Keeping Kids in School Initiative:

Final Evaluation Report

Trevor Fronius
Sarah Guckenburg
Darius Taylor
Hannah Persson
Anthony Petrosino

December 2017
The WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center highlights the
rigorous research and evaluation work that WestEd researchers are
conducting in the areas of school safety, violence and crime
prevention, juvenile and criminal justice, and public health. A primary
goal of the Center is to become a trusted source of evidence on the
effects of policies and programs in these areas.

In addition to conducting research and evaluation studies, Center

staff promote the use of scientific evidence in making decisions about
programs, policies, and practices relevant to justice and prevention.

For more information, visit http://jprc.wested.org/

WestEd — a nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and

service agency — works with education and other communities
throughout the United States and abroad to promote excellence,
achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.
WestEd has more than a dozen offices nationwide, from
Massachusetts, Vermont and Georgia, to Illinois, Arizona and
California, with headquarters in San Francisco. For more information
about WestEd, visit WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or, toll-free,
(877) 4-WestEd; or write: WestEd / 730 Harrison Street / San Francisco,
CA 94107-1242.

© 2017 WestEd. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Program Model ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

Study Sample --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Process Evaluation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Outcome Evaluation and Cost Study --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Limitations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

Recommendations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Program Description --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Program Mission ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Program Goal--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Anticipated Outcomes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Eligibility --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Program Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6

Case Management Phases ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Technical Assistance------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9

Quality Management----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

District Level Variation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

Study Sample -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

Sonoma County KKIS Sample ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

KKIS Participant Characteristics---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

Process Evaluation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

Overview and Purpose --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

Data Collection Methods -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16

 Results ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

Outcomes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31

Attendance ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31

School Discipline----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35

Juvenile Justice Involvement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36

Academic Report ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37

Student, Family, School, and Neighborhood Needs -------------------------------------------------------------38

Costs and Benefits of the Keeping Kids in School Initiative--------------------------------------------------------44

Limitations---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------46

Discussion----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47

Recommendations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48

Appendix A. Keeping Kids in School Logic Model

Appendix B. Student and Guardian Exit Survey Data Tables

Appendix C. Program Forms and Instruments

Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of a three-year evaluation study of the Keeping Kids in School (KKIS)
initiative, including a process, outcome, and cost study. The findings examine different subgroups of
students served by KKIS, their experiences in the program, and subsequent outcomes related to
attendance, student discipline, achievement, referrals to the juvenile justice system, and areas of need
across several domains (e.g., student, family, school). The findings presented in this report should
inform ongoing program planning and development, and future evaluations of KKIS.

Program Model
KKIS is a collaborative effort to reduce truancy in Sonoma County. It was developed as a strategy to
prevent juvenile delinquency. Chronic school absence and truancy have been linked to a wide range of
negative childhood and adult outcomes, including low academic achievement, low educational and
occupational attainment, high dropout rates, poor health, increased chances of living in poverty,
increased risk of juvenile delinquency, and violent behavior. KKIS is a multi-modal program which
implements best practices in improving attendance, including high-quality case management services
and supporting strong, multi-tiered school and county attendance improvement systems.

KKIS is being implemented in 21 schools within eight participating districts. The original cohort of
schools began programming in Fall 2015. This cohort includes schools from Cotati-Rohnert, Forestville,
Guerneville, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and West County school districts. Additional schools from Cotati-
Rohnert, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma Valley joined the program in Fall 2016. The schools that
participate include elementary and secondary grades, and vary by grade composition (e.g., K-2, K-5, K-8,
6-8, 9-12, Alt Ed.).

Each district implements an individualized program, and generally there are three organizational
structures for KKIS implementation: 1) Schools with sufficient need will embed a case manager to serve
a single school site; 2) Districts may opt to use a case manager to serve multiple schools within a single
district; or 3) Districts may choose to funnel students to a case manager through a triage process to
serve the highest need students from across an entire district.

Study Sample
Overall, 53.6% (N=170) of KKIS participants identified as male, 45.7% of KKIS participants identified as
Hispanic or Latino, and 30.9% identified as White. Most students (46.9%) were between grades K-3 at
the time of the enrollment in KKIS. At the time of enrollment 34.1% were students in grades 4 to 8, and
19.0% of students were enrolled in high school.

Process Evaluation
The purpose of the process evaluation is to capture contextual information about how KKIS was
implemented in different settings, the school and community settings where the program took place,
perceptions of the program and experiences of the school staff, case managers, families, and program
management. The process evaluation is intended to help us better understand what happened during
the implementation period, identify challenges as they emerge, and also to shed light on the program
outcomes of attendance, behavior, discipline referrals, involvement in the criminal justice system, and
changes in needs that are presented later in the report. The process evaluation involved the collection
of several types of data, including:

• Interviews with school and program stakeholders,

1
 • Surveys of school and program staff,
• Site visits, and
• Programmatic data collection.

The key findings from the process evaluation include:

• Prior to KKIS, schools were addressing truancy and chronic absenteeism, however KKIS helped
enhance or strengthen these non-KKIS efforts with the addition of the case manager at the
school focused specifically on these issues. At the conclusion of the evaluation, the role of the
case manager was perceived by school administrators as what they would miss most about the
program if it were not sustained.
• Schools varied in how much time the case manager was able to spend at the school, but all
μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ ͆͊μ̼θΉ̻͊͆ φΆ͊ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θ ̮μ ͡Ή΢φ͊ͼθ̮φ͊͆ Ή΢φΩ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ͢ ̮΢͆ Ϭ̮Λϡ͊͆ φΆ͊ μϡεεΩθφ ̮΢͆
services the case manager brought to students, families, and the school staff (including
addressing self-care and dealing with secondary trauma). The case manager often referred to
φΆ͊Ήθ θΩΛ͊ ̮μ φΆ͊ ͡΢͊ϡφθ̮Λ ε̮θφϳ͢΁ ͡Ρ͊͆Ή̮φΩθ͢΁ ̮΢͆ ̼͡Ω΢΢̼͊φΩθ͢ φΩ Ά͊Λε ͊΢ͼ̮ͼ͊ ̮΢͆ μ͊θϬ͊ ͔̮ΡΉΛΉ͊μ
in the program.
• Two roles emerged for case managers. One was to provide technical assistance to schools
around the SARB process and universal prevention efforts to improve attendance for all
students. The other role was to provide more direct case management to families of students
who need additional supports and interventions to improve attendance.
• Most services offered to youth and families are school-based interventions (23.9%) and home-
based interventions (19.9%). These services are also accessed the most by KKIS participants.
• Of those who exited the program, 61.6% of students exited for satisfactorily improved

attendance.

• A greater percentage of students (64.1%) who do not receive case management exit KKIS for
satisfactorily improved attendance compared to those who do receive case management
(60.8%).
• Overall, students, guardians, school administrators, and case managers perceived the KKIS
program to improve student and family relationships, increase access to community resources,
and support improved attendance for students.
• Challenges with program implementation and the case manager role included the semi-
structured schedule of case manager, language barriers with families, parental resistance to get
involved in a probation department led program, and the wait list of KKIS students.

Outcome Evaluation and Cost Study

The evaluation also examined outcomes for students enrolled in KKIS between August 2015 and April
2017. The anticipated benefits of the program include:

• Improvement in school attendance,

• Reduction in school behavioral issues,
• Improvement in academic achievement,
• Reduction in referrals to the juvenile justice system,

2
 • Reduction in needs associated with missing school, and
• Improvement in family functioning.

The outcome evaluation examined these benefits through a variety of data sources, including student
attendance, discipline, and academic data, participant needs assessments, and juvenile case file records.
The key findings suggest:

• The attendance rates for KKIS participants overall increased 3.5% in the post KKIS enrollment
period, and 4.7% for participants who received case management. This is equivalent to an
increase of 8.5 days over the course of an average school year.
• KKIS participants had very little involvement in juvenile justice system either before or after
enrollment in KKIS.
• Academic achievement and discipline referrals changed very little for students following

enrollment in KKIS.

• Student, family, and school needs associated with missing school decreased following
enrollment in KKIS, and overall needs related to missing school was reduced by 5% for KKIS
participants.
• Family functioning was rated as a low area of need for participants (.92 points out of 5 points);
however, Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) family functioning improved 38.0% following
enrollment in KKIS.

It is not only important to understand the potential effects of a program, but also the costs required to
realize such effects. Furthermore, it is helpful to understand the direct and potential downstream
monetary benefits of these effects for schools and other stakeholders, including students. A preliminary
cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis was used to better understand the potential savings a
school, and others, may realize following their investment in a the KKIS initiative. Overall, the program
̼Ωμφμ φΩ Ή΢̼θ̮͊μ͊ ̮ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ ̮φφ͊΢̮͆΢̼͊ ̻ϳ one-day ranges from $33.18 to a very conservative $541.87
depending on how the estimates are calculated.

These estimates should be considered exploratory in nature, and include only direct benefits related to
increased attendance. Ultimately, improving attendance is meant to decrease the risk of dropping out
and increase graduation rates. A high school graduate nets a lifetime benefit of $200,000 dollars for
student and taxpayers, and additional benefits due to the reduced likelihood for contact with the
criminal justice system compared to a student who drops out of school. Future cost studies of KKIS will
benefit from a more rigorous evaluation design that includes a comparison group and longitudinal data
to explore whether the program relates to drop-out prevention and high school graduation.

Limitations
WestEd worked closely with the Department to design an evaluation that was utilization-focused while
providing preliminary evidence on the effects of the program. The evaluation design did not, however,
have an opportunity to identify a reliable comparison group against which to compare the effects of the
program for KKIS participants. It is therefore critical to interpret the results presented above with
caution and as preliminary evidence only.

The evaluation team did attempt to use the most rigorous designs possible in each stage of analysis and
to control for any observable factors (e.g., demographics and level of need) that could potentially

3
confound the outcomes of interest; however, due to the nature of the study, the cost benefit analysis
should also be view with caution and as exploratory in nature. In addition, future work could incorporate
sensitivity analyses to ensure the findings hold for various subgroups of students in KKIS.

Recommendations
The findings of this evaluation suggest that there are many types of students who participated in KKIS
and that their experiences and outcomes vary. The preliminary data suggest positive gains in attendance
overall and these gains are more prominent for some groups of participants compared to others. It is
important to better understand why this may be the case. Furthermore, the KKIS model was
implemented in a variety of ways across districts, and the process evaluation revealed universal
prevention strategies that were not studied in the outcome evaluation. To address these findings and
the limitations of the current study, the evaluation team recommends:

• Conducting a rigorous quasi-experimental or experimental study of the KKIS model that

includes:

o Incorporating measures to examine how KKIS effects student behaviors and attitudes
related to other factors associated with drop out (e.g., substance use and delinquent
behavior);
o Increasing the focus on school-wide prevention efforts;
o Examining the impact of KKIS on the overall student population;and
o Re-analyzing the cost and benefits of KKIS using a comparison group and including
additional direct and indirect benefits of the program.
• Re-examining the KKIS logic model and participant eligibility criteria to ensure the program is
targeting the right students, and that resources are being used efficiently to address needs
across all tiers of students.
• Collaborating with districts, schools, case managers, and students and their families to continue
to develop the KKIS model in a way that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives, and
• Developing additional training and technical assistance for KKIS program staff to promote
reliable and accurate data collection and entry, and to ensure that the program is implemented
consistently and according to the model across all program sites.

4
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a three-year evaluation study of the Keeping Kids in School (KKIS)
initiative, including a process, outcome, and cost study--with a focus on several outcomes for
participants after enrolling in the program. The findings presented in this report should inform ongoing
program planning and development, and future evaluations of KKIS. The findings examine different
subgroups of students served by KKIS, their experiences in the program, and subsequent outcomes
related to attendance, achievement, behavior, and other measures of need.

We thank Lisa Valente and Rob Halverson of the Department of Probation of Sonoma County, and their
colleagues, for their partnership in, and guidance throughout, this project. We also thank Seneca case
managers and program staff for their support and assistance in our formative data collection efforts,
and for their work collecting and reporting data on participant experiences and outcomes. Finally, we
thank the school staff who welcomed the evaluation team for site visits and fully participated in the
interviews and surveys necessary to document the experiences of students and KKIS participants in their
school. This project would not have been possible without them.

Program Description
Keeping Kids in School (KKIS) is a collaborative effort to reduce truancy in Sonoma County. It was
developed as a strategy to prevent juvenile delinquency. Chronic school absence and truancy have been
linked to a wide range of negative childhood and adult outcomes including low academic achievement,
low educational and occupational attainment, high dropout rates, poor health, increased chances of
living in poverty, increased risk of juvenile delinquency, and violent behavior. for the impact on schools
and communities include the loss of revenue tied to student attendance, disruption of the educational
process, increased demand placed upon social service programs, and an increase in crime rates and
public health costs. School districts in Sonoma County have identified truancy as a key issue, as indicated
in their Local Control Accountability Plans (LCAPs); these are developed with broad community input in
response to the new state Local Control Funding Formula.

Program Mission
To develop and sustain a comprehensive county-wide effort led by the Sonoma County Probation
Department and the Partnership to Keep Kids in School to reduce chronic absenteeism and improve
educational outcomes for Sonoma County Youth.

Program Goal
To implement a multi-modal program which implements best practices in improving attendance,
including high-quality case management services and supporting strong, multi-tiered school and county
attendance improvement systems.

Anticipated Outcomes
The KKIS initiative is designed to achieve results in domains of education, family function, school
engagement, behavior, and system involvement. The following outcomes are anticipated as benefits to
the participants and their communities:

Participants
1. Reduction in the incidence of school absence and truancy;
2. Increase in student and parent engagement with school;

5
 3. Improvement in participant educational outcomes;
4. Improvement in participant family functioning; and
5. Reduction in participant criminal activity.

Community
1. Reduction of negative impacts upon community that result from chronic absence and truancy;
2. School districts experience increased revenue as a result of reduced student absence; and
3. Increased school district revenue provides for sustainability of chronic absence/truancy

prevention efforts.

Eligibility
To address the needs of youth and their families who are at risk of chronic school absence, the KKIS
program identifies children and youth using student record data and other indicators. The eligibility
criteria are defined below. To qualify for program services, a student must:

✓ Attend a KKIS partner school/district;

✓ Not currently be on probation; and
✓ Be of compulsory attendance age.

Additionally, students must have unsatisfactory school attendance and have not responded to school
interventions. To accommodate the various school communities, there are no official limitations on
where in the School Attendance Review Board (SARB) process1 a student must be to be referred for KKIS
services. Case managers, however, work directly with their schools to support the alignment of their
KKIS referral process to best practices in reducing chronic absenteeism. Case managers further assist
schools/districts in identifying, referring, and engaging students who meet the criteria. (Exceptions to
these qualifications and processes are made on a case-by-case basis and in collaboration with the
Probation Department, and the KKIS service provider agency).

Program Activities
Once participants have been referred, a multi-modal service plan is implemented that is individualized
to address participant needs. This approach is used in multiple ways:

1. Data sharing by schools is done to facilitate the early identification of students with school
attendance issues, and provide initial information on potential contributing factors;
2. Once youth and their families are referred to the program, a series of assessments will be
administered to identify the contributing factors that need to be addressed. These assessments

1
School Attendance Review Boards (SARBs) are used in California to assist truant students and their
parents/guardians address school attendance and student behavior issues through a variety of school and
community resources. , composed of representatives from various youth-serving agencies, help truant or
recalcitrant students and their parents or guardians solve school attendance and behavior problems through the
use of available school and community resources. Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) facilitates the
Sonoma County SARB and includes stakeholders from schools, law enforcement, probation, social services,
parents, and youth-serving agencies serve as members of the county-level SARB. For more information see:
https://www.scoe.org/pub/htdocs/student-support-attendance.html

6
 will include an Oregon Juvenile Crime Prevention Assessment for older students to allow for
early intervention to address their particular risk factors for criminal involvement. It also
includes a needs assessment to assess risk and areas in need of support;
3. Assignment of youth and families to a Case Manager from Seneca Family of Agencies, a local
Community Based Organization, to ensure that services and referrals are provided in a culturally
competent manner, with sensitivity to unique practices of the local community.

The core intervention model is a modified wraparound program that integrates components of
wraparound within a condensed intervention setting.

The focus of the program is to offer family-centered, individualized, and culturally relevant and strength-
based support. Seneca works in close partnership with the Sonoma Departments of Social Services,
Mental Health, and Juvenile Probation, and other service providers to provide family-centered,
strengths-based and outcome-oriented services. Seneca Family of Agencies, a local innovative leader in
the provision of comprehensive school, community-based and family-focused treatment services,
provides the case managers and also oversees ̼ΩΩθ͆Ή΢̮φΉΩ΢ Ω͔ μ͊θϬΉ̼͊μ΄ Ί͊΢̼̮͊͞μ μ͊θϬΉ̼͊ εΆΉΛΩμΩεΆϳ Ήμ
built around the concept of ͡Unconditional Care,͢ meaning that no youth served by the wraparound
program will be ejected from Seneca due to challenging behaviors or service needs. Seneca thus tailors
treatment and support services to address those behaviors and meet those needs, even as they change
over time.

The KKIS model was originally designed to provide, on average, three months of service, depending on
demonstrated need and input from the school site; however, the current data suggests an average
enrollment period of approximately 5 months. Services are provided in the home, school, or community,
as appropriate and convenient for the family. The program includes up to eight case managers who each
carry an average caseload of 10-15 students/families. To ensure effective engagement and collaboration
with each family, case managers are expected to routinely provide direct services to each
μφϡ͆͊΢φ/͔̮ΡΉΛϳ΄ C̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θμ ̼̮΢ φθ̮Ϭ͊Λ φΩ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ ΆΩΡ͊μ΁ Ή΢ ̮͆͆ΉφΉΩ΢ φΩ ̻͊Ή΢ͼ εθ͊μ͊΢φ ̮φ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ
sites to assist with monitoring attendance, facilitating service planning meetings, and implementing
school-based service activities.

Specific program activities contributing to KKIS goals/objectives/outcomes (See Appendix A for the KKIS
Logic Model) including case management phases, technical assistance and quality management are
explained below:

Case Management Phases

Generally speaking, a student who participates in case management services receives three phases of
program services. The phases are:

Engagement Phase- begins immediately after the student has been referred to program services.

