Board reviews Micah’s Promise MOU for on-site therapeutic school for trafficked youth

Micah’s Promise representatives presented a draft memorandum of understanding seeking a partnership with the Harris County School District to provide on-site schooling and therapeutic services for up to about 12 girls, aged roughly 12–17, who are being served at a residential, nondisclosed campus in Harris County.

The memorandum, introduced to the Harris County Board of Education during its June meeting, asks the district to supply a teacher and access to district curriculum so Micah’s Promise can run a lawful school program on the organization’s 17-acre therapeutic campus. Bobby Lynn Starr, a Micah’s Promise representative, said the nonprofit provides prevention education to schools and “we provide prevention education both to elementary, middle, and high school students as well as community members at no cost.” Mike Angstadt, who described decades of experience establishing residential-school MOUs in other Georgia counties, said similar arrangements have used a local school-system program model to provide instruction on campus.

The board did not take a final vote. Superintendent Doctor Finney told the presenters he had given the MOU to the district attorney, Greg Ellington, and said staff would work on “a couple of concerns” and recommendations before the board considers action at a future meeting. Finney said issues to be resolved include clarifying the MOU’s addressee (the MOU named the superintendent rather than the board), liability and safety protocols for staff working on the Micah’s Promise campus, and budgetary implications. Member questions focused on safety and liability for district employees who would work on the campus; board members also asked how other local MOUs had handled staffing, funding streams, and student custody.

Micah’s Promise representatives said the girls on site are in the custody of the state’s child-services agency and that state reimbursement (DFACS was named in the presentation) helps underwrite care, though presenters acknowledged their program’s operating costs exceed available reimbursement. Angstadt and Starr described prior MOUs with other counties and said those agreements documented how student full-time equivalents (FTEs) and related funding were managed with the partner school systems. Starr said the organization built its therapeutic school so it could provide in-house teachers and paraprofessionals and asked the board to consider a program model that would make the campus a district program for the students it serves.

Board members asked for references from other districts that have similar MOUs, and several asked staff to circulate further questions to Micah’s Promise during the week to allow staff and the district attorney to vet liability, safety, and funding questions before the board’s next regular meeting. Superintendent Finney said the board might table the MOU if recommended revisions are not completed in time.

The presentation did not include a final financial commitment from the district; presenters acknowledged the request was not budgeted in the current FY26 draft and emphasized they would assist in pursuing reimbursement sources and other funding. The board’s next review and any formal action on the MOU were left to a future meeting after the district’s legal and budget reviews.

Ending: The board asked staff to return with recommended edits, legal review findings and references from other districts that have executed similar MOUs; no formal action to approve the MOU was taken at the meeting.