Jefferson County Public Schools Open Enrollment - Kentucky: Fill & Download for Free

Teens browse this list for services in your area. Don’t run away, call for help.NEW YORK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) : YRights As a Pregnant Or Parenting Teen (2007)]Pregnant or Parenting? Title IX Protects You From Discrimination At SchoolGuttmacher Data: Minors’ Rights as ParentsIf you are facing abuse or threats because of your pregnancy here is a crisis line. http://www.thursdayschild.org/html/about.htm 800-USA-KIDSRESOURCES STATE BY STATE:ALABAMA: Babies First: United Methodist Children's HomeFor teen mothers in foster care.If you are a pregnant teen in Alabama in foster care, ask your case manager, counselor or CASA worker if this program could be right for you.ALASKA Passage House: Passage House907-272-1255 (Call to get help now.)Ages 17–21ARIZONA: Girls Ranch Scottsdale: Girls Ranch - Florence Crittenton.Ask a school counselor, case manager, or CASA Advocate about Girls Ranch Scottsdale.An adult needs to help arrange admission if this program is right for you.Most but not all pregnant teens at Girls Ranch Scottsdale are in Arizona state custody.ARIZONA:The House of El-Elyon:HousingParenting ClassesAges 12–18ARIZONA: Starting Out Right: Starting Out Right | Free Pregnancy Test | Arizona Youth PartnershipCall 520–719–2014 or email [email protected] suppliesARIZONA: Tempe. TeenAge Pregnancy Program (TAPP) / APPP👩‍🎓Educational support.Case management.Counseling.Parenting preparation.ARKANSAS: Compassion House: Get Help - Compassion House479-419-9100 (Call for help.)HousingChristian orientation.Ages: 19 and underARKANSAS: Hanna House: Hannah House of Fort Smith Arkansas479–782–5683 phone or email: [email protected] 13–29CALIFORNIA: (Alameda County) Bay Area Youth Center: Real AlternativesEmail: [email protected] SkillsAges 16–25CALIFORNIA: El Nido Programs - El Nido Family Centers: Teen Family ServicesHome Visits help teens connect to healthcare, education, counseling, financial help employment and childcare.Several locations in Los Angles areaAntelope Valley: Pacoima office at: 818.896.7776CALIFORNIA:Maternity Shelter Program - Home [email protected] Diego AreaAges 18–24CALIFORNIA : (Lake County) Lake Family Resource Center. Teen Parenting/Adolescent Family Life ProgramServices for Pregnant and Parenting teensMust enroll before 19th birthdaCalifornia: Welcome to Mary's Pregnant Teen Shelter .Housing.CALIFORNIA: (Sacramento) Waking the VillageHome Infograph — Waking the VillageContact us about our housing programs: 916-601-2979HousingEducational SupportIntensive MentoringCase ManagementArt, Friendship, Community, CreativityChild Development CenterTravel, Recreation, CampingAges 18–24CALIFORNIA (HOUSING) (North Hollywood.) Youth Volunteers of America Los Angeles. (VOALA) Women’s Care Cottage. Women’s Care Cottage is an Independent/Transitional living program assisting homeless young women coming out of emergency shelters, foster care and probation. Admits women with one infant up to the age of 1 year. Provides up to 18 months – 3 years of housing, case management, counseling, social and cultural activities. Ages 18–21.COLORADO: options for Pregnant or Parenting Teens. Jefferson County Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting Program (JCAPPP) Jeffco Public Schools. Non-residential. Specialized curricula, job-training, social support. Onsite childcare for teen parents.COLORADO: ttp://ttps://obgyn.coloradowomenshealth.com/health-info/teens/teen-pregnancy-programs Non-residential. University of Colorado/Colorado Adolescent Maternity Program. (CAMP) Specialized obstetrical care for teens. Emotional and social support.COLORADO: (HOUSING) Hope House of Colorado Quote from the website: “Hope House is metro-Denver's only resource providing free self-sufficiency programs to parenting teen moms, including Residential, GED, and College & Career Support programs. Additional supportive services include parenting and life skills classes, healthy relationship classes, and certified counseling, all designed to prepare them for long-term independence.” (ages 16 to 24)COLORADO: Yampah Mountain High School Non-residential, public School-based support for pregnant and parenting teens. High quality Infant and toddler childcare onsite.CONNECTICUT: Noank Community Support Services Clift House. Shelter care for ages infant to 18, either gender. Pregnant and Parenting teens.CONNECTICUT: Young Parents Program Public school-based services for pregnant and parenting teens. High School completion support and ONSITE childcare at High Schools for teen parents. Districts offering the Young Parents Program: Bridgeport, Griswold, New Britain, Torrington, Waterbury, Windham. Contact: Shelby Pons, MSW, [email protected] (860) 807-2126DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: (Non-Residential) Teen Alliance for Prepared Parenting Specialized Pre-natal care. Education support. Counseling. Teen fathers also served. Ages Served: Adolescents who are pregnant and aged 21 or younger are eligible to enroll at any time during their pregnancy. Young fathers may enroll if they are expecting a child, or if they have a child under the age of five years. Once enrolled, youth may continue to participate in the program until 23 years of age.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: http://tps://dcps.dc.gov/page/expectant-and-parenting-students (Non-residential). Expectant and Parenting Students. New Heights. “Supportive case management and assistance with securing services, such as a childcare voucher, WIC, housing, TANF, employment, job training opportunities, college/university admissions and more.” Public High School Programs: The following schools have the New Heights program in their buildings, and can be reached at the following phone numbers:Anacostia, (202) 645-4040Ballou, (202) 645-3400Ballou STAY, (202) 727-5344Cardozo, (202) 671-1995CHEC, (202) 939-7700 ext. 5063Coolidge, (202) 282-0081Dunbar, (202) 698-3762Luke C. Moore, (202) 678-7890Roosevelt, (202) 576-8899Roosevelt STAY, (202) 576-8399Washington MET, (202)727-4985Wilson, (202) 282-0120Woodson, (202) 939-20324. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (HOUSING) Perennial Transitional House for Teen Parent23.DISTRICT OF COLuMBIA: HBP Teens Non-residential. Support services and structured classes for pregnant and parenting teens. Case Management and Home Visiting. Centered particularly on the needs of young African-American parents. Multi-phase program. Ages Served:12–2124.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: DC Social Innovation Project Non-residential. Teens to Doulas: This innovative program trains teens who are already parenting to serve as doulas for women in the community. The goal is for successful teen mothers to share their skills to reduce the risk factors in the community for other mothers.25. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Teen Parent Assessment Program (TPAP)(Non-residential) Financial Issues: This is an assessment program that evaluates teens for independent living in the D.C. area. Usually, teens can apply for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in D.C. , but must be living with their parents to receive this aid. The Teen Assessment program determines on a case by case if the pregnant/parenting teen in an independent or other living situation qualifies for the aid. Service Contact: Teen Parent Assessment Program Contact Phone: (202) 698-6671Contact TTY: 711. If you are unable to get an appointment for the Teen Parent Assessment Program, you may need to get a referral from your school guidance counselor or other social services.26.DELAWARE: Diocese of Wilmington Bayard House27.FLORIDA: (HOUSING) Group Home, Bellview FL, Hands of Mercy Everywhere Hands of Mercy Everywhere. Christian-oriented residence that also offers diverse practical, educational, and therapeutic services to teen mothers. Ages served not specified28.FLORIDA: Hannah's Transitional Living || ANCHORAGE CHILDREN'S HOME || (850) 763-7102 Transitional living apartments for pregnant and parenting young women. Ages 16–2229.FLORIDA: Home Our Mother’s Home. Keeps teen mothers who are in foster care with their children.30.FLORIDA: (Pinellas County) Transitional Living Programs - Family Resources SafePlace2BTOO-Young Moms. (Scroll down the page for maternity services. The first program listed on the page has the same name but is for LGBT youth.) Housing and support. 18 month program. Ages 16–21.31.FLORIDA: Woman to Woman - Children & Family Services Gulf CoasJewish Children & Family Services. Non-residential mentoring and goal-setting for pregnant and parenting teens. No age range specified.GEORGIA: House of Dawn: Changing Lives, Changing Generations770–477–2385Housing👩‍🎓Educational SupportCareer and Life skillsCounselingAges 13–23GEORGIA: Home | The Living Vine Christian Maternity Home.HousingProgram emphasizes strict Christian environment, so possibly suitable only for committed Christians.Hawaii: Hale Kipa: Independent Living Program808.754.9844Emergency ShelterAges 12–17HAWAII: Neighborhood Helping Pregnant and Parenting Teens Neighborhood Place of Puna. Non-residential. Practical, material and emotional support.37.HAWAII: (HOUSING) Mary Jane Home | Catholic Charities Hawaii The Mary Jane Home. Ages Served: 18 and over.38. IDAHO: (and Eastern Washington) Alexandria's House | Volunteers of America Ages Served: 16–20.39.IDAHO: (Burley) Cassia High School Alternative Public High School. Serves teens who would benefit from an alternative school, including pregnant and parenting teens. Childcare for teen parents provided.40.IDAHO: Marian Pritchett School Marian Pritchett School. (Serving pregnant teens since 1964) Public High School for pregnant and parenting teens. Includes Giraffe Laugh Childcare for students attending Marian Pritchett School. Marian Pritchett - Giraffe Laugh.41.ILLINOS: (HOUSING) (Chicago) response-Ability Pregnant and Parenting Program (RAPPP) The Night Ministry operates 120-day housing programs for youth and for pregnant and parenting young mothers and their children. Call toll-free 877-286-2523. Ages 14–19.42.ILLINOIS: http://theharbour.org/successful-teenseffective-parents.html The Harbour. STEPS Program. Individual subsidized apartments for teens and their children. Parenting classes, counseling and case management. Age range served: not specified.43.INDIANA: Maternity Home With A Heart Hannah’s House. (HOUSING.) Faith-based/Christian. Parenting classes, counseling, referrals to community resources, emotional support. Serves ages 13 up. (Website states youngest resident they have served was 13 and the oldest was 43.)44. Indiana: Project Home IndyResidency for Teenage Mothers (Link leads to application page)HousingMedical CareEducational SupportParenting ClassesLife Skills ClassesAges 15 -19 at admission.45.INDIANA: Young Families of Indiana Network Future Promises. Non-residential school-based support for pregnant and parenting teens.46.INDIANA: (South Bend) Youth Service Bureau of St. Joseph County Young Mom’s Self-Sufficiency Program. (YMSSP) Non-residential support services.47. IOWA: Ruth Harbor - Pregnant? Christian orientation. Counseling, midwife care, doula services, recreation, outings. Ages ?