreement, MOUs can still
take years to develop. In one county, for example, the transportation MOU took 5 years to pass. In
some cases, coordinators felt the MOU development process was arduous, in part because districts
and child welfare partners were intimidated by the potential costs of transportation.
A recent federal Government Accountability Office report reached similar conclusions. In particular,
a majority of surveyed state education agencies said helping districts determine how to fund the
additional transportation costs was challenging.80 While transporting students within a county can
come at a high cost, transporting between counties can be even more challenging. For example,

transporting a student with an out-of-county placement may fall outside existing cost-sharing
MOUs or may have different cost-sharing implications. In one case a coordinator shared, the county
reimbursed its school districts for the additional cost of transportation to maintain the school of
origin only for those dependents of the county who were attending school within the county.
Transportation costs to families can also lead to students needing to change schools. This
is particularly the case when a student’s family is ineligible for reimbursement for school
transportation. For example, caregivers (including licensed foster parents, approved relatives,
certified foster parents, small family licensees, and nonrelated extended family members) are
legally entitled to reimbursements for “reasonable travel” to and from a student’s school of origin.81
However, when students have returned to their biological families under a family maintenance plan,
the family may not be eligible for Social Security Act Title IV-E maintenance funds—federal funding
intended to support the daily living costs of youth in foster care. Students in family maintenance
are not “in foster care” as defined under federal law. Yet they are still eligible for school-of-origin
protections under California law. As one coordinator described, this discrepancy can create an
additional burden to families in these situations who may already be navigating financial, housing,
or employment challenges.
Capacity constraints in the child welfare system can impede the effectiveness of educational
supports for students in foster care.
Given the interconnectedness of education and child welfare agencies in supporting students in
foster care, challenges in one agency or at one level of the system can also create obstacles to
serving youth in others. For this study, we spoke only to representatives from education agencies
but, through these interviews, identified some constraints within the child welfare system that
directly impact school stability.
In addition to their own resource challenges, all FYSCP coordinators noted that their colleagues
in child welfare work hard but also face capacity constraints. These challenges included heavy
caseloads for social workers and a lack of suitable foster care placements, especially for students
with the greatest needs. While these challenges are important, they do not represent an exhaustive
list of barriers to collaboration or challenges related to maintaining school stability because many
are specific to each individual student’s context. Nevertheless, these challenges bring to light some
of what education and child welfare agencies navigate when serving students in foster care.
One challenge frequently mentioned was the high caseloads social workers carry, which can make it
difficult for agencies to collaborate. For example, high caseloads can leave social workers with little
time to prioritize education issues, such as maintaining school stability, when new placements are
needed. While a student’s education and well-being are priorities across agencies, the safety of the
child is the central concern for social workers, particularly when a child or family member is in crisis
and a placement needs to be quickly located. As an unfortunate side effect, school stability may
become a lower priority.
The BID process is one example of this tension. Under ideal circumstances, BIDs on school
placement take place in advance of, or in conjunction with, decisions about foster care placement.
However, when placement options are limited or placement moves need to happen rapidly for the
safety of the child, this may not be possible. As a result, discussions of school stability receive less
attention. Timely communication about pending foster placement changes is particularly important

for students receiving special education services, as state law requires at least 10 days’ written
notice to both the current LEA and the receiving special education plan area before removal if the
student has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).82 As one coordinator described, “That doesn’t
even come close, even with our best efforts of communicating [with the child welfare agency] about
when a new child is brought into care or when somebody is potentially changing residence.” Despite
daily communication about placement moves and potential moves, some placement changes
happen suddenly, and it is not always possible to provide adequate notice before a student changes
schools. The coordinator quoted above estimated that only in a minority of cases in their county did
BIDs happen before a change in foster care placement. One report found considerable variability in
the timing, consistency, and policies for BIDs across counties.83
There will always be a need to make quick decisions to protect some children in the foster care
system. Ensuring both the child welfare and education systems are designed to be responsive
to such moments can have a major impact on the life and educational outcomes of students in
foster care. Without deep collaboration across agencies, education agencies will be left reacting to
placement changes rather than planning for them, and students will experience disruptive changes.
A second constraint was a scarcity of placement options and the implications for school instability.
Coordinators noted that a shortage of skilled caregivers and services for children with the most
acute needs may lead to more placement instability. The need for high-quality, short-term
residential therapeutic care, for example, can sit in tension with the intent to keep students in their
schools of origin. California’s Continuum of Care Reform (Assembly Bill 403) sought to reduce the
reliance on congregate care as a placement option for students in foster care, limiting such stays to
those in short-term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs).84 Multiple studies had found lower
school stability and educational outcomes associated with placement in congregate care.85
However, a corollary of eliminating group homes was that it also reduced the total available supply
of residential placements for children in crisis. Many group homes did not convert to STRTPs,
limiting the placement options for children with the most intensive needs (e.g., students who have
experienced severe trauma or are in crisis, who are involved in gang-related activity, and/or who
are dealing with substance abuse issues). With fewer but higher-quality options, students in foster
care may be placed far from their schools of origin when receiving intensive, short-term services,
requiring them to change schools if reasonable transportation is not available. In some cases, the
nearest STRTP may be in a different county.
Likewise, FYSCP coordinators in one focus group raised concerns about placement availability for
students in foster care who have become involved in the juvenile justice system. As one coordinator
described, there is a need for more placements that can support these youth because otherwise,
“They are just going to be in juvenile hall … and [we know] how damaging that can be to a youth.”
Another coordinator noted the lack of services to address substance abuse, saying:
We don’t have a lot of support services for youth dealing with any of the substance
abuse issues.… It’s so limiting when you have really specific needs that need to be
met, but we just don’t have the facilities that can help.
When there is a lack of placements that can provide adequate and appropriate support, children are
more likely to be moved far distances to receive care, which frequently requires a school move.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified some challenges in foster care services.
The pandemic has had a profound impact on students and families and a disproportionate impact
on marginalized groups, including students in foster care. For example, a 2021 survey of California
youth ages 18–24 years who were or had been in foster care found that more than a quarter had
been laid off from a job since the pandemic began, and 1 in 5 had experienced homelessness,
with rates even higher among African American youth.86 The same study found that all survey
respondents had experienced negative educational consequences, with 28% having stopped taking
classes since the pandemic began and 12% having dropped out of school or college altogether.87
At the state level, California policymakers increased funding to mitigate the many challenges. For
example, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in 2020 to invest $42 million
in resources for youth in foster care, with some of the funds targeted to support caregivers and
social workers.88 In a 2020 letter to county offices, the California Department of Social Services also
expanded the Extended Foster Care Program, temporarily allowing youth in foster care to remain
in the system beyond their 21st birthdays, in an effort to prevent youth who age out of the system
from experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.89
To gain greater understanding of the challenges posed by the pandemic, we asked interviewees
about how the COVID-19 pandemic had complicated efforts to support students in foster care.
Coordinators cited several concerns, including the reduced access to teachers and social workers,
lack of engagement in online learning, and potential implications for mobility in some counties, but
also noted the efforts by county agencies to support students during remote learning.
From early in the pandemic, reports suggested that the public health crisis had negatively impacted
the well-being of families, including foster parents, due to the increasing presence of stressors such
as greater financial insecurity, increased burden on parents and caregivers, and elevated stress due
to social isolation.90 Without adequate support, children in these circumstances can be at elevated
risk of maltreatment.91 Additionally, with schools closing their doors, many children across the
country lost in-person access to teachers and social workers, who are also mandated reporters.92
Coordinators in three counties expressed concern that referrals for child protective services had
decreased during distance learning. Early news reporting seemed to validate these concerns: The
number of phone calls county child welfare services in Los Angeles received with reports of allegations
of maltreatment was down by 50% as of May 2020.93 Additionally, data from California’s Child Welfare
Indicators Project showed an 18% decline in maltreatment allegations and a 16% decline in entry
into out-of-home care from 2019 to 2020, and measures of timely visits by caseworkers that had been
stable for the previous 5 years were down sharply during 2020, before again increasing in 2021.94 By
contrast, a coordinator from a county that had offered hybrid and in-person learning options during
the pandemic noted that referrals in this jurisdiction had remained at more usual levels.
Coordinators also expressed concern about student engagement with learning during the pandemic.
Three coordinators indicated that many students in foster care were either not signing in to
online classes or were not participating in learning during these classes. Reports from early in
the pandemic likewise noted a lower frequency and duration of participation in online classes
for students in foster care, with lack of access to computers and unreliable internet cited as
contributing factors.95 Underscoring this concern, one coordinator reported increased absences
among students in foster care in the elementary and middle school grades in particular, whereas
previously attendance issues had mostly been a challenge at the high school level.

Another coordinator emphasized that the impact of COVID-19 and the need for distance learning
statewide had negatively impacted all students but was especially challenging for students in foster
care who were receiving family maintenance services. These are students who still live with their
family of origin (i.e., their biological mother and father) and whose caregivers accept services and
corrective supports.96 The coordinator noted that students in these circumstances were less likely to
have the technological devices, internet connectivity, and workspaces in place for distance learning
in the home.
Coordinators expressed concern that engagement with remote learning could extend beyond
technology and connectivity issues. They felt disruptions to student engagement underscored the
importance of teacher–student relationships as a foundation for successful learning, especially for
students in foster care. One coordinator observed:
We have the technology, but is there anything being done to help guide teachers
and school staff on how they can still make those meaningful connections virtually?
Because I feel like that is significantly hindering the engagement.
The pandemic appeared to have had a differential impact on mobility depending on the location
and mode of learning. For example, a coordinator from a large county reported that differences
among school districts in the county—with some choosing distance learning and others teaching
in hybrid mode—had influenced placement decisions and thus increased school mobility for some
students. By contrast, a coordinator from another county noted that the ability to connect to school
virtually meant some students in foster care were able to maintain enrollment in their schools of
origin even if a placement change moved them far away, resulting in fewer school changes.
Coordinators also described efforts made by county offices to support students in foster care
during the pandemic. For example, one county office worked with foster family agencies and other
partner organizations to expand training to foster parents and caregivers. Trainings ranged from
mental health and wellness, such as recognizing the signs of depression and anxiety, to setting up
ergonomically correct workspaces for online learning and creating a schooling schedule that works
in households with more than one child.
While coordination across multiple agencies is no easy task, we heard consistently across our
interviews that challenges in one agency, or in the system overall, can negatively impact school
stability for students in foster care. Overall, our interviews identified several areas in which
challenges remain, including data systems, resource allocation, transportation, and capacity within
the child welfare system. Despite these challenges, we also heard how all agencies involved in
supporting students in foster care keep children at the center of their work and strive to overcome
barriers to advocate for the needs of each child.
Promising Practices
Analysis of our interviews also revealed several promising practices aligned with research that can
support students in foster care. These practices include fostering interagency collaboration through
one-stop resource centers and co-located positions for county-level case management staff;
adopting school-level practices to promote strong relationships; and providing targeted social,
emotional, and academic supports for students in foster care.

