Education is the foundation upon which a child’s future is built… [t]he lack of a good education severely limits one’s life opportunities both in the sense of securing an adequate income and in the sense of full social participation and personal fulfillment… It is crucial to recognize… that these critical years of childhood cannot be replayed. The lack of a good education during a child’s developmental years has a “terrible finality.”[1]

Executive Summary

Children in foster care are the most educationally at risk population in New York City today. Unfortunately, instead of providing the coordination, case management and assistance to children in foster care, the main institutions in these children’s lives, from their foster care agency to their local school, fail to put into place the fundamental building blocks that could help these at-risk children meet with educational success. Although these children are clearly entitled to educational services under law, their educational needs have continued to go unmet. The long-standing failure of the responsible agencies to address the educational needs of foster children in New York City is a problem that has, for the most part, been ignored. The lack of data to comprehensively document the systemic problems with the delivery of educational services to children in foster care has, until now, been a major barrier to all involved parties in creating positive educational change for these children.

In 1997, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Board of Education together entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to share data, with the goal of creating a comprehensive database to inform the delivery of educational services to children in foster care. Such a database, as of this publication, has yet to be completed. Since no system-wide data tracking the educational performance of the City’s foster children exists, Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) decided to gather data directly from all of the stakeholders involved in the delivery of educational services to foster care children as well as to the foster children and parents themselves.

Advocates for Children is a not-for-profit advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring equal and quality education in New York City. For nearly thirty years AFC has worked to secure high quality, appropriate public education for all of New York City’s children. AFC has worked with biological and foster parents as well as children in foster care, advocating for educational reform in New York City.

Our data collection involved the dissemination and collection of over 280 surveys filled out by foster parents, biological parents, educators, social workers, case workers, educational professionals, lawyers and foster children themselves to determine the educational experience of NYC’s foster care children. The surveys were targeted to obtain information concerning three primary areas: (1) appropriate enrollment of foster children in preschool and school programs; (2) continuity of educational services for foster children (or lack thereof); and (3) the quality of educational services.

AFC Survey Findings

Initial Enrollment In Educational Programs

Early Intervention

Ø 89% of the biological parents who responded stated that they were unaware of, and never informed about, the Early Intervention program while their children were in foster care. This lack of information is critically serious, because without parental consent most children in foster care cannot receive these services.

Ø Of the foster parents who responded, half indicated that they were unfamiliar with the EI program.

Preschool Programs

Ø Though preschool is often the key to academic success of at-risk children only 18% of the foster parents reported that children under their care were enrolled in preschool programs.

Ø Of the foster parents who indicated that none of the foster children they cared for were enrolled in preschool programs, 80% reported that no one advised them to enroll these children in such programs.

Initial Enrollment for Compulsory School Age Foster Children

Children in foster care

Ø 42% stated that they did not start school immediately upon entering foster care.

Ø Nearly 50% who stated that they experienced a delay in school entry said that they were kept out of school because of lost or misplaced school records.

Law Guardians and Caseworkers

Ø 100% law guardians and over 80% of the caseworkers/social workers who responded to this question stated that their clients were not immediately enrolled in school upon entering foster care

Ø 79% of law guardians indicated that the delay was due to lost school records, 70% of Caseworkers indicated the same delay due to lost school records.

Continuity of Educational Services

School Transfers

Foster Care Youth

Ø Over 75% stated that they did not remain in their school once placed in foster care.

Ø Nearly 65% of the young people said they had been transferred to another school in the middle of the year.

Ø 70% who answered yes indicated that they had been transferred at least once during the school year, 22% indicated twice in same year, and 10% had been transferred more than 5 times in one year.

Ø 57% stated that no one explained to them why they were transferred from the school.

Pregnant Foster Teens

Ø Over 20% of pregnant and/or parenting teens indicated that they had been forced to change schools when they became pregnant.

Law Guardians

Ø Nearly 70% of the law guardians indicated that their clients had been transferred to more than one school within the same academic year.

Ø Nearly 90% of law guardians attributed short-term foster home placements as the reason for the transfers.