-24. Does not specify minimum age.48.IOWA: Transitional Living for Teen Parents United Action for Youth. (UAC) Housing and other supports. Ages 17–21.49. IOWA: Transitional Living Services - Youth & Shelter Services, Inc. - Iowa50..KANSAS: About Us | Wichita Children's Home 1. Bridges. Housing for pregnant and parenting teen mothers 2. Moving on to Motherhood (MOM-Non-residential case management and support.)52. KENTUCKY: (HOUSING)Mother & Baby Home All God’s Children Mother & Baby Home. Faith-based. Nationally Accredited Childcare program onsite provides care for resident’s babies so they can attend school. Support, therapy, classes. Ages 13–21.53.KENTUCKY: (Louisville) Teenage Parent Program Georgia Chaffee Teenage Parent Program (TAPP). Non-residential. Provides support and services to help pregnant and parenting teens complete their high school educations.54. KENTUCKY: 👩‍⚕️ Young Parents Program (YPP.) Non-residential. Specialized obstetrical care, support and counseling. Ages served: Under age 18.55. LOUISIANA: I'm Pregnant. Now What?Phone : (318) 925-4663Crisis Line : (318) 277-9506Email : [email protected] Sanctuary for Women. Faith-based/Christian. Counseling, goal-setting, career planning, parenting classes, life skills and recreation. Participation in religious activities may be required. Onsite accredited education/certified teacher for High School completion or GED. Ages served: 13–23.56. LOUISIANA: Parenting Jus4me. Non-residential. Support and parenting classes for pregnant and parenting teens. No age range specified.57. LOUISIANA: http://ttp://www.lighthouseministriesinc.org/ The Lighthouse Child Residential Center. Faith-based. Cares for pregnant and parenting teens and their children. Licensed to care for children from birth through age 18.MAINE: FINANCIAL HELP: TANF and Teen Parents58. MAINE: rgh Rumford Group Homes Teens are housed in several different apartments supervised by the program and are provided with various services. Ages 16–21.59. MAINE: Crisis Center | Bangor, ME Shepherd’s Godparent Home. Ages served: teens to thirties.60. MARYLAND: Programp=s for Pregnant Teens and Teen Mothers | Hearts & Homes for Youth Damamli. This program is for pregnant and parenting teens in the foster care or juvenile justice system. The program starts the teen in a specialized foster home and later she lives independently with her child, with support from the program in her own apartment. Age range: 16–20.61. MARYLAND: Housing & Support Saint Ann’s: Grace House, Hope House and Faith House. Residence with onsite High School. Ages 13–21.62. MASSACHUSETTS: Programs Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Single Parent Housing. Transitional Housing for teen parents. Does not specify age range served.63. MASSACHUSETTS: (Boston) St. Mary’s Home Faith-based history but apparently no religious requirements or programming for participants. Housing. Case management, onsite high school completion, parenting classes, therapy. Ages 13–21.64. MICHIGAN: Shelter - Alternatives For Girls Provides emergency shelter for homeless teens and their children. Transitional housing program also available. Website did not mention specific maternity care programs offered. Ages 15—MICHIGAN: Eastpointe. Gianna House now open, but the website isn’t up currently. RESIDENTIAL. Ages 13–17. Contact information will be posted here ASAP>65. MICHIGAN: MI Health Family - MOASH Websites provide information on help for pregnant and parenting teens in Michigan. Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health. (MOASH) PREGNANT & PARENTING TEENS Ages served not specified.66. MICHIGAN: Michigan Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenting Program (MI-APPP) Case Management for pregnant and parenting teens. No are range specified.MINNESOTA: LEGAL RIGHTS OF TEENS: The Rights of Teen ParentsMINNESOTA: A School for Pregnant and Parenting Teens Longfellow High School. Non-residential public high school.MINNESOTA: The Nest: A Maternity Home The Nest. Focuses on ages 18–25 but may accept minors placed by parents. More information soon.MISSISSIPPI: http://mchms.org/pdfs/MCH_Two_of_Us_Brochure_032314_RGB.pdf Two of Us Therapeutic Maternity Home. Full-time licensed nursing staff. Highly specialized intensive care and education for mothers and infants. Ages 10–18.MISSOURI: 👩‍⚕️ https://www.barnesjewish.org/Medical-Services/Obstetrics-Gynecology/Women-Infants/Childbirth-at-Barnes-Jewish/Teen- Pregnancy-Center Barnes Jewish Hospital. Non-residential services, including specialized obstetrical care, classes and support. Ages 17 and under.MISSOURI: Mother's Refuge - Supporting Young Mother (HOUSING). Ages 12-21. Does not appear to focus on excessive religious pressureMISSOURI: Nativity House KC Faith-based. Roman Catholic.MISSOURI: Youth Services - reStart reStart Youth Services. Four transitional housing units for pregnant and parenting teens. Ages 16–21.MISSOURI: Home The Sparrow's Nest. (HOUSING) Ages 19 and under.MONTANA: Blackfeet Teen Pregnancy/Parenting Coalition Teen Pregnancy Parenting Coalition. Non-residential. GED tutoring. Case Management. Peer support. Nutritional Counseling. Childcare. Ages Served not specified.MONTANA: Mountain Home Montana Non-religious, comprehensive program. Housing. Bonnie Hamilton Home. (Group living) Mountain Home Apartments. (Individuals living with child.) Licensed Therapy. 24–7 mental health crisis line. Other resources. Ages 16–29.MONTANA: Nurtured baby, Healthy adult, Strong community Florence Crittenton . (Needs updating)NEBRASKA: CARES. ( info needs updating-program may be closed.)NEBRASKA: Center for Healthy Families Nebraska Mental Health/Project Harmony. Non-residential. Support services for pregnant and parenting teens. No age range specified. (Omaha residents only).NEBRASKA:Teen & Young Parent Program - Nebraska Early Childhood CollaborativeNNEVADA: “Living Grace” website is not available as of 8/15/2019. Will update as I get more information.NEVADA: Pregnant and Parenting Teen Saint Jude’s Ranch. Most residents are youth placed here by state social service and juvenile justice agencies.NEVADA: Contact Casa De Vida. (HOUSING) —More information available soon.NEW HAMPSHIRE: (Littleton)TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM (HOUSING). Case management, GED/Highschool completion, parenting classes and other services for pregnant and parenting teens and young adults. Ages served 18–21.NEW HAMPSHIRE: Our Place | Catholic Charities New Hampshire Our Place. Non-residential Faith-based. (Roman Catholic) Prenatal, breastfeeding, parenting and other classes and resources for parents of all ages.NEW JERSEY: http://ttps://www.cge-nj.org/program-offerings/adolescent-program/ The Center for Great Expectations (Adolescent Program) (HOUSING) AOther programs for women also available. Licensed Clinical Staff. Ages served: 13–18,NEW JERSEY: Capable Adolescent Mothers Crossroads Programs. (HOUSING) Intensive Long-term program. For General Program Information regarding Crossroads’ programs and services, please contact Michelle Wright at 609 880 0210, ext 109. Ages: 16–21.NEW JERSEY:services and Programs that help young homeless mothers and pregnant women Raphael’s Life House, Inc. Housing, licensed counseling, parenting classes, GED completion and career development. Ages served: Not specified.NEW MEXICO: Catholic Charities of Gallup NM (HOUSING)Casa San Jose. Residential care for pregnant and parenting teens. Ages Served: Not specified.NEW MEXICO: 14 to 17 Information Page Information from Pegasus Legal Services for Children about legal rights of minors in New Mexico, including teen pregnancy and parenting.NEW YORK: Residential Services Catholic Charities Community Maternity Services. Multiple programs: Heery Center-Ages 12–21, focuses on pregnant and parenting girls placed by juvenile and state agencies. Joyce Center is the transitional living maternity home.NEW YORK: Pregnant/Parenting Teens Children’s Village-Inwood House. Age range served not specified.NEW YORK: (Rochester) http://ttp://centerforyouth.net/index.php?cID=89 The Center For Youth. Chrysalis Program. 