Residential Education In The United States: An Overview Executive Summary September 2010
coalition for residential education
Dear Reader, Every child deserves the opportunity to lead a safe, productive, meaningful life. Unfortunately, not every child is born into a family that can sufficiently meet his or her needs without substantial additional assistance. When families cannot provide well enough for their children, ideally their community ‐‐ geographic and/or faith community ‐‐ step in, offering residential education, among other options, for children who are homeless, in the foster care system, or living in neglectful or dangerous environments. We believe children need what behaves like a nurturing family, not what just looks like one. Residential education is an umbrella term for settings where economically and socially disadvantaged children live and learn together, outside their homes, within stable, supportive, educationfocused environments. Whether called a preparatory school, children’s home, boarding or residential charter school, residential education is an important option for thousands of children, particularly teenagers. Long recognized as a desirable model for children from more affluent families, residential education affords these other children a similar opportunity, helping them navigate a solid course in career, relationships, and life. The enclosed information on the reemerging field of “residential education” is an essential step in cultivating a society that values residential education as one “tool in the toolbox” for transforming the lives of vulnerable young people. Little information, particularly composite information, has been available until recently about these programs and their effectiveness, presenting challenges to referral sources and policymakers, as the prevailing public policy strongly favors placing children in settings that look like a family, and see residential education settings as antithetical to this. Though programmatic models differ, each residential education program shares a core mission: to provide a way for young people to excel through high‐quality education. Advocates for children, educators, policymakers, residential education practitioners, and researchers need to know more about the true residential education landscape today. With increased understanding of these programs, we anticipate increased interest in this option for youth, a decrease in child welfare opposition, and ultimately an increase in young people and their families benefitting from these programs. Sincerely,
Heidi Goldsmith Founder, Executive Director
METHODOLOGY Survey questions were based on the survey conducted for the same purpose in 2005. Guided by a small team of researchers, the survey was administered through an online survey tool, Zoomerang, by two on‐site, consecutive CORE consultants, supervised by CORE’s Executive Director. Using CORE’s criteria for a “residential education” program (see below for criteria), 198 programs were identified during October – December 2009 using CORE’s existing lists, internet searches, and networking. Some telephone verification was utilized. A pilot survey with eight programs was conducted December 2009 – January 2010. The full survey was conducted February 1 – July 30, 2010. Through the internet, email, and telephone outreach to the 198 programs, we learned that 24 no longer fit our criteria: Three closed; some changed focus to a treatment center or group home; two programs had a few sites that had each been contacted. Since we were interested only in program‐level data, we withdrew the additional individual sites, leaving a total eligible sample of 174 distinct programs. Of these 174, we received completed surveys from 106, representing a 61% response rate. The 174 programs whose responses are included completed 100% of the applicable questions. (For instance, if they serve no children in the foster care system, they did not answer the % of children in the foster care system.) 15 additional programs (of the 174) started but did not complete the survey, so their data was not included in these results: 7 completed just over half the survey; 8 completed over a third of the questions. Programs completing the survey report collectively serve approximately 12,550 children and youth at any one time. Sites surveyed were promised responses will only be reported in the aggregate, to ensure confidentiality. We are grateful to the following people for their essential assistance in carrying out this survey: Researchers and CORE Board members Dr’s. Bethany Lee and Ron Haskins, for their guidance; Kirsten Osmani and Mackenzie Kilb for administering the survey; CORE Director of Communication Laura Notaro for assistance with this publication; CORE Executive Director Heidi Goldsmith; staff at the residential education programs for completing this rather lengthy survey; CORE’s financial supporters for their continued shared vision and partnership; CORE members who continue to add to the field of residential education while also serving students directly; and the CORE Board of Directors.
