Child Welfare League of AmericaCWLA
Click here for homepageClick here to find contentCWLA

Talking Points

The $4.6 Trillion Surplus: Shouldn’t Some Go to the Country’s Neediest Children?

PUBLIC POLICY

Child Care and Head Start
$1.8 billion to expand quality child care services to 150,000 additional children and provide Head Start to an additional 70,000
The Child Care and Development Block Grant provides major federal support to assist low-income families and those in transition from welfare in obtaining the child care necessary to let them work, or securing education or training, and to help improve the health and development of their children. Head Start, the nation’s premier early childhood education program, was established in 1965 to help children under age six from low-income families enter school ready to learn. It was reauthorized in 1998 with a focus on enhancing program quality and expanding improved services to more children.

The $817 million increase in the Child Care and Development Block Grant to bring funding to $2 billion will allow nearly 150,000 additional children to receive child care subsidies and expand access to high quality services. In 1997, states could provide child care assistance to only 1 in 10 low-income children. The $1 billion increase would provide Head Start services to more than 70,000 additional children, bringing total enrollment to 950,000.

RESEARCH

Child Care and Head Start
$1.8 billion to expand quality child care services to 150,000 additional children and provide Head Start to an additional 70,000
Research indicates that quality child care is an important social support for children and families [Roditi 2000a; 2000b]. Analysis from a national longitudinal study found positive outcomes for children who attended child care programs with higher-quality classroom practices. When children were followed from the preschool years to the end of the second grade, the effects of quality child care on the children appear to be long-term and significant. These effects include better language and math skills, fewer behavior problems, and better relationships with peers [Peisner-Feinberg et al. 1999].

Researchers have also found that the higher the quality of child care in the first three years of life, the greater the child’s language abilities at 15, 24, and 36 months. In this particular study, quality was defined as positive caregiving and measured in relation to provider-child interaction and language input in the form of verbal stimulation [Peth-Pierce 1997: 2]. The study found that when the quality of the child-caregiver interaction was taken into account, children in high-quality child care for more than 10 hours per week performed better on cognitive and language tests.

New research done over 14 years studying 3- and 4-year olds in the Child-Parent Center found that compared to similar children not in the program, only half as many of these children has two or more arrests in their teens.

Similar findings were found in the earlier 22-year study of the High/Scope Perry Preschool program that showed that leaving at-risk children out of this program multiplied by five times the risk that they would become chronic lawbreakers as adults.

In the 1999 Abecedarian study, young adults who received early educational intervention had significantly higher test scores from toddlerhood through the age of 21 than those who were untreated. It also found a significant difference for the percentage of young adults who ever attended a four-year college between those receiving and not receiving intervention.

Head Start, perhaps the best-known and enduring legacy of the Great Society, began in the mid-1960s as a school readiness program. The hope was that a well-planned preschool intervention experience would allow young, economically disadvantaged children to begin school on an even level with their more economically privileged peers and, thereby, promote equal access to achievement when the children entered public school. Research has consistently demonstrated the program’s efficacy in producing substantial increases in children’s cognitive performance at the end of the Head Start experience as well as notable benefits to children’s health and social development [Schnur & Belanger 2000].

In one study, Head Start students made more superlative gains than children not in preschool and children in “other” preschools on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, which evaluates receptive vocabulary and provides an IQ measure; the Caldwell Preschool Inventory, which evaluates sociocognitive skills; and the Motor Inhibition Test, which is not strictly a cognitive test and measures impulsivity [Lee et al. 1988]. These results suggest that Head Start was quite effective at reducing—but not eliminating—initial gaps between Head Start children and their more economically advantaged peers.

Washington [1985] found that children in Head Start had improved health care. Head Start immunization rates were 20% higher than the national average for poor children. Research has also found that children who attended Head Start experienced gains in social competency as shown by their performance on the Caldwell Preschool Inventory [Lee et al. 1988].