• Within 36 hours of receiving a referral, Seneca KKIS case managers or the program
supervisor contact the referring party to review goals for service.
• Within three days of receiving a referral, KKIS case managers will have given the family an
opportunity to establish face-to-face contact between the case manager and the student
and family at the location/time preferred by the family.

7
 • KKIS case managers explain the nature of KKIS services in the preferred language(s) spoken
by the family and student. They also ͊μφ̮̻ΛΉμΆ φΆ͊ ͔̮ΡΉΛϳ ̮΢͆ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ ̼Ω΢μ͊΢φ φΩ
participate in the voluntary services of the KKIS program.
• KKIS case managers complete an initial Needs Assessment with the student and family,
̮μμ͊μμΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ ̻̮θθΉ͊rs to school attendance, φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ θΉμΘ Ω͔ ͊΢φ͊θΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊
justice system, and the strengths of the student and family (see Appendix C.). KKIS case
managers, in partnership with the student and family, create a time limited KKIS Action Plan
and Safety Plan, outlining clear and measurable goals that promote improved attendance
and support the well-being of the student.
• KKIS case managers, in partnership with the student and family, identify KKIS service team
members—such as school administrators, teachers, natural supports, probation officers,
etc.—that (1) review and clarify information shared through the initial meeting; (2) establish
consensus on the goals of the Action Goal; and (3) develop steps for achieving the
attendance goals for the student.

Action Phase - begins with the first KKIS service team meeting (held within seven days of intake) and the
ΉΡεΛ͊Ρ͊΢φ̮φΉΩ΢ Ω͔ φΆ͊ ͨͨ͛Ί !̼φΉΩ΢ ΃Λ̮΢΁ ϭΆΉ̼Ά Ή΢ ̮͆͆ΉφΉΩ΢ φΩ ͆͊φ̮ΉΛΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊ ͨͨ͛Ί μ͊θϬΉ̼͊ φ̮͊Ρ͞μ
foundational goals, strengths, values, and areas of concern, captures the time-limited goals that the
team is working toward at any point in time and the specific action steps planned to achieve those goals.

!̼φΉϬΉφΉ͊μ φΆ̮φ ͨͨ͛Ί μφ̮͔͔ ϡμ͊ φΩ ̮͆Ϭ̮΢̼͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ Ή΢͆ΉϬΉ͆ϡ̮ΛΉϸ͊͆ !̼φΉΩ΢ ΃Λ̮΢μ ̮΢͆ θ͊͆ϡ̼͊ φθϡ̮΢̼ϳ
include:

• Assisting students and families in navigating the educational and or social systems with
ϭΆΉ̼Ά φΆ͊ϳ ̮θ͊ Ή΢ϬΩΛϬ͊͆΄ ΐΆΉμ Ρ̮ϳ Ή΢̼Λϡ͆͊ ͊ϲεΛ̮Ή΢Ή΢ͼ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ/͆ΉμφθΉ̼φ͞μ φθϡ̮΢̼ϳ εΩΛΉ̼ϳ to
parents/guardians/participants and attending truancy court with the student and family.
• Providing linkage to resources and services that may help the student and family address
correlates of truancy, such as those relevant to educational, mental health, legal, and
transportation challenges. Creating a strong network of support is be particularly important
for students whose truant behaviors require a team approach. KKIS case managers build on
Ί͊΢̼̮͊͞μ ͊ϲΉμφΉ΢ͼ θ͊Λ̮φΉΩ΢μΆΉεμ Ή΢ ΊΩ΢ΩΡ̮ CΩϡ΢φϳ φΩ ͆͊Ϭ͊ΛΩε ̮ μφθΩ΢ͼ ΢͊φϭΩθΘ Ω͔ φθϡμφ͊͆
provider partners for referral purposes.
• Provide flex funds to meet individual needs of student and family (e.g., lice treatment for
student and home, and transportation-related expenses).
• Coordinating and facilitating service planning meetings, including establishing and
communicating locations and times and sharing student and family progress with KKIS
service team members. KKIS service team meetings are held monthly in order to monitor
student progress. Additionally, case managers hold weekly or biweekly meetings with
families, depending upon need.
• Supporting and monitoring student attendance, which may include frequent contact with
KKIS school site personnel and the provision of student transportation.
• Building the natural support systems for students and families through increased
identification of and connection to engagement activities within the school, community, and
home.

8
 • Maintaining unwavering compassion, curiosity, and concern for the well-being of students
and their families that communicates a dedication to and belief in the student and ͔̮ΡΉΛϳ͞μ
strengths and ability to succeed.

Transition Phase- the KKIS case manager prepares a portfolio for the student, family, and KKIS service
team members that describes the activities and services that were completed during KKIS program
involvement, φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ ̮΢͆ ͔̮ΡΉΛϳ͞μ μφθ͊΢ͼφΆμ ̮΢͆ ̮̼̼ΩΡεΛΉμΆΡ͊΢φμ΁ Λ͊μμΩ΢μ Λ̮͊θ΢͊͆ ̮̻Ωϡφ
strategies that worked and those that did not, and a plan for sustaining accomplishments, including
contact numbers for obtaining assistance in the future.

Technical Assistance
Program staff and case managers are trained in best practices in schoolwide efforts to reduce chronic
absenteeism and provide technical assistance to partner schools and districts as they seek to improve
their own systems. Technical assistance includes providing leadership, training, financial resources, etc.
for school-wide tier 1 and tier 2 attendance management interventions (see Exhibit 1). Interventions
that may be supported include class or school-wide incentive programs, reviews of school-wide
attendance and tardy policies, free or low-cost staff trainings, SARB participation, and school-wide data
analysis/review.

Exhibit 1. Multi-tiered intervention framework

Image Source: http://www.attendanceworks.org/tools/schools/3-tiers-of-intervention/

Quality Management
Case managers are supervised and evaluated by their agency staff. Weekly individual and group
supervision sessions are conducted by their immediate supervisor. Ongoing training is tracked and
provided to program staff by Seneca, the Probation Department, and outside vendors. Training topics
vary and evolve, but have included many broad topics, including: restorative practices in schools,
trauma-informed education, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, the Student Attendance
Review Board process, equity, cultural humility, confidentiality, and data collection and evaluation.

9
District Level Variation
Each district implements an individualized program, and generally there are three organizational
structures for KKIS implementation. 1) Schools with sufficient need will embed a case manager to serve
a single school site; 2) Districts may opt to use a case manager to serve multiple schools within a single
district; or 3) Districts may choose funnel students to a case manager through a triage process to serve
the highest need students from across an entire district.

Study Sample
The following sections describe the Sonoma County districts and schools involved in KKIS and the
characteristics of KKIS participants.

Sonoma County KKIS Sample

There are 21 schools within eight participating districts. The original cohort of schools began
programming in Fall 2015. This cohort includes schools from Cotati-Rohnert, Forestville, Guerneville,
Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and West County school districts. Additional schools from Cotati-Rohnert, Santa
Rosa, Petaluma, and Sonoma Valley joined the program in Fall 2016. The schools that participate
include elementary and secondary grades, and vary by grade composition (e.g., K-2, K-5, K-8, 6-8, 9-12,
Alt Ed.).

Within the county, the schools that participate in KKIS vary on their aggregate student characteristics.
On average, the schools are comprised 51.8% male students, 25.3% English Language Learners, 15.8%
students eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 51.5% Hispanic or Latino students. These characteristics
vary widely by district. See Table 1 for individual school characteristics.

10
Table 1. Population characteristics of KKIS schools (Source: DataQuest 2015-2016)
English Eligible Hispanic or
Grades Male Learner FRPM Latino of
District School Name Served Students Students (K-12) Any Race
Cotati- Waldo Rohnert
3--5 50.0% 64.5% 82.6% 83.0%
Rohnert Intermediate
John Reed Primary K--2 49.4% 58.2% 82.4% 78.5%
Technology Middle 6--8 53.9% 18.1% 59.3% 54.4%
Forestville Forestville
K--8 48.5% 4.9% 39.5% 8.0%
Elementary
Guerneville Guerneville
K--8 51.0% 18.5% 69.6% 30.8%
Elementary
Petaluma Crossroads 7--8 90.9% 36.4% 100.0% 63.6%
San Antonio High
9--12 72.3% 14.5% 73.5% 51.8%
(Continuation)
McNear Elementary K--6 52.9% 12.7% 26.8% 22.6%
Kenilworth Junior
7--8 52.9% 15.7% 45.6% 37.6%
High
Casa Grande High 9--12 53.7% 10.2% 45.3% 39.2%
Santa Rosa Grace High School 9--12 50.0% 21.2% 51.5% 72.7%
Midrose High School 9--12 58.3% 36.7% 41.7% 91.7%
Hilliard Comstock 7--8
49.5% 33.8% 90.3% 80.0%
Middle
Albert Biella K--6
42.5% 47.4% 80.5% 76.4%
Elementary
Steele Lane K--6
40.4% 55.1% 91.7% 77.4%
Elementary
Sebastopol Park Side Elementary K--4 46.0% 23.7% 49.6% 37.0%
Brook Haven 5--8
49.8% 16.3% 41.9% 42.3%
Elementary
Sonoma Dunbar Elementary K--5 54.5% 59.0% 81.9% 71.6%
Valley K--5
Sassarini Elementary 43.6% 61.5% 83.2% 76.3%
Sonoma Valley High 9--12 48.7% 9.2% 53.3% 55.7%
West 9--12
Laguna High School 36.9% 3.8% 52.4% 25.0%
County

Schools in the County also vary along rates for truancy and exclusionary discipline. On average, schools
had a 11.1% suspension rate2 and 31.5% truancy rate3 during the 2015-2016 school year.4 See Table 2
for school data on suspension and truancy.

2
The unduplicated count of students suspended divided by the cumulative enrollment at the selected entity for

the selected population using the available filters (e.g., County, District, School)

3
Students who were reported as being truant at least one time during the academic year divided by the

cumulative enrollment at the selected entity for the selected population using the available filters (e.g., County,

District, School)

4
Data are most current publicly available from the California Department of Education (CDE), as of May 2017.

11
Table 2. Suspension and truancy rates for KKIS schools (Source: DataQuest 2015-2016)
District School Name Grades Cumulative # of Dropouts Suspension Truancy
Served Enrollment (Dropout Rate Rate
Rate) *
Cotati-Rohnert Waldo Rohnert
3--5 287 - 4.2 17.77
Intermediate
John Reed Primary K--2 299 - 1.3 14.05
Technology Middle 6--8 528 - 12.7 61.74
Forestville Forestville
K--1 435 - 1.6 23.91
Elementary
Guerneville Guerneville
K--8 311 - 4.5 14.47
Elementary
Petaluma Crossroads 7--8 33 - 69.7 30.30
San Antonio High
9--12 153 8 (19.0%) 12.4 36.60
(Continuation)
McNear Elementary K--6 443 - 1.8 3.16
Kenilworth Junior
7--8 904 - 12.5 14.27
High
Casa Grande High 9--12 1748 7 (1.8%) 11.6 9.15
Santa Rosa Grace High School 9--12 83 2 (8.0%) 16.9 69.88
Midrose High School 9--12 77 7 (18.9%) 33.8 81.82
Hilliard Comstock
7--8 414 - 14.5 32.37
Middle
Albert Biella
K--6 426 - 4.2 51.64
Elementary
Steele Lane
K--6 492 - 2.0 49.59
Elementary
Sebastopol Brook Haven
5--8 287 - 0.0 25.78
Elementary
Park Side Elementary K--4 295 - 0.0 14.58
Sonoma Valley Dunbar Elementary K--5 244 - 2.5 6.15
Sassarini Elementary K--5 390 - 1.8 12.05
Sonoma Valley High 9--12 1341 9 (3.3%) 10.1 7.31
West Sonoma
Laguna High School 9--12 130 19 (48.7) 14.6 84.62
County

KKIS Participant Characteristics

The data presented below are based on students enrolled in KKIS between the first semester of the
2015-16 school year and second semester of the 2016-17 school year. The descriptive data are based on
all KKIS participants enrolled within this time period. Our analyses of outcome data, described later, only
includes students enrolled prior to April 1, 2017 to ensure at least one month of post-enrollment data
for each participant. The participant sample described below is not the entire KKIS population. There

12
was sample loss due to data challenges across each outcome in the study, and there were also several
students removed from the analyses based on a case-by-case determination of their eligibility5.

Overall, 53.6% (N=170) of KKIS participants are identified as male, which is similar to the gender
composition for the whole school population. Figure 1 below illustrates the racial/ethnic composition of
KKIS participants. There are 45.7% of KKIS participants who are identified as Hispanic or Latino, and that
is 5.8% lower than the average for schools overall (51.5%). The composition of KKIS participants who are
identified as White (30.9%) is lower than the average for schools overall (37.0%). There were 19.2%
participants who were classified as another race and/or ethnicity, or either declined or did not identify
with a specific race and/or ethnicity category

Figure 1. Race and ethnicity of KKIS participants (N= 317)

45.7%
% of Students

30.9%

19.2%

4.1%

Hispanic White Black Other

Ethnicity

Students in KKIS represent grades from Kindergarten (K) through 12th grade (see Figure 2). Most
students (46.9%) were between the grades K-3rd grade at the time of the enrollment in KKIS. There were
34.1% of students in grades 4 to 8, and 19.0% of students were enrolled in high school.

5
Examples include students who were disqualified from receiving services, moved from the service area, or were
referred by KKIS to other levels of service.

13
Figure 2. Grade level of KKIS participants (N = 317)

46.9%

34.1%
% of Students

19.0%

K to 3rd 4th to 8th 9th to 12th

Grade Level

As described ̮̻ΩϬ͊ ϡ΢͆͊θ ΆDistrict Level Variation͞΁ φΆ͊ schools and districts that participate in KKIS are
organized in various ways. The overall need in the school or district, along with the organizational
structure, and how long the school has participated in the program, lead to variation in the number of
KKIS-enrolled students at each school. Figure 3 below shows the distribution of KKIS enrollment by
schools who participate in the program. Schools that joined KKIS in year 1 are shaded green and schools
φΆ̮φ ΕΩΉ΢͊͆ Ή΢ ϳ̮͊θ 2 ̮θ͊ μΆ̮͆͊͆ ̻Λϡ͊΄ ΆͷφΆ͊θ Ί̼ΆΩΩΛμ͞ Ή΢̼Λϡ͆͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ φΆ̮φ Ρ̮ϳ Ά̮Ϭ͊ ̻͊͊΢ ͔͊͊͆͊θ μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ
for KKIS, but otherwise were not formally involved in the initiative.

14
Figure 3. Distribution of KKIS participants by school at time of enrollment (N = 317)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Albert Biella ES 46
Amarosa Academy 11
Brook Haven MS 11
Dunbar ES 11
Forestville 13
Grace HS 8
Guernville 13
Hilliard Comstock MS 20
John Reed ES 33
Laguna HS 8
Midrose HS 8
Park Side ES 11
Sassarini ES 11
Steele Lane ES 40
Technology MS 13
Waldo Rohnert ES 6
Other ES 11
Other MS 7
Other HS 20
Petaluma City Schools 16

Process Evaluation
Overview and Purpose
The following section summarizes the process evaluation of the KKIS project, conducted between
August 2015 and November 2017. The purpose of the process evaluation is to capture contextual
information about how KKIS was implemented in different settings, the school and community settings
where the program took place, perceptions of the program and experiences of the school staff, case
managers, families, and program management. The process evaluation is intended to help better
understand what happened during the implementation period, identify challenges as they emerge, and
also to shed light on the program outcomes of attendance, behavior, discipline referrals, involvement in
the criminal justice system, and changes in needs that are presented later in the report.

Over the past three years the evaluation team has collected formative data to provide feedback to
program management. The program model has also evolved, and new models have emerged. For
example, the district model of KKIS in which a case manager works at the district level to manage cases
across multiple schools was implemented later during the study period. The process evaluation involved
the collection of several types of data to assess how the program was carried out, its reach, and whether

15
it was implemented as intended. Data collected for the process evaluation come from a variety of
sources, including:

• Interviews with school administrators and school staff,

• Interviews with case managers,
• Interviews and weekly check-ins with program management staff,
• Surveys of school administrators,
• Surveys of case managers,
• Site visits,
• Exit survey data from parents and KKIS students,
• Intervention data from case managers, and
• Exit reasons from case managers.

Data Collection Methods

INTERVIEWS
The evaluation team conducted semi-structured formal interviews each year, in person or by telephone,
with case managers and KKIS site staff (i.e., school principals or assistant principals, and case managers).
The purpose of these interviews was to collect qualitative data from all partners to understand the
program experience. The KKIS model requires strong collaboration and coordination across a number of
organizational partners (i.e., school, case workers, probation), and so it was important to fully
understand the capacity and readiness to implement quality services across partners with fidelity to the
program model.

The initial interviews with all stakeholders were used to discuss and determine implementation and
evaluation readiness, identify practices and potential challenges for collecting and reporting
programmatic data, and providing appropriate services to participants. Data that were collected in years
2 and 3 were used to assess changes in programming and process that may affect outcomes for
participants.

SURVEYS
Surveys were conducted with case managers and school administrators twice during the
implementation of KKIS. The purpose of the first survey was to assess θ͊μεΩ΢͆͊΢φμ͞ experience with the
program, challenges that have emerged, support received from other school staff, and parental
involvement. The second survey was conducted to assess implementation including planning, quality,
program delivery, and sustainability. The results of this survey helped inform the site visits by WestEd
that took place in subsequent weeks.

The KKIS case managers also administered an Exit Survey (see Appendix B. for results) to both the
participating student and guardian at the time of program completion. The survey asks the student and
guardian about their satisfaction and experience with the program, attendance support, specific
interaction with their case manager, relationships and communication, and their experience with the
student attendance team and action planning. The results of these surveys are used to give context and
voice to those experiencing the program and their satisfaction with the program services.

