Partners & Confidentiality

We work in sensitive spaces: courts, schools, ministries, agencies, and households in crisis.
That means our first obligation is to protect the people and institutions we serve.

This page explains how ARKTIK handles external partnerships and confidentiality so that families, districts, and counsel can rely on our work without worrying about how their name or data will be used.

1. Who we partner with – and how

We partner with:

  • Courts and court-adjacent programs (truancy, problem-solving, diversion)

  • School districts and campuses

  • Shelters, ministries, and community programs

  • Agencies and advocacy organizations

  • Foundations and aligned philanthropy

We do not treat partners as marketing inventory. Our posture is:

  • No public partner list by default. We do not publish logos, names, or endorsements without explicit written consent.

  • Purpose-bound engagement. Every partnership is tied to a clear purpose (e.g., Truancy Shield pilot, homeschool documentation support, court-referred cohort).

  • Defined scope. Roles, responsibilities, and data flows are documented in writing before work begins.

2. Confidentiality by design

We operate under a simple rule: minimum necessary disclosure for the work at hand.

  • No PHI in ARKTIK tools. We do not store or process protected health information in ARKTIK’s tooling layer. Clinical records live with providers, not with us.

  • No surprise sharing. We do not share case-level details with third parties unless:

    • The referring court/agency/district is the authorized recipient, or

    • The family/guardian has given informed, documented consent, or

    • We are responding to a lawful court order or process.

  • Need-to-know access. Within ARKTIK, staff access to partner-related content is role-based and logged. Not everyone sees everything.

Partners can expect that:

  • Internal discussions about their program are documented but not broadcast.

  • External references to the work are anonymized or generalized unless we have written permission to be specific.

3. How we talk about partner work in public

We are explicit: public materials are partner-neutral unless a partner opts in.

  • Default: generic, de-identified language (e.g., “a large urban district,” “a county truancy docket,” “a Gulf Coast shelter”).

  • Opt-in visibility only: if a partner wants to be named or quoted, that is handled via a separate, written consent or communications addendum.

  • No surprise media. We do not bring cameras, record content, or solicit media stories about partner programs without prior written agreement.

This protects:

  • Partner reputation

  • Family privacy

  • Judicial and administrative neutrality

4. Boundaries: what we are not

To avoid confusion for partners and counsel:

  • We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice.

  • We are not a clinic and do not provide diagnosis or treatment.

  • We are not a surveillance vendor; we do not sell data, track families for marketing, or build ad profiles.

  • We are not a political shop; we design tools for courts, districts, and ministries to stabilize families, not to drive campaigns.

Our role is to build documented, auditable, education and stability frameworks that institutions can trust without importing additional legal or reputational risk.

5. Contracting and documentation

For formal partnerships (e.g., a Truancy Shield pilot or Family Pacer cohort), we use written instruments that typically include:

  • Purpose and scope of the engagement

  • Data elements used and how they flow (who sends what to whom)

  • Confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions

  • Communications rules (who may speak publicly about the work, if at all)

  • Term, termination, and review mechanisms

Where required, we will:

  • Sign mutual NDAs or BAAs (if applicable to the partner’s environment)

  • Align with the partner’s internal privacy policies

  • Integrate into existing ethics/oversight committees as appropriate

6. Families under partner programs

When a family works with ARKTIK because a court, district, or program sent them:

  • We are transparent with the family about what will and will not be shared.

  • We restrict our reporting to the fields and artifacts the referring entity has authorized (e.g., attendance summaries, learning plans, non-PII progress notes).

  • We do not share “extra” narrative that is not necessary for the agreed purpose.

Families should never feel that working with ARKTIK opened them up to additional exposure or scrutiny beyond the original program terms.

7. Escalations and red lines

If a partner requests something that conflicts with our guardrails—for example:

  • Public identification of families

  • Use of data for unrelated research or marketing

  • Relaxation of basic confidentiality protections

…we will:

  1. Flag the issue in writing,

  2. Propose an ethical alternative, and

  3. If necessary, decline or exit the engagement.

Our Civic Dignity Standard is non-negotiable. We work with institutions to stabilize families, not to exploit them.

8. Documents and downloads

For counsel, compliance, and procurement teams, we provide:

On request, we can also provide:

  • Sample language for MOUs / program addenda

  • A high-level description of our internal controls and review cadence

If your legal or compliance team needs to review specific clauses, we engage directly and adjust structure without weakening the protections families rely on.

For Judges, Mediators, GALs, and Ad Litem Counsel

Who this is for

This section is written specifically for:

  • Trial judges and associate judges

  • Mediators and settlement counsel

  • Guardians ad litem (GALs)

  • Attorneys ad litem and child’s counsel

—anyone who is responsible for making or advising best-interest determinations.