REFERENCES

  • Lee, V., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Schnur, E. (1988). Does Head Start work? A 1-year follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and other preschool programs. Development Psychology, 24, 210–222.
  • Peth-Pierce, R. (1997). The NICHD Study of Early Child Care, Washington, DC: Public Information and Communications Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Online: www.nih.gov/nichd/html/new/early-child/Early_Child_Care.htm.
  • Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Culkin, M.L., Howes, C., & Kagan, S. L. (1999). The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to School: Executive Summary. Online: www.fpg.unc.edu/ ~ncedl/pages/cqes.htm.
  • Reynolds, A.J., et.al., (March 30, 2000). “Long Term Effects of Participation in the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers,” Symposium Presentation at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Chicago, IL.
  • Roditi, M.G. (2000a). What works in child care for maltreated and at-risk children. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Roditi, M.G. (2000b). What works in child care. In Kluger, M.,
  • Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Schnur, E., & Belanger, S. (2000). What works in Head Start. In
  • Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., Weikart, D.P., (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27, Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
  • Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L. K. & Apfel, N. H. (1983). Effects of family support intervention: A ten-year follow-up. Child Development, 56, 376–391.
  • The Carolina Abecedarian Project Press Release, (October 18, 1999). Frank Graham Porter Child Development Center, University of North Carolina.
  • Washington, V. (1985). Head Start: How appropriate for minority families in the 1980s? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55 (4), 577–590.

PUBLIC POLICY

Earned Income Tax Credit
$800 million to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for two million working families with the highest rate of poverty
The EITC, a tax refund available to low-income workers, is one of the most effective antipoverty initiatives. In 1998, the EITC was directly responsible for lifting 4.8 million people out of poverty, including 2.6 million children. The refund is available even if workers earn too little to owe income taxes. Working people with low incomes are eligible for the EITC, with the largest credits going to families with children.

The Tax Relief for Working Families Act (S. 2825), sponsored by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Jim Jeffords (R-VT), and John Breaux (D-LA), would substantially increase the EITC for families with three or more children, where poverty rates are highest -- more than twice as high as for families with two children.

This EITC expansion would cost $800 million per year and would help two million working families.

RESEARCH

Earned Income Tax Credit
$800 million to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for two million working families with the highest rate of poverty
Research has found a significant consequence of the EITC- its effect in reducing poverty. Analysis of Census data shows that in 1998, the EITC lifted 4.8 million people out of poverty, including 2.6 million children, indicating that EITC now lifts more children out of poverty than any other program or category of programs including food stamps and housing subsidies combined [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 1998].

Lifting children out of poverty will lesson the likelihood that they will suffer from inadequate nutrition, lack health care coverage, live in bad housing conditions or experience homelessness, have lower quality child care and other deprivations. The cumulative and long-term affect of these conditions of poverty often lead to bad outcomes. A 1997 report from the Children’s Defense Fund found that children living in poverty were about 2 times more likely to have serious physical or mental disabilities, 1.6 times more likely to have pneumonia, and 1.3 times more likely to have learning disabilities. It found that children living in poverty were 11 to 25 percentiles lower on average achievement scores for ages 3 and older, and 2 times more likely than middle-income youths to drop out of school from ages 16 to 24 [Children’s Defense Fund 1997].

A substantial body of research conducted on the EITC also found that the EITC has had a powerful effect in increasing the number of single mothers who work [Greenstein 2000]. One of two leading studies examined the substantial increase in the proportion of working single mothers between 1984 and 1996. It found that EITC expansions implemented in this period were responsible for more than half of this increase in employment [Meyer & Rosenbaum 1999]. Another study examined a shorter time-period, from 1992 to 1996, and found that both welfare policy changes and EITC expansions had significant effects in increasing the employment of single mothers during this period, with welfare changes being the greatest factor, followed by EITC [Ellwood 1999].