16
SITE VISITS
Three site visits were conducted during the evaluation. The first was conducted to launch the
evaluation, interview probation staff managing the program, discuss program implementation and data
management plans, and interview the case managers before program implementation in the coming
school year. The purpose of the second site visit was to collect implementation data midway through
the program and provide specific school level preliminary results for KKIS students to the schools, case
managers, and probation staff. The final site visit involved visiting the individual school sites, meeting
with case managers at the schools, and conducting interviews with school administration and school
staff to learn about KKIS implementation successes and challenges.

Table 3 below summarizes the details of each of the data collection activities for the process evaluation
conducted between August 2015 and November 2017.

Table 3. Process evaluation data collection activities (August 2015 – November 2017)
Data Collection Topics Covered Time
Period
Interviews

Telephone Interviews • Program administration and oversight at the school Summer

with School Sites • Climate, culture and background of the school and its 2015
community
• Parents and community engagement
• Factors related to truancy and absenteeism
• SΉφ͊͞μ readiness to implement the program and collaborate
with partners
Telephone Interviews • Case manager experience October
with Case Managers • Collaboration with the school community 2015
(cohort 1) • Role of the case manager in the KKIS program
• Approach to truancy prevention
• Implementation of the program
• Challenges and successes in their role
• Anticipated needs moving forward

Telephone & In Person • Previous experiences with case management and working November
Interviews with Case with youth 2016 –
Managers • Understanding of the KKIS program and truancy January
(Cohort 2) • Experiences in implementation so far 2017
• Reflections on collaboration
• Use of case management systems

Telephone Interviews • Reflections on the past year October

with Case Managers • Strengths of and challenges related to KKIS 2017
• Data collection consistency and reporting
• Suggestions for program improvement

17
 Data Collection Topics Covered Time
Period
Surveys

Interim Survey (Case • Experiences in implementation so far January -

Managers and School • Reflections on collaboration with each other and the County February
Administrators) • School staff support 2016
• Parental involvement
Implementation Survey Survey to determine fall school site visits. Survey asked about: Fall 2016
• Planning
• Program implementation
• Delivery
• Quality assurance
• Quality improvement
• Motivation and sustainability
Exit Surveys of KKIS Students and guardians were asked about various aspects and Throughout
Students and Guardians satisfaction with KKIS when the student exited the program. Program
Topics covered include:
• Services and impact on attendance
• Program experience
• Relationships and communication
• Experience with their case manager
• Experience with student attendance team and action
planning
Site Visits

Sonoma Probation & • Update on implementation plan August

Seneca Site Visit • Interview with Probation Staff 2015
• Interview with Seneca Staff
• Focus group/meeting with Case Managers
Sonoma Probation Site • Interview with new case managers and Seneca staff June 2016
Visit & School Meeting • School meeting, presentation on school profiles
Sample of Schools Site visit included: November
Visited: • Meeting and tour of the school with case manager 2016
• Biella • Interview with principal
• Steele Lane • Focus group with school staff
• Brook Haven Topics:
• Laguna • Climate at the school
• Guerneville • Administrator experiences with KKIS
• Waldo • Staff experience with KKIS
• Staff awareness of KKIS
• How attendance impacts the classroom
• Use of attendance data
• Indicators of success for KKIS participants
• Program sustainability

18
Results
This section of the report presents results of analyses of interview, survey and site visit data. This results
section includes the following topics:

• School experience and perception of KKIS;

• Case manager experience and perceptions of KKIS;
• Implementation of KKIS;
• Outcomes and program satisfaction; and
• Suggestions for program improvement.

SCHOOL EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTION OF KKIS

Family and Community Engagement
Prior to implementation of KKIS and throughout the program, school administrators and staff were
asked about family and community engagement. Schools generally reported a continuum of
engagement from families. Elementary schools generally have stronger family engagement than do high
schools. Interviewees from high schools did express strong engagement with some families, but certain
families (notably low-income and those with poor home dynamics) are much more challenging to reach
and involve in school activities.

Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism at the School

School staff were asked about truancy and chronic absenteeism at their school throughout the KKIS
program. During their first interviews, prior to KKIS implementation, school administrators described
these issues in terms of individual, family, and community factors. For example, it was common to hear
that parents of elementary students ̮θ͊ φΆ͊ μφθΩ΢ͼ͊μφ ͔̮̼φΩθ Ή΢ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ εθΩε͊΢μΉφϳ φΩ ̻͊ φθϡ̮΢φ Ωθ ̮̻μ͊΢φ
from school. Principals mentioned that some students in elementary grades may resist going to school,
but it is only when parents are submissive toward their children that the defiant behavior is reinforced.
However, most suggest that the attendance problem is manifested as students enter middle and high
school, when individual factors contribute more to this issue and the student has greater control over
their own attendance. Many reported that truant students often feel disenfranchised from the school
system, and that they do not have a place in school. Substance abuse and alcohol use were reported as
correlates with truancy among youth, but more commonly, it was suggested that youth skip school
because it is not an engaging or supportive environment for them.

Family level factors include the struggle for parents to get their kids to school due to logistical challenges
(e.g., transportation) or other challenges faced by parents (e.g., prioritizing education, accessing resources
and supports). Substance abuse and neglect were commonly reported as family factors associated with
truancy and other student behavioral issues. In addition to the parental issues, families, like students,
sometimes feel disenfranchised. Lower income and Hispanic/Latino families were most often described
as the families that struggle to get their kids to school because they face more external stressors (e.g.,
single parent, two jobs, transient, need help at home). Regardless of the family-level factors, parent
behavior and perceptions of school as a priority were the most common issues that interviewees
identified as needing to be addressed to reduce truancy and absenteeism.

The community-level factors identified by respondents differed based on the geography of the district.
For example, there was a theme among participants from rural districts that there are community norms
that devalue school that are entrenched among certain populations. It is a challenge, therefore, for school

19
leaders to counter these norms, but they are engaging the business community and civic organizations to
promote the importance of school and attendance. There was less concern among participants from
suburban/urban schools about the influence of community on their students; the exception was
alternative schools and necessary small schools, where students may be influenced by external factors
(such as drug and delinquent peers) that keep them out of school. In addition, transportation may be a
challenge when kids are travelling in from other districts.

School Efforts to Reduce Truancy and Chronic Absenteeism

Schools were addressing truancy and chronic absenteeism before the implementation of KKIS in a variety
of ways. KKIS was implemented in addition to these efforts, described below, and often helped enhance
or strengthen these non-KKIS efforts with the addition of the case manager at the school who was focused
on truancy and chronic absenteeism.

• Mandatory efforts: All schools discussed the state-mandated approach, the School Attendance
Review Board (SARB) and School Attendance Review Team (SART) letters, but very few have
escalated cases up to the District Attorney (DA) level.
• Whole school model: Beyond the formal and mandatory mechanisms, most schools emphasized
the need for, and are pushing towards, a whole school approach to address attendance issues and
other behavioral and mental health challenges youth face.
• Programming and incentives: Many schools reported hiring a new school engagement person
who is funded to work actively with families and the community to build school connectedness.
This is aligned with school goals identified in their Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP).
Enrichment programs, before and after school services, and parent workshops (e.g., literacy or
parenting classes) are examples of how these schools are trying to engage with families.
• Proactive supports: Finally, there were a selected group of administrators who stood out as
having a very active role in efforts to address attendance issues, and their interest in KKIS reflected
that approach. For example, one principal highlighted a case in which a student was being very
defiant towards a guardian ̮΢͆ μΩ φΆ͊ εθΉ΢̼Ήε̮Λ ϭ͊΢φ φΩ φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φ͞μ ΆΩϡμ͊΁ εΉ̼Θ͊͆ Ά͊θ ϡε ͔Ωθ
school, and explained the importance of education. Attendance is no longer an issue with this
particular student.

Integration of Case Manager into School Environment

In November 2016, a sample of KKIS schools were visited by the evaluation team. During these visits,
school principals and staff were asked about their experience with the program and case managers.
Specifically, they were asked about how the case manager was integrated into the school. Schools varied
in how much time the case manager is able to spend at the school. At one school, the case manager is
there full time. In other schools, the case managers may be at the school only on certain days. In those
instances, in which the case manager was not on site full time, many administrators and staff expressed
̮ ΢͊͊͆ ͔Ωθ ΡΩθ͊ Ω͔ φΆ͊ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θ͞μ φΉΡ͊ ̮φ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ΄ Ά͊ͼ̮θ͆Λ͊μμ Ω͔ φΉΡ͊ με͊΢φ ̮φ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ΁ φΆ͊
case manager role was ͆͊μ̼θΉ̻͊͆ ̮μ ͡Ή΢φ͊ͼθ̮φ͊͆͢ Ή΢φΩ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ΄ ͷ΢͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ εθΉ΢̼Ήε̮Λ ̼ΩΡΡ͊΢φ͊͆ φΆ̮φ
φΆ͊ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θ ϭ̮μ ͡Ω΢͊ ϭΉφΆ ϡμ΄͢ ͛΢ μΩΡ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ΁ φΆ͊ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θ ̮φφ͊΢͆͊͆ μφ̮͔͔ Ρ͊͊φΉ΢ͼμ ̮΢͆
other meetings of support staff and community service providers at the school. The case managers also
provided training for staff around different topics, including the KKIS program, for school staff.

When asked to describe their experience with KKIS, the case manager role is the first and most
discussed topic. The schools value this role and have integrated the role to complement and support
other roles and services offered in the schools such as family engagement staff, student engagement

20
staff, restorative specialists, and school counselors. The case manager role in the school is described as
unique for the following reasons:

• The wealth of knowledge and connections the case managers have to community resources.
• The ability to be able to meet with the student and family at their home as a neutral party
rather than a representative of the school.
• The case manager is trained in how to address certain behaviors, how to work with parents and
families, beyond what the school staff can provide.
• The case manager is able to focus exclusively on attendance at the school, making it a priority,
helping to address issues in a tiered system, contacting families whose students are tardy or
absent, facilitating truancy meetings by grade level at the school, providing incentives for
students and families, and reviewing data.
• In many schools, we heard that the case manager not only works with students and families, but
also works with school staff on addressing self-care and dealing with secondary trauma.

School Challenges to Implementation KKIS

The school administrators were asked early on about the μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ͞ ̼̮ε̮̼Ήφϳ ̮΢͆ θ̮͊͆Ή΢͊μμ φΩ ΉΡεΛ͊Ρ͊΢φ
the program. Most schools highlight an excellent first experience with their case manager and a clear
understanding of the target population. There were some initial concerns of time commitment to
implement the program, anticipated resistance from staff, or how this program may be at odds with a
staff culture that emphasized not getting involved in attendance issues to avoid conflict with families.
However, there were administrators from several schools that explicitly noted the support early on in
implementation from φΆ͊ ΃θΩ̻̮φΉΩ΢ D͊ε̮θφΡ͊΢φ͞μ program leadership, and that they believe that this
leadership is positioning schools for success.

The most significant anticipated implementation barrier highlighted by nearly every administrator was
resistant parents. There are a few reasons why schools anticipated parents may resist and many of these
did emerge during the implementation period. Parents, particularly those from undocumented families,
were hesitant because this program was managed through the county Probation Department. Parents
also hesitated because of home situations that they did not want to expose to the school (e.g.,
dysfunction, substance abuse, etc.). Finally, some school administrators did raise concern about
language as a barrier for families, especially if the case manager is not bilingual. This proved to be a
challenge in some of the KKIS schools. Hiring a bilingual case manager later during program
implementation was a great help to both families and other case managers who often had the bilingual
case manager assist with communication as needed.

During the November 2016 school visits, the evaluation team interviewed school administrators and
staff on site about KKIS implementation challenges. During that visit, the following were mentioned as
challenges by site administrators and staff across the visited schools:

• The use of incentives for youth in the program to improve their attendance (e.g., new sneakers,
etc.) was hard for other students in the school to understand or created a jealous dynamic
among students.
• The semi-structured schedule of some case managers was difficult for students. Some schools
expressed concern that there were days when students expected to see the case manager, but
due to schedule changes, the case manager had to be off site and this led to disappointment
among students. This was particularly true for younger students.

21
 • Language barriers with families continued to be a challenge at schools who require a bilingual
case manager. As mentioned above, there is one bilingual case manager who provides regular
language support for all other case managers.
• Engaging parents and having them agree to have their child participate in the KKIS program was
another challenge. Sometimes the issue is making contact with parents, but other times contact
is made but the parents do not agree to participate. One administrator said this is a real barrier
̻̼̮͊ϡμ͊ φΆ͊ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θ ̼̮΢΢Ωφ ͼΩ φΩ ͔̮ΡΉΛΉ͊μ͞ ΆΩΡ͊μ until the parent consents to the
program.
• !φ Λ̮͊μφ Ω΢͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ μφ̮͔͔ ε̮θφΉ̼Ήε̮΢φ μ̮Ή͆ φΆ̮φ ̼ΆθΩ΢Ή̼ ͡φ̮θ͆Ή͊μ΁͢ ͊με̼͊Ή̮ΛΛϳ Ή΢ φΆ͊ ϳΩϡ΢ͼ͊θ ͼθ̮͆͊μ΁
are a big problem and that this needs to be the priority.
• Wait lists for KKIS presented a challenge to some schools. Some staff had experience referring
μφϡ͆͊΢φμ φΩ ͨͨ͛Ί ̻ϡφ φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ Ά̮͆ φΩ ̻͊ εϡφ Ω΢ ̮ ϭ̮Ήφ ΛΉμφ ̻̼̮͊ϡμ͊ φΆ͊ εθΩͼθ̮Ρ ϭ̮μ ͔͡ϡΛΛ΄͢ ͛΢
one case mentioned by a respondent, however, a student did eventually get into the KKIS
program and had a successful experience.

CASE MANAGER EXPERIENCE AND PERCEPTION OF KKIS

Case Manager Experience & Background
The case managers were interviewed throughout the program implementation period. As new case
managers were hired, and others left their positions, interviews were conducted with the new cohort of
case managers coming into the program. In general, the backgrounds of the case managers varied, but
all brought strong skills and prior experience helpful to their current roles in the KKIS program. Some of
the case managers had previously worked at Seneca while others were new to Seneca and hired
specifically for KKIS. Some had previous experience working in schools, and others had experience
working in domestic violence centers, treatment centers, or other youth programs. The second cohort of
new case managers were interviewed in Fall 2016. This cohort did not have prior case management
experience, but as with the first cohort, all had worked with populations similar to those they would be
serving in the KKIS program.

Case Manager Role and Collaboration with School Community

Case managers, some without any experience working in schools, worked hard throughout the
implementation period to build a collaborative partnership with the schools. In the beginning of
implementation, case managers talked about getting acclimated to the schools and the different school
cultures. Many case managers described attending school events and staff meetings to help foster their
acclimation and collaboration. Over time, key partnerships began to be leveraged with other school staff
such as student engagement staff, attendance staff, family engagement staff, and school counselors. In
most cases, these partnerships have helped both the KKIS program and the school. The case managers
often said they were able to help the schools with students who were not yet enrolled, or interested in
the KKIS program, but in need of other services such as behavioral health services. Case managers also
do some outreach and prevention work with families as necessary.

Over time, different models of implementation evolved, as did the case manager role, to accommodate
this change. For example, later in implementation, one case manager was based at the district office and
served youth with the highest needs in the district, while other case managers continued to be based at
multiple schools serving a range of student needs from those schools (these changes in implementation
are described more in the implementation section below). Perceptions of how supported school staff
feels varies by school, but generally case managers have felt supported. Some case managers were
integrated into parent-teacher activities and staff meetings, which they found helpful.

22
When case managers were asked to describe their role in the KKIS program, the words most commonly
ϡμ͊͆ ϭ͊θ͊ ̼͡Ω΢΢̼͊φΩθ΁͢ ͡θ͊μΩϡθ̼͊ φΩ ͔̮ΡΉΛΉ͊μ΁͢ ͡΢͊ϡφθ̮Λ ε̮θφϳ΁͢ ͡Ρ͊͆Ή̮φΩθ΁͢ ͡Ωϡφθ̮̼͊Ά΁͢ ̮΢͆ ͡ΛΉ̮ΉμΩ΢΄͢
Over the course of the implementation period, case managers noted how their role was unique in that
they were not school staff, but were often working at the school with families. This was often described
as helpful since some families were resistant to the school contacting them directly. The role of
connecting families with community resources and helping to improve family routines or function to
facilitate better school attendance was something that school staff could not devote time to. The case
manager was valued because of their unique role.

In the final interviews with case managers in the Fall 2017, a few respondents mentioned that their role
shifted towards sustainability over the past year. Rather than focus mostly on providing direct services,
one case manager mentioned searching for more community support so that the family will be able to
continue with that support, even when this grant ends. Case managers who were in the same school for
both the 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years reported feeling more comfortable and integrated into
the school, with some receiving more frequent referrals. A few case managers mentioned that the
morale and energy of the school towards the end of the 2016-17 school year was a bit lower than it had
been throughout the year due to student and staff burnout and the attendance drops that are typical
around school breaks.

Challenges to Implementation
The challenges to program implementation expressed by case managers were fairly consistent. The
most frequently mentioned barriers by case managers are dealing with parents, paperwork, language,
and staff buy-in. For example, Spanish language skills would be useful for speaking with many families.
In a few schools, the case managers have struggled to find the best ways to become integrated in the
school culture and staffing. Finally, some case managers described the challenge of getting families to
engage with them because they were worried to have their child part of a program that was associated
ϭΉφΆ φΆ͊ ΃θΩ̻̮φΉΩ΢ D͊ε̮θφΡ͊΢φ΄ ΐΆ͊ Ρ͊΢φΉΩ΢ Ω͔ ͡probation͢ φϡθ΢͊͆ Ω͔͔ μΩΡ͊ ͔̮ΡΉΛΉ͊μ ̮΢͆ Ρ̮͆͊ φΆ͊Ρ
ϭΩθθΉ͊͆ φΆ̮φ φΆ͊Ήθ ̼ΆΉΛ͆ ϭΩϡΛ͆ ̻͊ ͡εϡφ Ή΢ φΆ͊ μϳμφ͊Ρ΄͢

The barriers to program implementation identified by case managers were similar across the cohorts.
For example, engaging families for enrollment in the program continued to be a challenge throughout
the implementation period. The second cohort of case managers seemed more comfortable with the
program database and the data entry process, most likely because they had the opportunity to be
trained on the system and practice with it, whereas the first cohort had to transition into using the new
system after they had started enrolling families.