CRITERIA FOR A RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM • • • • •
Maintains a residential component with a well-defined residential curriculum Maintains a youth development approach (not a treatment/medical approach) Primarily serves socially and/or economically disadvantaged youth Intends to have youth enrolled for at least one academic year Has a school on-site or incorporates education as a primary program component (even if school is off-site)
75% utilize full-time, live-in house couples
FINDINGS Program Models Residential education programs overwhelmingly exemplify a dedication to modeling themselves after a family lifestyle. Ninety-two percent accommodate their students in houses or cottages; seventyfive percent utilize full-time, live-in house couples.
Living Style
Staffing Pattern
Houses or Cottages
Dorms
Combination
Other
Houseparent Couples Single Live‐in Staff Shift Staff Combination of Live‐in and Shift
4% 3% 1%
8%
4%
13%
75%
92%
Residential education programs offer far beyond schooling and residence. The vast majority of programs provide counseling, independent living skills training, spiritual development, technology training, sports, arts programs, student leadership and citizenship training, and other services. Most programs also offer college scholarships to their graduates. Ninety-seven percent of programs actively encourage parental involvement. Regular contact via phone and e-mail, home visits, family events, family counseling, and subsidized transportation are common modes of promoting family ties.
Average Length of Stay 4 years + 2‐3 years 13‐23 months 9‐12 months <9 months 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Length of stay varies widely between programs. The most common was a span of 13-23 months. Serving youth in foster care usually lowers the length of stay significantly.
Student Demographics Number of Youth in Programs 30% 25%
10 or less
20%
11‐24 24‐50
15%
51‐100
10%
101‐200 201‐500
5%
501 or more
0%
The programs included in this survey collectively serve approximately 12,550 youth. The largest percentage of programs serves between 51 and 100 youth. A few serve more than 500 or less than ten. Fifty-four percent of youth served are male. Twelve programs serve only males; one program serves only females.
Age Ranges of Youth 19 years and older
11‐18 years
6‐10 years
0‐5 years
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
The majority (79%) of students in these programs are between the ages of 11 and 18. Although many programs also serve children from 6 to 10 years of age, few serve those younger than 5 or older than 19.
Ethnicity of Youth 6%
2% 1% Caucasian
10%
African‐American 51%
Hispanic or Latino American Indian or Native Alaskan Asian
30%
Native Hawaiian
Two programs serve exclusively American Indian youth, two exclusively African American youth, and three exclusively Caucasian youth. Caucasian youth make up just over half of youth in residential education programs. An average of seventy percent of students in residential education programs come from families who are at or below two times the federal poverty guideline (approximately $44,000 a year for a family of four).Only eight percent of the programs surveyed have an income cap for admissions. Of those that do, the range of responses varies from no income to $200,001.
Caregiver Prior to Enrollment 6%
6%
Single parent mother
2% 41%
9%
Grandparent Mother and father living together One parent and partner
10%
Non‐relative foster parent Single parent father Other relative
12% 14%
Other
The largest percentage of students living in residential education programs previously lived with a single mother; followed by grandparent.
Students were most often referred to residential education programs by their parents and guardians.
Referral Sources Other Mental Health Referral Social Service Agency Clergy Dependency Court Juvenile Justice School Staff Grandparents Parents or Guardians
2% 2% 29% 3% 2% 8% 5% 11% 38%
Adoption Approximately seven percent of youth were previously adopted. Foster Care Sixty-eight percent of programs serve youth from the foster care system. Of these programs, about thirty-six percent of their total student populations are youth in the foster care system. Homelessness An average four percent of youth were homeless prior to their enrollment in a residential education program. Residential education programs primarily serve local youth. All programs participating in the survey accept students from within sixty miles of the program. The vast majority also accept youth from the same and surrounding counties, and elsewhere in the state. Less than half accept youth nationally. Only eleven percent accept international students.
Geographic Area International National Bordering states State Surrounding counties Same county Within 60 miles 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Programs’ founding years range from 1740 to as recent as 2008, with the median year 1952. The majority of programs were originally founded as orphanages or children’s homes. Today, most offer extensive supplementary services such as transitional living programs and family counseling in addition to their residential education programs.
