Guidelight
A mobile-first tool connecting students and families with community support.
School staff coordinated support across
separate systems, phone calls, and emails.
We designed a mobile prototype that brings
support requests, guardian consent,
and appointment coordination together
so staff can see where each case stands
and what to do next.
Supporting students beyond the classroom
Students need more than academic support to participate fully in school. Through the Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) model, HCV connects schools with community organizations to help students and families access these resources.
Understanding the current support network
We first researched the FSCS model to understand HCV’s role. Schools serve as hubs for student and family support, while HCV site managers coordinate resources and services between school staff and community organizations.
Site managers connect school staff, HCV programs, and community partners with students and families.
Learning from the site manager
We interviewed Ms. T, an HCV site manager at Pittsburgh Faison K–5. We asked how students’ needs were identified, how families were connected with services, and how staff contacted guardians and followed up.
Fragmented steps, limited visibility
The interview revealed two difficulties in connecting students with support.
- 01Classroom observation
- 02Support need identified
- 03Support discussed
- 04Guardian consent
- 05Referral & booking
- 06Service access
- 07Follow-up
Staff had to keep each step moving
Once a student’s need was identified, staff still had to contact guardians, obtain consent, and coordinate appointments. These steps involved separate online and offline interactions, each requiring staff follow-up.
Limited visibility into booking and service use
Staff depended on guardian updates to know whether a family had booked or used a service. Ms. T explained that she could not contact providers directly to confirm attendance.
We focused on HCV site managers, who needed a way to see each case’s progress and identify the steps still requiring attention.
Bring support steps together and keep cases moving
The prototype brings service matching, guardian contact, consent, and appointment coordination into one place. Status summaries, cases without recent updates, and checklists help staff keep track of what needs to happen next.
Following the mobile-first brief, we designed for staff working away from their desks. Confirming actual service use remained future work.
Make the home screen a starting point for action
Home helps staff decide what to do next, while Case List provides a complete view of their cases.
Status summaries
Select a status to view students awaiting service matching, consent, or scheduling.
Find a student
Select a linked student
Name, grade, guardian contact
Service selected · Consent required
Service not selected · Service unassigned
Track each support need as its own case
A student could be waiting for consent for one service and an appointment for another. We gave each support case its own status so staff could track them independently.
I kept shared student information in the profile and support-specific details in each case. Both the student list and a service’s student list lead to the same profile.
Unassigned students need support but have not yet been connected to a service.
Connect guardian communication, consent, and scheduling
I wanted guardians to keep using familiar calls and messages without downloading another app. With the team, I brought those steps together for site managers.
Staff choose Call, Text, or Email from a case. Once the guardian agrees, the manager selects “Confirm consent,” moving the case to “Scheduling required.” Staff can then coordinate a time and share appointment details.
Site manager chooses Call, Text, or Email
Respond by phone, text, or email
Site manager reviews and confirms consent
Coordinate an appointment → Share details
Deciding what belonged to the student and what belonged to the case
The harder part was deciding which information belonged in a student profile and which belonged in an individual case. I learned to review how staff would reach that information from different screens, alongside the content of each screen.
Guardians did not need to use the staff’s app
Centralizing staff coordination did not mean moving every participant into the same tool. We designed a shared place for staff to manage consent and appointments while guardians continued using familiar calls and messages.
Client feedback
At the final presentation, Walter Lewis valued letting guardians participate by text, starting a connection from either a student or a service, and recording informal requests as cases or tasks. He also noted that different services require different consent and documentation checks.
What remains to be tested
The project ended at the prototype stage. We did not test whether it reduced workload or made the guardian flow easier to use.
Next, I would test whether staff can find the right case and complete consent and scheduling tasks, whether they confuse statuses across services, and whether guardians understand the messages. Recurring and resumed cases, service-specific consent, and confirmation of actual service use remain open questions.