Developing one-stop resource centers and increasing co-located staff facilitates interagency
collaboration and can help provide a ready web of supports.
Students in foster care sit at the intersection of multiple systems. The child welfare system is
charged with student safety, and schools and districts are charged with student education. In
addition, family courts, community and health organizations, and, depending on the circumstances,
probation officers may also play important roles. Support for students in foster care thus involves
not only action within each organization but better alignment between them.97
Because much of the decision-making that

impacts students in foster care happens at Research has noted that
the county level, collaboration among county
improving educational outcomes
partners is particularly important for ensuring
that these students receive access to a ready for students in foster care
web of critical services and supports. Research requires successful collaboration
has noted that improving educational outcomes
for students in foster care requires successful
between child welfare and
collaboration between child welfare and education agencies, such as
education agencies, such as aligning agency aligning agency goals and
goals and improving mutual understanding of
agency processes.98 Coordinators described two improving mutual understanding
strategies to improve interagency collaboration: of agency processes.
one-stop resource centers and co-locating FYSCP
staff within child welfare offices.
The first strategy was exemplified by Kern County’s Dream Center, a one-stop resource center
equipped to provide and connect youth to a web of services and supports. Staff from the county
office of education, the Department of Human Services’ Independent Living Program, child welfare
social workers, housing coordinators, behavioral health staff, and probation officers work in close
collaboration at the site.99 The center serves as a one-stop shop for youth in foster care, particularly
those close to aging out of the system. In total, there were 1,372 children and youth identified
as foster students in Kern County in 2019–20.100 The center is equipped to provide an array of
services for these youth, from assistance accessing housing, health care, tutoring, and job training
to offering laundry and shower facilities, emergency hygiene supplies, and medical services. The
Dream Center demonstrates how developing partnerships with county agencies, aligning goals, and
coordinating community resources can particularly benefit youth in foster care. Kern’s efforts at
eliminating agency silos is also replicable. The Dream Center’s work inspired neighboring Tulare
County to develop its own one-stop shop to serve youth in foster care.
Coordinators described co-location as a second promising strategy for increasing interagency

collaboration. Co-location typically involves FYSCP staff sharing office space with other county
agencies, and vice versa, to ensure that staff responsible for serving students in foster care are
located in close physical proximity to one another. The resource centers, described above, are one
model; a more common model is education case managers sharing office space with child welfare
social workers. All coordinators we talked to described this practice as critically important for
improving communication across agencies; strengthening individual case management, such as by
providing an opportunity for FYSCP staff to participate in Child and Family Teams—an integrated

team of family and community caregivers and professionals working collaboratively to support a
child or youth in foster care; and providing educationally relevant information about the needs of
Research finds that co-location can help overcome barriers to interagency collaboration through
better understanding of partner agency policies and procedures and improved data sharing.101
Education liaisons serve as a valuable bridge between agencies—collaborating with social workers
and helping ease their caseloads and working with students on academic goals and with school
personnel and foster parents in addressing academic or behavioral issues that could result in
school changes.102 Co-location can help further increase their impact. For example, an evaluation of
FosterEd’s Education Team model in Santa Cruz—an initiative of the National Center for Youth Law
in which education liaisons were co-located in county education and child welfare offices as part of
a multiagency team—found improved attendance and grade point averages for students in foster
care who received this support.103 During an interview, a coordinator described how co-location can
help support students in foster care. The coordinator shared how one of their case managers, who is
co-located in the child welfare office, was able to join discussions about foster care placements that
arose at short notice simply by being present and was able to contribute and provide input to the
conversations to help maintain schools of origin.
In addition to creating opportunities for county-level education staff to step in and support
education-related needs, co-location can also help strengthen relationships across agencies. As
another coordinator said:
Co-location is so critical. It just builds trust, it builds rapport, [and] it increases

access.… It’s really nice to be able to come alongside the social worker or the
probation officer and just say, “Let me take this education piece off your plate. Let
me handle this. You pass that on to me—let me work my relationships with the
school districts to handle that.”
These kinds of daily interactions can build strong relationships between staff and agencies. They
help ensure that desired outcomes, such as school stability, are on the radar of child welfare staff
even as they are forced to juggle a number of other competing priorities. Likewise, education
liaisons gain greater appreciation for the multiple priorities that social workers are balancing. While
limited office space can be a barrier to co-location, some coordinators described splitting costs
across agencies and using dollars from Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to cover operating costs
for co-location.
School-level practices to create relationship-centered schools can promote positive

development and learning for students in foster care.
Positive adult and peer relationships play an important role in supporting students, especially
those at risk of falling behind in their learning.104 Given the challenges of their circumstances,
the educational pathways of students in foster care are often characterized by disruption in
relationships. In addition, when challenging experiences manifest as behavioral difficulties,
exclusionary school discipline can further challenge relationships with teachers and school staff.

The science of learning and development indicates that a student’s development is optimally
supported when all aspects of the educational environment address major developmental needs
(e.g., the need for strong relationships; social, emotional, and cognitive learning opportunities; and
a system of supports to address individual circumstances).105 Research finds that schools organized
to promote supportive and culturally responsive educator–student and student–peer relationships
help foster individual development and contribute to school climates associated with increased
engagement and achievement.106 Such “relationship-centered” schools also emphasize the role of
educative and restorative approaches to dealing with problematic behaviors, reducing the use of
exclusionary discipline and lowering the risk of disengagement.107
Coordinators in focus groups and interviews shared several strategies that districts used to
prioritize strong relationships in schools. One such approach was to provide school-based liaisons
trained to support students in foster care. When liaisons are school based, they get to know students
deeply through frequent interactions. As one coordinator explained, an essential educational
support is to “just keep showing up” for them. A student in foster care can be thriving one month
and struggling the next if, for example, a new foster care placement is proving challenging. With
strong relationships, liaisons can be trauma responsive, helping students in foster care navigate
challenging periods while also supporting school staff to create caring, safe environments. Further,
this level of individualized support also allows liaisons to assist with credit recovery and to ensure
students in foster care know about their rights—critical steps for educational access.108 However,
coordinators noted this can be challenging in smaller districts. In some cases, county-level liaisons
filled the role of providing direct support to students in foster care.
Another strategy for fostering positive relationships is to create spaces in which students in foster
care can elevate their needs and advocate for themselves. This is an approach taken by the Kern
High School District in Kern County with its Youth Empowering Success (YES!) clubs. These are
on-campus groups of high school and middle school students in foster care that meet periodically
with the assistance of a counselor or social worker. The groups serve both as support groups for
students in foster care and as forums to receive particular support or presentations from educators
and other professionals on topics selected by the students. By creating spaces for students in
foster care to elevate and advocate for themselves, the clubs represent a powerful model of
student engagement.
YES! clubs can also involve field trips or other special events to help students in foster care
participate in the community. The activities culminate with an annual conference attended by a
range of stakeholders involved in the support of students in foster care: foster parents and staff
from foster family agencies, child welfare agencies, probation offices, juvenile courts, and other
community organizations. Conference speakers include both students in foster care and these
stakeholders. The events not only allow for a two-way exchange of information, giving voice to
students in foster care and their needs, but also provide a forum for connecting the broad array of
agencies and organizations involved in providing that support. In this way, the YES! conference
serves as a youth-led joint professional development opportunity for system providers.

Students in foster care can benefit from targeted social, emotional, and academic supports
provided as part of a tiered system of support.
Another promising practice is providing individualized supports—academic, social, and emotional—
that can help remediate and accelerate students’ learning. This support could make up for a loss
of instructional time due to absences, exclusionary discipline, and school mobility, which, as the
quantitative data above show, is an urgent concern for students in foster care.109
The nature of these supports differs with each student and their specific needs, age, and
development. A growing body of research suggests benefits to student learning from integrated
approaches that span different domains of support and levels of need and that address areas of need
at the school, home, and community levels.110 Access to such a web of supports can help address
academic and nonacademic barriers to student learning. These can include access to mental health
services, support for transitions, timely assessment for academic needs, screening for special
education, support for school engagement, and an evaluation of credits for high school students.
Social supports, including advocacy, help navigating social systems, and emotional support,
can also help promote resilience. Students in foster care can often find their attention divided
between academics and dealing with the challenges of home instability and uncertainty about the
future.111 Social supports from adult mentors—including foster parents, teachers, caseworkers, and
community members—can provide important respite from stressors outside the school, providing
stability and allowing students to prioritize education.112 Teachers can contribute to student
success by showing their interest in students’ graduation outcomes, paying attention to the credits
their students need to graduate, and providing flexibility with class options to make up credits—
especially for students in foster care who have changed schools.113
California has promulgated a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework to align academic,
behavioral, and social and emotional learning for all students, which, when well implemented, holds
promise for supporting students who have experienced trauma.114 A goal of this comprehensive
framework is to redesign the process for providing supports so that students can have their needs
quickly identified and be matched with evidence-based practices that increase in intensity based on
the identified issue.
Within this context, coordinators described the importance of targeting supports to students’
specific needs. As one coordinator explained:
If the environment can be consistent and predictable and safe and positive,
and you’re providing supports from a multi-tiered perspective, then that really
benefits foster youth. Let’s get a really clear picture of what your academic needs
are. Let’s not just have this sweeping thing, but from a formative assessment
perspective, what are the standards that you are not mastering? And then really
target instruction.
Tutoring is one kind of academic support that is available in many districts. Coordinators noted
that tutoring can provide important mentorship and support and help students develop study skills.
However, they emphasized that tutoring also needs to be intensive, aligned with the curriculum,
adapted to students’ specific learning needs, and, ideally, provided over a sustained period if it is to
have a sizable impact on long-term learning outcomes.115

Another coordinator described the importance of targeted supports to meet students’ social and
emotional needs:
Through mobility, [foster youth] wind up missing a lot of school time, and whether
they miss school time or not, just the shock of being pulled out of your home and
placed into a separate home … I mean, just all the emotional things you’re dealing
with at that time [is a lot]. So making sure you have the social [and] emotional
support there … making sure those youth feel supported at school and then having
the real concrete academics behind it [is important].
These remarks speak to the importance of providing social and emotional supports in tandem with
academic supports. Coordinators described a trauma-informed approach to education, with schools
that are environments in which educators are cognizant of how the experience of trauma can
negatively impact student behavior and learning and in which students experience safety and trust
and have access to rich learning experiences. This kind of whole child design aligns with research
showing that students learn best when social and emotional learning and academic learning work in
concert with each other.116
For example, several foster youth coordinators expressed concern about the potential for
overidentification of students in foster care for special education services, adding important nuance
to the quantitative data shared earlier. One coordinator shared, “When [students] fall behind, [we
have to] help them get up to where they need to be because I think we see a lot of our foster youth
being remediated, [such as being] placed in special education when tutoring for even a year would
probably help to catch them up.” In some cases, the response of a student in foster care to trauma
or a variety of academic, emotional, or behavioral challenges may be misunderstood as a learning
difference. “I think we should be really careful to separate out what is trauma and what is a true
learning difference,” one coordinator cautioned. The same coordinator expressed excitement for the
focus on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)—an element of an MTSS—in their
county. When well implemented, they said, it “creates an environment that all children can learn in,
especially children who have experienced trauma, like students in foster care.”
One model for delivering multi-tiered, integrated supports is through community schools.
Community schools are both a place and a set of partnerships between the education system,
the nonprofit sector, and local government agencies.117 They are designed to bring together a
comprehensive range of services and resources at the school site in response to these “whole child”
needs. By coordinating academic, mental health, physical wellness, social and emotional, and other
supports, community schools contribute to
a whole child approach to education.118 For
By coordinating academic, mental
example, in Alameda County, the Seneca Family
of Agencies is partnering with school districts health, physical wellness, social
and charter schools to create and strengthen and emotional, and other supports,
community schools with a focus on students
with disabilities, students engaged in the
community schools contribute to a
juvenile justice system, and students dealing whole child approach to education.
with the effects of trauma. (See “Coordinating
Whole Child Services” on p. 30.)