Enrollment The vast majority (92%) of programs enroll students on a year-round, open entry basis. Six programs reported enrolling their students only at the beginning of the academic year. One program enrolls students on a monthly basis, and another by trimester.
Academics Approximately sixteen percent of programs have an academic achievement minimum, primarily that students enter with and maintain a minimum “C” average in all classes, and have an IQ of at least 70. Forty-four percent of the respondents send all of their students to off-campus schools. Twenty-three percent send all of their students to their on-campus school (usually corresponding to larger programs.) At other programs an average of thirty-seven percent of the students go off-campus for schooling. Thirtysix percent of the programs with on-campus schools also serve “day” (non-residential) students. 73% of the students attending school off-campus attend public school; two percent send all their students to private school; the remaining twenty-five percent send some students to private and some to public schools. Fifty-two percent of programs surveyed have a school on campus. Other programs have a strong focus on education, supplementing regular school learning with after-school tutoring, technology centers, time set aside for homework, and other educational supports.
Budget Overall, the largest source of funding for residential education programs is private donors. Most programs surveyed had an overall budget of less than $3 million.
Overall Budget Over $18 million $10.1‐18 million $6.1‐10 million $3.1‐6 million $1‐3 million < $1 million 0%
5%
10%
15%
Residential Budget
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Academic Budget Other Endowment Foundations Earned Income Private Donors Public Funds
Other Endowment Foundations Earned Income Private Donors Public Funds 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Outcomes Most programs cite graduating high school and attending a two or four-year university as top priorities. Programs could check as many goals as apply for their program. Over half of the programs hope to reunify families before graduation, while slightly under half hope to do so afterwards. Many programs simply stated that they aim to do what was best for the child. The next Overview will contain more outcomes measures than those below, including measures of characteristics expected in good families and communities. One of CORE’s top priority initiatives is to have programs collect a greater number of similar outcomes, enabling better assessment of residential education as a “field”.
Goals for Students Graduate high school and attend 4‐year college Graduate high school and attend 2‐year college Reunification with family before graduation Graduate high school and enlist in the military Reunification with family after graduation Other 0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Twenty-seven percent of survey respondents were unable to report on their students’ post-graduation plans. Fifty-eight percent reported they formally track their students, but almost all were able to report immediate outcomes for their recent graduates. (Residential education program membership in CORE is voluntary.) Post-graduation contact most commonly includes phone calls, e-mails, and tracking by staff. Most programs offer college scholarships to their graduates.
All Programs Surveyed
CORE Member Programs Only
College (2 or 4 years)
College (2 or 4 years)
Unknown
Vocational or Technical School
Workforce
Military Service
Other
Workforce
Vocational or Technical School 9%
Military Service 7% 9%
2%
10%
4% 43%
10% 79%
27%
CORE: the Coalition for Residential Education is the national nonprofit organization promoting and strengthening residential education programs for economically and socially disadvantaged youth. Founded in 1994 and based in the Washington, DC area, CORE and its member residential education programs passionately believe high‐quality residential education is a valuable “tool in the toolbox” for vulnerable young people – an option that needs to be better understood and remain available to these children, their families, and our communities. Residential education is an umbrella term for settings where at‐risk children live and learn together, outside their homes, within stable, supportive, education‐focused environments. Whether called a prep school, children’s home, boarding or residential charter school, residential education is a viable and important option for thousands of children, particularly teenagers, whose futures are severely challenged by homelessness, abuse, neglect, and low‐income, high‐crime neighborhoods. Support for high‐quality education is the cornerstone of residential education, provided through ongoing and safe relationships with caring adults who nurture the children academically, emotionally, and sometimes spiritually. CORE supports the development of high‐quality residential education programs through: • • • • •
Advocacy Professional Practices Public Awareness Capacity‐Building through Collaboration Information and Resources
“Where others see disadvantage, we see a child with a future.”
6900 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 410 Bethesda, MD 20815 Tel: 301.656.6101/ Fax: 301.656.6134 www.residentialeducation.org