Caseworkers/Social Workers

Ø Nearly 75% stated that their clients were transferred to more than one school within the same year.

Ø 45% indicated that their clients transferred schools more than twice in one year.

Ø 65% attributed delays to behavioral problems in foster home; 51% indicated behavioral problems in school as a cause.

Quality of Educational Services

Special Education

Foster Care Youth

Ø 30% of foster care youth reported receiving special education services, with 56% beginning receipt of services after entering foster care. This is nearly three times the average for New York City.

Biological Parents

Ø Less than 6% of parents who answered this question indicated that they participated in the special education identification and referral process of children who were evaluated for special education after entering foster care. 90% of parents indicated that they participated in none of the special education processes.

Caseworkers/ Social workers

Ø 60% replied that they were not aware of existing laws when referring children to special education.

Ø Over 50% indicated that their clients did not receive appropriate services very often while in special education.

Quality of education and satisfaction with education

Foster Care Youth

Ø 52% of young people who answered indicated that they did not feel prepared to support themselves after they left foster care.

Ø Over 50% of the young people were unsatisfied with the quality of their education received while in foster care.

Educational Success Indicators

Dropout Rates

Foster Care Pregnant and Parenting Teens

Ø 40% of young women who answered indicated that they did not stay in school during their pregnancy

Multiple Suspensions

Foster Care Youth

Ø 7% of young people stated that they had been suspended more than five times during one academic year, and 4% stated they had been suspended more than twice in one year.

Holdover Rates

Foster Care Youth

Ø Nearly 45% stated that they had been held over at least once in school.

Ø Of those who answered yes to being held over 92% indicated they were held over once. 8% indicated they were held over twice.

Enrichment Services/Educational Options

Foster Care Youth

Ø 32% stated they had not discussed college and/or job skill with an adult while in foster care.

Ø Only 36% had indicated that they had participated in any type of job training program.

Recommendations

Meet the requirements of federal, state and local law

Ø State law clearly outlining the state’s obligation to assure proper educational services to foster care youth should be passed.

Ø NYSED should take responsibility for enforcing federal and state law.

Ø The New York City Board of Education must take responsibility for providing baseline educational requirements for children in foster care.

Ø The administration for children’s services should take responsibility for training their staff about relevant laws and enforcing accountability for following laws.

Secure appropriate enrollment of foster children in educational programs

Ø The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the New York City Early Intervention Program must implement strategies for effective coordination and collaboration between caseworkers and EI service providers to ensure the timely enrollment of eligible toddlers in foster care into the EI program.

Ø ACS must create a policy directive stating that all four and five year olds in foster care are enrolled in school programs.

Ø The Board should enter into an agreement with ACS to give preference to children in foster care in enrolling them in pre-kindergarten classrooms.

Ø Existing laws prohibiting delays in school placement of foster children, due to missing academic and immunization records must be enforced. ACS caseworkers and BOE staff who fail to comply with these mandates must be held accountable.

Ø Remove the major barriers to timely school enrollment and receipt of services.

Ø ACS must draft a directive which instructs caseworkers to make diligent efforts to ensure that all foster kids through the age of 21 are enrolled in an educational program at all times.

Achieve Continuity of educational services for foster children

Ø Minimize the disruption of academic instruction by keeping children in their original schools upon entering foster care.

Ø Listen to older children about their educational needs and allow them to choose to stay in their present school or transfer to a school closer to their new foster home.

Ø Remove the major barriers to timely school enrollment and receipt of services. These barriers are missing school records, insufficient caseworker communication and lack of knowledge about education issues. This can be done with comprehensive caseworker training and developing a coordination and communication plan between foster care agencies and schools

Improve the quality of educational services delivered to foster children

Ø ACS must provide caseworkers and supervisors with knowledge of the law and of the procedures available to access educational support services for children and hold staff accountable for making diligent efforts to ensure that their clients meet with academic success.

o Minimize multiple suspensions

o Provide enrichment educational services and alternative education options

o Create comprehensive transition services for children in foster care with the transition from school to work

Ø ACS and the Board must track the number of foster children identified, referred and placed in special education settings in order to determine appropriateness of services received.

o Tracking of special education services to foster children is vital

o A review of a random sampling of disabled foster children’s educational records should be undertaken immediately

o ACS should implement a policy for its staff to understand the special education system and alternative services

o Parental involvement in the Special Education process

o The Board and ACS should develop a comprehensive policy for the appointment of surrogate parents.

o The Board should develop screening procedures and services for children in foster care who are referred for special education.