Coordinating Whole Child Services
The Seneca Family of Agencies (Seneca) is a nonprofit organization that provides a coordinated
continuum of care and services to families and students who have experienced trauma, including
students in foster care. Seneca has operations in Alameda County as well as in a number of other
California counties and in Washington state. In addition to providing school-based mental health
services, Seneca supports school redesign work through implementation of its whole-school model
of MTSS—Unconditional Education. This model is anchored by a core principle: An educational
system can be designed to serve all students well only if the needs of its most vulnerable students
are considered first.
Seneca has found that implementing a continuum of community- and school-based services is
difficult to accomplish with education funding alone. As a result, the agency partners with county
mental health, social welfare, and juvenile justice systems to facilitate the coordination of resources
and expertise that is required to comprehensively meet student needs. In particular, Seneca’s
partnerships with county mental health agencies allow it to access state and federal funding
through contracts under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment benefit (a
federal entitlement to preventive health and mental health services for children enrolled in Medi-
Cal) and California’s Mental Health Services Act. These funds support Seneca’s ability to develop
tiered systems of support at school sites, engage in broader school climate and culture work, deliver
services to students and families, and provide professional development to teachers.
Seneca’s Unconditional Education coaches work at a single school site for at least 3 years. The
primary function of coaches is to improve the internal capacity of each school by facilitating initial
resource mapping; identifying funding streams; leading the Coordination of Services Teams;
providing professional development to school practitioners; and facilitating 6- to 8-week cycles
of intervention, in which collaborative school-based teams make data-informed decisions about
intervention adjustments (e.g., moving students up or down a tier).

Summary of Findings and Policy Considerations
This report provides a snapshot of the educational experiences and outcomes of students in
foster care in California. It provides analyses of state enrollment, achievement, and attainment
data and discusses findings from interviews with Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program
(FYSCP) coordinators regarding the challenges and promising practices to provide supports for
students in foster care. Our data analyses reveal the following findings about students in foster care
in California:
• Students in foster care were more likely to move schools than other students, and many
moved multiple times. While 95% of all non-foster students stayed in the same school
throughout the school year, just 66% of students in foster care did so. Thirteen percent of
students in foster care moved schools multiple times during the school year; that rate was
less than 1% for non-foster students.
• Nearly half of all students in foster care were enrolled in the highest-poverty schools,
those in which more than 80% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Furthermore, students in foster care were more likely than their peers to be enrolled in the
lowest-performing schools, those targeted for Comprehensive Support and Improvement.
• Compared to their peers, students in foster care were more than twice as likely to be
chronically absent, missing 10% or more of school days they were expected to attend.
Nearly 28% of students in foster care were chronically absent. For non-foster students, this
was just 12%.
• Students in foster care were also more than 4 times as likely to be suspended than their
non-foster counterparts (15% vs. 3.4%). Suspension rates were especially high among
African American students in foster care (22%).
• Just 24% of students in foster care met or exceeded standards in English language arts on
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) in 2018–19 as
compared to 51% for other California students. For mathematics, this rate was 15%
(compared to 40%). These rates were lower still for students with high rates of school
mobility, those in multiple high-need groups (e.g., students eligible for special education
and English learners in foster care), and those enrolled in high-poverty schools.
• Students in foster care graduated at lower rates (56%) than youth not in foster care
(85%), and those who did graduate were less likely to meet college and university entry
requirements. Ultimately, among graduates and other high school completers, students in
foster care were less likely than their peers to attend college upon completing high school
(48% vs. 64%).
Interviews with FYSCP coordinators suggested a number of challenges to supporting students in

foster care:
• Data systems are insufficient to support individual student case management and
collaboration. For example, integrated data from the Child Welfare Services/Case
Management System (CWS/CMS), the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System (CALPADS), and district student information systems (SIS) are not readily available

or complete in many counties. Further, increasing access to interagency training for
education and child welfare staff could support more effective collaborative use of these
data systems.
• The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) raises the visibility of students in foster care,
but its use of unduplicated counts of high-need students does not necessarily provide
additional resources to meet their needs. Further, because students in foster care are small
in number and their needs may span multiple systems, districts may struggle to address
their individualized needs.
• Lack of transportation options is a barrier to school stability for students in foster care.
Students in foster care have a right to stay in their schools of origin, and the data show that
they have better school outcomes when they are able to do so. However, when students are
placed in resource homes (i.e., foster care placements) outside the attendance area of their
schools of origin, the time and costs of transportation make continued attendance at those
schools challenging. A dearth of interagency and interdistrict transportation agreements
complicates efforts to ensure students in foster care have accessible transportation to
remain in their schools when the commute would be reasonable.
• Capacity constraints in the child welfare system, including high caseloads among social
workers and lack of placement options, especially for students with the greatest needs, can
make it challenging to prioritize education in placement decisions and can contribute to
students changing schools.
• The COVID-19 pandemic amplified some challenges in foster care services. These included
fewer referrals to child welfare services and disruptions to student attendance and
engagement with learning. Some students in foster care had reduced access to technology
and the workspaces needed for distance learning.
Interviews with FYSCP coordinators also suggested a number of research-aligned

promising practices:
• Developing one-stop resource centers and increasing co-located staff facilitates interagency
collaboration and can help provide a ready web of supports. For example, Kern County’s
Dream Center is staffed with professionals from multiple county agencies (e.g., education,
human services, behavioral health, housing) and is equipped to provide an array of services
for youth in foster care, from assistance accessing housing, health care, tutoring, and job
training to offering laundry and shower facilities and medical services.
• Co-locating (i.e., sharing office space) education and child welfare staff can strengthen
interagency communication. This improved communication can, in turn, improve individual
student case management and make it more likely that students who change their foster
care placements can remain in their schools of origin.
• Enacting school-level practices that promote trusting relationships with students in foster
care can be a promising way to improve their educational opportunities. Some districts
prioritized strong school-level relationships and employed school-based liaisons trained to

support students in foster care. Through frequent interactions, these liaisons get to know
students deeply, can assist with credit recovery, and can ensure that students know about
their rights as students in foster care.
• Because students in foster care experience a range of challenges, they can benefit from
targeted social, emotional, and academic supports as part of a tiered system of support.
For example, in Alameda County, the Seneca Family of Agencies, a nonprofit organization,
partners with county mental health, social welfare, and juvenile justice systems to
facilitate coordination of resources and implement a model aligned with multi-tiered
systems of support that comprehensively meets student needs, especially those who have
experienced trauma.
Recent policy reforms reflect growing recognition among California decision-makers that children
in foster care benefit from stable relationships and supportive services. However, effective
implementation of policy reforms remains a work in progress, and further policy reforms may need
to be considered. Improving educational outcomes will require the state and localities to fully
implement multiple practices and policies across several sectors. As no single agency on its own
can improve the educational outcomes for students in foster care, there is a need for collective
accountability. Further, unless reforms address the compound drivers of instability and barriers
to educational opportunity for students in foster care, California risks continuing to underserve
these students.
It is important to note that this report does not fully examine the complex factors that lead children
and families to become involved in the foster care system in the first place. For example, poverty
is a risk factor for neglect,119 which can result in placement in foster care. In situations in which
abuse is not a contributing factor to a family’s involvement with child welfare, proactive supports
that address the underlying causes and consequences of poverty may reduce the risk of child
maltreatment and reduce the need for family separation.120
Instead, this report focuses on education’s role in supporting students in foster care. The following
policy considerations are intended for practitioners as well as state and local policymakers. We
suggest the following policy recommendations to better serve the educational needs of students in
foster care:
1. Implement organizational structures that support cross-system collaboration.

Cross-agency collaboration is important for serving students in foster care. This study found,
for example, that frequent interactions between county, district, and school liaisons helped
them advocate for students in foster care. Collaborative structures at the state and local
levels, grounded in shared objectives and responsibility for students and families across
partner agencies, are needed to ensure that students in foster care receive supports quickly
and efficiently.
Create or empower cross-agency structures to improve collaboration and delivery of services.

A formalized cross-agency team, such as a children’s cabinet or an existing body charged with
addressing system gaps, could improve state-level collaboration and alignment, particularly if
empowered to support the development of policies that remove barriers, break down silos from
different categorical funding and service streams, and strengthen cross-system coordination and

alignment. Such a body could also establish shared goals for California’s children and families;
engage in efforts to identify state and local barriers to interagency collaboration; and propose
enabling policies that support effective implementation of existing laws and protections, such
as using best interest determinations to make school-of-origin decisions for students in foster
care. The team’s work could be informed by insights from the Cradle-to-Career Data System and
existing state technical assistance efforts, such as the Children and Youth System of Care Team
created under Assembly Bill 2083 and community school technical assistance centers currently
under development. The work of this interagency body would benefit not only students in foster
care but also other highly vulnerable students and those in need of continuously integrated
services, such as students experiencing homelessness, students with disabilities, and students
from low-income families.
Support strong implementation of community schools.