18 month program. Residential setting for pregnant or parenting young women. Ages 16–21.NEW YORK: Supportive Housing (Brooklyn) Diaspora Community Services/ “Mother’s Gaining Hope”. Federally funded “Maternity Group Home”. (MGH) I have not further details on ages served or its programs at this writing.NEW YORK: SERVICES SUSPENDED DUE TO BUDGET. (Concerned readers please consider donating. )(Niagara region) https://hannahhouse.ca/ Ages: through age 24. No lower age limit stated.NEW YORK: Regina Maternity Services Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre. Housing For pregnant teens and their children. Regina Residence is a structured program with case management. Mary Residence is supported independent living for graduates of Regina Residence. Ages 11–24.NORTH CAROLINA: http://www.angelhousematernityhome.org/admission_information0.aspx Angel House Maternity Home. Minimum Age: 17NORTH CAROLINA: Services for single, pregnant, & non-pregnant teens, women and their families | Florence Crittenton Services | Charlotte, NC Multiple residential programs. Ages 10 and up.NORTH DAKOTA: St. Gianna Maternity Home (HOUSING) Residents required to participate in prayers and attend Mass. Ages Served: Serves minors but does not specify age range.NORTH DAKOTA: Home | The Perry Center Serves minors placed by parents, but does not give age-range. Christian oriented services, apparently placing emphasis on evangelism but also offering life-skills and other practical services.OHIO: (Franklin County) The Center for Healthy Families The Center for Healthy Families. Non-residential. School and Community based services for pregnant and parenting teens offered at four high schools. Services for teen fathers also included. Ages: 13–19.OHIO: (Mentor, Ohio) Pregnancy - Hannah’s Home. Minimum age 18. More information available soon.OHIO: The Highlands - Shelter Care (HOUSING) Residential care for pregnant and parenting teens and their children. Ages 14–20.OHIO: (Columbus) 👩‍⚕️Teen and Pregnant Program Nationwide Children’s (Hospital). TaP. Non-residential. Comprehensive medical care, classes, counseling, referrals for pregnant girls and women ages 21.5 and under.OHIO: WIC (Supplemental food for Women, Infant Children) WIC - American Pregnancy Association\http://file:///C:/Users/17074/AppData/Local/Pa/TempState/Downloads/158843%20(1).pdfOKLAHOMA: Broken Arrow Public Schools Mentoring Healthy Parents (Formerly Margaret Hudson Program). Non-residential. Support for pregnant and parenting teens. Age range not specified.OKLAHOMA: J.A.M.E.S., INC. WEBSITE CURRENTLY DOWN> CHECK BACK SOON> Educational support and college scholarships for pregnant and parenting teens. High School seniors and college students.OKLAHOMA: http://s://www.choctawnation.com/tribal-services/member-services/choctaw-support-expectant-and-parenting-teens-sept Choctaw Support for Expectant and Parenting Teens. (SEPT) Services for teens pregnant with or parenting a Native American child under the age of one year. Must live within the 10.5 county service area of Choctaw Nation. Ages 13–21.OKLAHOMA: (Owassa) Oklahoma Baptist Homes for Children . (HOUSING) (Owassa) Maternity Cottage and transitional living apartments for Mother and Child Program. Participants must attend Southern Baptist church while in residence. Age range served not specified.OKLAHOMA: Transitional Living Program (HOUSING) Housing offered to youth, including pregnant and parenting teens and their children. Ages 16–21.OREGON: Safe Haven Maternity Home Safe Haven Maternity Home.OREGON: Dedicated to helping young mothers Saint Child. Housing for pregnant girls and women and their infants. May stay for up to a year after birth of baby. Faith-based (Christian). Counseling, education, job training, life skills and other supports. Participants are offered bible study and other Christian activities but are apparently not coerced. Ages 14–24.Pennsylvania: (Lansdale) (HOUSING) Home Morning Star Maternity Home. Ages 13–25.Pennsylvania: Maternity & Pregnancy Services - Catholic Charities of Harrisburg PAPENNSYLVANIA: http://ttps://www.valleyyouthhouse.org/programs/transitional-housing/maternity-group-home-mgh/RHODE ISLAND: (HOUSING) (may be for 18 and above only) Little Flower Home - Serving RI & Southern MA - Housing for 'Pregnant Homeless' WomenRHODE ISLAND: About Nowell Leadership Academy (Public Charter High School) For Pregnant and Parenting teens.SOUTH CAROLINA: Help for pregnant and parenting young women in South CarolinTENNESSEE: Comprehensive Resource Center The Hagar Center. Non-residential. Classes, support and material assistance.102. TENNESSEE: http://ttps://mercymultiplied.com/about-us/ Mercy Multiplied. Faith-based/Non-denominational Christian. Residential programs are located in four states for girls including a facility in Nashville, Tennessee. The programs are designed to work with on many issues, including pregnancy. The website states that the program does not demand that the pregnant mother relinquish her child to adoption, however, neither is there any indication of housing or services offered for the mother/child family. Adoption services prominently noted on website. Counseling is strongly centered on Christian teachings, although Mercy Multiplied states that its counselors are Master’s Level or graduate student interns. Counseling process includes/demands “commitment to Christ”. This program might be appropriate for young women who of their own free will wish to pursue Christianity. Ages Served: Unknown at this writing.107. TEXAS: Annunciation House: Apply for Services108. TEXAS: Apply | LifeHouse Houston. Housing and other support. Strong focus on Christian evangelizing. Ages 12 and up. (Other services for non-residential clients also available.)109. TEXAS: Teen Parenting Help - Jane's Due Process Information and support for pregnant teenagers concerning Texas legal rights.110.TEXAS: Viola's House111. UTAH: 👩‍🎓Horizonte Instruction and Training Center. Young Parent Program. Programs Non-residential. High School completion and vocational education with onsite childcare provided by Head Start. Parenting and other skills. Flexible scheduling. Contact Person: Kathy Williams (801) 578-8574 ext. 233.112. UTAH: Teen Mother & Child Program Non-residential. University of Utah/Teen Mother and Child Program. Obstetrical care/Nurse-Midwives. Social and psychological support and referrals for other needed services. Ages served: 19 and younger.113. UTAH: YWCA Of Salt Lake City. Referrals to Transitional Housing. No other details as of this writing.114. VERMONT: Family Literacy Center (Non-residential) Educational center for pregnant and parenting teens and young adults. Infants may attend classes with parents until they are four months old and after that Onsite Nationally Accredited childcare is available full-time. Onsite licensed therapy, parenting and nutrition classes and other social supports. Ages served: High school freshmen age through age 25.115. VIRGINIA: Grace Home Ministries. (HOUSING) Program is long-term and residents encouraged to stay for as long as two years with their babies. Faith based/Christian. Program includes participation in Christian experiences. However, Grace Home states: “We believe religion is a matter of personal conviction; therefore, we don’t put any pressure on program participants in matters of personal faith or beliefs. Mentoring, childcare classes, case management. Ages 1–20.116. VIRGINIA: (Lynchburg) ADOPTION-ORIENTED! Liberty Godparent Maternity Home. Services | Liberty Godparent Home If you have decided for adoption AND you are a Baptist or of a similar faith, you might consider this facility, as its emphasis is on adoption. The program does offer “Mommy and Me” support if you decide on raising your baby yourself, however, the emphasis is clearly adoption. Faith-based. (Baptist) Residents attend Thomas Road Baptist church. Other services from their website: All residents are required to attend school, pursue a GED, or participate in vocational training. Classes are offered off site at Liberty Christian Academy through Liberty University Online Academy (grades 6-12). Tutoring services for GED and SAT exams are available as needed. To help each young lady build a positive future, the LGH staff is committed to educating the residents on Life Skills and other topics such as Decision-Making, Parenting, Adoption, and Nutrition. About Us Overview | Liberty Godparent Home Ages Served: Not specified.VIRGINIA: (Fairfax County) Second Story for Young Mothers - assistance for mothersSecond Story for Young Mothers. (HOUSING) Residential services offered through independent living in townhouses for young mothers between the ages of 18–21. Pregnant and parenting teens between the ages of 16 and 18 receive non-residential community based support, education and services. Follow-up support and case management also offered. 24/7 Crisis Hotline - Call 1-800-SAY-TEEN or text “TEENHELP” to 855-11 TTY 711VIRGINIA: (Alexandria) Keep it 360 | The Alexandria Campaign on Adolescent Pregnancy (ACAP) T.C. Futures. (Non-residential.) From website: The T.C. Futures Group provides parenting meetings and developmental playgroups specifically for Alexandria’s teenage parents and their children. Parents learn about positive parenting skills, child development, and local resources. The group meets every other week after school at T.C. Williams High School. Participation is not limited to T.C. Williams students; all teenage parents in Alexandria are invited to attend. Participation is free, and Spanish translation is available. For more information, contact David Wynne, TC Williams Social Worker, at 703.824.6800.VIRGINIA (Fredricksburg) Mary's Shelter Mary’s Shelter. (HOUSING) Faith-based. Provides residential care for up to three years. Minimum Age: 18.VIRGINIA: Mommy and Me Program. ( A program component of “Youth For Tomorrow”.). (RESIDENTIAL/HOUSING) Faith based/Christian. Intensive program for pregnant teens and their infants. Education for teens at accredited school on campus, health care, parenting classes, in-house therapy and nursing staff. ) Admissions are either by court placement or social service agency referral. Teens may stay until their child is four-years-old. Ages: 12–18.VIRGINIA: (Winchester.) About | New Eve Maternity Home New Eve Maternity Home. (HOUSING). Faith-based/Roman Catholic. Help with education, employment, life skills. Ages served: 18 and above. (?)VIRGINIA: (Norfolk) THIS LISTING NOT ACTIVE CURRENTLY. WILL UPDATE ASAP. Eastern Virginia Medical School. Non-residential. Specialized obstetrical care. Classes, parenting skills, emotional support, transportation to prenatal appointments.WASHINGTON: (Seattle area.) Housing Cocoon House. (HOUSING) Housing for pregnant and parenting teens and their children. (Short -term and long-term.) Support for education, life skills and employment. Ages 12–17.WASHINGTON: (Spokane) Alexandria's House | Volunteers of America (HOUSING). “Spacious historic home”. Mentoring, support, doulas, other services. Ages: 16–20.WASHINGTON: (Spokane)http://ttp://gracesonhousingfoundation.org/ Hope and Housing for Teen Moms and their Children Graceson Housing Foundation. (Housing.) Faith-based/Christian but spiritual activities are left up to choice. This program is strong on community and nurturing. Classes, life skills, and employments skills also offered. Ages 13-18.WASHINGTON (Seattle) 👩‍⚕️ "Family Medicine Residency Teen Pregnancy and Parenting Clinic. (A program of Kaiser Permanente but you DO NOT have to be a Kaiser Permanente member to receive services.) Non-residential. Accepts Medicaid and other insurance. Prenatal care with delivery at Swedish First Hill Hospital. Offers help getting medical care coverage, nutritious food, childbirth classes, parenting classes and well-child care for the baby until two years of age. (Well-child care is only for the babies whose mothers used the Teen Pregnancy and Parenting Clinic for their prenatal care and delivery.) Open Tuesdays and Thursdays. Drop by or call: Kaiser Permanente Capitol Hill Campus, West Building 206-326-2656. On the bus line. Ages served: Not specified.WEST VIRGINIA: Crittenton Services, Inc. A Florence Crittenton program. (More information to follow)WISCONSIN: (Milwaukee) Pregnant and Parenting Youth Program (PPYP). Non-residential public school-based support.WISCONSIN: (Sheboygan) 👩‍🎓 Sheboygan Area School District Non-residential. TAPP/Parenting Lab. School-based support for pregnant and parenting teens. Guidance counselor assists pregnant students with educational plan/ONSITE childcare/parenting lab for teen parents. Classes designed/flexible to accommodate pregnancy related issues. Pregnant or parenting students in Sheboygan contact your school guidance counselor to access these services.