I. Introduction

The link between foster care placement and low academic performance has been clearly documented across this country. Foster children frequently experience academic failure as a result of developmental, cognitive, behavioral and emotional problems caused, in part, by abuse, neglect, parental drug use during pregnancy, family disruptions and transience. Unfortunately, once a child enters foster care, the main institutions in these children’s lives, from their foster care agency to their local school, fail to put into place the fundamental building blocks that could help these at-risk children meet with educational success.

There are approximately 37,000 children in the New York City foster care system.[2] Although children are entitled to educational services under federal, New York State and local laws and regulations, the educational needs of foster children in New York City have continued to go unmet. The long-standing failure of the responsible agencies to address the educational needs of foster children in New York City is a problem that has, for the most part, been ignored by legislators, policy-makers, and educational and child welfare professionals. The lack of data to prove the systemic problems with the delivery of educational services to children in foster care has been a major barrier to focusing all involved parties upon bringing about positive educational change for these children.

This report was written for the purposes of bringing this issue into focus and to begin a dialogue in New York City, using data collected and generated by our agency, about the state of educational services for foster care children. To this end, this report summarizes the research on foster care and educational achievement, describes the legal framework for the delivery of educational services to children in foster care in New York City, documents systemic barriers to achievement, and sets forth recommendations for change to better serve these academically at-risk children.

Advocates for Children is a not-for-profit advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring equal and quality education in New York City. Since 1971, AFC has worked to secure high quality, appropriate public education for all of New York City’s children, by utilizing a combination of strategies including individual case representation, parent empowerment, public education, community organizing, impact litigation, research and public policy work. AFC has worked with biological and foster parents as well as children in foster care, throughout its thirty years of experience advocating for educational reform in New York City. [3]

In 1996, we began a collaborative project to train biological and foster parents and foster care workers about children’s educational rights. At these workshops, AFC staff began to observe trends in the type of educational problems experienced by the children in the care of the adults we were training. Despite what appeared to be serious systemic issues, however, there did not appear to be a comprehensive study examining the delivery of educational services to children in the New York City child welfare system.

In 1998, AFC issued a short report discussing the educational barriers faced by children in foster care. This report was based only on the results of 80 surveys of biological parents and a few small focus groups of foster care professionals.[4] Based on the seriousness of the issues raised in that report, we realized the need to further obtain empirical data concerning the delivery of educational services to foster children in the City. Our goal was to determine whether that data was consistent with the findings in our initial report and our day-to-day advocacy experience. We also recognized the need to analyze the legal requirements concerning educational rights of foster children in New York City to determine whether existing law could be enforced to improve educational outcomes for children in care.

To this end, in 1999 AFC sought to obtain empirical data from the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the agency responsible for providing child welfare services in the City, and the New York City Board of Education (the “Board”). Upon making these requests, we were informed that neither agency keeps statistics on educational services for foster children. In 1997, ACS and the Board had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with each other agreeing to share data, with the goal of creating a comprehensive database to inform all policy and management of the delivery of educational services to children in foster care attending the City’s public schools. This data was supposed to be available a year ago. However, as of the date of this publication the database has yet to be completed.[5]

Since there was no system-wide data that tracked the educational performance of the City’s foster children, AFC decided to gather data directly from all of the stakeholders involved in the delivery of educational services to foster care children as well as to the foster children and parents themselves. Among other things, this report contains our analysis of these data collection efforts.