A few case managers cited specific things they would change about KKIS. Several case managers
mentioned that 15 cases created an overwhelming case load. One specifically mentioned that the case
load is too much for an hourly position, since overtime is not encouraged. If the position continues to
be structured this way, one case manager mentioned that 10-12 cases would be more manageable.
Others mentioned that the amount of paperwork and documentation is a bit hard to keep up with at
times.

IMPLEMENTATION OF KKIS O VER IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD

As mentioned earlier, the implementation of KKIS evolved over time and according to different school
and district contexts. Early on during implementation, two ways case managers delivered the program
emerged. One role of the case manager was to provide technical assistance to tier I and tier II students.

23
Tier I and II were described as modeling support for students and the entire school population as well as
assisting schools with the SARB process for students struggling with attendance. This comprised the
majority of cases for all case managers and most of these were handled informally. That is, there is no
formal intake or enrollment process that takes place unless the students attendance did not improve.

Tier I and II activities for case managers also included providing school-wide approaches to support
student attendance for all students. This included improving the drop off system at an elementary
school to be more efficient and reduce morning tardiness. Another example was a case manager helping
to implement a breakfast program at the school to encourage families to bring their children to school
earlier to have breakfast and reduce the likely hood of missing school or being late.

The second role for case managers was to provide case management services for those students who
required more intensive engagement, monitoring and services (Tier III). One challenge for the case
managers was managing the severe cases concurrent to the case load for their tier II cases. This
remained a challenge throughout KKIS implementation.

ΐΆ͊ ΩφΆ͊θ ΡΩ͆͊Λ φΆ̮φ ͊Ρ͊θͼ͊͆ ͆ϡθΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊ ΉΡεΛ͊Ρ͊΢φ̮φΉΩ΢ ε͊θΉΩ͆ ϭ̮μ φΆ͊ ͆͡ΉμφθΉ̼φ ΡΩ͆͊Λ΄͢ ͛΢ φΆΉμ ̼̮μ͊΁
the case manager worked closely with school district staff and multiple schools in the district to manage
students and families with more severe needs (similar to the Tier III mentioned above).

Intake Process
The intake process is handled in a variety of ways to meet the schools where they were in terms of their
current communication with families, policies, and expectations. Examples of how intake varied by
school include handling intake over multiple visits, deciding whether to have the school or case manager
serve as the point of first contact to reach out to families, and in some schools, the attendance person
or superintendent was the one to identify possible KKIS participants and make referrals to the program.

Interventions Offered and Accessed by Students

The KKIS initiative offers a flexible model based on the individual needs of the students who are engaged
with programming. As described previously, the program involves initial outreach and services along
with ongoing case management for students who are identified as needing a higher level of support.
KKIS case managers, in partnership with the student and family, create a KKIS Action Plan and Safety
Plan, outlining clear and measurable goals to promote improved attendance and support the well-being
of the student.

The results presented below include descriptive data on the activities and interventions provided to KKIS
participants. Each case manager enters records in the data system about the services offered and
accessed by KKIS participants. These data were used by case managers throughout the program period
to track assessments, action plans, intervention details, and log any contact with the student or family
involved with KKIS.

Overall, there were more than 1600 individual interventions or services offered and/or accessed as part
of the program. Figure 4 indicates that most services offered to youth and families are school-based
interventions (23.9%) and home-based interventions (19.9%). These services are also accessed the most
by KKIS participants. It should be noted that for both interventions, the percent of services accessed is
slightly higher (25.8% school-based services and 22.3% for home-based) than the percent of services
Ω͔͔͊θ͊͆΄ ΐΆΉμ Ήμ ΛΉΘ͊Λϳ ͆ϡ͊ φΩ Ή΢̼Ω΢μΉμφ͊΢φ ̮͆φ̮ ͊΢φθϳ΄ FΩθ ͊ϲ̮ΡεΛ͊΁ μ͊θϬΉ̼͊μ ̼Ω΢μΉ͆͊θ͊͆ ̼͡ΩΡεΛ͊φ͊͆͢ Ωθ
̮̼̼͊͡μμ͊͆͢ ̻̼̮͊ϡμ͊ Ήφ Ήμ ̮ μΉΡεΛ͊ ̮̼φΉΩ΢ μϡ̼Ά ̮μ μ͊φφΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊ ̮Λ̮θΡ ̼ΛΩ̼Θ ̮͊θΛΉ͊θ΁ Ρ̮ϳ ΢Ωφ ̻͊ ̮ μ͊θϬΉ̼͊ φΆ̮φ

24
ϭ̮μ ̮ΛμΩ ͆Ω̼ϡΡ͊΢φ͊͆ ̮μ ͡Ω͔͔͊θ͊͆΄͢ ΐΆ͊θ͊ Ήμ variation in how long youth have been engaged in KKIS and
therefore the services offered and accessed may vary as a result of time in the program.

Figure 4. KKIS interventions offered and accessed

Interventions Offered by KKIS Case Managers and Accessed by KKIS Students

Academic Support Service 5.9% Offered
6.2%
0.9% Accessed
Daycare 0.9%
9.7%
Family Service 8.6%
0.7%
Gϡ̮θ͆Ή̮΢ Ͱ͊΢φ̮Λ Ḫ͊ΛφΆ΅ 0.7%
19.9%
Home-Based Intervention 22.3%
7.1%
Incentive 5.2%
0.9%
Mentoring 0.6%
8.5%
Other Community Resource 7.5%
6.2%
Pro-Social Activity 5.7%
23.9%
School-Based Intervention 25.8%
8.4%
Student Mental Health Service 9.1%
8.0%
Transportation 7.5%

The specific interventions provided within each category varied widely and are tailored to the needs of
each KKIS participant. For example, some students (or parents) require text or phone call reminders to
bring their child to school at the appropriate time, while other KKIS participants require more intensive
mentoring to address behavioral issues that impede with school attendance. Examples of interventions
by type are provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Examples of interventions by type

Intervention Type Example
Homework assistance, assistance with Individual Education Plan (IEP)
Academic Support Services
discussions
Identifying counseling & mediation, financial assistance, health, and housing
Family Service
services
Home-based Intervention Time management resources, text/call reminders
Reward plan to promote attendance and academic achievement (e.g., movie
Incentive
tickets)
Other Community Resource Referrals to partners that promote social and physical wellness
Connect family to external resources focused on social wellness of student
Pro-social Activity
(e.g., extracurricular activities)
Conduct check-ins, providing job skills training, creating attendance and
School-based Intervention
behavioral improvement plans
Connect student with mental health service or personal mental health
Student Mental Health Service
practices.
Identify transportation assistance (e.g., carpool, busing, bicycle purchase or
Transportation
repair, or providing rides)

25
The goal of KKIS is to improve attendance. However, improving attendance is one of many reasons a
student may exit out of the program. Table 5 below indicates that 61.6% (N=101) of students exited the
program for satisfactorily improved attendance. Because KKIS is a voluntary program, there are also
students and families who refused all services. Overall, 32.8% (N=80) exited because the student or
family refused to receive servic͊μ΄ ΐΆ͊ ͡ΩφΆ͊θ͢ μ̼͊φΉΩ΢ Ή΢̼Λϡ͆͊μ φΆ͊ φϭΩ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ ϭΆΩ ͊ϲΉφ͊͆ φΆ͊
program upon graduation or earning their GED.

Table 5. Number of students who have exited KKIS (N=164)

Student
Exit Reason
# %
All resources/service options exhausted 10 6.1%
Decided to discontinue services 8 4.9%
Moved to another school/education program 24 14.6%
Satisfactorily improved attendance 101 61.6%
Transitioned to duplicate services 3 1.8%
Transitioned to higher level of service 16 9.8%
Other 2 1.2%
Total 164 100.0%

Students in KKIS are offered different levels of service depending on their needs; some receive case
management services while others do not. As described earlier in the report, the dominant feature of
KKIS is the wraparound case management service opportunity for youth referred into the program.
There are also students referred into KKIS who may receive a single needs-based service or initial
outreach from a case manager, but who do not participate in case management.

The students who received case management are compared to those who did not receive case
management on their reason for formally exiting the program (Figure 5). Overall, of the 164 students
who exited the KKIS, 125 students received case management and 39 students did not. The data suggest
that a greater percentage of students (64.1%) who do not receive case management exit for
satisfactorily improved attendance compared to those who do receive case management (60.8%).

26
Figure 5. Percent of students who received case management by exit reason (n=164)

64.1%
60.8%
% of Studeents

No Case Management
Case Management

17.9%
13.6% 11.2%
5.1% 6.4% 5.1% 4.8% 2.6% 1.6% 5.1%
0.0% 1.6%

All Decided to Moved to another Satisfactorily Transitioned to Transitioned to Other

resources/service discontinue school/education improved duplicate services higher level of
options exhausted services program attendance service
Exit Reason

Successes or Strengths to Implementation

Case managers all shared different stories and examples of success, regardless of when the interview
was conducted. One case manager noted that she pursues this line of work because the kids are
resilient, and they surprise her every day. Managers also mentioned that the kids have a voice in this
program, and they have had success asking a student what would motivate them to get to school on
time. Other case managers have seen significant progress with some of their cases over a short
timeframe. In the final interviews with case managers in Fall 2017, they discussed how this program has
highlighted the importance of attending school. Many cited that having the paperwork finalized and
uploading it to Apricot has helped the data collection process, which was challenging in the early stages
of implementation. Two case managers mentioned the new buddy system which has helped them feel
more connected and collaborative with the other case managers. A few case managers mentioned how
their role is helpful to the schools because they bring a different perspective to the table and see kids
from a different lens. One case manager mentioned the fact that having alternative funding to buy
families food made a positive impact on rapport building.

School staff were also asked about KKIS successes, especially when we conducted the November 2016
school site visits. Many school staff had direct experience working with the case manager. For example,
several staff provided examples of their KKIS referrals that included success stories of youth and families
who participate in the program. Examples of strategies staff were aware of include: helping parents with
parenting skills such as morning routines and setting boundaries, giving teachers suggestions for how to
communicate with disengaged families and students, providing incentives for youth to change
behaviors, helping families and students with essential needs such as food and bedding, addressing
issues of homelessness, helping with immigrant hearings, and identifying mental health issues in
students. However, there were also multiple staff who thought the program was successful, but did not
know how the program actually worked in the school.

PROCESS EVALUATION OUTCOMES AND PROGRAM SATISFACTION

Throughout implementation, school administrators, case managers, guardians and students were asked
about their perceived outcomes and satisfaction of the program through surveys, including an exit
survey (for full results of the exit survey see Appendix C.), and interviews. The relevant findings are

27
presented in Table 6. below. Overall, case managers, school administrators, students, and guardians
perceive the program to:

• Improve school and family relationships,

• Increase access to community organizations and partners, and
• Support improved attendance.

This section concludes with a summary of the key components that case managers and school
administrators perceive to be the essential and need to be sustained in the KKIS program for continued
success.

28
Table 6. Process outcomes and program satisfaction
Evaluation Survey Interview Data Exit Data
Relationships Between Families and Schools
Nearly all case managers and Improved relationship between Parents agreed (more strongly
school administrators agree that families and schools and increased than students) that this program
they work collaboratively with parent involvement. All schools helped improve communication
each other to engage youth in the talked about how important the within their families (73.1%) and
KKIS program. role of the case managers as a that this program helped improve
neutral party to the families their child's (88.7%) and their
Responses from both case rather than being employed by (90.6%) relationship with staff.
managers and school the school, which has reduced
administrators suggest mixed tension and improved the
feelings regarding parental relationship and communication
engagement with the school. between schools and families

Knowledge of Community Resources

School administrator responses An increase in knowledge about
suggest a majority agree that community resources at the
relationship with community school level.
organizations and other school
partners have generally improved.

Attendance
Overall the majority of school -- Guardians responded positively
administrators perceived about the attendance support
improvements in attendance since services received; more than 98%
the start of the program. responding positively.

Case managers and school When asked whether their child's

administrators generally attendance improved as a result
perceived that staff awareness of of the program, the majority of
truancy and absenteeism has guardians (83%) either agreed or
improved since the start of the strongly agreed that their child's
program; however, some school attendance improved and 17.0%
administrators (18%) did not answered as unsure/neutral to
perceive this to be the case at the that question.
time of this survey.
A similar proportion of students
(80%) agreed or strongly agreed
that their attendance improved
after being in the program.

Sustainability
To understand how KKIS has been integrated into the schools and the most important components of
the program that need to be sustained, we asked all participants what they would miss most of the KKIS

29
program if it were no longer at the school during the Fall 2016 site visits. Most of the responses were
directly related to the role of the case manager, specifically:

• The ability for the case manager to contact parents, make home visits, and bring their skills and
case management training to help students and families address their needs. Specifically, their
ability to improve parenting skills at home and connect families and students to community
resources were mentioned as essential components of the program.
• The role case managers play in both addressing barriers to attending school and re-integrating
students when they do return to school. It can be challenging for a student to return to school.
Case managers helped the student and family manage the integration back into the school
community.
• The fact the case manager is not a school employee has been an asset to building relationships
with families, especially if families have had a difficult or tenuous relationship with the school in
the past.
• The expertise case managers bring to the school that leads to professional development
opportunities for staff on self-care, secondary trauma, and tier one interventions to improve
attendance.
• The case managers exclusive focus on attendance allows other student services staff such as
counselors and family engagement staff to spend more time in their role helping students.

Sustainability components that were not directly related to the case manager role, but also mentioned
by participants, include the need for the program to start in younger grades because building routines
and making school a priority for the family is critical to student success and needs to start in
Kindergarten. The other key component needed to be sustained is the non-punitive nature of KKIS. The
program views poor attendance as a symptom of family and student needs that case managers can
address through support and services rather than punishing the student for the attendance violation.

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

The KKIS program evolved over the implementation period in large part due to feedback from all those
involved, including the case managers and school principals and staff. The case managers, arguably the
most intimately involved in program implementation, reflected periodically on how the KKIS program
could be improved. Below are some highlights of suggestions from case managers for program
improvement, as gathered from interviews over the course of implementation:

• This second cohort of case managers benefited greatly from those who have held this same
position last year. The mentor style training, hands on data entry practice, and in the field
shadowing gave this group support and confidence in their new role. Building in more hands-on
training and learning from each other will continue to benefit both new and veteran KKIS case
managers.
• Learning how the new model of having a case manager based at the district level impacts the
case manager role and support that is needed will be important for future planning.
• Case managers spoke of learning more about the community and available resources to offer
their clients. Having a chance to connect, engage, and collaborate with community resources

30
 specific to the school or district they are working in would bring added knowledge and benefit to
their work and their clients.
• Given that the case manager position is hourly, the case managers mentioned that creating a
salaried position would allow them to better fulfill the expectations of their school or district
and Seneca. While they understand the importance of being present at their school for the full
̮͆ϳ΁ Ή͔ φΆ͊ϳ ΢͊͊͆ φΩ ͆θΉϬ͊ ̮ ϳΩϡ΢ͼ ε͊θμΩ΢ φΩ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ Ωθ μφ̮ϳ Λ̮φ͊ ͔Ωθ ̮ ε̮θ͊΢φ Ρ͊͊φΉ΢ͼ΁ Ήφ͞μ ͆Ή͔͔Ή̼ϡΛφ
to find a balance. A few case managers also mentioned that some of these cases are very high
need and require multiple hours of their work per day. If they have several of those cases on
φΆ͊Ήθ ͆Ω̼Θ͊φ΁ Ήφ͞μ ͆Ή͔͔Ή̼ϡΛφ φΩ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊ all 15 cases within the limitations of the position.
• A few case managers also suggested that the supervisors be a bit more interactive with the
program. The managers spoke highly of their supervisors, but would encourage them to
interact and communicate with the individual schools more.

School staff and administrators were also asked during the 2016 site visit if they had suggestions for
improving the KKIS program. All were overwhelmingly pleased with the program and some offered ideas
to consider as the program moves forward. Most of these ideas involve ways to clarify program services
for all stakeholders. For example, some said a guidebook with KKIS services and a flow chart of how
students move through the service offerings would be helpful. Others noted that a schoolwide google
doc of services, or another way to have teachers understand more about the services available through
ͨͨ͛Ί΁ ϭΩϡΛ͆ ̻͊ Ά͊Λε͔ϡΛ΄ ΊΩΡ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛμ μϡͼͼ͊μφ͊͆ φΆ̮φ ̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θμ͞ μ̼Ά͊͆ϡΛ͊μ μΆΩϡΛ͆ ̻͊ Ρ̮͆͊ ̼Λ̮͊θ͊θ
to both office staff and the students and that there should be consistency in the schedule. Overall, most
schools that did not have a full-time case manager expressed interest in having their case manager at
the school for more time. This would allow for both the students and staff to connect with the case
manager more often.

Outcomes
Attendance
The following section describes the attendance experiences of students who were engaged by the KKIS
intervention and case managers in various ways. It also describes the changes in attendance rates for
students following enrollment in services, including case management.

The attendance data for the evaluation of KKIS initiative were collected by case managers for each
student at the school through a variety of methods. For example, some schools in the evaluation provide
̼̮μ͊ Ρ̮΢̮ͼ͊θμ ̮̼̼͊μμ φΩ φΆ͊ μ̼ΆΩΩΛ͞μ μφϡ͆͊΢φ Ή΢͔ΩθΡ̮φΉΩ΢ μϳμφ͊Ρ φΩ ͊ϲφθ̮̼φ ̮φφ͊΢̮͆΢̼͊ ̮͆φ̮΁ ϭΆΉΛ͊
other schools provide hard copy reports for each participant. The case manager was responsible for
φθ̮΢μ͔͊θθΉ΢ͼ φΆ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ ̮φφ͊΢̮͆΢̼͊ data into the Apricot data system for the purposes of program
monitoring and evaluation.

The data were reported at the daily-level, or by period, when available. For example, if a school
collected attendance for seven periods each day, the case manager would be responsible for entering
up to seven attendance events per day or 35 attendance records in a full school week. The data were
entered only on days when a negative attendance event (e.g., absence or tardy) occurred for the
student. For most of the evaluation period, the case managers entered only the counts of negative

31
events before, during and after the enrollment period.6 Case managers were asked to record attendance
data for approximately one semester before enrollment, and three to six months after enrollment,
depending on the specific date of enrollment.