U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, a noted economist, recently alluded to this research in stressing that EITC expansions could benefit the U.S. economy. Summers said that to maintain robust economic growth rates without igniting inflationary pressures, the number of people in the labor force needs to continue expanding. He described increased labor force participation by “people at the lower end of the income spectrum” as “an economic imperative” and noted that this is one reason why welfare reform and EITC expansion are critical elements of a healthy economy.

Another report on welfare reform issued last winter by the Committee for Economic Development, an organization of 250 corporate executives and university presidents, stated “The EITC has become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years” [Committee for Economic Development 2000].

REFERENCES

  • Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (1998, March). Tabulations of Census data from March 1999 current population survey. Online: www.cbpp.org/snd98.htm.
  • Sherman, A. (1997). Poverty Matters: The cost of child poverty in America. Children’s Defense Fund. Online: http://www.childrensdefense.org/povmat.pdf.
  • Committee for Economic Development. (2000, February). Welfare and Beyond: Making Work Work. Online: www.cbpp.org/snd98.htm.
  • Ellwood, D.T. (1999, November). The Impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Social Policy Reforms on Work, Marriage, and Living Arrangements. Online: www.cbpp.org/snd98.htm.
  • Greenstein, R. (2000). Should EITC Benefits Be Enlarged For Families with Three or More Children? Online: http://epinet.org/briefingpapers/eitc.html.
  • Meyer, B. D. & Rosenbaum, D. T. (1999, September). Welfare, the Earned
  • Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 7363.

PUBLIC POLICY

Social Services Block Grant
$605 million for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to help hundreds of thousands of the nation’s neediest children and families in crisis
The authorized funding level for SSBG, Title XX of the Social Security Act, was reduced from $2.8 billion in 1996 to $2.38 billion in 1997 as part of welfare reform and is now set at $1.7 billion due to the Transportation Reauthorization Act enacted in 1998 (see table 1, next page). Restoring SSBG funding to $2.38 billion and restoring states’ ability to transfer 10% of their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program will allow states to continue to use SSBG funds to provide services to protect and care for millions of abused and neglected children and vulnerable youth.

SSBG is a primary source of federal funds for social services. States have wide discretion to determine the services to be provided and the groups eligible for services. Federal SSBG funds are allocated to the states and then often passed onto local governments and nonprofit service providers. SSBG rarely funds a service in its entirety, but rather is used to supplement other federal programs and leverage additional funding and resources. States have the flexibility to use SSBG funds to address specific gaps in services. The flexible use of SSBG funds makes it the keystone of a large, diversified array of human service programming.

SSBG is a primary source of federal funds to states to support services that address the needs of abused and neglected children and vulnerable youth. The most recent data available indicates that in FY 1998, states used 27% ($630.5 million) of their $2.299 billion SSBG allocation to provide services to protect and care for abused and neglected children and vulnerable youth.

The most frequently provided services for children funded by SSBG are child care, protective services, foster care, adoption services, counseling, family planning, housing assistance, pregnancy and parenting services, child abuse prevention and intervention, residential treatment, and substance abuse treatment.


Fiscal Year

Amount Authorized in Statute (in billions)

Actual Allocation
(in billions)

1995

$2.8

$2.8

1996

$2.8

$2.38

1997

$2.38

$2.5

1998

$2.38

$2.299

1999

$2.38

$1.909

2000

$2.38

$1.775

2001

$1.7

TBA

RESEARCH

Social Services Block Grant
$605 million for the Social Services Block Grant to help hundreds of thousands of the nation’s neediest children and families in crisis
The SSBG is a primary source of federal funds for social services and states have wide discretion as to how those funds are allocated. A summary of what works in this area would be a lengthy subject and could include references to child protective services (CPS), adoptions, foster care, independent living, and many other child welfare services. The following is limited to the description of one CPS reform [Gordon 2000], nurse home visits as an example of an effective prevention strategy [Eckenrode 2000], and adoption as a strategy for finding permanent homes for children [Barth 2000].