I’m not sure where the Kentucky public schools are ranked, much less reliably so. I assume you mean with regard to the quality of the education they provide. This might be determined by standardized test performance or the relatively improvement in such performance, or the rates of graduation from high school or college, or the quality of college education generally attained, or by reference to other factors. There are 120 counties in Kentucky and most have at least one school district. All them are at least nominally subject to the oversight of the Kentucky Department of Education which is the only source I can think of which might have information about all Kentucky’s schools.While I do not know a great deal about the academic quality of public schools across the state, there is a hierarchy among public schools in the Louisville region accepted by most people from our region. The first thing to keep in mind is what our region is.The urban area of Metro Louisville extends to one extent or another through five Kentucky counties. Louisville now extends to the borders of Jefferson County by virtue of the city and county merger several decades back. Suburbs have pushed into Oldham County and Bullitt County so that most or a substantial amount of those counties’ population might now be said to be Louisville residents, and to a lesser extent into Shelby County and Spencer County which are still more places unto themselves even now.This means that Louisville residents dissatisfied with the public schools of the Jefferson County Public Schools district have the option of relocating over county lines to attend schools in the districts of those counties. There is little question that Oldham County is considered to have the best public schools in the state. They have the best tax base due to being the wealthiest county in the state, so it only follows. There are three high schools in Oldham County now and generally they are considered to be as good as the best of the Jefferson County Public Schools. Parents unable to enroll their kids at a public school in Jefferson County that they like enough for their children often choose to relocate over the county line.Bullitt County is a poorer, and historically more remote and insular place. Still the three high schools, middle and elementary schools there are often preferred by Louisville residents to those in Jefferson County. I think this may be because so many schools in Jefferson County verge on total dysfunction, and enrolling at the better schools is often difficult. I am not certain, but suspect that in Bullitt County the schools maintain better discipline in the hallways than is the case in some Jefferson County schools where things are really bad. However, Bullitt County has plenty rural dysfunction, poverty, violence and most particularly a very potent and entrench drug scene. However, you may not be able to afford Oldham County or Shelby County real estate.I cannot speak to the relative quality of the public schools in Shelby or Spencer counties but, once again, I know that they are said to be preferable by many people.All of this is due to the dysfunction of the state’s largest school district, and one relatively larger than Louisville’s ranking as an American city by population might suggest due to its encompassing all pubic schools in Jefferson County/the Louisville Metro area. The Jefferson County Public Schools district is the largest employer in the Louisville area with 17,000 employees. These employees can generally be divided into three groups: 1) Certified employees (teachers) who are members of the JCTA bargaining unit. 2) Classified employees who are non-teachers such as cafeteria workers, maintenance staff or bus drivers and subject to the SECU bargaining unit. 3) Administrators who are certified staff with managerial authority above that of teachers. JCPS commands twice the annual budget of Metro Louisville government at about $1.3 billion annually. Kentucky’s Governor has openly said that he considers JCPS dysfunctional and has only recently compromised short of receivership. There are two sides to this, and I’m not sure the Governor could make things better if he had his way, but I don’t think it is a bad thing that he is discussing the matter.About three decades ago JCPS apparently either deliberately planned or tacitly permitted its schools to become very widely distinguished by their quality. This is the same thing as saying that it has allowed some schools to exclude kids who cannot perform academically or have disciplinary problems, and pooled the lower performing or troublesome kids in less fortunate educational institutions. Certain elementary, middle and high schools are known to maintain much higher academic standards and produce much better standardized test results. Other schools are known to be superior to many others by virtue of their maintaining decent discipline and safety standards. Still others are rightly believed to be fairly dangerous. Finally, a network of alternative schools where violent and/or otherwise criminally inclined students can be sequestered has been established as a safety valve so that functioning schools can send students they cannot control elsewhere.Since my knowledge of this hierarchy at the elementary and middle school level is not as good, and because of time and space, I will limit my list to the public high schools inside JCPS. Here it is:DuPont Manual HS is one of the largest schools in the county and state with more than 2000 students. The brightest and highest performing teens in the county queue to attend Manual for its Youth Performing Arts and academic tracks. Because such students attend the school, it naturally outperforms all schools in Kentucky in average ACT and SAT scores and produces more National Merit scholars than any other school in the state. Recently it has surpassed even St. X (a private Catholic school) in this regard often by a wide margin. I will not vouch for the superiority of its curriculum, staff or shared vision but if your child attends Manual he or she will do so with the brightest, most fortunate kids in the county. This matters a great deal.The Brown School is a small, unorthodox school where parents usually with “liberal” political convictions or otherwise unorthodox ideas choose to have their children educated by methods not thought suitable or practical for a wider range of students. The graduates universally continue to college, usually preferring smaller liberal arts colleges. The student body is higher functioning and superior academically to that of any other public high school in the county than Manual in my experience. Although I could not say with certainty that test results bear that out absolutely, if there is another high school with higher average national percentile scores I’ll be very surprised.Eastern and Ballard HSs are in the more affluent eastern part of Jefferson County and the student bodies benefit accordingly. It is my impression that Ballard may be the better institution but I would have a hard time explaining why. These are schools where parents want their kids, or at least are satisfied that they will be OK there. Despite this, both have seen some violence from students that JCPS seems unable or unwilling to control directed at kids unable to defend themselves. PRP is on the opposite end of the county in the southwest, but is tightly identified with that relatively affluent neighborhood. PRP is a community where people know one another and grow up expecting to attend the high school. The school has some esprit de corps and some of the graduates do very well indeed. These are functioning high schools where your child can get an education if they want to do so and/or if you have enough control of your child to make them do so even if they do not want to.Male and Butler are “traditional” high schools where discipline is fairly well maintained and serious trouble makers are swiftly weeded out. Your child is relatively safe from non-consensual problems in the halls of these schools and teachers can attend to teaching more than is possible at worse schools. I don’t know that these schools do better or worse than those listed as third tier. Male has some esprit de corps and sense of itself as an important historic institution as it is the oldest high school west of the Appalachians perhaps. Sports have a relatively exalted status as these schools though, and I know they trail Manual by a significant margin academically. Still, I think these are functional schools.Central HS was in the past a segregated school for African American kids. Perhaps ironically many alumni are loyal to the school. While the student body is disproportionately African-American the kinds of problems that follow from having less affluent and privileged kids do not necessarily follow at Central. The kids there choose to be there by and large and this means that being dismissed is a penalty that they want to avoid. There are great institutions in the band and pep clubs, as well as wide range of extra-curriculars. They have strong athletic programs, most prominently football and track, where young men in particular will encounter strong male role models who will not tolerate unruly and defiant conduct and they will win. The school benefited from the many years of Dan Withers’ leadership as Principal. He has retired. Still, if you are African-American there are good reasons to consider Central for your kid, and if you are not your child will be