Our data collection involved the dissemination and collection of over 280 surveys filled out by foster parents, biological parents, educators, social workers, case workers, educational professionals, lawyers and foster children themselves to determine the educational experience of NYC’s foster care children. The surveys were targeted to obtain information concerning three primary areas: (1) appropriate enrollment of foster children in preschool and school programs; (2) continuity of educational services for foster children (or lack thereof); and (3) the quality of educational services.

This report begins with an overview of the status of the child welfare system and the delivery of educational services on a national scope, where we found the problems in New York City mirrored by national statistics. The next section outlines federal and state educational protections afforded to foster children and describes the state of New York City’s child welfare system. In section three, we provide an analysis of the survey data. The final section contains recommendations for improving the delivery of educational services to foster children.

II. Educational Performance of Children in Foster Care

Researchers across the country have assessed the educational performance of children in foster care and have concluded that foster children as a group often demonstrate weaker cognitive abilities, behavioral and emotional problems, and higher rates of absenteeism and tardiness which contribute to poor academic performance and retention.[6] Although most of the current literature focuses specifically on the academic performance of children entering foster care due to abuse and neglect, these characteristics are also prevalent in children who are placed in foster care by their parents pursuant to a voluntary placement[7] or PINS petitions.[8] Irrespective of the basis upon which each child initially enters the child welfare system, it is clear that too many foster children receive inadequate educational services to address their needs.

“I was always moved around with no explanation. For school I had to always learn everything so fast. I never knew when I was going to get moved again. But it would always [be] within a short period of time.” Foster care youth,

AFC Survey # 6.

Foster care “is intended to provide a temporary safe-haven for children whose parents are unable to care for them.”[9] It is a system designed to protect children, by affording them the stability and individual support services necessary to address the problems that caused their initial placement in foster care. Unfortunately, intent and reality have yet to meet. The emotional and behavioral problems commonly manifested by children who are removed from their homes are often exacerbated rather than eliminated when children are placed in foster care. Loss of contact with parents and siblings, prolonged temporary care, overlooked by social workers, unattended physical and mental health needs, and repeated moves to new foster homes, are only some of problems endured by children in foster care.[10] It is evident that without academic intervention the future of foster children is grim.

Most foster children experience multiple placements while living in foster care.[11] Historically, change of placement of the child has meant an almost automatic change of school for foster children across the country. [12] Transience of children within foster care is routine.[13] Multiple moves occur despite the well-documented adverse effects to educational success.[14] Many researchers agree that the instability caused by frequent school changes and disruptions have harmful long-term effects on foster children, ultimately resulting in academic failure.

[L]ack of continuity of education for DCFS wards [Chicago’s Child Welfare Agency] is singularly and conspicuously regarded as the greatest threat to the children’s well being both in childhood and for their later lives. … A “rule of thumb” among educators is that it takes a child four to six months to recover academically from the disruption of changing schools. The child who changes schools also changes curriculum, friendships, and support systems. These losses, for DCFS wards, unfortunately tend to occur when the child is also losing family relationships, caring foster parents, or even a familiar bedroom… [C]hildren are not property. They are developing human beings who have but one opportunity for childhood. ...Each disruption of schooling puts the child farther behind and makes him or her more likely to fail. (Emphasis supplied).[15]

Child welfare experts agree that the need to ensure a quality education for foster children is underscored by both the individual and social interests at stake. Research indicates that high rates of school mobility contribute to poor attendance,[16] a strong indicator of future school dropout.[17] It is also widespread knowledge that “[d]ropping out of school has been found to be associated with [social] maladjustment, unemployment, and imprisonment.” [18]

“...system kids are going through their own hell at the moment and it’s hard to even concentrate on lessons which at that point in your life may seem pointless. Getting homework done in a house full of other people’s problems is no easy feat, either. … You’d think school would be something for a group home kid to look forward to. After all, you do get let out of your prison for half the day. But it turns out the prison walls follow you to school, in the form of all the stereotypes (you know, group home kids are trouble, no good, they sleep around they’re a waste of time, etc., etc.) School is just another place where everyone looks at you as a freak of nature and you don’t get what your supposedly there for – an education.” Hazel Tesoro, School Can Be Hell For System Kids, Foster Care Youth United, pp. 30-31 (May/June 1999).