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

CPS reforms are generally characterized by replacing a uniform screening approach with a more flexible response to investigating reports of child abuse and neglect. The aim is to enhance the public agency’s ability to ensure that each child receives the appropriate level of intervention [Gordon 2000]. Three primary components of current CPS reforms are: cooperation between child welfare and law enforcement in these investigations, the diversion of low and moderate-risk families to community-based services, and the furthering of partnerships between child welfare and community-based services to serve a greater number of families and promote community involvement in child protection [Waldfogel 1998].
Florida and Missouri have made the greatest progress to date in evaluating the impact of their CPS reforms [Siegel et al. 1998; Hernandez & Barrett 1996]. They provide innovative models for reform efforts that could be supported with SSBG funds.
  • In Missouri, risk assessments conducted at the beginning and end of agency contact indicated that child safety improved for moderate and low-risk families receiving voluntary family assessments and referrals for services.
  • CPS investigators in Missouri’s pilot counties were more likely to have contacted prosecutors in cases involving serious injury than CPS investigators in comparison counties.
  • Missouri experienced a 15% decline (35 days) between 1993 and 1997 in the number of days families in the pilot counties were involved with the agency.
  • In Missouri, more families in pilot counties cooperated with services than those in comparison counties (86% versus 72%).
  • Families in Missouri’s pilot counties experienced greater timeliness in the initiation of services from the time of the CPS report than those in comparison counties (17 days vs. 35 days).
  • In Florida, the use of community-based services increased by 11% from 1991–1995 for families who had been reported to CPS in pilot counties.
  • Case duration (length of time the case was open for investigation) in Florida were shorter in pilot counties than in other counties (56 vs. 72 days).
NURSE HOME VISITS Research points to a number of benefits of well-designed and well-administered home visit programs for both children and parents [Eckenrode 2000]. For example, in an experimental study of home visiting by nurses in Elmira, N.Y., Olds and his colleagues [1988] reported that nurse-visited women and children, compared to those not receiving home visits, had:
  1. Improved pregnancy outcomes, including:
    • Better use of community services (nurse-visited women attended 30% more childbirth education classes);
    • Lower level of smoking (nurse-visited mothers smoked 25% fewer cigarettes);
    • Greater informal support of fathers and companions (10% more fathers accompanied mothers to labor);
    • Among young adolescents, babies that were 400 grams heavier.
  2. Improved postnatal outcomes for the mothers and children, including:
    • 43% fewer subsequent pregnancies after four years;
    • Postponement of the birth of a second child an average of 12 months;
    • 82% more months of working;
    • 84% fewer emergency room visits by children for injuries and ingestions;
    • Among poor, unmarried teen mothers, fewer child maltreatment reports during the first two years (19% for comparison group vs. 4% for nurse-visited families) and safer home environments, including use of more appropriate discipline strategies.
A 15-year follow-up to the study has shown that women who were unmarried and low-income when the study began, and who were nurse-visited during pregnancy and their child’s infancy had: 31.8% fewer subsequent pregnancies; a 27-month longer interval between the first and second child; 30 fewer months on welfare; 44% fewer impairments due to drugs and alcohol; and an arrest rate that was one-fifth the rate for mothers in the comparison group [Olds et al. 1997].

Over the 15-year period, the number of verified child maltreatment reports on nurse-visited women was almost half that of the women who were not nurse-visited. Among the poor unmarried women, this effect was even greater. In this group, women not visited had verified child maltreatment reports nearly five times greater than nurse-visited women. The adolescent children of nurse-visited women also benefited. Children born to mothers who were nurse-visited were, upon reaching adolescence, half as likely to run away or be arrested and only one-fifth as likely to be criminally convicted as adolescents born to mothers who were not nurse-visited. They also reported fewer sexual partners and less alcohol use [Olds et al. 1998].