Because students in foster care are concentrated in high-poverty districts, it is important that state
and local decision-makers invest resources into these schools. In 2021 and 2022, California invested
$4.1 billion in the California Community Schools Partnership Program, which will transform all
high-poverty schools into community schools, a site-based strategy for provisioning students
with a whole child education by coordinating partnerships between the education system, the
nonprofit sector, and local government agencies and by promoting strong family and community
engagement.121 Because students in foster care can have a wide range of needs, access to supports
offered by community schools, such as interdisciplinary teams that coordinate trauma-informed
supports, high-quality tutoring, and structures that enable trusting relationships, can be critical.
In addition to community school grants, the program will fund several technical assistance
centers to support community school implementation.122 As the state builds its technical
assistance capacity, it will be important to develop infrastructure that helps identify and
disseminate best practices among grantees and that builds on lessons learned from existing
initiatives, including the FYSCP. Given the size of the state and regional differences in needs
and assets, this infrastructure should also allow for regional variation in technical assistance,
informed by local contexts, while still providing coordinated statewide supports.
As counties are expanding or launching new community school networks, they could consider
strategies for involving their FYSCPs to build on existing coordinative efforts for students in
foster care. In addition to ongoing FYSCP funding, the state provided an additional $30 million
in the fiscal year 2021–22 budget for FYSCPs and waived restrictions that limited their ability
to provide direct support services to students in foster care using this one-time funding. These
supports may include tutoring, mentoring, counseling, and direct interventions addressing
reengagement, learning recovery, and educational case management.123 Counties could consider
connecting FYSCP work, direct services, and funding streams with efforts to develop networks
of community schools to ensure that the community school strategy thoughtfully integrates
existing work to serve the needs of students in foster care. Counties can also consider options for
leveraging coordination to implement programs and resources that specifically target the needs
of students in foster care, like Kern County’s Dream Center.
With resources from recent state budget and federal stimulus bills, districts will have access to
various funding streams that could be used to support community schools and address complex
student needs. In addition to community school grant funding, districts can leverage LCFF

resources, including an ongoing $1.1 billion allocated in 2021 for staffing in high-need schools,
to support implementation. Additionally, community schools are an allowable use of funds for
American Rescue Plan Act federal relief dollars.
Support the development of local interagency transportation agreements to decrease school

mobility arising from changes in foster care placements.
Transportation can be the critical link allowing students in foster care to remain in their schools
and maintain stable relationships, even after a foster care placement change. State technical
assistance could support the development of local transportation agreements to facilitate
school stability. As of 2019, just 55% of counties had a mandated Every Student Succeeds
Act transportation plan in place.124 California could provide technical assistance through its
Children and Youth System of Care Team, a state-level interagency team that provides guidance
and technical assistance to counties, county offices of education, and regional centers on the
development and implementation of memorandums of understanding (MOUs), on serving
students in foster care who have experienced severe trauma. Technical assistance could involve
developing transportation MOU templates and disseminating best practices for transportation
agreement development and implementation.
The state has taken critical steps toward this by sharing the transportation MOUs for Los
Angeles and San Diego counties as examples of how to craft these MOUs. San Diego County’s
MOU includes clear cost-sharing provisions, including for inter- and intradistrict transportation,
and has broad representation among signatories from the county superintendent, the Superior
Court, the county health and human services program, the county probation department, and
school districts.125 Los Angeles County’s MOU establishes an approach for cases when students in
foster care are placed outside of the county and clarifies that short-term residential therapeutic
programs will be responsible for providing transportation for youth in their care.126 More
support is needed beyond disseminating these models. For example, Assembly Bill 2083 MOU
implementation guidance can be revised to define transportation plan expectations more
clearly.127 The state might also share model MOUs developed by rural or remote counties, where
transportation challenges are distinct from urban areas.
One function of state technical assistance on transportation could be identifying barriers that
might require additional state action, including the cost of transportation. The ability to provide
transportation will vary significantly across and within counties, depending on existing school
busing routes, rerouting costs, caregiver capacity to provide transportation, reimbursement rates,
and the availability of private providers.
2. Explore revising the LCFF to provide additional funding for students in multiple high-
need groups.
This report highlighted that the LCFF brings important visibility to the needs and performance
of students in foster care. However, when allocating additional funding, the formula only counts
students in high-need groups (i.e., students from low-income families, students in foster
care, and English learners) once. Because of its use of unduplicated counts, the LCFF does not
distribute additional resources to districts in a way that reflects the compound challenges that

students in multiple high-need groups face. For example, students in foster care who are also
English learners score in English language arts and mathematics at levels substantially below
English learners not in foster care.
The state could explore revising the LCFF to provide additional funding in a way that better
accounts for the needs of students in multiple high-need groups by examining evidence-based
weighting for different needs. Such a reform could more equitably fund districts to support the
range of needs students face, benefiting all students needing access to a web of supports.
3. Identify and implement strategies to improve student case management.

This study revealed both a major challenge to case management in the form of inadequate
data systems and a promising practice of co-locating staff to improve case management.
Disseminating best practices of existing efforts to connect a fragmented data ecosystem—
namely, CWS/CMS, CALPADS, and district SIS—and increasing opportunities for interagency
collaboration are critical steps that the state and counties could pursue to operationalize a web
of supports and improve outcomes for students in foster care.
Establish a state grant program to support the development and statewide dissemination of
best practices for data-informed collaborative case management.
FYSCP coordinators shared that effective local data systems are critical both for individual
student case management and for understanding trends in student achievement, stability, and
access to services and supports. Implementation plans for the statewide Cradle-to-Career Data
System will support the analysis of county- and district-level trends; however, the system will
not support individual case management for the foreseeable future due to the complexity of
navigating local data-sharing agreements and practices.
In California, existing case management data systems, like Foster Focus and the Los Angeles
County Office of Education’s Educational Passport, can connect otherwise fragmented data,
but these systems are not used everywhere in the state, and where they are used, they are not
always employed by both education and child welfare staff as joint case management tools.
Additionally, data quality can be a challenge; in particular, incomplete or missing data can
hamper collaborative case management. The reasons behind these challenges may be multiple
and complex and can include high caseloads and high turnover among child welfare staff;
system-use costs that can make participation prohibitive, particularly in districts with very
few students in foster care; a lack of available staff with the capacity or training to use these
systems; and difficulty developing cross-agency data-sharing agreements that address privacy
concerns and clearly articulate planned uses for shared data. The state could help cultivate
the development, implementation, and dissemination of best practices for data-informed,
collaborative case management by establishing a program similar to the state’s Homeless
Innovative Programs Grant, which is intended to identify and scale up innovative practices that
improve the educational stability, access, and academic achievement of students experiencing

homelessness.128 Innovative practices can be disseminated through the California Department
of Education; the California Department of Social Services, which administers the state’s child
welfare programs; and the Foster Youth Program Technical Assistance Provider.
Nationally, a similar federal investment (through the federal Education System Collaborations
to Increase Educational Stability Grant program) funded 10 pilot programs and led to the
development and expansion of innovative cross-sector collaboration and collaborative case
management data practices to support students in foster care.129 For example, one grantee, Kids
in School Rule! (KISR!), was a collaboration between Cincinnati Public Schools, the Hamilton
County Job and Family Services Department, the juvenile court, and the local nonprofit Legal
Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati to support students in foster care. Federal funds were used
to expand to all district schools a pilot, real-time data dashboard that integrated data from the
district and the Job and Family Services Department. The integrated data system was used for
case management and also to inform judges of critical education issues when students came
before the court.130 Data elements include a permanency plan and placement type from child
welfare information systems and education data that are updated daily, including grade point
average, attendance, discipline referrals, and aggregate measures of educational risk generated
from other data points.131 In addition to expanding the integrated data system, the project also
established liaisons at each school to support students in foster care; a handbook detailing
procedures and responsibilities for each project partner; and specialized training for social
workers, school staff, and judges related to the program. Over 3 years, 97% of KISR! seniors
graduated—exceeding the district’s overall graduation rate—and attendance, school stability, and
promotion rates increased for students in foster care served by the program.
Co-locate education and child welfare staff.

Linked data systems are critical for effective case management, but students in foster care
may have urgent needs that cannot wait for data entry and review. Counties could consider
co-locating educational staff working as case managers in child welfare offices, which can
facilitate rapid communication of sudden changes in a student’s foster care placement as well as
urgent education, health, and mental health needs. FYSCP coordinators shared that this strategy
can help build trust between agency staff and provide educationally relevant information to
help ensure educational needs are taken into account when making decisions about foster care
placements, which in turn can help improve school stability or support smoother transitions for
students when school changes are necessary.132
4. Implement school designs and practices that allow for prompt identification and stronger
support of student needs.
To support ongoing recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, district and school leaders can use
resources, such as the $13.5 billion for California districts in the American Rescue Plan Act, to
implement school- and district-level practices that allow for prompt identification and support of
student needs. Creating relationship-centered, trauma-informed schools grounded in the science
of learning and development will be important for improving outcomes for students in foster care
who face multiple barriers to engagement.

Implement relationship-centered school design and practices as part of a system of
tiered interventions.
The various sources of instability that students in foster care face—from family separation to
moving placements or facing exclusionary school discipline—make it critically important that
they feel connected to and engaged with their school communities. Districts could organize
schools to focus on relationship-centered designs that ensure each student is connected to
caring adults who can identify and secure supports when they are needed.133 Relationship-
centered school designs include check-in and advisory structures. In effective advisory systems,
each teacher advises and serves as an advocate for a small group of students (usually 15–20),
often over 2 to 4 years. Teachers facilitate an advisory class that meets regularly to support
academic progress, teach social and emotional skills and strategies, and create a community of
students who support one another.134 Another approach involves developing schedules that give
teams of teachers time to meet to talk about specific students and their needs and progress. A
further approach is looping, in which the same group of students has a teacher for more than
1 year. Equally important for older students in foster care are practices to elevate students’ voices
and needs through engagement in student-initiated projects on topics of concern or leadership
in advisories and clubs, such as Kern County’s YES! clubs.
When implemented as part of the foundational tier in an MTSS, these school designs can support
students in foster care by buffering the stresses of school and home instability and by enabling
prompt referrals to higher tiers of personalized supports and interventions, when needed.
Increase access to professional development that equips school staff to address the needs of
Students in foster care are more likely to have faced trauma and to have experienced higher
rates of school and home instability. School staff, including administrators, teachers,
paraprofessionals, counselors, mental health professionals, and front-office staff, need access
to professional development that equips them to respond to the academic, social, emotional,
and behavioral needs of students in foster care in productive and compassionate ways, rather
than resorting to exclusionary discipline. Training could help school staff understand the
educational rights of students in foster care and focus on strategies grounded in the science
of learning and development, including trauma-informed practices, restorative practices, and
social and emotional learning. To support this professional learning, districts can leverage the
$1.5 billion in funding provided through the Educator Effectiveness Block Grant. These funds
will be expended over 5 years and can be used for professional learning on, among other things,
strategies to implement trauma-informed practices and social and emotional learning and
practices to create a positive school climate, including restorative justice and MTSS.135

Conclusion
California’s students in foster care are a student group too often underserved. Students in foster
care may experience a range of challenges that create barriers to school success. These can include
the experience of trauma and school mobility as well as exclusionary discipline that contributes to
high absenteeism. Moreover, difficulties in accessing supports and services have been exacerbated
by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these challenges, students in foster care can and do succeed
when provided with access to resources and academic and social and emotional supports tailored to
their specific learning needs.
Supporting the educational needs of students in foster care involves partnership among schools,
districts, county offices of education, and the many organizations and agencies that support child
welfare. Effective collaboration is essential for providing this student group with the resources and
tools they need to have full access to education and to succeed in the future. Over recent years,
California has enacted a number of legislative steps to build this collaboration and create supports
for students in foster care. Despite these efforts, improvements in the educational outcomes for
students in foster care have been modest, and challenges remain.
Drawing on quantitative data analysis and interviews with key county foster youth services
coordinators, this report identified several strategies that can help support learning outcomes for
students in foster care. These include school-based teams and professional learning for trauma-
informed practice; community schools to integrate services; co-location and county-level structures
for closer interagency cooperation; and state actions to improve data sharing, interagency
collaboration, and technical assistance. Recent investments in education by the state may provide
an opportunity to advance implementation of these and other measures to support the educational
success of students in foster care.