To generate weekly attendance rates, WestEd merged attendance records from Apricot with academic
period data available through individual school calendars and in consultation with probation staff. The
academic period data provided the total number of possible periods in the week. Through a series of
transformations, a set of weekly data points were created to include total number of periods (or days)
with a negative attendance event (absence or tardy); total number of periods available during the week;
and total number of periods with positive attendance event. In cases in which no negative events
occurred, 100 percent attendance was assumed.

Following the data merge and transformation process, a series of data cleaning procedures were
completed to remove any cases that were deemed unreliable or invalid. For example, total periods were
identified based on the school data associated with the data of the attendance record in the student file,
and additional data checks were completed to ensure that there were no cases with records above 100
percent or below zero percent, which would indicate erroneous data. In coordination with Seneca and
Probation, several records were updated due to inaccurate dates or duplicate data. The data file was
then reduced to include only cases within a year of the enrollment period further reducing potentially
erroneous data7. Finally, records for which a valid and reliable account of the total periods was not
readily available were removed from the analyses. This would include students, for example, with
records from other schools that are not named or not within a KKIS program district. The final data set
includes 6,055 valid weekly observations periods across 304 students.

On average, these students had an attendance rate of 73.5% prior to enrollment in KKIS. The students
also arrived at KKIS with other needs that were identified as part of an initial needs assessment. The
Needs Assessment is a critical step in the enrollment process for student identified to receive case
management. The Needs Assessment was examined across each domain and as an overall score, and
those outcomes are reported below. Of the 172 students who received case management services,
nearly all (99.0%) were flagged with at least one student-related need; 94.4%were flagged with at least
one family-related need; 65.8% were flagged with at least one school-related need; 56.5% were flagged
with a neighborhood need; and, 58.8% included an initial need related to family functioning in the
Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) Assessment.

Using the data from the initial needs assessment, students were categorized into three initial levels of
need: low, medium, and high. The needs assessment has a total score of 20 points across student,
family, school, and neighborhood need domains. These levels of need are based on an overall score, and
future analyses should examine specific items, when possible, that might have particular relevance to
the KKIS model. Low need is defined as a score up to 5 points; medium need is defined as a score
between 6 and 10 points; and high need is a score greater than 10 points. Originally, a fourth category
was included to capture those youth over 15 points, but this was collapsed into one category due to the
small number of very high needs students. Overall, 31.4% of students are defined as low need, 42.4% as
medium need, and 26.2% as high need students.

6 In Spring 2017, this method was changed to incorporate all attendance events and included a calculation to
create an attendance rate.
7
Attendance data was not required to be collected or reported beyond one year for any participant. Data beyond
one year was largely

32
As described elsewhere in this report, there are different types of students who are referred for services
based on their experiences within KKIS. The experiences of students who received case management
differ from those of students who receive outreach services only, and these experiences may be related
to their attendance outcomes as well; therefore, the outcomes are presented separately for students
who received only initial outreach, and students who case management services. The following sections
describe these different groups of students, including their attendance rates before KKIS enrollment. We
include additional analyses for the students who did not refuse (and did qualify for) services to compare
differences in the students who did and did not receive case management.

Table 7 indicates that prior to controlling for the characteristics of the students, their school, or their
experiences in the program, students who receive case management experience a small and positive
increase in their attendance rates following enrollment in KKIS.

Table 7. Difference in raw attendance rates between pre- and post-KKIS periods
Rate
Pre-KKIS Post-KKIS
Change
Overall (N=183) 73.5% 74.5% 0.9%
Outreach Only (N=32) 77.1% 74.2% -2.9%
Case Management (N=145) 72.6% 74.5% 2.0%

ΐΆ͊ ͔ΩΛΛΩϭΉ΢ͼ φ̮̻Λ͊μ ͆͊μ̼θΉ̻͊ φΆ͊ ̮μμΩ̼Ή̮φΉΩ΢ ̻͊φϭ͊͊΢ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ ̮φφ͊΢̮͆΢̼͊ θ̮φ͊μ ̻͔͊Ωθ͊ ̮΢͆ ̮͔φ͊θ φΆ͊Ήθ
enrollment in KKIS.8 Table 8 presents three models to examine attendance outcomes:

• The first model is a bivariate regression to understand the direct relationship between

attendance rates in the pre- compared to the post-period;

• The second model controls for student and school characteristics; and,
• The third model, the full, includes controls for the days enrolled in the program and number of
contacts made by the case manager.

Each of the three models accounts for the observations across multiple time periods, before and after
enrollment. The models also account for the clustering of students within schools. The variable ΆPre-Post
Enrollment͞ is the variable of interest and shows how attendance rates changed following enrollment.
The categorical variables of ΆGender͞, ΆΆace͞΁ Άͪanguage (at home)͞, ̮΢͆ ΆGθ̮͆͊ ͪevel͞ are modeled to
examine how overall attendance rates of subgroups compared with each other. ΆGender͞ compares male
students to female students; ΆΆace͞ compares attendance rates of racial subgroups against the subgroup
o͔ ΠΆΉφ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ΂ Άͪanguage (at home)͞ compares rates of Spanish-speaking household to that of
English-speaking ΆΩϡμ͊ΆΩΛ͆΂ ΆGrade ͪ͊Ϭ͊Λ͞ compares the attendance rates of middle and high school

8
For the purposes of these analyses, and through consultation with program management, the date used to define
the pre- and post-periods is 17 days following the initial outreach period. This date was determined based on the
average number of days elapsed from initial outreach to date of consent for those records that contain a consent
date. The lag is meant to account for an initial period of pre-engagement during which time the intervention was
not officially begun.

33
students to that of elementary students. Table 8 includes all students who did not refuse services, and
Table 9 focuses exclusively on those participants who took up case management services.

The results suggest that there is a positive, but non-significant relationship between enrollment in KKIS
and weekly attendance rate adjusting for multiple observation periods across weeks and the clustering
of students within schools. Overall, model 1 shows a bivariate association equivalent to a 3.3% increase
in attendance during the post enrollment period. After adjustment for student characteristics,9 the
association is equivalent to a 3.5% increase in the post enrollment period in models 2 and 3, and this
association remains consistent after including factors related to engagement in KKIS (e.g., days enrolled
and total contacts).

The findings are equivalent to an increase of nearly 6.3 days in attendance over the course of a school
year. Without a comparison group, it is not possible to ascertain whether the program led to these
effects, but the findings show preliminary evidence that there is a positive relationship between
students who experience KKIS and their subsequent propensity to attend school.

Table 8. Attendance rate changes for all students enrolled in KKIS

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Pre-Post Enrollment .033 .035 .035
Weeks Elapsed .000 .000 .000
Age at enrollment -.016* -.015*
Gender (Male) .004 -.002
Race (White)
Black -.043 -.060
Hispanic .099* .100*
Other/Unknown .026 .027
Language (Spanish) -.016 -.024
Grade Level (ES)
MS -.042 -.023
HS -.073 -.047

Days Enrolled in KKIS .000

Total # of contacts with case -.001*
manager
* p<.05

When looking at students who received case management services, results suggest that there is a
positive and significant relationship between enrollment in KKIS Case Management services and weekly
attendance rate, adjusting for multiple observation periods across weeks and the clustering of students
within schools. Overall, model 1 show a bivariate association equivalent to a 4.5% increase in

9
Initial level of need is dropped from this model because the needs assessment was completely primarily by
students who engaged in case management services. Including this factor would prohibit modeling the overall KKIS
participant population.

34
attendance during the post enrollment period. After adjustment for student characteristics, the
association improves to a 4.7% increase in the post enrollment period, and this association remains
consistent after including factors related to engagement in KKIS (e.g., days enrolled and total contacts).

The findings are equivalent to an increase of 8.5 days in attendance over the course of a school year.
Without a comparison group, it is not possible to ascertain whether the program led to these effects,
but it is strong preliminary evidence that there is an enhanced positive relationship between kids who
experience KKIS case management and their subsequent propensity to attend school.

Table 9. Attendance rate changes for students who received case management services
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Pre-Post Enrollment .045* .047* .047*
Weeks Elapsed -.0001 -.0001
Age at enrollment .007 -.008
Gender (Male) .024 -.024
Race (White)
Black -.064 -.077
Hispanic .081* .086*
Other/Unknown .009 .016
Language (Spanish) - .026 -.036
Risk (Low)
Medium - .059* -.058*
High - .073 -.036
Grade Level (ES)
MS - .039 -.020
HS - .116* -.086

Days Enrolled in KKIS .0001

Total # of contacts with case -.001*
manager
* p<.05

School Discipline
Case managers gathered school discipline data throughout the evaluation period and entered them into
the Apricot data system. Data were reported on the number of detentions, in-school suspensions, out-
of-school suspensions, and expulsions each KKIS participant received approximately six months before
and after enrollment into the program. Overall, very few students in KKIS experienced any exclusionary
discipline before or after enrolling in KKIS. Table 10 shows that of the students engaged with KKIS and
that had disciplinary data available, 5.2% experienced an in-school suspension in the pre-enrollment
period compared to 5.6% in the post enrollment period. There were 7.3% of students who experienced
out-of-school suspension in the pre-period compared with 9.6% in the post period, and 13.6% of
students experienced any type of discipline in the pre-period compared with 15.7% in the post period.

35
Table 10. Percent of students receiving discipline referrals by enrollment period
ISS OSS Expulsion Any Discipline
Pre [N=191] 5.2% (.22) 7.3% (.26) – 13.6% (.45)

Post [N=197] 5.6% (.23) 9.6% (.30) – 15.7% (.44)

The discipline data was then used to determine if there is a statistical relationship between the
differences in discipline referrals before and after KKIS enrollment controlling for other student
characteristics. Binary indicators were used to create a prevalence variable for each type of discipline
and a logistic regression was used to measure the association between referral and enrollment period.

As Table 11 shows, there were no statistically significant associations between odds of receiving an
exclusionary discipline referral before and after KKIS enrollment. The KKIS participants had 35% greater
odds of receiving an out-of-school suspension in the post period compared with the pre-period, and 41%
greater odds of experiencing any type of discipline in the post period, but again, these results are not
statistically significant.

Table 11. Odds of discipline referrals by referral type (Odds ratios are reported)
Any Discipline ISS OSS
Pre-Post Enrollment 1.412 1.046 1.347
Age at enrollment 1.258 1.545* 1.174
Gender (Male) 2.665* 1.551 3.987**
Race (White)
Black 3.403 22.634* ----
Hispanic 1.530 1.545 1.567
Other/Unknown 2.311 8.288 0.966
Language (Spanish) 2.119 3.860 1.477
Grade Level (ES)
MS 2.616 35.720*** 2.047
HS 0.656 --- 0.925

Days Enrolled in KKIS 0.998 1.000 0.997

Total # of contacts with case manager 1.004 1.003 1.006
* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Juvenile Justice Involvement

There were only six students in the KKIS program who had any involvement with the juvenile justice
system either before or after their participation in the program (Table 12). Four students were involved
with the juvenile justice system prior to their participation in KKIS and two were involved after
participating in KKIS. After adjusting for the pre- (1 year prior to KKIS enrollment) and post-KKIS program

36
implementation period, only four youth remained in the sample who were involved in the system, and
very few were referred for truancy issues (Table 13).

Table 12. Total number KKIS students with juvenile justice involvement
Students with At least One Offense
Pre-KKIS 4
Post KKIS 2
Total 6

Table 13. Types of offenses by KKIS students (N= 6 students)

Felony Misdemeanor
Pre-KKIS 1 12
Post KKIS 1 4
Total 2 16

Three of the youth had case management services through the KKIS program. In most cases, the youth
exited the KKIS program because of relocating, referrals to higher needs of service, or meeting improved
attendance and academic goals.
Due to the very small number of juvenile records among KKIS participants, the data are only modeled
descriptively to provide for context for the reader. Future work will look at proxy measures, such as the
Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) Assessment to further examine the association between involvement in
KKIS and risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Academic Report
The academic report analyses were restricted to include up to two academic records within 365 days
before and up to two academic records within 365 days after an adjusted outreach start date (outreach
start date plus 17 days), and include students who received outreach or case management and had
reliable academic data. This allotted a maximum of four academic records per student. There was a total
of 189 unique students across 438 academic reports (235 pre-outreach, 203 post-outreach).

Each record detailed counts of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, As, Bs, Cs, Ds, & Fs on a given academic report. All letter
grades had values greater than zero for middle and high school students. All numeric grades had values
greater than zero for elementary school students. A pseudo 5-point scale GPA metric was computed for
aggregating the academic reports. 10 For middle or high school students who had valid GPA measures
already present in a grade record, their pseudo GPA metric was replaced with their already present 4.0
GPA. (An additional point was added to their 4.0 GPA to represent the 5-point scale computed.)

10 The pseudo GPA was computed by summing all counts across the 10 grade variables mentioned above to obtain
the total classes that a grade record represented. Each count within a grade variable was then multiplied by the
value of the grade: 1 and F were given values of 1; 2 and D were given values of 2; 3 and C were given values of C; 4
and B were given values of 4; and 5 and A were given values of 5. After obtaining the weights for each grade (1
through 5) the sum was taken across the five new weight variables then divided by the total classes in a grade
record. This gave us 5.0 GPA metrics.

37
Overall, nearly negligible differences were found with respect to GPA (Table 14). The raw results
suggest a tenth-of-a-point decline in GPA on average from pre- (2.6) to post-outreach (2.5). After
controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case management, case manager, days
enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention, the adjusted
difference from pre- to post-outreach reduces to a .06-point difference (p=0.477). After computing a
model that excluded KKIS intervention specific variables (i.e. case management, case manager, days
enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is apparent with a .08-point difference
on average (p=.324). However, differences between the two models are trivial. Other variables available
in the academic report dataset-- specifically classes passed and failed--did not reveal anything that
would contradict GPA findings.

Table 14. Pseudo GPA by enrollment and participant characteristics

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Pre-Post Enrollment .077
.083 .062
Gender (Male) .069 .102
Race (White)
Black -.556* -.547*
Hispanic .233** .238**
Other/Unknown .103 .1525
Grade Level (ES)
MS .553*** .586***
HS -.006 -.006

Days Enrolled in KKIS .0002

Total # of contacts with case manager -.00001

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Student, Family, School, and Neighborhood Needs

The KKIS Needs Assessment has four needs domains related to truancy: Student-Specific, Family-
Specific, School-Specific, and Neighborhood-Specific. These four domains together make the Total
Truancy Needs Score. Within each domain, each indicator contributed one point to the domain overall
score. The following results assessed the change in the four needs domains and the total truancy need
rate from the initial to final assessment periods. There were 176 students who received Case
Management and completed an Initial Needs Assessment and 161 students who received a Final KKIS
Needs Assessment.

STUDENT -SPECIFIC
The Student-Specific Truancy Need Domain (Table 15) is composed of 10 indicators of need:

• Attendance • Physical Well-Being

• Academics/Learning • Mental Health

38
 • School Attitudes/Feelings • Home Responsibilities
• Behaviors • Substance Abuse
• Peer Relationships • Life Elements

The score range for this domain of need is from 0 to 10, with a score of 0 representing students with no
student specific truancy need and a score of 10 representing high needs in respect to student specific
truancy. The descriptive analyses show:

• The average Student-Specific Truancy Need score on the Initial assessment was 4.2; thus, the
average student who received case management had moderate need in respect to student
characteristics.
• The average Student-Specific Truancy Need score on the Final assessment was 3.6 and median
of 3, suggesting slight improvements from Initial to Final assessment periods.

This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention. The
143 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model) displayed a 0.52-point decrease in Student-Specific
Truancy need on average (p=.024). After computing a model that excluded KKIS intervention specific
variables (i.e. case manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is
apparent with a 0.52-point decrease in Student-Specific Truancy need on average still prevalent
(p=.033).

Table 15. Student specific needs score

Model 1 Model 2
PrePost Enrollment -.517* -.518*
Gender (Male) -.526* -.637**
Race (White)
Black -.415 .046
Hispanic -.890** -.723**
Other/Unknown .945 .755
Grade Level (ES)
MS 2.067*** 1.761
HS 2.173*** 1.883

Days Enrolled in KKIS -.002

Total # of contacts with case manager .015***

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

FAMILY-SPECIFIC
The Family-Specific Truancy Need Domain (Table 16) is composed of 5 indicators of need:

39
 • Parent/Guardian School Attitudes/Feelings
• Parenting Skills, Family Environment
• Parent/Guardian Mental Health
• Home Elements

The score range for this domain of need is from 0 to 5, with a score of 0 representing students with no
family-specific truancy need and a score of 5 representing high needs in respect to family-specific
truancy. The descriptive analyses show:

• The average Family-Specific Truancy Need score on the Initial assessment was 3; thus, the
average student who received case management had moderate to high truancy prevention need
in respect to family characteristics.
• The average score on the Final KKIS Needs Assessment was 2.2, suggesting slight improvements
from Initial to Final assessment periods.

This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention. The
143 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model) displayed a 0.34-point decrease in Family-Specific
Truancy needs on average (p=.048). After computing a model that excluded KKIS intervention specific
variables (i.e. case manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is
apparent with a 0.34-point decrease in Family-Specific Truancy risk on average still prevalent (p=.054).

Table 16. Family specific needs score

Model 1 Model 2
PrePost Enrollment -.343 -.343*
Gender (Male) -.573** -.663***
Race (White)
Black -.885* -.843*
Hispanic -.957*** -.940***
Other/Unknown .505 .319
Grade Level (ES)
MS .296 .243
HS -.163 -.041

Days Enrolled in KKIS .0001

Total # of contacts with case manager .006**

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

SCHOOL-SPECIFIC
The School-Specific Truancy Need Domain (Table 17) is composed of 4 indicators of Need:

40
 • School Policy
• School Climate
• School Services/Placement
• Teacher/Class Elements

The score range for this domain of need is from 0 to 4, with a score of 0 representing students with no
school-specific truancy need and a score of 4 representing high needs in respect to school-specific
truancy. The descriptive analyses show:

• The average School-Specific Truancy Need score on the Initial assessment was 0.6; thus, the
average student who received case management had very little need in respect to school
characteristics.
• The average score on the Final KKIS Needs Assessment was 0.5, suggesting potentially negligible
improvements from Initial to Final Assessment periods.