ADOPTION

Adoption is a very successful experience for most children [Barth 1997, 2000]. Adopted children are finding success in many venues. A former president (Gerald Ford), a talented newscaster (Faith Daniels), and a micro-computing original (Steve Jobs) are all well-known adoptees. There are few studies that have systematically compared children who are adopted and those who remain at home, but studies that have made such comparisons show that children who are adopted fare very well over time [Dumaret 1985].

Clinical research has pointed to the importance of providing children with permanency, stability, and consistency in their family relationships in order to promote healthy growth and development [Maas; Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit; Fahlberg]. Children who suffer separation from their families can be hampered in their ability to form attachments to other people; suffer developmental lags and subsequent feelings of inadequacy; grow up without internalizing the values that account for a person's respect for other human beings; and fail to develop self-identities that include pride, belonging, and self-respect [Maluccio, Fein, and Olmstead, 1986].

When children cannot remain with or return safely to their families, adoption provides the consistent, secure family environment that promotes a sense of belonging, human connectedness and positive identity formation that is so important for children.

Research on adoption outcomes indicate overall favorable results:
  • Berry and colleagues [1996] found that families who adopted were highly satisfied and would recommend the adoption agency or program they had used. In a study comparing adoptions of drug-exposed and non-drug exposed children at eight years post-adoption, about 95% of parents reported being “somewhat” to “very satisfied” with how affectionate or tender their child was and 97% reported feeling “somewhat” to “very close” to their child [Barth & Brooks in press]. Although only 66% indicated that they were “very satisfied” with the adoption, more than 90% indicated that if they had it to do over, they would adopt again.
  • Low adoption disruption rates also reflect the general success of adoptions. Three federally funded studies completed in the late 1980s used different methods and samples, but consistently found a disruption rate for children with special needs between 10% and 14% [Barth & Berry 1988].
REFERENCES

  • Barth, R.P. (2000). What works in permanency planning: Adoption. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Barth, R. P. (1997). The costs and benefits of adoption. In R. Avery & D. Mont (Eds.). Public adoption policy (pp. 171–204). New York: Auburn House.
  • Barth R. P. & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rates, risks and resources. New York: Aldine.
  • Barth, R. P. & Brooks, D. (in press). Adoption outcomes for drug-exposed children eight years after adoption. In R. P. Barth, M. Freundlich, & D. Brodzinsky (Eds.). Adoption and Prenatal Substance Exposure. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
  • Berry, M., Barth, R. P. & Needell, B. (1996). Preparation, support, and satisfaction of adoptive families in agency and independent adoptions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13, 157–183.
  • Dumaret, A. (1985). IQ, scholastic performance, and behavior of siblings raised in contrasting environments. Child Psychology, 26, 553–580.
  • Eckenrode, J. (2000). What works in nurse home visiting programs. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Fahlberg, V. (1979). Attachment and separation. Michigan Department of Social Services.
  • Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A.J. (1973). Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.
  • Gordon, A. L. (2000). What works in child protective services reforms. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of Florida’s Family Services Response System. Tampa: University of Southern Florida’s Mental Health Institute.
  • Maas, H.S., & Engler, R.E., Jr. (1959). Children in need of parents. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Maluccio, A.N., Fein, E., & Olmstead, K.A. (1986). Permanency planning for children: Concept and methods. New York: Tavistock Publications.
  • Olds, D., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C.R., Jr., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., Sidora, K., Morris, P., Pettit, L., & Luckey, D. (1997). Long-term effects- of home visiting on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect: 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 637-643.
  • Olds, D., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Pettit, L., Sidora, K., Luckey, D., Morris, P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior: 15-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238–1244.

PUBLIC POLICY

Child Abuse and Neglect
$308 million to protect the nearly three million children reported abused and neglected
The Child Welfare Services Program, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, helps states improve their child welfare services with the goal of keeping families together. Services include preventive intervention, so that, if possible, children will not have to be removed from their homes; services to develop alternative placements like foster care or adoption if children cannot remain at home; and reunification so that children can return safely home. Funds may be used for services to families and children without regard to family income. Funds are distributed to states on the basis of their under-21 population and per capita income.