All indicators point to foster children being disproportionately represented in this group. Separated from their parents, removed from their homes, schools, siblings, communities without appropriate supervision and academic support, “[c]hildren who have grown up or left foster care fill the nation’s jails, mental hospitals and welfare rolls.” [19] One study that charted the exit outcomes of California foster care youth painted a bleak picture of young people unable to meet minimum levels of self-sufficiency and socially acceptable behaviors. Over twenty-three percent of their study sample had an unsuccessful exit from care, including running away, refusing services, incarceration, psychiatric or other hospital stay, abduction or death.[20] It has been contended by some that foster care systems feeds 40% of its children onto welfare rolls or into prison, and that former foster children are three times more likely to become homeless than the general population.[21] . A recent study in California found that youth known to the child welfare system are 67 times more likely to be arrested than youth from the general population.[22] Closer to home, a study published in 1998 “found that 15% of the juveniles they interviewed who were in juvenile detention in New York City were in the child welfare system. This was a rate eight times the expected based on census data.” [23]

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, most recently reported that, as of March 31, 1998, there were approximately 520,000 children in foster care nationally. [24] Reports indicate that the length of time children stay in foster care is also increasing. According to a report issued by the U.S, Department of Health and Human Services, the average length of stay for children in foster care during 1998 nationwide was 33 months.[25] As of June 30, 1999, there were 36, 648 children in care in New York City.[26] The average time spent by children in the New York City foster care system is four years, over one year longer than the national average.[27] This is important in an educational context since it becomes imperative if children are in care for this long (and older school aged children tend to be in care longer) that educational support and continuity is if the child is to meet with academic success.[28]

Legal Framework for the Delivery of Educational Services for Children in Foster Care

The two federal laws specifically enacted to address the deficiencies in state and local foster care systems are the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA)[29] and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997(ASFA).[30] Although both statutes acknowledge the importance of quality education and contain general language that implicitly affords educational protections for children in foster care, neither act outlines the educational rights of children in foster care.[31]

For children with special needs, extensive legal requirements are set out in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),[32] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,[33] and the Americans with Disabilities Act.[34] The IDEA, which addresses the needs of all disabled students, includes a few provisions that are specifically targeted to the needs of the foster care population.[35]

Unfortunately, New York State law fails to address the educational needs of children in foster care. The statutory duties imposed on New York State child protective agencies pertaining to education are limited to keeping updated school records,[36] maintaining a liaison with any school in which a child in its care is enrolled, and making “certain that all children in care receive education appropriate to their needs and in accordance with the requirements of the Education Law.”[37] State and local child welfare officials do not appear to be able to follow these vague statutory mandates in the absence of internal policies. To date, most state and local authorities, including ACS in New York City, have failed to implement such policies.

As discussed above, the systemic inadequacies experienced by children in foster care (loss of contact with parents and siblings, prolonged temporary care, unattended physical and mental health needs, repeated moves to new foster homes, frequent school changes) are pervasive throughout the country.[38] As of 1995, the child welfare systems of 22 states and the District of Columbia were ruled to be inadequate by the courts. All 23 are operating under some form of judicial supervision.”[39]

As a result of alleged violations of law and professional standards concerning the placement and care of children in the City’s child welfare system, a class action lawsuit, Marisol v. Giuliani was filed against the City and State of New York.[40] One of the many issues raised by the Marisol plaintiffs was the continued failure by ACS to meet the educational needs of children in its custody.[41] In 1996, perhaps in response to this litigation, ACS released its Reform Plan, Protecting the Children of New York, defining its proposed strategies to reconstruct New York City’s child welfare system.[42] Although this report set forth numerous recommendations and plans for revamping ACS, it did not contain a specific plan or recommendations for improving delivery of educational services to children in care.

A settlement agreement between the Marisol parties was reached in 1999. Pursuant to this agreement, an Advisory Panel of four experts in child welfare, selected and approved by the parties, was established. The Panel was charged with examining the systemic problems of ACS, and produce reports monitoring the progress made within the agency in compliance with the settlement agreement.[43]

Although the Marisol litigation covers issues relating to educational services, as only one issue in a broader case primarily involving the operations of the child welfare system, it has not been getting the attention it deserves. In addition, to the extent that the suit focuses only on ACS procedures and not on the Board of Education, it can only address a portion of the problem.