This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention. The
143 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final Assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model) displayed a 0.03-point decrease in School-Specific
Truancy need on average (p=.716). After computing a model that excluded KKIS intervention specific
variables (i.e. case manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is
apparent with a 0.03-point decrease in School-Specific Truancy need on average still prevalent (p=.713).

Table 17. School specific needs score

Model 1 Model 2
PrePost Enrollment -.035 -.035
Gender (Male) -.278** -.287**
Race (White)
Black -.132 -.034
Hispanic .001 .016
Other/Unknown -.159 -.230
Grade Level (ES)
MS .609*** .535
HS .503*** .393

Days Enrolled in KKIS -.001*

Total # of contacts with case manager .003**

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

NEIGHBORHOOD-SPECIFIC
The Neighborhood-Specific Truancy Need Domain (Table 18) is composed of 1 indicator of risk:
Neighborhood Elements. This indicator dichotomized the Neighborhood-Specific Truancy Need Score to

41
represent students with or without neighborhood specific truancy need. Overall, 23% (N=40) of students
were reported as having a Neighborhood-Specific need on the Initial Assessment and 15% (N=24) of
students were reported as having a Neighborhood-Specific need on the Final Assessment, suggesting
slight improvements from Initial to Final Assessment periods.

This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention.
Among the 143 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final Assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model), the odds of having a neighborhood specific need in the
final assessment was 50% lower compared with the initial assessment (p=.037). After computing a
model that excluded KKIS intervention specific variables (i.e. case manager, days enrolled in KKIS
intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is apparent with the odds of having a neighborhood
specific need in the final assessment still reported as 50% lower compared with the initial assessment
(p=.039).

Table 18. Neighborhood Specific Needs Score

Model 1 Model 2
PrePost Enrollment .507* .498*
Gender (Male) .315** .303**
Race (White)
Black 1.179 1.689
Hispanic 1.726 2.132*
Other/Unknown .724 .731
Grade Level (ES)
MS 2.024 1.482
HS 2.039 1.394

Days Enrolled in KKIS .999

Total # of contacts with case manager 1.006

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Odds Ratios Reported

TOTAL TRUANCY NEED RATE

The Truancy Need Rate (Table 19) is composed of the above four domains of Truancy Need Student-
Specific, Family-Specific, School-Specific, and Neighborhood-Specific. There is a total of 20 indicators
φΆ̮φ Ρ̮Θ͊ ϡε ̮ΛΛ ͔Ωϡθ ͆ΩΡ̮Ή΢μ΄ Ίφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ Ή΢͆ΉϬΉ͆ϡ̮Λ φΩφ̮Λ φθϡ̮΢̼ϳ need scores were each divided by the
20 indicators to create a total truancy need rate. This rating scale ranged from scores of 0 to 100%. The
descriptive analyses show:

• The average Total Truancy Need Rate on the Initial assessment was .38; thus, the average
student who received case management had moderate overall need in respect to truancy.
• The average Total Truancy Need Rate on the Final assessment was .32, suggesting slight
improvements from Initial to Final assessment periods.

42
This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention. The
143 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model) displayed a 5% decrease in Total Truancy Risk rate on
average (p=.016). After computing a model that excluded KKIS intervention specific variables (i.e. case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is apparent with a half-a-
point decrease in Total Truancy Need rate on average still prevalent (p=.022).

Table 19. Overall Truancy Needs Rate

Model 1 Model 2
Pre-Post Enrollment -.049* -.049*
Gender (Male) -.077** -.087***
Race (White)
Black -.071 -.038
Hispanic -.089*** -.077
Other/Unknown .065 .044
Grade Level (ES)
MS .154*** .131***
HS .130*** .114***

Days Enrolled in KKIS -.0001

Total # of contacts with case manager .001

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

JCP FAMILY FUNCTIONING

The Family Function Functioning Total Score Domain (Table 20) is composed of 5 indicators:

• Communicates effectively with family members

• Poor family supervision and control,
• Serious family conflicts
• History of reported child abuse/neglect or domestic violence
• Criminal family member

The score range is from 0 to 5, with a score of 0 representing students with no family functioning needs
and a score of 5 representing high needs in respect to family functioning. The descriptive analyses show:

• The average Family Functioning Total score on the Initial Assessment was 0.92; thus, the
average student who received case management had a low level need in respect to family
functioning characteristics.
• The average Family Functioning Total score on the Final Assessment was 0.47, suggesting an
improvement from Initial to Final assessment periods.

43
This finding was confirmed after controlling for school level, KKIS school, gender, ethnicity, case
manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact received during the KKIS intervention. The
144 KKIS students who received both Initial and Final Assessments (and had values for the
aforementioned variables used for the model) displayed a 0.35-point decrease in Family Functioning
Total score on average (p=.007). After computing a model that excluded KKIS intervention specific
variables (i.e. case manager, days enrolled in KKIS intervention, and total contact), a similar trend is
apparent with a 0.35-point decrease in Family Functioning Total score on average still prevalent
(p=.007).

Table 20. JCP Family Functioning Score

Model 1 Model 2
Pre-Post Enrollment -.347** -.347**
Gender (Male) -.159 -.203
Race (White)
Black .041 .209
Hispanic -.299* -.201
Other/Unknown .095 .134
Grade Level (ES)
MS .360* .277
HS .125 .061

Days Enrolled in KKIS .0004

Total # of contacts with case manager .005**

* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Costs and Benefits of the Keeping Kids in School Initiative

There is a positive, non-significant, association between participation in KKIS and studentμ͞ μϡ̻μ͊ηϡ͊΢φ
attendance rates; however, this relationship is enhanced and statistically significant for students who
experience case management. It is not only important to understand the potential effects of a program,
but also the costs required to realize such effects. Furthermore, it is helpful to understand the direct and
potential downstream monetary benefits of these effects for schools and other stakeholders, including
students.

The evaluation team undertook a preliminary cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis to better
understand the potential savings a school, and others, may realize following their investment in a the
KKIS initiative. The evaluation design did not allow for random assignment or any comparison group, so
the following estimates should be interpreted only as preliminary and exploratory in nature.

The first table (Table 21) presents a series of cost effectiveness analyses to determine how much it costs
to increase student attendance by one day using the KKIS model. Based on prior CBA analyses of school-
based case management services, the report includes not only estimates based exclusively on costs for
KKIS participants, but also estimates based on the whole school population using average school

44
enrollment for KKIS schools.11 Further, these exploratory analyses also include a cost effectiveness
estimate based on average school enrollment with conservative treatment effects that discount effect
size by .5 to account for the enhanced effect for KKIS participants. The justification for a cost model
based on the school population is that case managers, in additional to mentorship and referrals to
services for participants, also provide whole school prevention activities meant to impact the entire
student body. For example, developing attendance incentive events for classes and reorganizing the
student drop off schedule for the school would both have effects on participants and non-participants
alike.

Overall, we find that the average cost of KKIS per participant is $3,413.76 based on students who were
engaged in outreach or case management (N=304). The average cost per school is $75,717.44, which
includes a full-time case manager, and ancillary costs for staff mileage, training, and program
administration. If we use the average size of enrollment across KKIS schools (362 students) as the metric
against which we measure costs, the KKIS program costs $209.06 per student.

Table 21. Cost effectiveness of KKIS for different student populations

Program Costs Standardized Effects Cost per school day

KKIS Participants $3,413.76 .035 $541.87

Overall School Estimate $209.06 .035 $33.18
Conservative School
$209.06 .0185 $62.78
Estimate12

Based on most recent estimates, the average cost for a day of school in Sonoma County is $62.38 based
on the current expense of education per average daily attendance (ADA). Using this figure as a measure
of direct benefit to schools and taxpayers, Table 22 presents the potential direct benefits of the KKIS
initiative. The first estimate is for the KKIS participant population, the second estimate is for the overall
school population assuming effects are generalized to all students, and the third estimate is based on
the overall school population assuming a 50% reduction in effects for students in the school who did not
formally participate in KKIS. Following the table, the potential downstream and indirect benefits not
measured in the current study are discussed along with their implications for additional monetary
benefits assuming positive effects.

11 See http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost/Program/384 for example. Attendance and exclusionary discipline

were not included as economic metrics in the analysis, but are referenced for effect size along with high school

graduation.

12 Effect sizes are discounted to 50% for average number students in school who do not receive KKIS services,

based on an average of 20 cases per year for each school.

45
Table 22. Cost and benefits of KKIS for different student populations
Direct Benefits
Program Standardized Benefit to
Benefits minus costs
Costs Effects Cost Ratio
(ADA) of program
KKIS Participants $(3,413.76) .035 $392.99 $(3,020.76) $.12
Overall School
$(209.06) .035 $392.99 $183.93 $1.88
Population
Conservative School
$(209.06) .0185 $205.85 $(3.21) $.98
Estimate

The results suggest that while KKIS is costly when calculated based on targeted participants, if
accounting for overall student population, the potential benefits near or exceed the costs of the
program depending on the effect sizes used in the calculation. While it is not possible to confirm these
results without data on the entire student population and a valid comparison group, the effect sizes
discounted at 50% could be considered a fairly conservative estimate.

There are several important factors to note related to the cost benefit analysis presented above. First,
we reiterate that a cost benefit analysis without a statistically reliable comparison group should be
̼Ω΢μΉ͆͊θ͊͆ ͊ϲεΛΩθ̮φΩθϳ Ή΢ ΢̮φϡθ͊΄ ͛φ Ήμ ΢Ωφ εΩμμΉ̻Λ͊ φΩ μ̮ϳ ϭΆ̮φ φΆ͊μ͊ μφϡ͆͊΢φμ͞ ̮φφ͊΢̮͆΢̼͊ θ̮φ͊μ ϭΩϡΛ͆
have been absent the program, and therefore an effect size based on difference in means between
groups is not possible. Nevertheless, preliminary evidence set an important foundation for a future
rigorous study of the model using quasi-experimental or experimental design.

The benefits examined in this cost benefit analysis are very conservative by comparison to other cost
benefit analyses of similar programs. The current evaluation lacked adequate data to assess the effect of
KKIS on other dimensions with observable economic metrics. For example, drop out, and conversely,
high school graduation is highly correlated with chronic absenteeism in middle and older grades, but the
current evaluation lacked data to assess effects on graduation rate. An effect size comparable to
increasing high school graduates by one student nets a lifetime benefit of $200,000 dollars for student
and taxpayers, and additional benefits due to the reduced likelihood for contact with the criminal justice
system. In this example, it is easy to see the potential downstream incentive for intervening early in
̼ΆΉΛ͆θ͊΢͞μ ΛΉϬ͊μ φΩ ̮͆͆θ͊μμ attendance behaviors. Unfortunately, despite considerable effort, it was not
possible to discern the direct relation between increased days in school and the likelihood of HS
graduation for K-12 students. Future analyses will continue to explore this relationship, particularly as
longitudinal data becomes available to assess downstream impacts of KKIS.

Limitations
This project was not without limitations. Some of these limitations have been discussed above, and will
be expanded on briefly in this section. The limitations in this project relate to design, data collection,
and analysis.

Evaluation design requires many considerations. Researchers who seek to employ a design sufficient for
to the national evidence-based registries (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse and Crime Solutions) may
only consider very strong quasi-experimental or experimental designs. However, it is imperative that a
program or model have enough preliminary evidence to support the logic model or theory of change
that will subsequently be put up to the scrutiny of a rigorous evaluation design. There are many

46
alternative designs that program developers and evaluators can consider to answer preliminary
questions about how a program or model is working, whether it aligns to its logic model, and use these
learnings to inform refinement of the program or model over time. The evaluation of KKIS falls into this
latter category. WestEd worked closely with the Department to design an evaluation that was
utilization-focused while providing preliminary evidence on the effects of the program. The evaluation
design did not, however, have opportunity to identify a reliable comparison group against which to
compare the effects of the program for KKIS participants. It is therefore critical to interpret the results
presented above with caution and as preliminary evidence only. The single group design does not allow
us to make any claims of causation or intervention effect, but rather the outcomes are presented as
associations between the outcome of interest (e.g., attendance) and participation in the intervention.
While it is clear that there is an enhanced effect for students who fully experience the intervention,
future work will employ a design that includes a comparison group of students with similar
characteristics and needs to the KKIS participants.

In addition to design limitations, the case managers and evaluation team faced challenges in collecting
data for the evaluation. The KKIS intervention operates across numerous schools in multiple districts.
This reach of this program means that case managers and program management were tasked with
designing a database that is compatible with several different types of student information systems and
data warehouses. Further compounding the challenge was the evaluation team need for data in certain
ways (e.g., weekly attendance) to maximize statistical power for the outcome evaluation. Furthermore,
WestEd was not granted access to student-level data, so all data were de-identified prior to data
analysis. This meant that all data for the KKIS evaluation were hand entered by case managers who drew
on paper and electronic student records for the information. The process led to challenges in validating
the accuracy of the data at times, and created additional burdens for program management and case
managers when asked to reconcile issues in the data set. While the evaluation team is confident in the
data set used in their analyses, the nature of these data are susceptible to error due to manual data
entry. Future evaluation efforts will seek to complement the database records with school archival
records to confirm outcomes among students.

Finally, the data limited the types of analyses the evaluation team could conduct to examine outcomes
among KKIS participants. The evaluation team did attempt to use the most rigorous designs possible in
each stage of analysis and to control for any observable factors (e.g., demographics and level of need)
that could potentially confound the outcomes of interest; however, due to the nature of the study, the
cost benefit analysis should also be view with caution and as exploratory in nature. In addition, future
work could incorporate sensitivity analyses to ensure the findings hold for various subgroups of students
in KKIS.

Discussion
The findings of this evaluation suggest that there are many types of students who participated in KKIS
and that their experiences and outcomes vary. The preliminary data suggest positive gains in attendance
overall and these gains are more prominent for some groups of participants compared to others. It is
important to better understand why this may be the case. For example, what are the characteristics of
participants who do not receive case management and why might this be related to poor attendance
outcomes? Why do very high need students have substantial improvements compared to slightly lower
need peers? FΉ΢̮ΛΛϳ΁ ΆΩϭ ͆Ω͊μ ̮ ε̮θφΉ̼Ήε̮΢φ͞μ ͊ϲε͊θΉ͊΢̼͊ Ή΢ φΆ͊ εθΩͼθ̮Ρ Ή΢̼Λϡ͆Ή΢ͼ φΆ͊ ͆͡Ωμ̮ͼ͊͢ φΆ͊ϳ
receive relates to their outcomes?

47
There are positive takeaways from these preliminary analyses of attendance outcomes for students
enrolled in KKIS. Overall, attendance improves for participants – by nearly one week over the course of
an average school year. This is a considerable increase in learning time for students. Participants are
receiving a wide range of interventions, which highlights the personal and individualized nature of the
program. Many students are retained until they experience positive and sustained gains in attendance.
However, it will be critical in the coming months to talk with case managers and program management
to determine why the program might be successful for some and not others (e.g., level of need or age),
whether the program is targeting the right population, and whether, and why, specific experiences
within the program might lead to more positive gains for participants.

Recommendations
The findings of this evaluation suggest that there are many types of students who participated in KKIS
and that their experiences and outcomes vary. The preliminary data suggest positive gains in attendance
overall and these gains are more prominent for some groups of participants compared to others. It is
important to better understand why this may be the case. Furthermore, the KKIS model was
implemented in a variety of ways across districts, and the process evaluation revealed universal
prevention strategies that were not studied in the outcome evaluation. To address these findings and
the limitations of the current study, the evaluation team recommends:

• Conducting a rigorous quasi-experimental or experimental study of the KKIS model that

includes:

o Incorporating measures to examine how KKIS effects student behaviors and attitudes
related to other factors associated with drop out (e.g., substance use and delinquent
behavior),
o Increasing the focus on school-wide prevention efforts;
o Examining the impact of KKIS on the overall student population, and
o Re-analyzing the cost and benefits of KKIS using a comparison group and including
additional direct and indirect benefits of the program.
• Re-examining the KKIS logic model and participant eligibility criteria to ensure the program is
targeting the right students, and that resources are being used efficiently to address needs
across all tiers of students.
• Collaborating with districts, schools, case managers, and students and their families to continue
to develop the KKIS model in a way that incorporates multiple stakeholder perspectives, and
• Developing additional training and technical assistance for KKIS program staff to promote
reliable and accurate data collection and entry, and to ensure that the program is implemented
consistently and according to the model across all program sites.

48
Appendix A. Keeping Kids in School Logic Model

 Program Name: Keeping Kids in School (KKIS)

Problem Statement: Chronic absenteeism is linked to negative short and long term outcomes at the individual (student), family, school, and community

levels. Individual level outcomes include poor educational achievement, poor future employment outcomes, relational difficulties, poor health status, and

engagement in deviant and anti-social activities. School level outcomes include lost revenue and disruptions to the educational process.