safe there. This is a functional school.Atherton is in the Highland’s neighborhood. It has issues. Aspiring athletes probably will want to look elsewhere. There are some good teachers and some chaos, inability to maintain discipline or to run the place while exercising good sense. I’m not sure Atherton is functional, but it’s not as frightening as schools lower on this list at least during most years.Shawnee HS is another old school that was once a pre-desegregation school for African American kids. Despite attempts to revive the place and make it more like Central, my impression is that it has suffered from a high turnover in its leadership and constant tinkering with how it is marketed by JCPS. I doubt it functions well, and I would not want my child there right now.J-Town, Fern Creek, Valley and Southern are high schools formerly associated with those communities. They have some functioning school institutions, but some of the best are athletic programs such as the Fern Creek boys basketball program currently. Violence by students is a problem at these schools to varying degrees though I could not say which is better or worse. J-Town was recently the scene of an incident in which two students assaulted an off duty police officer who was providing security there. Our Superintendent blamed the Principal for allowing the cops to rough up these young men afterwards, or that is how the matter was reported in the media. There has been at least one murder perpetrated by a Fern Creek student in the last year. Vulnerable kids will probably not be safe at these schools.Doss, Moore and Iroquois are not exactly alike, but more alike than different for purposes of this list. The parents of the kids at these schools are either indifferent or uninformed about the likely fate of a child who attends school there. This is not to say that there are not success stories, but they are an exception to the rule. Some public schools in Jefferson County are ladders, by and large these are drains. Beleaguered teachers will give your child a C for not causing awful problems during class while they are compelled to cope with the crises caused by those who do so. Students who are functionally illiterate and cannot do basic math can graduate, or so I have been informed. With strong Principals these schools can be better than this for a while, and with young people there is always hope, but a better sign is that you made it to a different school.Western’s student body is usually more than 60% African-American and male. This is the most violent school in Jefferson County. Administrators who succeed at Western do so because they understand and are willing to cope with young men who are not inclined to follow instructions and may be largely indifferent to education. Fights that require the intervention of police from outside in addition to those off duty SOR officers, corrections officers and other security officers who work there daily are a regular occurrence, weekly during many years. When “good” fights break out significant numbers of students will try to make the brawl become general or to emulate a western saloon when there is still plenty of whiskey about. Injuries from these melees can be quite serious and not just to the students. JCPS seems unable to control the situation, probably because they will not support the teachers, administrators and security staff when students and their parents make accusations of the use of excessive force or unnecessary restraint being employed to prevent their child from continuing the assault they perpetrated. Therefore when your child is losing a fight or unable to defend his or herself and being beaten it is fairly likely that nearby adults will not intervene for fear of losing their jobs or even careers. The consequences are predictable. The situation is beyond absurd, and has been for years.Jefferson County High School and Minor Daniels Academy are “alternative” high schools where kids who have been involved in the sale of drugs, other crimes and, more often than anything else repeated incidents of violence involving other students, school staff or people with the misfortune to be near their school. The staff here wants to help these kids, and they know how. They are equally realistic about the possibility of helping children who come from such dysfunctional backgrounds though, and “success” may be a relative term. When operated intelligently the alternative schools are not only a safety valve for the rest of the school system, but a place where at least some otherwise very marginal kids can gain a new perspective and even turn around and head in a different direction than a place where kids have to have seats between them and may not speak to one another when they eat lunch in the cafeteria. This is not a punishment, but a measure demonstrated to reduce the likelihood of violence among the students. Once again, the failure of JCPS administration to support the staff at these schools in dealing with—lets face it—problems beyond any good solution is a scandal. In any event, you won’t be enrolling your child at one of these high schools. You will be consenting or objecting to his or her involuntary transfer there.

It does. The Bill of Rights prevents the government of the United States (and the States and other government entities, too, since passage of the 14th Amendment) from passing ANY law respecting either an institution of religion or interfering with freedom of religion.A number of Supreme Court decisions have made sure our government can pass no law about religion — but that Court doesn’t make laws, only ruling on their constitutionality.Article [I] [The First Amendment]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Article XIV [The Fourteenth Amendment]1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws….From the Bill of Rights Institute:Reynolds v. United States (1879)The Court examined whether the federal anti-bigamy statute violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, because plural marriage is part of religious practice. It unanimously upheld the federal law banning polygamy, noting that the Free Exercise Clause forbids government from regulating belief, but does allow government to punish activity judged to be criminal, regardless of an activity’s basis in religious belief. (Citation: 98 US 145) BRI e-Lesson AvailableMinersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)The Court looked at whether a Pennsylvania law requiring students in school to salute the United States flag infringed on liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It decided 8-1 in favor of the school policy, ruling that the government could require respect for the flag as a key symbol of national unity and a means of preserving national security. In 1943, the Court reversed this ruling in another case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 US 624). (Citation: 310 U.S. 586) BRI e-Lesson AvailableCantwell v. Connecticut (1940)The Court considered whether a Connecticut statute requiring a permit to solicit for religious or charitable purposes violated First Amendment Free Speech or Free Exercise rights. It ruled unanimously against the state, noting that although general regulations on solicitation are legitimate, in allowing local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not and to issue and deny permits accordingly, the state of Connecticut took on the role of determining religious truth—which violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that the peaceful expression of beliefs is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by not only the federal government, but also by state governments. This was the first time the Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. (Citation: 310 US 296) BRI e-Lesson AvailableEverson v. Board of Education (1947)The Court examined whether a New Jersey law allowing reimbursements to parents who sent their children on buses operated by the public transportation system to public and private schools, including parochial Catholic schools, was indirect aid to religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the law was constitutional, because the transportation reimbursements were provided to all students regardless of religion. Also, the reimbursements were made directly to parents and not to any religious institution. This case also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state governments. (Citation: 330 U.S. 1)Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)The Court looked at whether a Pennsylvania “blue law”—which allowed only certain types of stores to remain open for business on Sundays—violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by imposing an undue economic burden on members of the Orthodox Jewish community, whose faith requires them to close their businesses from nightfall Friday to nightfall Saturday. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the blue law did not violate the Free Exercise Clause, because it had a secular basis and did not make any religious practices unlawful. (Citation: 366 U.S. 599)Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)The Court considered whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs, over other candidates. In this, Maryland effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking. (Citation: 367 U.S. 488)Engel v. Vitale (1962)The Court looked at whether the daily reading of a state-composed nondenominational prayer in school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-1 decision, the Court ruled that New York’s official prayer to begin the school day was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 370 U.S. 421) BRI e-Lesson AvailableSherbert v. Verner (1963)The Court examined whether the state of South Carolina violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in denying unemployment benefits to a person for turning down a job, because it required him or her to work on the Sabbath. The Court ruled 7-2 that the South Carolina statute did impede a person’s right to freely exercise religion, in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 374 U.S. 398)School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963)The Court considered whether a Pennsylvania law and policy of the Abington School District requiring public-school students to participate in classroom exercises involving daily Bible verse reading violated the religious freedom of students under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In an 8-1 decision, the Court found that the Pennsylvania law and school-district practice violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 374 U.S. 203)Murray v. Curlett (1963)The Court examined this case in combination with Abington v. Schempp (1963), determining whether Baltimore, Maryland, public schools violated the Establishment Clause in conducting daily opening exercises involving reading of the Bible and reciting of the Lord’s Prayer. As with Abington v. Schempp, the Maryland school-day religious exercises were declared a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 374 US 203)Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)The Court looked at whether an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution violated the free-speech rights of teachers and/or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In its unanimous decision, the Court held that the law did violate the Establishment Clause because, as Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the Court’s opinion, “Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution, because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas’s law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens.” The Court further ruled that the First Amendment does not permit a state to require teaching and learning to be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma. (Citation: 393 US 97)Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)The Court considered whether a Pennsylvania law reimbursing religious schools with state funds for textbooks and teacher salaries for non-public, non-secular schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an 8-0 decision, the Court set out a three-pronged test for the constitutionality of a statute, by which a statute is constitutional if: (1) it has a primarily secular purpose; (2) its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion; and (3) government and religion are not excessively entangled. On this basis, the Court struck down the Pennsylvania law as in violation of the Establishment Clause, finding that the statute constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion. (Citation: 403 US 602)Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)The Court examined whether the state of Wisconsin’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violated the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons. In their unanimous decision, the Court ruled that Amish adolescents could be exempt from the state law requiring school attendance for all 14 to 16-year-olds, because their religion required living apart from the world and worldly influence. The state’s interest in having students attend 2 additional years of school did not outweigh the individual’s right to free exercise of religious belief. (Citation: 406 US 205)McDaniel v. Paty (1978)The Court looked at whether a Tennessee law that barred members of the clergy from serving in public office violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court ruled unanimously that the statute violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it made the ability to exercise civil rights conditional on the surrender of religious rights. (Citation: 435 US 618)Stone v. Graham (1980)The Court considered whether a Kentucky state law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Applying the three-prong test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court found 5-4 that the Kentucky law was unconstitutional, because it had no secular legislative purpose. The Court also found that by mandating posting of the Commandments under the guidance of the legislature, the state was providing official support of religion, which was a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 449 US 39)Mueller v. Allen (1982)The Court examined whether a Minnesota state law allowing taxpayers to deduct from their state income tax expenses incurred in providing tuition, textbooks, and transportation for their children’s elementary or secondary school education—including for private secular and parochial schools—violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld Minnesota’s tax-credit law as constitutional because—applying the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)—the tax credits did not have the effect of advancing religion (primarily secular purpose), were available to all parents and applied to sectarian and nonsectarian tuition (principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion), and did not excessively entangle government and religion. (Citation: 463 US 388)Marsh v. Chambers (1983)The Court looked at whether the Nebraska legislature violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in its practice of opening each of its sessions with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid out of public funds. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Nebraska Legislature’s chaplaincy practice does not violate the Establishment Clause; however, in that decision, it looked past the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which the practice does not pass, to the long historical custom of the practice—dating back to the Continental Congress and the first Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. In the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” (Citation: 463 US 783)Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)The Court considered whether the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by including a nativity scene in the Christmas display in a public park, among other figures and decorations traditionally associated with Christmas. The Court applied the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and, in a 5-4 decision, held that “notwithstanding the religious significance of the creche, the city of Pawtucket has not violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” The principal purpose of the nativity scene was to celebrate and depict the origins of a national holiday, and in that, it passed the three-pronged test. (Citation: 465 US 668)Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)The Court examined whether an Alabama law authorizing a period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” (the law’s wording) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down the law as violating the Establishment Clause, because it had no secular purpose (thus failing the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), and because the addition of “and voluntary prayer” to the wording of an almost identical earlier statute “indicate[d] that the State intended to characterize prayer as a favored practice, effectively endorsing a religion.” (Citation: 472 U.S. 38)Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985)The Court looked at whether a Connecticut statute providing employees with the absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that the Connecticut statute violated the Establishment Clause, because it effectively gave Sabbath religious concerns automatic control over all secular interests at the workplace and took no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath. In this, the statute had a primary effect of advancing a particular religious practice. Thus, the statute failed all parts of the 3-pronged secular purpose test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U. S. 602, 1971). (Citation: 472 U.S. 703)Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)The Court considered whether a U.S. Air Force regulation regarding wearing of headgear violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by preventing an Orthodox Jewish soldier from wearing his yarmulke while on duty and in uniform. The Court ruled 5-4 that the Air Force regulation did not violate the Constitution. In the opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that the Court’s “review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society” and that “to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps.” The Air Force’s purpose in its dress regulations is uniformity, and it “reasonably and evenhandedly regulate[s] dress in the interest of” that need. Thus, the First Amendment does not prohibit the Air Force from applying the challenged regulation to the wearing of a yarmulke by a soldier on duty and in uniform, even though that effectively restricts the wearing of headgear required by one’s religious beliefs. (Citation: 475 U.S. 503)Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)The Court examined whether a Louisiana law that forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in “creation science” violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the Louisiana statute violated the Establishment Clause, because it failed all parts of the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in that it: (prong 1) lacked a clear secular purpose, (prong 2) endorsed religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, and (prong 3) entangled the interests of church and state by seeking “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.” (Citation: 482 US 578)County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)The Court looked at whether Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, violated the Establishment clause by the county’s public holiday display of a Christmas nativity scene (creche) and the city’s display of an 18-foot-tall Chanukah menorah next to a 45-foot decorated Christmas tree. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the creche display was unconstitutional, but the menorah was permissible. The creche was displayed alone in the courthouse and included an angel holding a banner that said “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” (Latin for “Glory to God in the highest”). The Court said that by including that message and displaying the creche with nothing around it to detract from this religious message, the county was not just celebrating Christmas as a national holiday—which in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) was ruled permissible despite the holiday’s religious origins—but also was “endorsing a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ,” and thus violated the Establishment Clause. The city’s menorah and decorated Christmas tree were displayed just outside the City-County building, with a sign at the foot of the tree with the mayor’s name and text declaring the city’s “salute to liberty.” The Court held that by including the menorah with the tree and the sign saluting liberty, “the city conveyed a message of pluralism and freedom of belief” and thus did not violate the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 492 U.S. 573) BRI E-Lesson AvailableBoard of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)The Court considered whether the Equal Access Act (1990) prohibits a high school from denying a student religious group permission to meet on school premises during non-instructional time, and if it does, whether the Act itself violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the Court affirmed the lower court’s judgement that, because the school allows other non-curricular groups to meet, it is bound by the Act to permit other groups to meet and cannot deny such permission on the basis of religious content of those meetings. The Court further ruled that the Act did not violate the Establishment Clause, because it passes the 3-pronged test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) in that it grants equal access to both secular and religious speech (secular purpose), and it expressly limits participation by school officials at student religious group meetings and requires that such meetings be held during non-instructional time (does not advance religion and avoids excessive entanglement of religion and government). (Citation: 496 US 226)Employment Division v. Smith (1990)The Court examined whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allowed the state of Oregon to deny unemployment benefits to someone fired from a job for smoking peyote as part of a religious ceremony. Peyote is a controlled substance under Oregon law, and its possession is a criminal offense. The Court first determined whether such prohibition is constitutional and found that it is constitutional, because the law is “valid and neutral,” applying to everyone and not specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. In a 6-3 decision, the Court then held that, because ingestion of peyote was prohibited under Oregon law, and because that prohibition is constitutional, Oregon did not violate the Free Exercise Clause in denying persons unemployment compensation when their dismissal results from use of the drug. (Citation: 494 U.S. 872)Lee v. Weisman (1992)The Court looked at whether officially approved, clergy-led prayer at public school graduations in Providence, Rhode Island, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court applied the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and in a 5-4 decision, held the practice to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. In the Court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the state government’s involvement in the practice of the clergy-led graduation prayer was pervasive “to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.” (Citation: 505 US 577 ) BRI E-Lesson AvailableChurch of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)The Court considered whether ordinances passed by the city of Hialeah, Florida, banning animal sacrifice violated the Free Exercise Clause. The texts of these laws and the way they operated showed that they were not neutral and generally applicable, but instead targeted the Santeria religion, in which animal sacrifice is an important ritual. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that because the ordinances were designed to persecute or oppress a religion or its practices, they violated the Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 508 US 520)Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993)The Court examined whether, based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a school district may refuse to provide a sign-language interpreter to accompany a deaf student to classes at a religious high school. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that the Establishment Clause does not prevent a school district from furnishing a disabled child enrolled in a sectarian school with a sign-language interpreter to facilitate the child’s education. (Citation: 509 US 1)Kiryas Joel School District v. Grumet (1994)The Court looked at whether a New York state law creating a special school district to benefit disabled children in the Satmar Hasidic Jewish neighborhood Kiryas Joel violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court found the law to be unconstitutional, because it failed the second prong of the 3-prong test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), in that it advanced religion by creating a school district unit of government that coincided with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group. (Citation: 512 US 687)Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995)The Court considered whether the Advisory Board of Columbus, Ohio, violated the free speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan when it used the Establishment Clause to deny them permission to erect an unattended cross on Capitol Square (the state-house square) during the Christmas season. Under Ohio law, Capitol Square is a forum for discussion of public questions and for public activities, and so is a space that is open to all on equal terms. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the denial of permission did violate the Ku Klux Klan’s free speech rights. In the opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the display of the cross “was private religious speech that is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression” and that, because Capitol Square is a traditional public forum, “the Board could regulate the content of the Klan’s expression there only if such a restriction is necessary, and narrowly drawn, to serve a compelling state interest.” (Citation: 515 US 753)Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)The Court examined whether the state of Texas’ Santa Fe Independent School District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that it did, upholding the appeals court’s earlier ruling. In their decision, the Court rejected the school district’s view that, because students controlled the pregame invocation by voting on and delivering its content, it was private speech protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Rather, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the Court’s opinion that it was public speech, because “the delivery of such a message—over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer—is not properly characterized as ‘private’ speech.” Because of this and the context of the message’s delivery being an official school event, the school district’s policy impermissibly “involve[d] both perceived and actual endorsement of religion.” In addition, the Court applied the 3-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which the policy failed for having no secular purpose (prong 1), because it “was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school prayer.” (Citation: 530 US 290)Mitchell v. Helms (2000)The Court looked at whether Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, as applied in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Chapter 2 was a federal program that through state and local agencies provided educational materials and equipment (e.g., library and media materials and computer software and hardware) to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement secular, neutral, and nonideological programs. At the time of the case, about 30% of Chapter 2 funds spent in Jefferson Parish went to private schools, most of which were religiously affiliated. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Chapter 2 was “not a law respecting an establishment of religion” simply because many of the private schools receiving Chapter 2 aid in the parish are religiously affiliated, but rather what is important is whether the government assistance was neutral toward religion. For this, the Court set out three primary criteria for whether government aid has the effect of advancing religion, under which it does so if it: (1) results in governmental indoctrination, (2) defines its recipients by reference to religion, or (3) creates an excessive entanglement.” According to these three criteria, as applied in Jefferson Parish, the Chapter 2 aid was religiously neutral and so did not violate the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 530 US 793)Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)The Court considered two questions: (1) whether Milford Central School in New York state violated the free speech rights of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children, when it excluded the club from meeting after hours at the school, and (2) whether any such violation was justified by Milford’s concern that permitting the club’s activities would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that Milford’s restriction did violate the club’s free speech rights and that no Establishment Clause concern justified that violation. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s opinion, “When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school’s limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” The Court also rejected Milford’s Establishment Clause concern as justification for their exclusion of the club, noting that it is unlikely that elementary schoolchildren would perceive Milford’s allowance of the club as endorsing it, and because children could not participate in the club without the written permission of their parents, it was unlikely that they would have felt coerced to participate in its religious activities. (Citation: 533 US 98)Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)The Court examined whether the state of Ohio’s Pilot Project Scholarship Program violated the Establishment Clause in providing tuition vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private—including religious and nonreligious—schools of their parents’ choosing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the program aid was neutral in all respects toward religion, and that therefore the program did not violate the Establishment Clause. Tuition aid under the program was distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid was spent depended solely on where parents chose to enroll their children. (Citation: 536 US 639) BRI E-Lesson AvailableElk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)The Court looked at whether California’s Elk Grove Unified School District’s pledge policy violates the Constitution. The policy requires each elementary school class to recite daily the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow, the father of a child in one of the district’s schools, challenged the constitutionality of the district’s policy, because the Pledge contains the words “under God.” In a unanimous decision, the Court found that Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to court. Therefore, it reversed the lower court’s finding that Newdow did have standing and that the Pledge policy was unconstitutional. From this position, the Court procedurally could not proceed to answer the constitutional question. However, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Clarence Thomas (for part) wrote separate, concurring opinions that also examined the constitutionality question. They wrote that “on the merits” they concluded that the school district’s policy that requires reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” does not violate the Establishment Clause. Further, they noted, “the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation’s leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion’s role in our Nation’s history abound.” They concluded that “the recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase ‘under God’ cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.” (Citation: 542 US 1)Locke v. Davey (2004)The Court considered whether the state of Washington’s decision not to award scholarship funds to college students pursuing devotional divinity degrees violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court held 7-2 that Washington’s exclusion of the pursuit of a devotional theology degree from its otherwise inclusive scholarship aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In its opinion, the Court noted that Washington’s program “imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It neither denies to ministers the right to participate in community political affairs […] nor requires students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Rather, the Court said, the state of Washington has simply chosen not to fund a particular category of instruction. (Citation: 540 U.S. 712) BRI E-Lesson AvailableVan Orden v. Perry (2005)The Court examined whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds that is inscribed with the Ten Commandments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Texas display of the monument falls on the permissible side of the constitutional line and so does not violate the Establishment Clause. The state placed the Ten Commandments monument next to the Texas State Capitol with 38 other monuments and markers representing different aspects of Texas’s political and legal history. In the Court’s opinion, Justice William Rehnquist noted that its religious message notwithstanding, the monument was presented in a context conveying a “secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law.” Because of its context, Justice Rehnquist wrote that the public visiting the grounds would tend to consider the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of that broader message about cultural heritage. (Citation: 545 U.S. 677)McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. (2005)The Court reviewed the lower court’s ruling of unconstitutionality of a display of the Ten Commandments in 2 Kentucky county courthouses, and within that, looked at whether the counties’ purpose was a sound basis for ruling on the Establishment Clause complaints, and whether evaluation of the counties’ claim of secular purpose for the final displays possibly considered how the displays evolved. In each of the courthouses, 2 large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments were displayed alone. In response to the lower court’s first 2 rulings that the displays lacked a secular purpose and were not religiously neutral and therefore violated the Establishment Clause, the counties twice changed the displays. The third version displayed the Ten Commandments with a grouping of other “foundational” documents that oddly included the words to “The Star-Spangled Banner” but omitted the Fourteenth Amendment and quoted more of the Commandments’ purely religious language than the first 2 displays had done. The lower court had found the counties’ newly-claimed secular “educational” purpose to be disingenuous and again found the display to be unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the history of the displays and the litigation are legitimate to consider, and it upheld the appeals court’s ruling based on the merits. In the Court’s opinion, Justice David Souter wrote that the Court “saw no integration [of secular purpose] here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents” in the display, and that furthermore, “the sectarian spirit of the resolutions found enhanced expression in the third display” in the additional quoted religious language of the Commandments. (Citation: 545 U.S. 844)Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)The Court considered whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIP) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. RLUIP prohibits government from burdening prisoners’ religious exercise unless the burden furthers a “compelling government interest.” In a unanimous decision, the Court held that RLUIP did not violate the Establishment Clause. In the Court’s opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that Section 3 of RLUIP (which covers state-run institutions) is “a permissible accommodation” under the Establishment Clause, because it alleviates exceptional burdens on private religious exercise created by the degree of control exerted by government in a prison. That degree of control is unparalleled in civilian society and severely disabling to private religious exercise. In addition, RLUIP does not differentiate among bona fide faiths, and gives no privileged status to any particular religious sect. (Citation: 544 U.S. 709)Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)The Court reviewed the appeals court’s ruling in favor of O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV), finding that the government did not prove a compelling interest in barring the church’s sacramental use of hoasca—an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act—for religious purposes. The government maintained that the use of hoasca carried with it health risks and that the Controlled Substances Act could accommodate no exceptions. The church had filed for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person was the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. In a unanimous ruling, the Court affirmed the appeals court’s ruling, noting that RFRA requires that a compelling-interest test be performed to address the particular practice at issue. Applying such a test, the Court concluded “that the courts below did not err in determining that the Government failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compelling interest in barring UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca,” because the government’s evidence on health risks and the UDV’s countering evidence were equally balanced. In addition, the government’s claim that the Controlled Substance Act could hold no exceptions did not stand up, because there was already an exception made for the Native American religious use of peyote. (Citation: 546 U.S. 418)Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007)The Court looked at whether taxpayers have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge against executive branch actions funded by general appropriations rather than by specific congressional grants. The George W. Bush administration issued executive orders creating an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the purposes of allowing religious charity organizations to gain federal funding and hold conferences to promote those initiatives. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued, asserting this to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, because the conferences would favor religious organizations over nonreligious ones. The Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the lower court’s ruling that taxpayers do not have standing to bring Establishment Clause challenges against programs funded by the executive branch of the government, because “Establishment Clause challenges to the constitutionality of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, §8.” (Citation: 551 U.S. 587)Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)The Court considered whether Hastings College of the Law (Hastings), a school within the University of California public-school system, violates the First Amendment by refusing to officially recognize a student organization unless it allows all students to join the group, even if that requires a religious organization to admit gay students who do not adhere to the group’s core beliefs. Hastings officially recognizes student groups through a “Registered Student Organization” (RSO) program. Having this status confers valuable benefits to a group, such as use of school funds, facilities, and channels of communication, and use of Hastings’s name and logo. In exchange, RSOs must abide by certain conditions, including Hastings’s nondiscrimination policy, which follows state law barring discrimination on a number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation. Under this, RSOs must follow an “all comers” policy, allowing any student to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of her status or beliefs. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that Hastings’s all-comers policy “is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the RSO forum” and “therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations.” (Citation: 561 U.S. 661)The Bill of Rights Institute is grateful to The George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom and The Ambassador John L. Loeb Visitor’s Center at the Touro Synagogue, Newport, Rhode Island for making Religious Liberty: The American Experiment a reality.Religious Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Cases - Bill of Rights Institute