Scott County details PASS/PATH truancy‑prevention programs, cites 2025 law enabling voluntary outreach

At a Scott County briefing, county staff and community partners described how PASS (prevention) and PATH (diversion) programs aim to keep students in school and reduce the number of truancy cases referred for a child‑protection assessment. Presenters said the programs combine family outreach, conflict coaching, school‑based mediation and concrete supports such as transportation or housing referrals.

County staff told commissioners the programs are intended to divert families away from formal county assessments when possible, and that a 2025 statutory change now allows counties to offer voluntary community‑agency outreach for educational neglect or repeated unexcused absences before assigning a child‑protection assessment. “We would then send it to PASS or PATH based on age,” staff said, describing the change as one the county had already practiced in Scott County.

Why it matters: presenters and partners argued that engaging families earlier and outside the court system improves relationships with schools and yields better attendance outcomes. The county attorney, Ron, told the board, “We’ve seen the referrals to my office decrease,” citing fewer court filings after the county expanded prevention and diversion work.

What the programs do: St. David’s and Catalaso Group staff described initial intake and home‑based work beginning when a student falls short of the county’s reporting threshold. Providers use a Promoting Assessment of Protective factors (PAP) at intake to identify parental resilience, social connections, concrete supports, children’s social‑emotional competence and parenting knowledge. Providers said strengthening these factors correlates with improved student attendance and fewer subsequent truancy or maltreatment reports.

Data and evaluation: the packet includes year‑by‑year charts showing changes in referral volume and outcomes. Presenters cautioned that some cells are marked “no data” because of reporting timing (late referrals coming in near the end of a school year) and differing district data practices. Staff also described a “funnel” effect: as schools adopt prevention tactics internally, fewer families reach county response, leaving the county’s caseload concentrated among the most complex families.

Training and scale: partners outlined a three‑year training plan to teach school staff restorative mediation and prevention tactics so schools can resolve more cases early. Several districts are already trained or scheduled for training; presenters said broader uptake this summer and next year should further reduce formal referrals.

Questions and next steps: commissioners pressed for better cross‑agency tracking (for example, linking families on public‑health waiting lists to county prevention services) and asked how the county will assess long‑term effects, including whether students who move out of district are being counted. County staff said tracking is limited to whether a subsequent report is received and that they plan continued quality improvement, formal surveys of schools and families, and targeted outreach to districts with low or unusually high referral counts.

The board concluded the briefing by thanking staff and providers and encouraged continued data work and interagency collaboration. Presenters left commissioners with a plan to expand training and continue refining data collection to better evaluate program impact.