How ARKTIK fits into a case

ARKTIK Education does three things in cases that involve courts and GALs:

  1. Builds structured education and stability plans (e.g., Truancy Shield, Family Pacer).

  2. Documents execution in a clean, audit-ready way (weekly planners, attendance summaries, work artifacts).

  3. Translates that record into neutral, objective summaries the court can actually use.

We do not:

  • Give legal advice.

  • Offer clinical diagnoses or treatment.

  • Tell the Court what to order.

We give you fact patterns and documented effort, not advocacy disguised as data.

What you can rely on from ARKTIK

When you see ARKTIK materials in a file, you should be able to assume:

  • Structure, not spin.
    Our templates and summaries follow a standard pattern: what was planned, what was completed, and what’s pending.

  • Non-PII by design.
    No PHI, no clinical notes, no “he said / she said” narrative in ARKTIK tools. Clinical and legal issues stay in their own systems.

  • Role clarity.
    We support the execution and documentation of education/stability plans. You decide what it means for conservatorship, access, sanctions, or relief.

How we interact with GALs and ad litem counsel

When a GAL or ad litem is involved, our posture is:

  • Transparency: we will explain what our tools do and what the numbers/summary fields mean.

  • Neutrality: we will not advocate for one litigant against another.

  • Scope discipline: if you request information, we limit responses to:

    • What plan was in place;

    • What the family actually did;

    • What artifacts exist (e.g., weekly planners, work samples, attendance logs).

If we do not have a data point, we say so. We do not “fill in” gaps with speculation.

Testimony and evidence use

If the Court or counsel wants ARKTIK material in evidence:

  • Our templates and summaries are designed to be attachable as exhibits.

  • A properly prepared ARKTIK representative can:

    • Authenticate the documents,

    • Explain the fields and process,

    • Confirm what ARKTIK did and did not do in the case.

We are comfortable being treated as a neutral documentation vendor, not as an expert witness on law, medicine, or psychology.

Why this matters for best-interest analysis

For judges, mediators, and GALs, ARKTIK is trying to answer very practical questions:

  • Is there a real plan for this child’s education and stability—or just promises?

  • Is someone showing up consistently over time?

  • Can we see the work without breaching privacy or PHI boundaries?

  • If we ordered a 90-day structure, did anything actually happen?

Our systems produce consistent, comparable snapshots so you’re not forced to sort through ad hoc text messages, loose worksheets, or unverifiable anecdotes.

How ARKTIK should work procedurally with courts / GALs

These are internal rules you should adopt and later formalize in governance docs:

  1. We only enter a case via a legitimate channel.

    • Court order

    • Written referral from a district / program / shelter / ministry

    • Direct family engagement where the case context is disclosed

  2. We always identify ourselves clearly in a legal context.

    • “ARKTIK Education, non-clinical education and stability planning support.”

    • Never “advocate for X” or “expert in Y law.”

  3. We keep communication clean.

    • Use one or two standard artifacts for courts/GALs:

      • “90-Day Education & Stability Snapshot”

      • “Weekly Engagement Summary – Truancy Shield / Family Pacer”

    • Limit emails to transmitting those artifacts and scheduling.

  4. We treat GALs like co-stewards, not enemies.

    • Offer a 30-minute “orientation call” on request.

    • Be willing to show them the basic pattern of how a family’s week is structured.

    • Let them ask hard questions; stay in your lane.

  5. We avoid “extra” narrative.

    • No editorializing about a parent’s character, blame, or legal positions.

    • Stick to: attendance, completion, responsiveness, and documented effort.

How ARKTIK should work procedurally with courts / GALs

These are internal rules you should adopt and later formalize in governance docs:

  1. We only enter a case via a legitimate channel.

    • Court order

    • Written referral from a district / program / shelter / ministry

    • Direct family engagement where the case context is disclosed

  2. We always identify ourselves clearly in a legal context.

    • “ARKTIK Education, non-clinical education and stability planning support.”

    • Never “advocate for X” or “expert in Y law.”

  3. We keep communication clean.

    • Use one or two standard artifacts for courts/GALs:

      • “90-Day Education & Stability Snapshot”

      • “Weekly Engagement Summary – Truancy Shield / Family Pacer”

    • Limit emails to transmitting those artifacts and scheduling.

  4. We treat GALs like co-stewards, not enemies.

    • Offer a 30-minute “orientation call” on request.

    • Be willing to show them the basic pattern of how a family’s week is structured.

    • Let them ask hard questions; stay in your lane.

  5. We avoid “extra” narrative.

    • No editorializing about a parent’s character, blame, or legal positions.

    • Stick to: attendance, completion, responsiveness, and documented effort.