Message from the Executive Director (March 2025)

In the past few weeks, I’ve received questions about the potential impact of federal budget and staffing changes on our organization and the children we serve through CASA. While the full effects remain uncertain, I’d like to share some thoughts on how these shifts could influence critical services, particularly in education.

First and foremost, CASA is a nonpartisan child welfare organization. This is not a political commentary but rather an examination of how funding changes—whether through reductions, reallocation, or structural shifts—may impact the resources available to the children and families we serve.

While CASA of Allegheny County receives a small amount of federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) dollars ($5,733/year), many of our CASA families receive direct federal benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income for children with disabilities (SSI), foster care or adoption subsidies (Title IV-E funding), and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

For this discussion, I will focus on the educational needs of at-risk children.

Impact on Children involved with CASA

Through no fault of their own, children involved with CASA often experience significant disruptions in their education due to changes in living situations, school placements, and emotional challenges stemming from trauma. These disruptions are compounded when federal education funding is reduced, affecting programs designed to provide stability and individualized support.

For example, a child who changes schools multiple times in a single year—a common reality for many children in the court system—loses valuable learning time. Without specialized transition support between schools, each move can set a child back weeks or months in their education.

The Funding-Support Connection

Federal education funding serves as a cornerstone for programs that support students facing challenges such as poverty, disabilities, and unstable home environments. Changes in federal budget allocations can have cascading effects across school systems, impacting students who rely on specialized resources.

The Critical Role of Early Intervention

One of the most effective ways to mitigate educational disparities is through early intervention programs that provide developmental, social-emotional, and therapeutic support in a child’s earliest years. Research consistently shows that high-quality early childhood programs—such as Head Start and Early Intervention services—help address developmental delays and prepare children for success in school.

Many children involved in CASA’s work have experienced Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)—including exposure to domestic violence, homelessness, parental incarceration, and substance abuse. Early intervention services, such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, social-emotional learning, and structured preschool programs, help address these challenges before they compound into more significant academic and behavioral struggles.

However, when funding for these programs is reduced or reallocated, the preventative services that lay the foundation for long-term success diminish. Without early support, children are more likely to enter kindergarten already behind their peers, requiring more intensive interventions later, often at a higher cost and with a lower likelihood of success.

For children in the family court system, early intervention programs can be the difference between developing essential coping life skills and struggling with lifelong learning gaps. CASA volunteers frequently see firsthand how access to these services enables children to heal, adapt, and thrive. When funding cuts restrict access to these programs, families—many of whom already face systemic barriers—are left without alternative options, making it more difficult for children to catch up later in life.

Title I and Its Role in Educational Opportunity

Title I funding is a key federal resource for schools with high concentrations of low-income students, providing additional support for reading intervention, counseling, and academic assistance. When these funds are reduced, schools struggle to maintain lower student-to-teacher ratios, provide individualized instruction, and retain specialized staff.

For example, a reading intervention specialist may be required to increase their caseload from 30 to 45 students, reducing each child’s intervention time from 90 minutes per week to just 60 minutes. For students who have experienced trauma, this reduction can mean the difference between being able to read at grade level and continuing to struggle academically.

Special Education Funding and Legal Mandates

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that students with disabilities receive the services and accommodations necessary for their success. However, federal funding shortfalls place additional strain on school districts, making it difficult to meet these legal obligations.

When federal contributions decrease, schools must find ways to maintain services despite fewer resources, often leading to larger class sizes, reduced therapy services, and delayed evaluations. For children in CASA’s care, who are more likely to have developmental delays due to early trauma, these gaps in service can have long-term consequences.

The Department of Education’s Regulatory Enforcement Role in Enforcing the IDEA

Beyond funding, the Department of Education (DOE) plays a critical regulatory role in ensuring schools comply with federal education laws, including the enforcement of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). An IEP is an educational quality action plan unique to each child that addresses their specific instructional and service needs aimed at educational advancement and success. The DOE’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors compliance, helping ensure children receive legally mandated services.

If federal oversight weakens due to budget reductions or structural changes, including a potential elimination of the Department of Education, enforcement of these protections is jeopardized and inconsistent, creating unequal treatment of kids from state to state or district to district. Without strong oversight, schools facing funding constraints may struggle to fully implement IEPs, leaving children without the support they are entitled to by law.

For example, if a child with an IEP moves between homes, the receiving school might delay or refuse necessary accommodations due to budget constraints. Under normal circumstances, federal intervention would help address such issues, yet with reduced regulatory capacity, these violations may go unchallenged.

Cross-System Coordination Challenges

Educational success for children caught in the family court system requires complex coordination between schools, advocacy agencies, government entities, and advocates. Many of our children rely on a web of services, including school counselors, social workers, healthcare providers, and CASA advocates. When funding reductions affect any of these entities, the disruption can ripple across the entire system, leading to gaps in services and delays in critical interventions.

For example, children with CASA involvement often require detailed coordination between their legal caseworkers, school districts, and therapeutic support providers. Many districts employ specialized liaisons who facilitate communication between these entities, ensuring children do not fall through the cracks. When funding cuts eliminate or reduce these liaison roles, the burden of coordination shifts to already overstretched social workers or, worse, disappears altogether —leading to misplaced records, missed special education evaluations, and a lack of continuity in educational planning.

The Debate Over the Department of Education’s Future

Discussions surrounding the elimination of the Department of Education raise important questions about how education policies and funding would be managed at the state level. While some argue that shifting control to the states could provide more localized decision-making, others express concern that without federal oversight, disparities in educational quality and access could widen, particularly for vulnerable populations.

The Department of Education currently administers programs like Title I, special education funding, Pell Grants, and federal student loan oversight. If the department were eliminated, it remains unclear how these programs would be restructured or whether funding levels would be maintained. For children involved in CASA, ensuring continued access to necessary educational support services—regardless of governance changes—remains a top priority.

Conclusion

I understand that we are living in a time of significant change, and people hold differing perspectives on these issues. Regardless of political views, it is clear that decisions about education funding and oversight will have real-life consequences for the children we serve.

At CASA, we remain committed to advocating for the best interests of children in the family court system, ensuring they have access to the educational stability and support they need to succeed. As changes unfold, we will continue working with partners, educators, and policymakers to safeguard resources that help our kids overcome the many challenges they face.

In gratitude, 

Melissa Protzek, Esq.
Executive Director