Appendix A: Methods
Data Sources and Analysis

This report drew on two sources of quantitative data and one source of qualitative data. The
quantitative data sources were (1) publicly available cumulative enrollment, attendance,
discipline, and graduation data from the California Department of Education for 2018–19, and
(2) administrative data from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP) and from the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) for
2015–16 to 2018–19. The latter was provided to the Learning Policy Institute (LPI) by the California
Department of Education under special request. The qualitative data were collected from focus
groups and interviews with 11 coordinators from the Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program
(FYSCP) conducted between December 2020 and January 2021. The 11 interviewees represented
11 counties from 9 regions of the California County Superintendents Educational Services
Association and spanned urban, suburban, and rural areas of California.
Quantitative data sources and analysis

Analysis of student-level data provided under request combined several data sets from the state’s
CALPADS system:
• Enrollment data (2015–16 to 2018–19): School enrollment and period of attendance data
were used to calculate student mobility (i.e., the frequency of changing schools in a given
school year).
• Demographic data (2018–19): Variables included race/ethnicity and gender.
• Discipline data (2018–19): Information on the number of disciplinary interventions in a

school year and action taken (e.g., suspension or expulsion) was included.
• Students in foster care and special education (2015–16 to 2018–19): Indicators included
data on whether a student is identified as a student in foster care and/or as eligible for
special education services.
The data also included outcomes data from CAASPP:
• Student-level achievement data (2018–19): Information included achievement levels for the
tested grades, 3–8 and 11.
• Demographic data (2018–19): Race/ethnicity data were drawn from this data set to
reconcile differences in CALPADS.
• Other student-level variables: English language status and tested dates, economic status,
migrant status, and special education status variables were used.
To begin our analyses, we defined the 2018–19 school year using two dates: September 1, 2018, to
June 1, 2019. We excluded enrollment records with an exit date prior to September 1, 2018, or a start
date after June 1, 2019. To estimate mobility, we included movements among primary enrollments
(i.e., those in which a student appears on a register, roll, or list while not concurrently attending

another school and that covered all or part of the 2018–19 school year) or short-term enrollments
(i.e., those that lasted for less than 30 calendar days and that occurred during the school year).
Primary enrollments of fewer than 3 days were excluded from these counts.
CALPADS data sets were cleaned and merged with the cleaned CAASPP file using a unique student
identifier. We dropped nonvalid observations (those falling outside the 2018–19 school year or of
insufficient duration) and those for students whose grade level of longest duration was not in grades
k–12. We retained records for students with at least one valid enrollment in grades k–12 during
2018–19 or students who completed the CAASPP assessment. Our final analytic sample yielded
6,329,209 unique records, including those for 46,340 students in foster care. For analyses of
achievement, we restricted the data set to the 3,256,134 students enrolled for the CAASPP English
language arts and mathematics assessments, including 21,659 students in foster care. Valid CAASPP
scores were obtained for 3,162,910 unique records in English language arts and 3,170,971 in
mathematics, including 19,747 and 19,624 students in foster care in each subject, respectively.
We supplemented our analytic sample with information from publicly downloadable files, linked
using the corresponding school and district identifiers. Variables included school proportion
of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and whether a school was eligible for
Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI).
Qualitative data sources and analysis

Qualitative focus groups and interviews were conducted with FYSCP coordinators. FYSCP
coordinators were selected for this study because they play a critical role in coordinating and
expanding access to services at the county level and assisting local educational agencies in the
delivery of direct services.
Eleven coordinators were interviewed in total. Three focus groups and two individual interviews
were held, with each lasting 60 minutes. Interviews were conducted between December 2020 and
January 2021. The interviews used a semi-structured protocol. Questions addressed the educational
supports most needed by students in foster care in each county, how county and local agencies work
individually and collectively to provide those supports, the factors that enhance or hinder service
provision, and examples of effective practices in each jurisdiction.
Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed by two researchers. Themes and categories were
deductively analyzed to understand respondents’ perspectives on ongoing challenges that continue
to interfere with local efforts to supports students in foster care and promising practices to support
these students. Researchers individually developed categories of findings during this analysis and
met to compare and refine categories.136 Further refinement followed transcription review from a
third researcher. Findings included in this report are ones that might particularly help policymakers
understand the impacts of recent state policy reform as well as persistent challenges that can
negatively impact the educational experiences of students in foster care.
Limitations
Quantitative analyses for this project used data received from the California Department of
Education. This project did not analyze data from the California Department of Social Services, such
as those regarding placement in foster care. Previous research finds that factors such as the type

of placement, number of placements, and time in foster care are also associated with differential
educational outcomes.137 Future research could investigate the combined associations of child
welfare and education variables on student learning outcomes.
In addition, we interviewed FYSCP coordinators from county offices of education, given their role
in coordinating the broad range of services needed by students in foster care. This report identified
interagency collaboration as an important factor in student access to services. Future research could
involve interviews with stakeholders from child welfare and other agencies to gain further insight
into effective modes of collaboration.

Appendix B: Data Tables
Frequency tables in this section represent the samples used in descriptive analyses drawing upon
data supplied under special request from the California Department of Education.
Table B1
Demographics for Students in Foster Care, 2018–19
Students Not in Foster Students in Foster
Total Care Care
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Gender
• Female 3,051,045 48% 3,028,984 48.2% 22,061 47.6%
• Male 3,277,191 52% 3,252,936 51.8% 24,255 52.3%
• Nonbinary 973 0% 949 0% 24 0.1%
Total 6,329,209 100% 6,282,869 100% 46,340 100%
Race/Ethnicity
• Native American /
33,077 0.5% 32,582 0.5% 495 1.1%
Alaskan
• Asian 591,510 9.3% 591,011 9.4% 499 1.1%
• Pacific Islander /
29,795 0.5% 29,657 0.5% 138 0.3%
Hawaiian
• Filipino/a 144,928 2.3% 144,752 2.3% 176 0.4%
• Hispanic /
3,471,688 54.9% 3,445,239 54.8% 26,449 57.1%
Latino/a
• Black 354,871 5.6% 347,215 5.5% 7,656 16.5%
• White 1,440,434 22.8% 1,432,463 22.8% 7,971 17.2%
• Two or more races 262,736 4.2% 259,780 4.1% 2,956 6.4%
• Missing 170 0% 170 0% 0 0%
Total 6,329,209 100.0% 6,282,869 100% 46,340 100%
Students With Disabilities
• No 5,513,102 87.1% 5,481,302 87.2% 31,800 68.6%
• Yes 816,107 12.9% 801,567 12.8% 14,540 31.4%
Total 6,329,209 100.0% 6,282,869 100% 46,340 100%

Table B2
Total School Moves (Primary and Short Term) in 2018–19
Students Not in Foster Care Students in Foster Care
Number Percent Number Percent
Total School Moves (Primary and Short Term)
• No moves 5,967,422 95% 30,400 66%
• 1 move 272,220 4% 9,769 21%
• 2 moves 35,966 1% 3,884 8%
• 3+ moves 7,261 0.1% 2,287 5%
Total 6,282,869 100% 46,340 100%
Table B3
High Mobility by Race/Ethnicity, 2018–19
Race/Ethnicity
• Native American / Alaskan 383 0.9% 50 0.8%
• Asian 918 2% 45 0.7%
• Pacific Islander/Hawaiian 218 0.5% ‡ ‡
• Filipino/a 264 0.6% ‡ ‡
• Hispanic / Latino/a 25,876 60% 3382 55%
• Black 5,666 13% 1254 20%
• White 7,328 17% 897 15%
• Two or more races 2,574 6% 510 8%
Total 43,227 100% 6,171 100%
Note: ‡ indicates suppression due to small cell size. High mobility is defined as two or more school moves during the
school year.

Table B4
Number and Percentage of Students by School Poverty Level, 2018–19
Percentage of School Population Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Meals
• 0 to <20% 751,781 12% 1,142 2%
• 20% to <40% 1,067,438 17% 3,743 8%
• 40% to <60% 1,049,883 17% 6,489 14%
• 60% to <80% 1,384,020 22% 12,050 26%
• 80% to 100% 2,016,801 32% 22,799 49%
• Unknown 12,946 0% 117 0%
Total 43,227 100% 6,171 100%

Table B5
Number and Percentage of Tested Students and Achievement Levels in
English Language Arts, 2018–19
Standard Not Met Standard Nearly Met Standard Met Standard Exceeded
Number Percent
of Valid Meeting or
Grade Scores Exceeding Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
All Students
3 442,660 49% 124,116 28% 103,665 23% 98,247 22% 116,632 26%
4 435,323 49% 135,749 31% 84,233 19% 98,354 23% 116,987 27%
5 454,564 52% 129,259 28% 90,389 20% 127,388 28% 107,528 24%
6 457,431 50% 116,240 25% 112,435 25% 142,547 31% 86,209 19%
7 471,504 51% 124,437 26% 104,814 22% 156,562 33% 85,691 18%
8 461,481 49% 118,406 26% 115,051 25% 149,400 32% 78,624 17%
11 439,947 57% 93,941 21% 94,054 21% 132,726 30% 119,226 27%
Total 3,162,910 51% 842,148 27% 704,641 22% 905,224 29% 710,897 22%
Students Not in Foster Care
3 439,524 49% 122,535 28% 102,908 23% 97,747 22% 116,334 26%
4 432,364 50% 134,090 31% 83,657 19% 97,864 23% 116,753 27%
5 451,743 52% 127,750 28% 89,819 20% 126,848 28% 107,326 24%
6 454,653 50% 114,800 25% 111,716 25% 142,040 31% 86,097 19%
7 468,713 52% 122,960 26% 104,150 22% 156,011 33% 85,592 18%
8 458,788 50% 116,979 25% 114,359 25% 148,916 32% 78,534 17%
11 437,378 57% 92,553 21% 93,453 21% 132,296 30% 119,076 27%
Total 3,143,163 51% 831,667 26% 700,062 22% 901,722 29% 709,712 23%
Students in Foster Care
3 3,136 25% 1,581 50% 757 24% 500 16% 298 10%
4 2,959 24% 1,659 56% 576 19% 490 17% 234 8%
5 2,821 26% 1,509 53% 570 20% 540 19% 202 7%
6 2,778 22% 1,440 52% 719 26% 507 18% 112 4%
7 2,791 23% 1,477 53% 664 24% 551 20% 99 4%
8 2,693 21% 1,427 53% 692 26% 484 18% 90 3%
11 2,569 23% 1,388 54% 601 23% 430 17% 150 6%
Total 19,747 24% 10,481 53% 4,579 23% 3,502 18% 1,185 6%