Thus, the educational needs of children in foster care in New York City remain unmet. It was the need to focus attention on the delivery of educational services to foster children in the City that was the impetus for this report.

III. Analysis of Educational Needs of Children in Foster Care

When AFC began to look for aggregate data on the educational performance and experience of New York City’s foster children, we were stunned to find that no such data was maintained by the Board of Education, ACS or the Office of Children and Family Services (the state agency that has oversight responsibility for ACS). Apparently, both the Board and ACS had already identified the lack of data as a problem. In response, in 1997 the Board and ACS entered into a Memo of Understanding to share data for the purposes of creating a database and tracking system. As of this date, however, and despite repeated assurances to AFC that the data will be available soon, the system has yet to be completed.

It became apparent that without the database and tracking system, the only way to document the delivery of educational services to foster care children was for AFC to engage in its own data collection efforts. To this end, AFC created a series of survey instruments and compiled independent data regarding the delivery of educational services to foster children attending New York City public schools.

We targeted data collection efforts to gather information about three key issues: (1) foster children’s access to preschool and school programs, (2) the continuity of educational services for foster children, and (3) the quality of educational services for foster children.

Methodology

AFC conducted surveys from February through April 2000, targeting for data collection the people most involved in the foster care system, to determine the scope, depth and quality of educational services offered to children in foster care in the New York City public school system. Survey respondents included biological parents,[44] foster parents,[45] and young people in foster care.[46] Other participants in the surveys included professionals who most commonly provide services to foster children: caseworkers,[47] social workers, law guardians,[48] early intervention service providers,[49] and chairpersons from 20 different Committees on Special Education (CSEs).[50]

The survey instruments were distributed primarily at workshops on educational rights conducted by AFC at various agencies throughout New York City. Other interviewees were initially contacted either by telephone or by letter, informed of the nature of the research, and asked if they would be willing to participate. The surveys contained questions about the experiences of those people and professionals involved in the foster care system. Copies of the surveys utilized are attached as Appendix A. It was not possible to independently verify the respondent’s responses, which were for the most part collected anonymously. The surveys were tabulated and analyzed using the Microsoft Access database program.

Demographics

A total of 281 surveys were completed. As described below in Chart A, nearly 34% of survey respondents were caseworkers and social workers, 25% were young people in foster care, 16% were law guardians, 7% were natural parents of children in foster care, 5% were foster parents, 7% were CSE chairpersons, and 5% were Early Intervention service providers working with toddlers in foster care.

The young people who responded to the surveys were between the ages of 8 and 21, with over 75% being between 16 and 21.[51] As set forth in Chart B, below, 88% of the foster care youth were female, and 11% were male.[52] Chart C, below, describes the ethnic breakdown: over 50% of respondents were African American, 21% were Latino/a, 4.2% were white, 2.8% were Afro-Caribbean, 1.4% were Native American, and 1.4% were Asian American. Each participant indicated the type of foster care placement in which they were currently residing, as follows: 18.5% resided in group homes, 27% were living in a mother/child program, 2.8% in a maternity residence, 5.7% in a Residential Treatment Center, and 1.4% lived in an independent living apartment. Twenty-seven percent of the youth indicated that they lived in a foster boarding home with a non-relative family, while 14.3% lived with a relative. This is set forth in Chart D, below.

Summary of Survey Responses

The following sections of this report analyze survey responses relevant to three areas: (1) the enrollment of foster children in educational programs, (2) an assessment of the continuity of educational services and (3) access to and quality of educational services received.

(1) Initial Enrollment in Educational Programs

Initial Enrollment into the Early Intervention Program

The Problem: Based on anecdotal information, experience in the field and conversations with other advocates, we believed that children in foster care rarely received Early Intervention (EI) services, despite the fact that they are at great risk of developmental delays due to abuse or neglect.