Funding for this program has remained flat over the past several years. In 1998, child protective service agencies received an estimated 2,806,000 reports of child abuse and neglect. A $308 million increase in the Child Welfare Services Program to bring funding to $600 million would give states more resources to better assist abused and neglected children.

RESEARCH

Child Abuse and Neglect
$308 million to protect the nearly three million children reported abused and neglected
The Child Welfare Services Program, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, helps the states provide services that keep families together by providing alternatives to out-of-home care. Although this may include a wide array of services, this section will emphasize family preservation and reunification services, wraparound services, and family support services.

FAMILY PRESERVATION AND REUNIFICATION SERVICES

Intensive family preservation services (IFPS) are normally time-limited (4 to 12 weeks) and comprehensive, with low caseloads (2 to 6 families) to enable frequent contact. The primary outcome measure used in assessing the success of IFPS has been the prevention of out-of-home placement or the return of children to their families after they entered foster care. Despite criticisms about such a narrow focus, some studies with comparison or control groups have demonstrated significant placement prevention effects.
  • Schwartz, AuClaire, and Harris [1991] studied outcomes for adolescents for whom placement proceedings had been initiated but who were diverted into a family systems-based program. They found that 43.6% were still in their homes at the 12-month follow-up compared to only 8.6% of the overflow comparison group.
  • Pecora and colleagues [1991], also using a matched-pairs case overflow comparison group, found that 55.6% of the adolescents served were still in their homes 12 to 16 months following enrollment in an IFPS program compared to only 14.8% of those receiving standard child welfare services.
  • Feldman [1991] randomly assigned youth in four sites in New Jersey to IFPS or standard services and found a placement prevention rate at the 12-month follow-up of 57.3% in the IFPS group and 43.4% in the control group.
Impressive findings also have been documented regarding the success of IFPS programs in reunifying children already in foster care. Fraser and his colleagues [1996] provided 90 days of IFPS to families randomly assigned from prescreened foster care caseloads (about two-fifths of all foster cases). IFPS successfully reunited all but two of the families during the service period, whereas almost half of the control children did not return home during the study period. At the end of the 12-month follow-up, 70% of the IFPS children had reunited with their families and remained in the home compared to only 47% of the control group who had reunited with their families and remained in the home. In addition, IFPS children returned home more quickly and spent fewer days in placement.

WRAPAROUND SERVICES

Rather than relying solely on expensive residential placements, some communities have created a network of coordinated local services which are “wrapped around” the child and family in an effort to maintain the child in the local community [Skiba & Nichols 2000].

Outcome studies of wraparound are somewhat limited, perhaps because of the relative newness of the concept. Nevertheless, they suggest that:
  • Children and youth served by wraparound options are more likely to transition to living arrangements that are less restrictive and more stable and permanent. Burchard and colleagues [1993] detail how previously institutionalized youth who received wraparound services were able to succeed in foster care, re-enter regular education, complete their GED, or transition to independent living. Other researchers have reported that youth involved with wraparound care for at least 12 months resided in significantly less restrictive community-based living arrangements [Yoe et al. 1996].
  • Children and youth receiving wraparound services often show improvements in behavioral adaptation and emotional functioning. Children and adolescents who receive wraparound services have been found to have significantly fewer problem behaviors overall, and also fewer abuse-related behaviors such as sexual acting out, self-injury, life threat, sexual abuse, and cruelty to animals. Receiving wraparound services also appears to result in youth internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Significant improvement in mood and emotion, behavior, and role performance have also been shown [Evans et al. 1996]. It is important to note, however, that wraparound is not a magic bullet for children with severe emotional and behavioral problems. Despite improvements in functioning, serious school and community-related behaviors such as truancy and police contact often remain [Yoe et al. 1996].
  • Wraparound services rely on and strengthen resources in the local community. Rather than expending dollars for out-of-state placements, communities may, through wraparound, keep resources within the child’s community, thereby strengthening the local economy and increasing local service capacity.
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES

The term “family support” refers to a unique set of services intended to enhance the strength and stability of families, increase parents’ confidence and competence in parenting, afford children a stable and supportive family environment; and enhance child development [Tracy 2000]. Families may receive support services without being identified as at-risk and in the absence of problems which threaten family stability. Common program characteristics include home visiting, child assessment and screening, parent training and education, and social, emotional, and educational support for parents.