Table B6
Number and Percentage of Tested Students and Achievement Levels in
Mathematics, 2018–19
Standard Not Met Standard Nearly Met Standard Met Standard Exceeded
Number Percent
of Valid Meeting or
Grade Scores Exceeding Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
All Students
3 444,866 50% 119,018 27% 102,439 23% 123,275 28% 100,134 23%
4 437,414 45% 108,246 25% 132,603 30% 108,987 25% 87,578 20%
5 456,345 38% 160,960 35% 121,992 27% 76,676 17% 96,717 21%
6 459,016 39% 157,018 34% 125,183 27% 85,467 19% 91,348 20%
7 472,985 38% 172,405 36% 121,562 26% 87,380 18% 91,638 19%
8 462,238 37% 188,483 41% 104,426 23% 73,102 16% 96,227 21%
11 438,107 32% 199,254 45% 97,601 22% 80,566 18% 60,686 14%
Total 3,170,971 40% 1,105,384 35% 805,806 25% 635,453 20% 624,328 20%
Students Not in Foster Care
3 441,749 50% 117,465 27% 101,669 23% 122,705 28% 99,910 23%
4 434,464 45% 106,813 25% 131,624 30% 108,585 25% 87,442 20%
5 453,534 38% 159,233 35% 121,307 27% 76,410 17% 96,584 21%
6 456,254 39% 155,273 34% 124,527 27% 85,208 19% 91,246 20%
7 470,207 38% 170,563 36% 120,960 26% 87,117 19% 91,567 19%
8 459,558 37% 186,571 41% 103,953 23% 72,891 16% 96,143 21%
11 435,581 32% 197,147 45% 97,333 22% 80,443 18% 60,658 14%
Total 3,151,347 40% 1,093,065 35% 801,373 25% 633,359 20% 623,550 20%
Students in Foster Care
3 3,117 25% 1,553 50% 770 25% 570 18% 224 7%
4 2,950 18% 1,433 49% 979 33% 402 14% 136 5%
5 2,811 14% 1,727 61% 685 24% 266 9% 133 5%
6 2,762 13% 1,745 63% 656 24% 259 9% 102 4%
7 2,778 12% 1,842 66% 602 22% 263 9% 71 3%
8 2,680 11% 1,912 71% 473 18% 211 8% 84 3%
11 2,526 6% 2,107 83% 268 11% 123 5% 28 1%
Total 19,624 15% 12,319 63% 4,433 23% 2,094 11% 778 4%

Endnotes
1. Barrat, V. X., & Berliner, B. (2013). The invisible achievement gap: Education outcomes of students in foster
care in California’s public schools: Part one. WestEd; Benbenishty, R., Siegel, A., & Astor, R. A. (2018).
School-related experiences of adolescents in foster care: A comparison with their high-school peers.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(3), 261; Burley, M., & Halpern, M. (2001). Educational attainment of
foster youth: Achievement and graduation outcomes for children in state care. Washington State Institute for
Public Policy; Clemens, E. V., Klopfenstein, K., Lalonde, T. L., & Tis, M. (2018). The effects of placement
and school stability on academic growth trajectories of students in foster care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 87, 86–94; Pecora, P. J. (2012). Maximizing educational achievement of youth in foster care and
alumni: Factors associated with success. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1121–1129.
2. Bender, K., Yang, J., Ferguson, K., & Thompson, S. (2015). Experiences and needs of homeless youth with a
history of foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 222–231; Kull, M. A., Morton, M. H., Patel, S.,
Curry, S., & Carreon, E. (2019). Missed opportunities: Education among youth and young adults experiencing
homelessness in America. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014).
From foster home to homeless: Strategies to prevent homelessness for youth transitioning from foster care.
3. Data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project show an overall trend toward greater stability
of foster care placement. From 2009 to 2019, the percentage of students in foster care who were still in
their first or second foster care placements after 12 months increased from 57% to 77%, with considerable
variation by county.
4. Clemens, E. V., Klopfenstein, K., Lalonde, T. L., & Tis, M. (2018). The effects of placement and school stability
on academic growth trajectories of students in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 86–94.
5. Zorc, C. S., O’Reilly, A. L., Matone, M., Long, J., Watts, C. L., & Rubin, D. (2013). The relationship of
placement experience to school absenteeism and changing schools in young, school-aged children in
foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(5), 826–833.
6. Allen, B., & Vacca, J. S. (2010). Frequent moving has a negative effect on the school achievement of foster
children makes the case for reform. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(6), 829–832; Zetlin, A. G.,
& Weinberg, L. A. (2004). Understanding the plight of foster youth and improving their educational
opportunities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(9), 917–923.
7. Morton, B. M. (2015). Barriers to academic achievement for foster youth: The story behind the statistics.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 476–491; Zetlin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2004).
Understanding the plight of foster youth and improving their educational opportunities. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 28(9), 917–923.
8. Johnson, R. M., Strayhorn, T. L., & Parler, B. (2020). “I just want to be a regular kid:” A qualitative study of
sense of belonging among high school youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104832.
9. Clemens, E. V., Helm, H. M., Myers, K., Thomas, C., & Tis, M. (2017). The voices of youth formerly in
foster care: Perspectives on educational attainment gaps. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 65–77;
Johnson, R. M., Strayhorn, T. L., & Parler, B. (2020). “I just want to be a regular kid:” A qualitative study of
sense of belonging among high school youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104832.
10. Strolin-Goltzman, J., Woodhouse, V., Suter, J., & Werrbach, M. (2016). A mixed method study on educational
well-being and resilience among youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 30–36.
11. Goldhaber, D., Koedel, C., Özek, U., & Parsons, E. (2022). Using longitudinal student mobility to identify
at-risk students. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211071090
12. Rumberger, R. W. (2015). Student mobility: Causes, consequences, and solutions. National Education Policy
Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/student-mobility
13. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1003A (g)(1)(E)(i) (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/
publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf (accessed 09/29/21).
14. California Department of Social Services, & California Department of Education. (2021, March 10).
Educational stability and best interest determination [Joint letter]. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/
documents/bidjointletter.pdf (accessed 09/28/21).

16. Cal. Ed. Code § 48853.5(f)(6–7) (2015). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.
xhtml?sectionNum=48853.5.&lawCode=EDC (accessed 09/29/21).
18. Morton, B. M. (2018). The grip of trauma: How trauma disrupts the academic aspirations of foster youth.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 73–81.
19. Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2016). Mental and physical health of children in foster care. Pediatrics, 138(5).
20. Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2019). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How
children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 307–337; Morton, B. M.
(2018). The grip of trauma: How trauma disrupts the academic aspirations of foster youth. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 75, 73–81; Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2016). Mental and physical health of children in foster
care. Pediatrics, 138(5).
21. Morton, B. M. (2018). The grip of trauma: How trauma disrupts the academic aspirations of foster youth.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 73–81; Zetlin, A. G., & Weinberg, L. A. (2004). Understanding the plight of
foster youth and improving their educational opportunities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(9), 917–923.
22. Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Foster youth’s educational challenges and supports: Perspectives
of teachers, foster parents, and former foster youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37, 1–14.
23. Educational Results Partnership, & California College Pathways. (2019). Pipeline to success: Supporting
California foster youth from high school to community college; Scherr, T. G. (2007). Educational experiences
of children in foster care: Meta-analyses of special education, retention and discipline rates. School
Psychology International, 28(4), 419–436.
24. Losen, D. J., & Martinez, P. (2020). Lost opportunities: How disparate school discipline continues to drive
differences in the opportunity to learn. Learning Policy Institute; Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the
Civil Rights Project, UCLA.
25. Kothari, B. H., Godlewski, B., McBeath, B., McGee, M., Waid, J., Lipscomb, S., & Bank, L. (2018). A
longitudinal analysis of school discipline events among youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services
Review, 93, 117–125.
26. O’Higgins, A., Sebba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement
for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 198–220.
27. Clemens, E. V., Klopfenstein, K., Lalonde, T. L., & Tis, M. (2018). The effects of placement and school stability
on academic growth trajectories of students in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 86–94.
28. Benbenishty, R., Siegel, A., & Astor, R. A. (2018). School-related experiences of adolescents in foster care:
A comparison with their high-school peers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(3), 261; O’Higgins, A.,
Sebba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children
in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 198–220.
29. Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2019).
Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research review. WestEd.
30. Cal. Ed. Code § 42238.01(b) (2022). While children and youth living under a family maintenance plan
are not traditionally considered “in foster care,” California education law defines these individuals as
foster youth.

31. Baron, E. J., Goldstein, E. G., & Wallace, C. T. (2020). Suffering in silence: How COVID-19 school closures
inhibit the reporting of child maltreatment. Journal of Public Economics, 190; Fitzpatrick, M. D., Benson, C.,
& Bondurant, S. R. (2020). Beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic: The role of teachers and schools in
reporting child maltreatment [NBER Working Paper w27033]. National Bureau of Economic Research;
Webster, D., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E.,
Wiegmann, W., Saika, G., Chambers, J., Hammond, I., Ayat, N., Gomez, A., Misirli, E., Hoerl, C., Yee, H.,
Flamson, T., Gonzalez, A., & Ensele, P. (2021). California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. University
of California, Berkeley. https://ccwip.berkeley.edu (accessed 08/24/21).
32. Cal. Ed. Code § 42238.01(b) (2022); California Department of Education. (2022). Foster youth in California
schools—student group information. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sg/fosteryouth.asp (accessed 02/22/22).
California statute A.B. 490 includes all students in foster care in the LCFF category, but it also includes
those subject to a juvenile delinquency court petition regardless of where they live.
33. California Department of Education. (2021). Foster children now eligible for free meals/milk. https://www.
cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/mbusdasnp252012.asp (accessed 03/15/22); Hahnel, C., & Humphrey, D. C. (2021).
What’s next for the Local Control Funding Formula? Policy Analysis for California Education.
34. California Department of Education. (n.d.). California school dashboard. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
(accessed 03/07/22).
35. A.B. 490. (2003). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040AB490
(accessed 03/10/22). For additional information, see the National Center for Youth Law summary Happy
birthday Assembly Bill 490: Celebrating 10 years of improving educational stability for students in foster care.
https://youthlaw.org/publication/happy-birthday-assembly-bill-490-celebrating-10-years-of-improving-
educational-stability-for-students-in-foster-care/ (accessed 03/10/22).
36. A.B. 403. (2015). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB403
(accessed 03/10/22); California Department of Social Services. (n.d.). Continuum of care reform.
https://www.cdss.ca.gov/resource-families/continuum-of-care-reform (accessed 07/29/21).
37. Foster youth: Trauma-informed system of care bill. A.B. 2083. (2018). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2083 (accessed 03/10/22).
38. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1112(c)(5)(B). (2015).
39. While FYSCP coordinators do not provide direct supports to students in foster care—unless granted a
waiver to do so—they play a critical role in coordinating and expanding access to services and assisting
local educational agencies in the delivery of direct services.
40. California Department of Education. (n.d.). 2018–19 suspension rate [Discipline Report]. DataQuest.
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqCensus/DisSuspRate.aspx?year=2018-19&agglevel=State&cds=00
42. Harp, K. L. H., & Bunting, A. M. (2020). The racialized nature of child welfare policies and the social
control of Black bodies. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 27(2), 258–281;
Krase, K. S. (2013). Differences in racially disproportionate reporting of child maltreatment across report
sources. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 7(4), 351–369; Kim, H., & Drake, B. (2018). Child maltreatment
risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the USA. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(3),
780–787; Pelton, L. H. (2015). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and
placement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.001
43. Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., King, B., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2013). Racial and ethnic
disparities: A population-based examination of risk factors for involvement with child protective services.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(1), 33–46.
44. Baams, L., Wilson, B. D., & Russell, S. T. (2019). LGBTQ youth in unstable housing and foster care.
Pediatrics, 143(3).