IF WE H!VE… !ND WE DO… WE WILL ACHIEVE…

SHORT-TERM & LONG-TERM
INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS MID-TERM OUTCOMES
OUTCOMES
 JAG grant Provide multi-disciplinary  # of students receiving case management services (2017 Measures to be Improved:
 Strong partnership case management services Target: 120) tracked:  Educational
between schools, that are family centered  # of Needs Assessments (Initial/Final/Review) completed  Improved achievement
County agencies, and culturally-relevant  # of Juvenile Crime Prevention Assessments completed attendance  Future employment
court, CBOs  # of Action Plans created  Increased student  Relational outcomes
 Qualified program  # of referrals for service and parent (increased family
manager, capacity to  # of interventions implemented engagement with planning and
provide technical Provide technical  # of school-wide interventions supported the school reduced marital
assistance to CBOs, assistance on best practices  # of family/community outreach at back-to-school  Improved breakdown)
schools, and individual in attendance management nights, parent-teacher conferences, etc. attended educational  Heath status
case managers to partner schools and  # of trainings provided to school staff/families in outcomes  Capacity of school to
 Qualified community districts supporting chronically absent students  Improved meet educational
based contractor, functioning of needs of students
experienced in Conduct ongoing training  Weekly individual and group supervision meetings participant families  Recovered school
delivering and support for case  Train case managers in restorative practices,  Avoidance or revenue based on
collaborative, flexible, managers motivational interviewing, best practices in reducing reduction of increased attendance
comprehensive case chronic absenteeism, case management strategies, criminal activity
management services cultural humility, data-informed interventions, etc. (2017 Decreased:
(Seneca) Target: 100%)  Engagement in
 Qualified evaluation Conduct ongoing program  WestEd to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of deviant and anti-
consultant (WestEd) assessment and evaluation initial project by providing quarterly, preliminary, and
social activities
final reports

1. Highly individualized and tailored case management programs, modeled after the wraparound model, have the ability to effectively
!SSUMING TH!T… improve students’ attendance rates.
ASSUMPTIONS/ 2. Multi-system interventions that are grounded in a culturally responsive approach are needed to address the global drivers of truancy and
THEORIES chronic absenteeism
3. Cross-system collaboration provides the opportunity to leverage resources and share data to improve program documentation, quality,
and outcomes.
4. Increased/improved attendance leads to improved educational achievement and other long term outcomes

UT OUR SUESS M!Y E !FFETED Y…

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
program turnover; school/staff turnover; funding changes; school transiency
Appendix B. Student and Guardian Exit Survey Data Tables

 Strongly Strongly

Guardian Exit Survey Disagree Disagree Unsure/Neutral Agree Agree Total

My child received the kind of services I think he/she needed

0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 32.1% 66.0% 53

to improve his/her attendance.

My family received the kind of services I think we needed to

0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 35.8% 62.3% 53

help my child improve his/her attendance.

My child’s attendance improved as a result of this program. 0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 17.0% 66.0% 53

Student Exit Survey

I received help to improve my attendance. 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 42.9% 48.6% 35

I think the services my family received helped improve my

0.0% 2.9% 22.9% 34.3% 40.0% 35

attendance.

My attendance improved after being in this program. 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 31.4% 48.6% 35

Students and guardians were asked about services and impact on student attendance. Guardians responded positively about the services received; more than 98% responding postively. When
asked whether their child's attendance improved as a result of the program, more guardians were unsure or uncertain, 17%; however, a similar number of guardians(66%) strongly agreed that
their child's attendance improved as a result of the program. Fewer agreed (less than strongly) 17% about the impact of the program on their child's attendance. A similar proportion of students
agreed to some extent that their attendance improved after being in the program - 80%. Students were more likely to respond that they were unsure about these program services.
 Strongly
Strongly
Guardian Exit Survey Disagree
Disagree Unsure/Neutral Agree Agree Total

After participating in this program, I think my child is more

0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 22.6% 60.4% 53
engaged in his/her education.

As a result of this program, I better understand how to help

0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 34.0% 49.1% 53
my child be successful in school.

I would recommend the Keeping Kids in School program to

0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 18.9% 77.4% 53
other families.

At the end of services, a clear transition plan was created for

2.0% 2.0% 11.8% 17.6% 66.7% 51
my child’s continued success.

Student Exit Survey

After participating in this program, I am doing better in

0.0% 2.9% 20.0% 42.9% 34.3% 35
school.

I have strong relationships with people who will support me

0.0% 0.0% 28.1% 37.5% 34.4% 32
after I complete this program.

I would recommend the Keeping Kids in School program to

2.9% 0.0% 11.4% 20.0% 65.7% 35
other kids who have poor attendance.

My Action Plan(s) helped me to improve my attendance. 2.9% 0.0% 11.4% 37.1% 48.6% 35

My Transition Plan will help me continue to be successful. 2.9% 0.0% 8.6% 31.4% 57.1% 35

Guardians and students were asked about their experience with the program and the impact that they perceived as a result of participating. More than 96% of guardianswould recommend
Keeping Kids in School to other families. A lesser percent, but still a majority of students - 85.7% of students would recommend this program to other students who have poor attendance. One
student (2.9%) stongly disagreed that they would recommend this program to other students. Most students (88.5%) agreed that their Transition Plan would help them be successful (while one
student disagreed); however, more than one in four students, 28.1%, were unsure or uncertain that they had a strong relationship with people who would support them after completing the
program.
 Strongly Strongly
Guardian Exit Survey Disagree Disagree Unsure/Neutral Agree Agree Total

This program helped to improve communication in our family. 3.8% 0.0% 13.2% 34.0% 49.1% 53

This program helped to improve my child’s relationships with staff

0.0% 0.0% 11.3% 34.0% 54.7% 53

at his/her school.

This program helped to improve my relationships with the staff at

0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 35.8% 54.7% 53

my child’s school.

This program helped my child and family form and build

relationships with people who will support us when KKIS is 3.8% 0.0% 17.0% 37.7% 41.5% 53

finished.

Student Exit Survey

This program helped to improve communication in our family. 2.9% 2.9% 28.6% 34.3% 31.4% 35

This program helped me have better relationships with my

0.0% 0.0% 25.7% 40.0% 34.3% 35

teachers and other school staff.

Guardians and students were asked about relationships and communications. Here, again, students were more likely to report that they were unsure or uncertain about this program's impact
on these outcomes; approximately one in four students answered this way. More than half (65.3%) is students agreed to some extent that the program helped improve communication in their
families. Guardians agreed more strongly that this program helped improve communication within their families (73.1%) and that this program helped improve their child's (88.7%) and their
(90.6%) relationship with staff.
 Strongly Strongly
Guardian Exit Survey Disagree Disagree Unsure/Neutral Agree Agree Total

My case manager understood the needs of my child and our

0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 21.2% 71.2% 52
family.

I was able to communicate with my child’s case manager in a

language that I preferred (either directly or through a 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 17.3% 78.8% 52
translator).

My case manager quickly responded when I made attempts

0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 13.5% 84.6% 52
to communicate (phone, email, etc.)

Student Exit Survey

My case manager cared about me. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.1% 62.9% 35

My case manager understood what I needed. 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 42.9% 54.3% 35

My case manager understood what my family needed. 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% 31.4% 51.4% 35

My case manager was easy to reach (by phone, text, email, in

0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 25.7% 60.0% 35
person).

Guardians and students were asked about experience with their case manager. All students agreed to some extent that their case manager cared about them; however, 17.1% were not sure (or
reflected neutrally) that their case manager understood what their family needed. Guardians, though, were more certain - 94.3% agreed that their case manager understood their childrens' and
families' needs. Almost all, 98.1% of guardians agreed to some extent that their case manager responded quickly when they made attempts to communicate (b phone, email, etc.).
 Strongly Strongly
Guardian Exit Survey Disagree Disagree Unsure/Neutral Agree Agree Total

Staff on the Student Attendance Team cared about my child. 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 17.3% 80.8% 52

I was allowed to invite people to the Student Attendance

0.0% 0.0% 19.2% 26.9% 53.8% 52
Team meetings who I wanted to attend.

The Action Plans created during the Student Attendance

0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 30.8% 55.8% 52
Team meetings were tailored to our individual family needs.

My family’s values and beliefs were incorporated into my

0.0% 0.0% 13.7% 33.3% 52.9% 51
child’s Action Plans.

The Student Attendance Team listened to me and my child. 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 25.0% 65.4% 52

Important decisions were always made with input from my

0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 32.7% 59.6% 52
child and me.

The Action Plan was changed whenever something was not

0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 23.1% 65.4% 52
working.

All members of the Student Attendance Team were held

0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 30.8% 59.6% 52
responsible for completing their action steps.

Student Exit Survey

My Student Attendance Team cared about me. 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 31.4% 48.6% 35

My Student Attendance Team listened to me and my family. 0.0% 0.0% 22.9% 34.3% 42.9% 35
I was allowed to invite people to the Student Attendance
0.0% 2.9% 48.6% 14.3% 34.3% 35
Team meetings who I wanted to attend.

I was always involved in decisions about my Action Plan. 0.0% 0.0% 26.5% 32.4% 41.2% 34

My Action Plan was changed whenever something was not

0.0% 2.9% 22.9% 42.9% 31.4% 35
working.

The members of the Student Attendance Team worked hard

0.0% 0.0% 22.9% 31.4% 45.7% 35
to complete their action steps.

Guardians and students were asked about experience with the Student Attendance Team and their Action Planning. Students were less likely to relfect that they agreed or strongly agreed that
their case manager cared about them (80%) compared to guardians' reflection on the same question. Among guardians, 98.1% agreed or strongly agreed on the Student Attendance Team's
care for their child. Guardians and students were asked to reflect about changes in Action Plans. Of the two populations, just one individual disagreed that Action Plans were changed when
something was not working.
Appendix C. Program Forms and Instruments

7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

Needs Assessment (Revised)

Alissa Adkins
Quick View Information 

Assessment Overview 

The Needs Assessment (Revised) is a process that begins with the KKIS

Referral Form and culminates with the assessment summary.  Complete each

section below as instructed.  Please refer any questions regarding this

assessment to your assigned supervisor.

For students 12+ years old:  Make sure to complete the JCP Assessment

BEFORE completing this assessment.  You will need information from the JCP

Assessment to complete this assessment. 

Remember: the findings of this needs assessment should be used to develop targeted goals and interventions for
each student on your assigned caseload. 

*Referral Date
­­ Please Select ­­
This   field  is   required.
*Date of  Needs  Assessment
MM/DD/YYYY  

*Assessment Type

Initial
Final
Other

Instructions: Risk Domains 

For each domain section below (student­specific, family­specific, school­specific, neighborhood­specific) there are
several risk categories identified that describe possible factors impacting a student's attendance at school. Please
read each risk category thoroughly and identify the level of current risk for your student.  The levels are as follows:
0 ­ No evidence of risk

1­ Significant history or possible risk that is not interfering with school attendance

2­ Risk interferes with school attendance

3­ Risk significantly interferes with school attendance or is dangerous or disabling

Student Specific Domains 

Attendance
Includes...

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 1/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)
school attendance
understanding  of attendance laws
school transiency
illness that occurs during  the school day
*Attendance  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Attendance  Risk  Notes

Notes

Academics/Learning
Includes...

academic performance
reading  or math  proficiency
ability to  learn
learning  disability(ies)
grade promotion
learning  style
vision  or auditory problems
*Academics/Learning  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Academics/Learning  Risk  Notes

Notes

School Attitudes/Feelings
Includes...

motivation
general attitude/feelings towards school or work
feelings about school expectations, feelings about authority school holds (or in  general)
level of boredom with  school
feelings of belonging  at school
ability to  feel part of school culture
feelings towards teachers
feelings toward  other school staff
feelings of safety with  teachers or administrators
feelings of physical safety to/from and  at school
school­related  anxiety
school phobia
participation  of school activities and  extra­curriculars
*School   Attitudes/Feelings  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

School   Attitudes/Feelings  Risk  Notes

Notes

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 2/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

Behavior
Includes...

conduct disorders
behaviors requiring  disciplinary measures
suspensions and  expulsions
school violence
*Behaviors  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Behaviors  Risk  Notes

Notes

Peer Relationships
Includes...

peer relationships
peer relationships at school
friends older in  age
non­school oriented  friends
social competence
inter­personal skills
ethnic or racial dissonance
social exposure (isolation  vs. inclusion)
bullying
*Peer  Relationships  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Peer  Relationships  Risk  Notes

Notes

Physical Well­Being
Includes...

physical appearance
physical health
*Physical  Well­Being  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Physical  Well­Being  Notes

Notes

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 3/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

Mental Health
Includes...

mental health  difficulties
mental or emotional stability
social and  emotional functioning
emotional coping
autonomy disorders
childhood  depression
self­esteem and  self­concept
feeling  lack of control over life
separation  anxiety
*Mental  Health  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Mental   Health  Risk  Notes

Notes

Home Responsibilities
Includes...

domestic responsibilities of child
child  staying  home to  care for parent
absent from home without parent consent
*Home  Responsibilities  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Home  Responsibilities  Risk  Notes

Notes

Substance Abuse
Includes...

substance abuse
*Substance  Abuse  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Substance  Absue  Risk  Notes

Notes

Life Elements
Includes...

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 4/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)
teen  parenting  or pregnancy
recent traumatic event
*Life  Elements  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Life  Elements  Risk  Notes

Notes

Family Specific Domain 

Parent/Guardian School Attitudes/Feelings
Includes...

parental knowledge of truancy
awareness of attendance laws
general attitudes toward  education
parent­school involvement
parent­school communication
*Parent/Guardian  School   Attitudes/Feelings  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Parent/Guardian  School   Attitudes/Feelings  Risk  Notes

Notes

Parenting Skills
Includes...

guidance or parental supervision
parenting  skills
*Parenting  Skills  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Parenting  Skills  Risk  Notes

Notes

Family Environment
Includes...

family environment
domestic violence
abuse or neglect
drug/alcohol abuse

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 5/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)
*Family  Environment  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Family  Environment  Risk  Notes

Notes

Parent Guardian Mental Health
Includes...

parental physical or mental health

parental emotional stability

parental level of child  acceptance

parental concern  for child's welfare

parental indulgence towards child

parental protectiveness towards child

parental fear of loss of companionship

*Parent/Guardian  Mental  Health  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Parent/Guardian  Mental  Health  Risk  Notes

Notes

Home Elements
Includes...

single parent homes

parents who  hold  multiple jobs

parental educational attainment

sibling(s) school performance

language

poverty

mobility rate

affordability of daycare

financial costs for school

transportation  costs

*Home  Elements  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Home  Elements  Risk  Notes

Notes

School Specific Domain 

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 6/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

School Policy
Includes...

administrative policies
procedures for dealing  with  chronic absenteeism
consequences available for truant youth
*School   Policy  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

School   Policy  Risk  Notes

Notes

School Climate
Includes...

school climate
counseling  and  guidance staff
cultural humility
*School   Climate  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

School   Climate  Risk  Notes

Notes

School Services/Placement 
Includes...

identification  of services for student
services provided  for student
school/class placement
*School   Services/Placement  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

School   Services  Placement  Risk  Notes

Notes

Teacher/Class Elements 
Includes...

teacher attendance
teacher level of concern
teacher classroom management style

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 7/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)
teacher expectations
accommodation  of student learning  style(s)
teacher­student relationship
curriculum relevance/interest
class size
*Teacher/Class  Elements  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Teacher/Class  Elements  Risk  Notes

Notes

Neighborhood Specific Domains 

Neighborhood Elements 
Includes...

neighborhood  elements
*Neighborhood  Elements  Risk

0  ­  No  evidence  of  risk 1  ­  Significant  history   or  possible  risk   that  is   not 2  ­  Risk   interferes   with  school  attendance 3  ­  Risk   significantly
interfering  with  school  attendance interferes   with  school
attendance  or  is
dangerous   or  disabling

Neighborhood Elements Risk  Notes
Notes

Risk Domain Summary 

Total   Student  Specific  Risk Total   Family  Specific  Risk Total   School   Specific  Risk Total   Neighborhood  Specific Total   Risk  Score  (All
Score  (10  Factors) Score  (5  Factors) Score  (4  Factors) Risk  Score  (1  Factor) Domains)
0 0

Average  Student  Specific Average  Family  Specific Average  School   Specific Average  Neighborhood Average  Risk  Score
Factors  Score Risk  Score Risk  Score Specific  Risk  Score (All   Domains)
0 0 0 0 0

JCP Assessment (MANDATORY for students 12+ years old) 

Instructions:  Complete the JCP Assessment as required for students 12+ years old  utilizing best practices learned during
training.  The JCP Assessment can be found in the Additional Documents of the Student Profile. Use the information from
the completed JCP Assessment to complete this section following the instructions below.  This is necessary to record all
identified student needs in one section. 

*What  was  the  student's  level  of  risk  on  the  JCP  Assessment?

Low
Medium
High

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 8/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

JCP  Not  Completed

Family Functioning Assessment (MANDATORY for students < 12 years old) 

Instructions: Complete the following family functioning assessment (adapted from the JCP Assessment) as

required for students <12 years old.

PF5.1  Communicates  effectively  with  family  members  (shared  communication  is  both  verbal  and  nonverbal  and  includes

establishing  and  maintaining  healthy  relationship  boundaries).

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

R5.2 Poor family  supervision and control   (family  does  not  know  where  the  youth  goes,  what  he  or  she  does,  or  with  whom,

and has little  or  no  influence  in  such  matters).

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

R5.3 Serious family  conflicts  (people  in  youth’s  family  often  yell  at  and  insult  each  other,  in  ways  that  make  the  youth

uncomfortable or unhappy).

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

R5.4 History of  reported  child  abuse/neglect or domestic  violence  (Reports  of  abuse  or  neglect  of  this  youth  are  being

investigated or have  been  substantiated; youth is  a  victim   or  witness  of  family  violence).

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

R5.6 Criminal  family  member  (family  member  or  someone  in  youth’s  household has history  of  criminal  behavior  that  is

having an impact  on  youth’s  current  behavior).

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

PF5.10 Has close,   positive,   supportive relationship with at  least  one  family  member  (Youth  enjoys  spending  time  with  parent PF5.10  Score
 
or  family  member,  feels  he/she  can  talk  with  them   about  issues  that  are  important  to  her/him,  and  feels  at  least  one  family

member  supports,   encourages,  and  recognizes  pro­social   achievements.  Do  not  answer  “yes”   if  close  family  member  is

CP
supporting  and  encouraging  criminal  behavior).  [Not  Scored]

Yes

More  Info  Needed

No

Family
Functioning
Total   Score
00

Assessment Summary (completed after initial Student Attendance Team meeting) 

Instructions: Write a brief summary of this needs assessment. Briefly describe risk and protective factors as they relate to
student attendance.

*Summary:
Notes

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 9/10
7/14/2016 Needs Assessment (Revised)

Seneca Case Management Needs (mandatory for Seneca employees) 

*Instructions:  Identify  any  needs/interventions  this  family  may  need  assistance  with  using  information  obtained  from   the  assessment.