Overview of the Early Intervention Program

EI services are those services to which infants and toddlers (birth to 3 years of age), who exhibit developmental delays or that have a diagnosed condition with a high probability of delay or disability are entitled. [53] EI programs are designed help children through the provision of a variety of services delivered by a team of professionals in the child’s “most natural setting,” which is often, but not always, the child’s home. The program is designed to reduce the number of children with disabilities and/or reduce the severity of a child’s disabling condition, depending upon timely identification and the provision of appropriate services to meet a child’s individual needs. Services which are available through the EI program include, but are not limited to, audiology, speech/language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, nutrition, health, nursing services, counseling, and training for family members of children with developmental delays.

The key to the success of EI is the identification and referral of children at the youngest possible age. EI intervention or lack thereof can determine the educational course for a child for the rest of his or her life. Federal law therefore includes a comprehensive “child find” requirement to ensure that parents and social service agencies are aware of, and refer, children for EI services. This requirement includes coordination with other agencies working with children so that referrals are made no more than two days after identification of possible eligibility. It also requires an effective method to determine which children are receiving access to needed EI services. In New York State, the Public Health Law provides that certain categories of professionals, including foster care caseworkers, are mandated referral sources for EI.[54] These professionals are mandated to refer any child that she or he suspects may be developmentally delayed, unless the natural parent raises an affirmative objection to the referral.[55]

In 1998, there were approximately 186,418 children receiving EI services nationwide.[56] In New York State more than 20,000 infants and toddlers received EI services that year.[57] Of those children, approximately 16,800 were served in New York City.[58] Of the 12,126 referrals made to the EI program in New York City during 1998, foster care workers referred only 4%.[59] We do not know how many of these children that were referred by foster care workers were actually in foster care, though we assume that the majority were.[60] Unfortunately, since there is no mechanism for tracking the delivery of EI services to foster children, we cannot determine how many of foster children were actually served by the New York City EI Program in 1998.[61]

The apparently low rate of referral from foster care workers, compared to other mandated professionals, appears to be a serious problem. As a result of abuse and neglect, it is likely that a much larger percentage of foster care children than that of the general population would benefit from EI services. Perhaps more troubling is the fact that the lack of data collection and tracking has made compliance virtually impossible to assess, leaving a lack of accountability for ensuring delivery of critically important, life-saving services to the most at-risk population.

Survey Results –Enrollment into the Early Intervention Program

The survey data confirms that foster children do not appear to be getting EI services at the rate at which they should be in light of the higher rate of developmental delays and risk of delays in this population.

Of the eight subgroups surveyed, five were questioned about their familiarity with the EI program. These were biological parents, foster parents, law guardians, caseworkers/social workers and EI service providers.[62] Eighty-nine percent of the biological parents who responded to questions about EI indicated that they were unaware of, and never informed about, the EI program while their children were in foster care.[63] This is critical because most biological parents must give their consent for EI services to commence. Of the foster parents who responded, half indicated that they were unfamiliar with the EI program.[64] Thirty-eight percent of the foster parents surveyed indicated that less than 25% of the children they cared for who were eligible for EI services did, in fact, receive these services while in foster care. This indicates that some foster children may not gain access to the EI program due to a general lack of awareness.

Most law guardians surveyed indicated that at least half of their clients between the ages of 0 and 3 had a suspected or confirmed developmental delay or disability.[65] Over half of the law guardians who were surveyed about EI services responded that between 50-75 % of their eligible clients in foster care received EI services.[66] The majority of the caseworkers and social workers who were surveyed stated that 25% to 50% of their clients between the ages of 0 and 3 had a suspected or confirmed developmental delay.[67] Caseworkers and social workers were divided about the delivery of EI services, with a little over 25% saying a quarter of their clients eligible for EI services received them, and a bit less than 25% saying seventy-five percent of their clients eligible for EI services received such services.[68]

Early Intervention service providers all responded affirmatively when asked whether or not they knew if a child was in foster care upon initial referral.[69] In response to the inquiry of how many of the foster children who were referred to the EI