46. Pelton, L. H. (2015). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and placement.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.001
47. Kim, H., & Drake, B. (2018). Child maltreatment risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the
USA. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(3), 780–787.
48. Pelton, L. H. (2015). The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and placement.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.001
49. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, & Children’s Bureau. (2021). Child Maltreatment 2019.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2019
50. Child Trends. (n.d.). State-level data for understanding child welfare in the United States: Federal fiscal year
2019. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/state-level-data-for-understanding-child-welfare-in-the-
united-states (accessed 07/04/21).
51. Child Trends. (n.d.). State-level data for understanding child welfare in the United States: Federal fiscal year
2019. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/state-level-data-for-understanding-child-welfare-in-the-
united-states (accessed 07/04/21); Courtney, M. E., Charles, P., Okpych, N. J., Napolitano, L., Halsted, K.,
& Courtney, M. (2014). Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH):
Conditions of foster youth at age 17. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
52. Due to differences in starting and endings dates for schools, we counted only those moves that took place
between September 1 and June 1 of a given year. We counted primary enrollments of at least 3 days and
short-term enrollments of at least 1 day.
53. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher
attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 36.
54. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership,
60(6), 40–45; Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2019). Teacher–student relationships and students’ engagement
in high school: Does the number of negative and positive relationships with teachers matter? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 111(5), 861; Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms
student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36; Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M.,
Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school
engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.
55. This approach differs from the stability rate calculated by the California Department of Education, which
defines “stable” enrollment for the academic year as an enrollment record reflecting “a minimum of
245 consecutive calendar days at the same school without a disqualifying exit.” See California Department
of Education. (n.d.). State report disaggregated by race/ethnicity [2018–19 stability report]. DataQuest.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/StbStudentReport.aspx?agglevel=State&cds=00&year=2018-19
56. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher
attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 36; Chen, T., & Hahnel, C.
(2017). The steep road to resource equity in California education: The Local Control Funding Formula after
three years. Education Trust–West.
57. As students in foster care may attend more than one school during the year, for this analysis, we assigned
students to the school in which they were enrolled for the longest in 2018–19.
58. California Department of Education. (n.d.). Comprehensive support and improvement—Title I, Part A.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/csi.asp (accessed 09/09/21).
59. LPI calculation from publicly available data from the California Department of Education. See
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ (accessed 04/12/22).
60. Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). Chronic absenteeism: Summarizing what we know from nationally available
data. Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.

62. Cal. Ed. Code § 60901(c)(1). (2020). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.
xhtml?lawCode=EDC&sectionNum=60901 (accessed 08/24/21).
63. Furlong, M. J., Whipple, A. D., Jean, G. S., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Punthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts
of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The
California School Psychologist, 8(1), 99–113; Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending progress:
Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review,
79(6), 1067–1087.
64. O’Higgins, A., Sebba, J., & Gardner, F. (2017). What are the factors associated with educational
achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services
Review, 79, 198–220.
65. Educational Results Partnership, & California College Pathways. (2019). Pipeline to success: Supporting
California foster youth from high school to community college.
66. The A-G requirements are a series of high school courses that students must complete and meet a
minimum grade threshold to meet entry requirements for California’s state university systems.
67. California Department of Education. (n.d.). 2017–18 college-going rate for California high school students.
DataQuest. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/CGRLoc.aspx?agglevel=State&cds=00&year=2017-18
(accessed 04/15/21). Note: High school completers include graduate and non-graduate completers. Some
college enrollment data are blocked by the student or institution in accordance with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act.
68. California Department of Education. (2021). Foster youth services. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/
69. California Health and Human Services Agency Department of Social Services. (2016). All county information
notice No. I-77-16. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/lettersnotices/EntRes/getinfo/acin/2016/I-77_16.pdf
70. Alliance for Children’s Rights. (2020). School stability for California’s youth in foster care: A review of laws
and promising local practices.
71. National Center for Youth Law. (2020). California Compassionate Systems: Contra Costa demonstration site.
72. California Department of Education. (n.d.). California school dashboard. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
73. California Department of Education. (2019). 2019 California School Dashboard technical guide: Final
version. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/documents/dashboardguide19.pdf (accessed 09/24/21).
Minimum n-size is the minimum number of students necessary to create a student group without
jeopardizing privacy. Although n-size limits provide useful protections of individual privacy, they also
had the effect of limiting the visibility of students in foster care for reporting purposes. If aggregate
counts are pursued, training on data use and analysis may be needed for educators to utilize the data
appropriately and to avoid erroneous conclusions based on small sample sizes.
74. U.S. Department of Education, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). Non-regulatory
guidance: Ensuring educational stability for children in foster care. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/cb/ed_hhs_foster_care_guidance.pdf (accessed 09/27/21).
75. 42 U.S. Code § 1758(c)(12)(vii). (2020).
76. University of California, Berkeley. (n.d.). California Child Welfare Indicators Project: Out-of-county
placements–Q1 21. https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/static/PlacementGrids/r/fcp/s

78. Current education travel reimbursement rates have not been updated in about a decade, but the
Department of Social Services is examining possible updates. See California Department of Social
Services. (2011). All county letter No. 11-51. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_5O_12.pdf
(accessed 04/05/22); California Department of Social Services. (2020). All county information notice No.
I-86-20. https://cdss.ca.gov/Portals/9/Additional-Resources/Letters-and-Notices/ACINs/2020/I-86_20.pdf
79. California Department of Education Student Achievement and Support Division. (2020). Report to the
governor, the legislature, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office: 2020 Foster Youth Services Coordinating
Program report. Note: This report indicates that 96% of counties had ESSA transportation agreements in
2017–18, while only 55% of counties had such agreements in 2018–19. It is unclear what accounts for the
decrease. In contrast, a report by the Alliance for Children’s Rights, School stability for California’s youth
in foster care: A review of laws and promising local practices, found that only 20 of the 51 (39%) responding
child welfare agencies had transportation plans in place in 2020.
80. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019). Foster care: Education could help states improve educational
stability for youth in foster care.
81. California Health and Human Services Agency Department of Social Services. (2013). Education travel
reimbursement. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/forms/English/PUB463.pdf (accessed 08/24/21).
82. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 5.651(e)(1)(B). (2021). https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.
cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_651 (accessed 08/24/21). Special Education Local Plan Areas are defined
in Cal Ed. Code § 56195.1. (2020). They are individual districts, groupings of districts, or groupings of
districts and county offices of education organized to provide for all special education service needs of
children residing within the region’s boundaries.
84. California Department of Social Services. (n.d.). Short-term residential therapeutic program. https://www.
cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/continuum-of-care-reform/short-term-residential-therapeutic-program
85. California Department of Social Services. (2015). California’s child welfare Continuum of Care Reform;
Wiegmann, W., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Barrat, V. X., Magruder, J., & Needell, B. (2014). The invisible
achievement gap: How the foster care experiences of California public school students are associated with their
education outcomes: Part two. WestEd.
86. John Burton Advocates for Youth. (2021). Hanging on by a thread: The cumulative impact of the pandemic on
youth who have been in foster care or homeless.
87. John Burton Advocates for Youth. (2021). Hanging on by a thread: The cumulative impact of the pandemic on
youth who have been in foster care or homeless.
88. Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. (2020, April 13). Governor Newsom announces $42 million to protect
foster youth and families impacted by COVID-19 [Press release]. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/04/13/
governor-newsom-announces-42-million-to-protect-foster-youth-and-families-impacted-by-covid-19/
89. California Department of Social Services. (2020). All county letter No. 20-45. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/
Portals/9/Additional-Resources/Letters-and-Notices/ACLs/2020/20-45.pdf (accessed 03/15/21).
90. Miller, J. J., Cooley, M. E., & Mihalec-Adkins, B. P. (2020). Examining the impact of COVID-19 on parental
stress: A study of foster parents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 1–10; Prime, H., Wade, M., &
Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American
Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643.
91. Brown, S. M., Doom, J. R., Lechuga-Peña, S., Watamura, S. E., & Koppels, T. (2020). Stress and parenting
during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse & Neglect, 110, 104699.
92. Firth, S., & Hlavinka, E. (2020, December 23). What has COVID-19 done to child welfare? MedPage Today.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/90394 (accessed 03/05/21).

93. Callahan, K., & Mink, C. (2020, May 7). Child abuse hotline calls are down during COVID-19, but abuse
fears are up. Center for Health Journalism. https://centerforhealthjournalism.org/2020/05/05/child-abuse-
hotline-calls-are-down-during-covid-19-abuse-fears-are (accessed 03/15/21).
94. Webster, D., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E.,
Wiegmann, W., Saika, G., Chambers, J., Hammond, I., Ayat, N., Gomez, A., Misirli, E., Hoerl, C., Yee, H.,
Flamson, T., Gonzalez, A., & Ensele, P. (2021). California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. University
of California, Berkeley. https://ccwip.berkeley.edu (accessed 08/24/21).
95. Blake, S., Fung, S., Haspel, J., Kniffen, S., Manwaring, R., Tran, S., & Wondra, D. (2020). The impact of
COVID-19 on students in foster care. Children Now.
96. Cal. Welfare and Inst. Code § 16506. (2005). While children and youth living under a family maintenance
plan are not traditionally considered “in foster care,” California education law defines these individuals as
foster youth.
97. Clemens, E. V., Helm, H. M., Myers, K., Thomas, C., & Tis, M. (2017). The voices of youth formerly in foster
care: Perspectives on educational attainment gaps. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 65–77.
98. Weinberg, L. A., Zetlin, A., & Shea, N. M. (2009). Removing barriers to educating children in foster care
through interagency collaboration: A seven county multiple-case study. Child Welfare, 88(4), 77–111.
99. Kern County Superintendent of Schools. (n.d.). Kern County Network for Children: Dream Center.
https://kern.org/kcnc/dream-center/ (accessed 08/04/21).
100. California Department of Education. (n.d.). Foster count and match rate by county of jurisdiction, 2019–20
[Foster enrollment report]. DataQuest. https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/foster/FosterCntyJuris.
aspx?year=2019-20 (accessed 06/15/21). “Foster youth,” as used in DataQuest, is defined in Cal. Ed. Code
§ 42238.01(b) and includes students who are the subject of a 300 Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC)
petition, whether or not they have been removed from home, as well as students removed from home that
are the subject of a 602 WIC petition. The definition does not include students removed from home as
part of a voluntary placement agreement.
101. Zetlin, A. G., Weinberg, L. A., & Shea, N. M. (2006). Seeing the whole picture: Views from diverse
participants on barriers to educating foster youths. Children & Schools, 28(3), 165–173.
102. Weinberg, L. A., Oshiro, M., & Shea, N. (2014). Education liaisons work to improve educational outcomes
of foster youth: A mixed methods case study. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 45–52.
103. Laird, J. (2016). FosterEd Santa Cruz County: Evaluation final report. RTI International.
104. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom
make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967; Osher, D.,
Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How relationships and
context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 6–36.
105. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational
practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.
106. Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development: How
relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(1), 6–36.
107. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate
to support student success. Learning Policy Institute; Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H.,
Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2019). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research
review. WestEd.

110. Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2020). Embedding mental health as schools change. Center for Mental Health
in Schools & Student/Learning Supports, University of California, Los Angeles; Moore, K. A., & Emig, C.
(2014). Integrated student supports: A summary of the evidence base for policymakers. Child Trends;
Pollack, C., Lawson, J. L., Raczek, A. E., Dearing, E., Walsh, M. E., & Kaufman, G. (2020). Long-term effects
of integrated student support: An evaluation of an elementary school intervention on postsecondary enrollment
and completion. Center for Optimized Student Support, Boston College; Somers, M., & Haider, Z. (2017).
Using integrated student supports to keep kids in school: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Communities In
Schools. MDRC.
111. Berardi, A., & Morton, B. M. (2017). Maximizing academic success for foster care students: A trauma-
informed approach. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 20(1), 10–16.
care: Perspectives on educational attainment gaps. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 65–77; Neal, D.
(2017). Academic resilience and caring adults: The experiences of former foster youth. Children and Youth
Services Review, 79, 242–248; Strolin-Goltzman, J., Woodhouse, V., Suter, J., & Werrbach, M. (2016). A mixed
method study on educational well-being and resilience among youth in foster care. Children and Youth
Services Review, 70, 30–36.
114. Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy Environments and Response
to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and intervention program for
creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School Mental Health, 8(1), 163–176; Gee, K.,
Murdoch, C., Vang, T., Cuahuey, Q., & Prim, J. (2020). Multi-tiered system of supports to address childhood
trauma: Evidence and implications. Policy Analysis for California Education; Koppich, J. E. (2020).
Expanding multi-tiered system of supports in California: Lessons from Sanger Unified and the Pivot–Sanger
Multi-Tiered System of Supports Project. Policy Analysis for California Education.
115. Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). The impressive effects of tutoring on preK-12 learning: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence [NBER Working Paper w27476]. National
Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27476; Zinn, A., & Courtney, M. E. (2014).
Context matters: Experimental evaluation of home-based tutoring for youth in foster care. Children and
Youth Services Review, 47, 198–204.
116. Learning Policy Institute, & Turnaround for Children. (2021). Design principles for schools: Putting the
science of learning and development into action.
117. Oakes, J., Maier, A., & Daniel, J. (2017). Community schools: An evidence-based strategy for equitable school
improvement. National Education Policy Center.
118. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to
support student success. Learning Policy Institute.
119. Kim, H., & Drake, B. (2018). Child maltreatment risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the
USA. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(3), 780–787.
120. Cancian, M., Yang, M. Y., & Slack, K. S. (2013). The effect of additional child support income on the risk
of child maltreatment. Social Service Review, 87(3), 417–437; Pelton, L. H. (2015). The continuing role of
material factors in child maltreatment and placement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 41, 30–39.
121. California Department of Education. (2022). California Community Schools Partnership Program. https://
www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/ccspp.asp (accessed 03/11/22); Maier, A., Daniel, J., Oakes, J., & Lam, L. (2017).
Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: A review of the evidence. Learning Policy
Institute; Maier, A., Klevan, S., & Ondrasek, N. (2020). Leveraging resources through community schools:
The role of technical assistance. Learning Policy Institute.
122. California State Board of Education. (2022). January 2022 agenda item #02 attachment 1: Proposed
California community schools framework.
123. Education omnibus budget trailer bill. A.B. 130. (2021). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB130 (accessed 07/07/21).

124. California Department of Education Student Achievement and Support Division. (2020). Report to the
governor, the legislature, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office: 2020 Foster Youth Services Coordinating
Program report. Note: This report indicates that 96% of counties had ESSA transportation agreements in
2017–18, while only 55% of counties had such agreements in 2018–19. It is unclear what accounts for the
decrease. In contrast, a report by the Alliance for Children’s Rights, School stability for California’s youth
in foster care: A review of laws and promising local practices, found that only 20 of the 51 (39%) responding
child welfare agencies had transportation plans in place in 2020.
125. County of San Diego. (2018). Memorandum of agreement: Transportation cost sharing.
http://files.constantcontact.com/24a86362301/4e96e92e-7dba-4931-ab1d-7941af847da3.pdf
126. County of Los Angeles Office of Child Protection. (2017). Implementation plan and timeline to comply
with school-stability provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/
bos/supdocs/111642.pdf (accessed 09/23/21); County of Los Angeles Department of Child and Family
Services. (2019). Summer school stability for foster children monthly status report. https://imprintnews.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/10/DCFS-Report-Summer-School-Stability-for-Foster-Children-Item-No.-11-
June-25-2019-093019.pdf (accessed 09/24/21).
127. California Department of Education, Department of Rehabilitation, Department of Health Care Services,
Department of Social Services, & Department of Developmental Services. (2019). System of care for
children and youth: Memorandum of understanding implementation guidance.
128. California Department of Education. (2022). Request for applications: Homeless Innovative Program
Grants. https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r8/hiprfa22.asp
129. Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Child welfare—education system
collaborations to increase educational stability. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/edcollaborations.pdf
130. Kids in School Rule! (2015). Kids in School Rule! Today & tomorrow. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/
JCS/CFC/resources/local/KISR.pdf (accessed 04/06/22).
131. Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). Site visit report: Kids in School Rule! (KISR!).
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/kisr.pdf (accessed 04/07/22).
132. Zetlin, A., Weinberg, L., & Kimm, C. (2004). Improving education outcomes for children in foster care:
Intervention by an education liaison. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(4), 421–429.
133. Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A., & Edgerton, A. K. (with Badrinarayan, A., Cardichon, J.,
Cookson, P. W., Jr., Griffith, M., Klevan, S., Maier, A., Martinez, M., Melnick, H., Truong, N., &
Wojcikiewicz, S. (2020). Restarting and reinventing school: Learning in the time of COVID and beyond.
Learning Policy Institute; Learning Policy Institute, & Turnaround for Children. (2021). Design principles
for schools: Putting the science of learning and development into action. https://k12.designprinciples.org/;
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to
support student success. Learning Policy Institute.
134. Learning Policy Institute, & Turnaround for Children. (2021). Design principles for schools: Putting the
science of learning and development into action. https://k12.designprinciples.org/
135. Education omnibus budget trailer bill. A.B. 130. (2021). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB130 (accessed 07/07/21).
136. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software
solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 (accessed 08/05/21).
137. Wiegmann, W., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Barrat, V. X., Magruder, J., & Needell, B. (2014). The invisible
achievement gap: How the foster care experiences of California public school students are associated with their
education outcomes: Part two. WestEd.

About the Authors
Dion Burns is a Senior Researcher on LPI’s Whole Child Education, Educator Quality, and Equitable
Resources and Access teams, where he conducts qualitative and quantitative research on issues of
educational equity. He is a co-author of the LPI reports Students Experiencing Homelessness: The
Conditions and Outcomes of Homelessness Among California Students and Closing the Opportunity
Gap: How Positive Outlier Districts in California Are Pursuing Equitable Access to Deeper Learning and
a co-author of the book Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality
Around the World. He has more than 20 years of experience in education, serving in a variety of
roles, including teaching, policy analysis, and international diplomacy.
Daniel Espinoza is a Research and Policy Associate on the Educator Quality team and the Equitable
Resources and Access team at LPI. His research work involves quantitative and qualitative methods.
He is the lead author of the LPI report Taking the Long View: State Efforts to Solve Teacher Shortages
by Strengthening the Profession. He is a co-author of Improving Education the New Mexico Way:
An Evidence-Based Approach, Students Experiencing Homelessness: The Conditions and Outcomes
of Homelessness Among California Students, and Supporting Principals’ Learning: Key Features of
Effective Programs.
Julie Adams is a former Research and Policy Associate at LPI and is a graduate student in Education
Policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education. As a member of LPI’s
Whole Child Education team, she was a co-author of New Tech Network: Driving Systems Change
and Equity Through Project-Based Learning and Deeper Learning Networks: Taking Student-Centered
Learning and Equity to Scale. At LPI, Adams was also a member of the Reimagining College Access
initiative, which focuses on the value performance assessments can have beyond high school.
Previously, Adams was a Research Assistant at ETR, where she supported research on equity and
inclusion in STEM by looking at barriers in access to computer science education in both k–12 and
postsecondary education settings. There, she also supported curriculum development for an after-
school computer science program with a focus on social justice. Adams holds a B.A. in Psychology
from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Naomi Ondrasek is a former Senior Researcher and Policy Advisor at LPI and presently serves as a
Senior Consultant in the California State Assembly. She is lead author of the LPI report California’s
Special Education Teacher Shortage and is a co-author of Leveraging Resources Through Community
Schools: The Role of Technical Assistance. She also led LPI’s COVID-19 Safe School Reopening team.
Previously, she spent a decade conducting research in behavioral neuroscience and served in the
California legislature as a science fellow, where she reviewed, analyzed, amended, and drafted
education-related legislation.

1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 250
Palo Alto, CA 94304
p: 650.332.9797
1100 17th Street, NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036
p: 202.830.0079
@LPI_Learning | learningpolicyinstitute.org
The Learning Policy Institute conducts and communicates independent, high-quality research to improve education
policy and practice. Working with policymakers, researchers, educators, community groups, and others, the Institute
seeks to advance evidence-based policies that support empowering and equitable learning for each and every child.
Nonprofit and nonpartisan, the Institute connects policymakers and stakeholders at the local, state, and federal
levels with the evidence, ideas, and actions needed to strengthen the education system from preschool through
college and career readiness.

ED622828

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ED622828

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ED622828

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

California’s Students in

This report can be found online at https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/

Document last revised July 25, 2022

ii LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

California Students in Foster Care..........................................................................................................7

Educational Experiences and Outcomes of Students in Foster Care.................................................8

Summary of Findings and Policy Considerations.............................................................................. 31

Appendix B: Data Tables....................................................................................................................... 43

About the Authors.................................................................................................................................. 57

List of Figures and Tables

Table 1 School Mobility and Enrollment..................................................................................... 10

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care iii

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care v

vi LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

1. Implement organizational structures that support cross-system collaboration.

• Create or empower cross-agency structures to improve collaboration and delivery

• Support the development of local interagency transportation agreements to

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care vii

• Establish a state grant program to support the development and statewide

• Implement relationship-centered school practices as part of a tiered intervention

viii LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Educational Challenges Faced by Students Living in Foster Care

School mobility disrupts learning

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 1

Best Interest Determination

The effects of trauma can inhibit students’ ability to learn

2 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Behavioral challenges that may be symptomatic of trauma can be easily misunderstood as

Educators’ Role in California’s Foster Care System

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 3

• a youth age 18–21 in “extended foster care” enrolled in high school;

• a youth who is a dependent of a tribal court.32

4 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Overview of This Study

• What are the characteristics of California students living in foster care?

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 5

6 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 7

8 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 9

No Moves 66% 95%

At Least 1 Move 34% 5%

Total School Moves, 4 Years (2015–16 to 2018–19)

No Moves 29% 85%

At Least 1 Move 71% 15%

• 4+ moves 22% < 1%

Percentage Enrolled in High-Poverty

Percentage Enrolled in Comprehensive

10 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

Chronic Absenteeism Rate

• All students 28% 12%

• All grades 15% 3%

• African American 22% 9%

Data source: California Department of Education, DataQuest. https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 11

12 LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care

15% 13% 13% 13%

Students in foster care Students not in foster care

LEARNING POLICY INSTITUTE | California’s Students in Foster Care 13