Basic   Needs
Applying  for  Public   Benefits
Housing  &  Physical  Permanency   (including  furniture)
Assistance  w/  Housekeeping
Assistance  w/  Personal  Hygiene
Assistance  w/  Other  Skills   Regarding  Activities   of  Daily   Living
Daily   Living
Employment
Medical  Care
Dental  Care
Mental  Health  Care  (medication/therapy/other)
Services   for  Child's   Special  Needs
Parenting  Classes
Crisis   Support
Respite
Tutoring
Finding  Community   Programs
Finding  Recreation/Leisure  Activites
Support  of  Spirituality
Support  Group
Interaction  w/  Criminal  System
Independent  Living  Skills

System Fields 

https://ctk.apricot.info/document/edit/form_id/170/parent_id/53685/id/new 10/10
 Keeping Kids in School
JCP Assessment  

Student: DOB: Gender:

School: District: Grade:

Parent/guardian: Caseworker:

The JCP Assessment was developed to identify dynamic and static risk and protective factors that put youth at risk of

delinquency, and to use this information to guide decisions regarding level and type of intervention and/or supervision.

Additional information and materials are available at: http://www.npcresearch.com.

For sample interview or survey questions, please see the Screener Prompt Sheet, Interview Questions, or Youth and

Parent/Family Surveys in the OJCP Screen/Assessment User’s Guide or on the Web at http://www.npcresearch.com.

IMPORTANT: Only trained staff should complete this assessment. The youth or the youth’s parent/guardian should

NEVER complete the assessment. This is not a structured interview or survey instrument.

PART ONE: INDICATORS

Complete Sections 2.0 – 8.0 for both Initial Screens and Final Assessments

Instructions: Fill in all responses. If you don't have sufficient information for a "Yes” or "No" response, or have conflicting
information, check "More Info Needed." Do not leave the item blank. You may make any necessary revisions/adjustments to
responses within 30 days of the assessment date.

2.0 SCHOOL ISSUES

More Info. Needed

*Some of the school indicators may not be applicable if youth has graduated from high school or
has completed, or is currently working on, a GED. If youth is being assessed during the summer,

 code the last regular semester and use the last month of school for the “past month” questions.

Score1
Yes

No
Significant school attachment/commitment (has significant attachments, beliefs, commitment  
PF2.1
and/or involvement with and within his/her school; youth motivated to do well in school). 



Academic failure (recently failed, or currently failing two or more classes; not meeting minimal  
R2.2
academic standards; not performing at grade level appropriate to youth’s age). 



 
Chronic truancy (skips school at least once a week, or has more than four unexcused absences in
R2.3
past month). 



School dropout (has stopped attending school or is not enrolled. Do not count if graduated,  
R2.4
completed/working on GED, or attending alternative education/trade program). 


More Info. Needed

3.0 PEER RELATIONSHIPS



Score
Yes

No
OREGON JCP ASSESSMENT (2006.1) – Community Version (Updated 2010), adapted for KKIS
Friends disapprove of unlawful behavior (associates on a regular basis with more than one  
PF3.1
friend who disapproves of unlawful acts such as stealing, physically hurting others, vandalism, etc.). 


Friends engage in unlawful or serious acting-out behavior (has one or more friends or routine  
R3.2 contact with peer(s) who actively engage in unlawful behaviors including delinquency, substance 

abuse, or violent activities). 2
Has friends (or routine contact with peers) who have been suspended or expelled or  
R3.3 dropped out of school (associates with one or more friends who have been suspended in the last 

six months, expelled, or dropped out of school).
Has friends who are academic achievers (has friendships and meaningful acquaintances with  
PF3.4
more than one other youth achieving academic excellence). 


Substance abusing friend(s) (Youth hangs out with one or more other youth who use alcohol
T3.5
and/or drugs on a regular basis [e.g., using several times per month]).[Not Scored] 
 CP

There is an adult in youth’s life (other than a parent) she/he can talk to (youth reports having  
PF3.6
good conversations or connections with an adult, other than a parent, within the last month). 


Lives in a low crime and/or stable, supportive neighborhood (Neighborhood has low crime rate
and/or youth reports living in neighborhood where there is stability and strong attachment to pro-
PF3.7 social norms, such as law-abiding behavior, friendly interaction with neighbors, or neighbors helping 
 CP
each other. Neighborhood should be defined as the area around which the youth is living).[Not
Scored]

More Info. Needed

4.0 BEHAVIOR ISSUES




Score
Yes

No
 
Chronic aggressive, disruptive behavior at school starting before age 13 (stealing, fighting,
R4.1
bullying, threatening, shunning, starting rumors/malicious gossiping). 



Aggressive, disruptive behavior at school during past month (stealing, fighting, bullying,  
C4.2
threatening, shunning, starting rumors/malicious gossiping). 



Three or more referrals for criminal offenses (misdemeanor or felony charges, such as burglary,  
R4.3 theft, assault, vandalism. Exclude curfew, truancy, runaway, minor in possession (MIP) of alcohol or 


tobacco, incorrigibility, technical probation violations, violations of local ordinances and infractions).
Referred for a criminal offense at age 13 or younger (misdemeanor or felony charge. Exclude
R4.4 curfew, truancy, runaway, minor in possession (MIP) of alcohol or tobacco, incorrigibility, technical 
 CP 
probation violations, and/or violations of local ordinances and infractions). [Not Scored]

Involved in constructive extra-curricular activities (Youth is involved in extra-curricular or after-  

PF4.5 school activities (within or outside of the school) such as sports, clubs, student or religious groups, 


practice of music, theater, or other arts).
 
Chronic runaway history (runaway history involving an extended period [1 week or more] or
R4.6
repeated [3 or more] short episodes [1 to 3 days]). 



C4.7 Recent runaway (in past month, youth has run away for at least one day/night). 
  

In past month, youth’s behavior has hurt others or put them in danger (in the past month, youth  
has been charged with a violent crime or been violent or extremely threatening/aggressive to others.
R4.9 Limit to harm or serious threats such as robbery, carried a handgun or other illegal weapon, has 


been in a fight with a weapon, physically attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting him/her,

sexually assaulted someone, or driven a vehicle after drinking or using illegal drugs).

Behavior hurts youth or puts her/him in danger (check if has been true at any time in the past)  
R4.10 (limit to physical harm or threat of harm; e.g., attempted suicide, riding in a vehicle with a teenage 


driver who had been drinking or using drugs, taking other excessive risks).
OREGON JCP ASSESSMENT (2006.1) – Community Version (Updated 2010), adapted for KKIS
A pattern of impulsivity combined with aggressive behavior toward others (Youth exhibits a  
pattern of behavior that is both impulsive and aggressive in nature. This could include recurrent
R4.12
episodes of poor anger control or reacting without thinking in a verbally or physically threatening 


way).

Harms or injures animals (Youth reports torturing animals or there is evidence youth has tortured  
R4.13
animals. Do not include harm in connection with hunting). 



R4.14 Preoccupation with or use of weapons. 

  

Youth has history of setting fires (Youth has self-reported or official record of setting one or more
R4.15
fires at any time in the past). [Not Scored]


 CP

More Info. Needed

5.0
FAMILY FUNCTIONING



Score
Yes

No
Communicates effectively with family members (shared communication is both verbal and  
PF5.1
nonverbal and includes establishing and maintaining healthy relationship boundaries). 



Poor family supervision and control (family does not know where the youth goes, what he or she  
R5.2
does, or with whom, and has little or no influence in such matters). 



 
Serious family conflicts (people in youth’s family often yell at and insult each other, in ways that
R5.3
make the youth uncomfortable or unhappy). 



History of reported child abuse/neglect or domestic violence (Reports of abuse or neglect of this  
R5.4 youth are being investigated or have been substantiated; youth is a victim or witness of family 


violence).

Criminal family member (family member or someone in youth’s household has history of criminal  
R5.6 


behavior that is having an impact on youth’s current behavior).
Has close, positive, supportive relationship with at least one family member (Youth enjoys
spending time with parent or family member, feels he/she can talk with them about issues that are
PF5.10 important to her/him, and feels at least one family member supports, encourages, and recognizes 

 CP
pro-social achievements. Do not answer “yes” if close family member is supporting and encouraging
criminal behavior).[Not Scored]

More Info. Needed

6.0
SUBSTANCE USE

 Score
Yes

No

R6.1 Substance use beyond experimental use (uses alcohol and/or other drugs regularly). 
  

Current substance use is causing problems in youth's life (youth is having problems with school,  
R6.2
the law, family, friends or community related to alcohol/drug use). 



Substance use began at age 13 or younger (began use of alcohol or other drugs, or regular use of  
R6.3
tobacco, at age 13 or younger). 
 



Has been high or drunk at school at any time in the past (Youth, school, or other reliable  
R6.4
source reports that youth has been high or drunk at school at any time in the past). 


OREGON JCP ASSESSMENT (2006.1) – Community Version (Updated 2010), adapted for KKIS

More Info. Needed

ATTITUDES, VALUES, & BELIEFS
7.0
*Note R7.1 is included in the risk factor total, but not counted as one of the 5 JCP domains.


Score
Yes

No
Anti-social thinking, attitudes, values, beliefs (Youth reveals thought patterns, attitudes, values or  
R7.1
beliefs which are accepting of criminal or delinquent behavior, drug use, and/or violence). 



More Info. Needed

MENTAL HEALTH INDICATORS
Youth with multiple mental health indicators are at increased risk of offending. Consider additional
8.0
mental health assessment and/or services and supervision for these youth.


Score
*Note, these items are not included in the JCP Evaluation Score.

Yes

No
8.1 Actively suicidal or prior suicide attempts. 
 MH
8.2 Depressed or withdrawn. 
 MH
8.3 Difficulty sleeping or eating problems. 
 MH
8.4 Hallucinating, delusional, or out of touch with reality (while not on drugs or alcohol). 
 MH
8.5 Social isolation: youth is on the fringe of her/his peer group with few or no close friends. 
 
 MH

PART TWO: SCORING TOTALS

Scoring Instructions:
1. For each item where a circle is checked, place a “1” in the box to the right of the indicator.
2. For each domain with at least one indicator with a score of “1,” place a check in the box next to each domain title.
3. Complete the table below according to the directions and record the level of risk score on the KKIS Needs Assessment.

9.0 TOTALS  
Risk Assessment -

9.2 Total JCP Evaluation (Risk and Protective) Score - count circles in un-shaded boxes (exclude mental health
indicators) (maximum of 30)

Level of Risk Score (check one)

Low Medium High
(0-5) (6-13) (14+)

 
9.3 Total Mental Health Indicators - count items checked “yes” in Section 8 (maximum of 5)
   
 
10.0 Violence Indicator (add items (3.2, 4.4, 4.9. 6.3 & 8.5) with a “ “) (maximum of 5)

Please note:

Shaded items are not included in the scoring of the assessment, but are included here for case planning (CP) and evaluation purposes.

The risk factor numbers begin with the letter "R," the protective factor items begin with the letters “PF,” items indicating change over time
begin with the letter “C,” and those that begin with the letter “T” are test items and are not scored.

Items indicated with “MH” are mental health indicators. The presence of a mental health item indicates the assessor should consider
additional mental health assessments and/or services and supervision for these youth.

Research suggests that youth who have one or more of the JCP violence indicators may be more at risk of committing a violent act in the future.

Survey # _______________________ Today’s Date _______________________

Keeping Kids in School
Student Participant

Exit Survey

This survey is to understand how you feel about the Keeping Kids in School (KKIS) program.  What you tell us 
will be used to improve services so we hope you will answer honestly.   
Your answers will be kept private. No one will be able to tell that your answers came from you. Your name will 
not be used anywhere and your responses will NOT be shared with your case manager or anyone else. Your 
response will not impact any other services you receive from the school or Seneca. Completing this survey is 
voluntary – you can choose to do it or not. You can also choose to skip any questions you do not want to 
answer. 
Please read each item below and check the box that best matches your opinion about KKIS services.  When 
you complete this survey, please put it in the sealed envelope and return it to your case manager.  

Strongly  Unsure/  Strongly 
  Disagree  Agree 
Disagree  Neutral  Agree 

OVERALL SATISFACTION 

I received help to improve my attendance. 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
I think the services my family received helped improve my 
attendance.   

My attendance improved after being in this program. 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
After participating in this program, I am doing better in 
school.  

This program helped to improve communication in our family.  
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
This program helped me have better relationships with my 
teachers and other school staff.   

☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
I would recommend the Keeping Kids in School program to 
other kids who have poor attendance. 
 
About how long were you enrolled in the program? (Please check one box.) 

☐  ☐
 than one   than 3 
☐  Less
month 
Between 1‐2 months  Between 2‐3 months 
☐  More
months 
About how often did you meet with your case manager? (Please check one box.) 

☐  once per week 
Once per  More than 
☐  month   ☐  Every other week  ☐ Once per week 

Strongly  Unsure/  Strongly 
  Disagree  Agree 
Disagree  Neutral  Agree 

Program Services 

My case manager cared about me.  
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
My case manager understood what I needed.  
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
My case manager understood what my family needed.  
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
My case manager was easy to reach (by phone, text, email, in 
person) 

My Student Attendance Team cared about me. 
☐ ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
I was allowed to invite people to the Student Attendance 
Team meetings who I wanted to attend.  ☐  ☐
  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
My Action Plan(s) helped me to improve my attendance.   
☐  ☐
  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
My Transition Plan will help me continue to be successful.    
☐  ☐
  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
 
 
Please check any services that you or your family participated in while enrolled in the Keeping 
Kids in School Program.  
 

☐ Sports Team  ☐ Transportation 
☐ Tutoring 
☐ Student Counseling    Aid 
 
  ☐ Other extra –curricular   
☐ Conflict Resolution 
☐ Family Counseling  activity  ☐ Daycare Support 
 
     
☐ Special Education 
☐ Other Student Mental  ☐ Mentoring  ☐ Other Financial 
 
Health Services    Support
☐ Other School‐Based 
  ☐ Youth Group 
Support 
☐ Other Family/Guardian    ☐ Attendance 
 
Mental Health Services  ☐ Boys and Girls Club  Rewards 
  
   
☐ Other Community   
Activity/Resource 
 
 
On this page, please share any additional comments regarding the Keeping Kids in School program.  As 
with all of your responses in this survey, these comments are private and will be used to improve 
program services.   
 
1. What did you like most about the Keeping Kids in School program? 

2. What didn’t you like about the Keeping Kids in School program? 

3. Please share any additional thoughts you have about the Keeping Kids in School program.   

 
 

Rev 8‐11‐15 
Survey # _______________________ Today’s Date _______________________




Keeping Kids in School
Parent/Guardian/Caregiver

Exit Survey

This survey is to understand how you feel about the services your child received while participating in the Keeping Kids 
in School (KKIS) program. What you tell us will be used to improve services so we hope you will answer honestly.   
How you respond is confidential. Your name will not be used anywhere and your responses will NOT be shared with your 
case manager or anyone else. Your response will not impact any other services you receive from the school or Seneca.   
Completing this survey is voluntary – you can choose to do it or not. You can also choose to skip any questions you do 
not want to answer. 
Please read each item below and check the box that best matches your opinion about KKIS services.  When you 
complete this survey, please put it in the sealed envelope and return it to your case manager.  
 
Strongly  Unsure/  Strongly 
  Disagree  Agree
Disagree  Neutral  Agree 

OVERALL SATISFACTION 

My child received the kind of services I think he/she needed to improve 
his/her attendance.   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
My family received the kind of services I think we needed to help my 
child improve his/her attendance.   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
My child’s attendance improved as a result of this program. 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
After participating in this program, I think my child is more engaged in 
his/her education.   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
This program helped to improve communication in our family.   
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
This program helped to improve my child’s relationships 
with staff at his/her school.   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
This program helped to improve my relationships with the 
staff at my child’s school.   ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
As a result of this program, I better understand how to help 
my child be successful in school.     ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ ☐ 
I would recommend the Keeping Kids in School program to 
other families.   
 
Approximately how long was your child enrolled in the program? (Please check one box.) 
Less than 30  Between 30 and 60  Between 60 and 90 
☐  days  ☐
  days   ☐days  ☐  90 days or more 


 
Approximately how often did you meet with the case manager? (Please check one box.) 
More than 
☐  Monthly  ☐  Bi‐weekly  ☐ Weekly  ☐  once per week 
 
Approximately how often did your youth meet with the case manager? (Please check one box.) 
More than once 
☐  Monthly  ☐  Bi‐weekly  ☐ Weekly  ☐  per week 

Strongly  Unsure/  Strongly 
  Disagree  Agree 
Disagree  Neutral  Agree 

Program Services 

My case manager understood the needs of my child and our 
family.  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
I was able to communicate with my child’s case manager in a 
language that I preferred (either directly or through a 
translator).   
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
My case manager quickly responded when I made attempts to 
communicate (phone, email, etc.)  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
Staff on the Student Attendance Team cared about my child. 
☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
I was allowed to invite people to the Student Attendance 
Team meetings who I wanted to attend.  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
The Action Plans created during the Student Attendance Team 
meetings were tailored to our individual family needs.    ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
At the end of services, a clear transition plan was created for 
my child’s continued success.    ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐  ☐ 
 
Please check any services that you, your family, or your child received or participated in while 
enrolled in the Keeping Kids in School Program.  
 

☐ Sports Team 
☐ Tutoring  ☐ Student Counseling    ☐ Transportation 
   
☐ Other extra –curricular  Aid 
☐ Conflict Resolution  ☐ Family Counseling   
activity ☐ Mentoring 
   
  ☐ Daycare Support 
☐ Special Education  ☐ Other Student Mental   
☐ Youth Group 
  Health Services 
  ☐ Other Financial 
☐ Other School‐Based   
☐ Boys and Girls Club  Support
Support  ☐ Other Family/Guardian 
   Mental Health Services 
☐ Other Community  ☐ Attendance 
 
Activity/Resource  Reward 



On this page, please share any additional comments regarding your child’s participation in the 
Keeping Kids in School program.  As with all of your responses in this survey, these comments are 
confidential and will be used to improve program services.   
 
1. What did you like most about the Keeping Kids in School program? 

2. What challenges or barriers did you face with the Keeping Kids in School program? 

3. Please share any additional comments you have regarding the Keeping Kids in School 
program.   

Rev 8‐11‐15