A recent review of six family support programs found that “well-conceptualized and implemented family support programs have the capacity to improve family functioning” [Comer & Fraser 1998: 143]. Aspects of family functioning which appeared to maintain gains over a 12-month period included:
  • Improved prenatal care and fewer pregnancy complications. Leonardson and Wilson [1992] found that teenage parents in a family support program received more prenatal care and reported fewer postpartum emergency room visits than a matched comparison group that had not participated in a support program.
  • Improved parent-child interaction. Johnson and Walker [1991] found that program participants provided a more educationally stimulating and encouraging home environment for their children as measured by standardized tools and mother-child interactions.
  • Higher level of parental knowledge. Pfannenstiel, Lambson, and Yarnell [1991] reported significant increases in parent knowledge of child development. Johnson and Walker [1991] reported more positive attitudes on the part of parents toward their role as teacher of their children and less strict attitudes toward child rearing.
  • Higher level of child development. Long-term follow-up data from the Yale Child Research Program [Seitz et al. 1985] showed that compared to a control group, participating children scored higher on measures of language and had better school performance and attendance.
REFERENCES

  • Burchard, J. D., Burchard, S. N., Sewell, R. & VanDenBerg, J. (1993). One kid at a time: Evaluative case studies and description of the Alaska Youth Initiative Demonstration Project. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
  • Comer, E.W., & Fraser, M.W. (1998). Evaluation of six family- support programs: Are they effective? Families in Society, 79 (2), 134–148.
  • Evans, M., Armstrong, M. & Kuppinger, A. (1996). Family- centered intensive care management: A step toward understanding individualized care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 55–65.
  • Feldman, L. (1991). Evaluating the impact of intensive family preservation services in New Jersey. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 47–71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Fraser, M., Walton, E., Lewis, R., Pecora, P., & Walton, W. (1996). An experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow-up. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 335–361.
  • Johnson, D. & Walker, T. (1991). Final report of an evaluation of the Avance Parent Education and Family Support Program. San Antonio, TX: Avance.
  • Leonardson, G. & Wilson, A. (1992). Evaluation Report-Rural America Initiative Project Takoja: comprehensive teen parent program. Sioux Fall: University of South Dakota.
  • Pecora, P., Fraser, M., Bennet, R., & Haapala, D. (1991). Placement rates of children and families served by intensive family preservation services programs. In M. Fraser, P. Pecora, & D. Haapala (Eds.), Families in crisis: The impact of intensive family preservation services (pp. 149–180). New York: Aldine de Gruyter
  • Pfannenstiel, J., Lambson, T., & Yarnell, V. (1991). Second wave study of the Parents as Teachers Program: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Research and Training Associates.
  • Schwartz, I., AuClaire, P., & Harris, L. (1991). Family preservation services as an alternative to the out-of-home placement of adolescents: The Hennepin County experience. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 33–46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L., & Apfel, N. (1985). Effects of family support intervention: A ten year follow-up. Child Development, 56, 376–391.
  • Skiba, R.J. & Nichols, S.D. (2000). What works in wraparound programming. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A. (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Tracy, E.M. (2000). What works in family support services. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A. (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Yoe, J., Santarcangelo, S., Atkins, M. & Burchard, J. (1996). Wraparound care in Vermont: Program development, Implementation, and evaluation of a statewide system of individualized services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 22–39.

PUBLIC POLICY

Drug and Alcohol Treatment
$200 million to provide drug and alcohol treatment to 34,000 families where child abuse or neglect has occurred
This legislation will authorize $200 million in the first year and $1.9 billion over five years to states to provide grants to state child welfare and alcohol and drug agencies to enable them together to address the treatment needs of families who come to the attention of the child welfare system. Children whose parents abuse alcohol and drugs are almost three times more likely to be abused and more than four times more likely to be neglected than children of parents who do not abuse alcohol and drugs.

Existing alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment services are not adequate or appropriate for families. Nationally, 63% of the people who are in need of treatment for drug abuse do not receive it. Just over two-thirds of parents involved in the child welfare system need substance abuse treatment, but child welfare agencies can provide treatment services for less than one-third of them. The $200 million first year funding could help approximately 34,000 families receive appropriate treatment services.

RESEARCH

Drug and Alcohol Treatment
$200 million to provide drug and alcohol treatment to 34,000 families where child abuse or neglect has occurred
Substance abuse by parents is one of the most significant problems facing the child welfare system today [Wingfield & Klempner 2000]. Children whose parents abuse alcohol and other drugs (AOD) are almost three times more likely to be abused and more than four times more likely to be neglected than children of parents who are not substance abusers [Kelleher et al. 1994]. Evidence from several national studies suggests that 40%–80% of all child abuse and neglect cases involve parental misuse of AOD [Young et al. 1998]. Eighty percent of states report that parental substance abuse and poverty are the top two problems among child protective services caseloads [National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse 1998].

Substance abuse treatment is a much-needed, but scarce resource [U.S. Government Accounting Office 1998]. A study of state child welfare agencies by the Child Welfare League of America [1997] estimated that 67% of parents with children in the child welfare system required substance abuse treatment services, but child welfare agencies were able to provide treatment for only 31% of them.

Substance abuse treatment does work.
  • The grant program administered by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)—Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Their Infants—incorporates a comprehensive array of services specific to the treatment needs of substance-abusing women and developmentally appropriate services for infants and children. Follow-up data (at a time period of six months to a year after women entered treatment) for 282 women who were enrolled in the program in 1996 demonstrated positive results: 67% of the women were not using any drugs, including alcohol; 90% of the women were not involved with the criminal justice system; and 87% of children were living with their mothers [CSAT 1998].
  • The STAR program, which is part of the Epiphany Center in San Francisco, provides intensive reunification services to families with infants who have had pre-natal exposure to drugs. Between 1994 and 1997, the program reunited 73% of the infants with their families (41% with biological parents; 32% with relatives) [Epiphany Center 1998].
  • PAR Village in Florida is a residential center where addicted mothers and their children receive counseling and training in areas ranging from parenting skills to job readiness. A five-year study conducted between 1992 and 1997 followed 52 women and 52 children in treatment (one child of each mother). The study showed that six months after receiving treatment, 65% of participants were drug-free; 87% of the mothers had not been arrested; and 45% of the women had regained custody of their children [Drug Strategies 1998].
REFERENCES

  • Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1998). Producing results: A report to the nation 1998. Rockville, MD: U.S.
  • Department of Health and Human Services. Drug Strategies. (1998). Keeping score: Women and drugs: Looking at the federal drug control budget. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Epiphany Center. (1998). Epiphany STAR project fact sheet. San Francisco, CA: Author.
  • Kelleher, K., Chaffin, M., Hollenberg, J., & Fischer, E. (1994). Alcohol and drug disorders among physically abusive and neglectful parents in a community-based sample. American Journal of Public Health, 84(10), 1586–1590.
  • National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. (1998). Current trends in child abuse reporting and fatalities: NCPCA’s 1997 annual 50 state survey. Chicago: National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
  • United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. Washington, DC: U. S. General Accounting Office.
  • Wingfield, K. & Klempner, T. (2000). What works women- oriented treatment for substance abusing mothers. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Young, N. K., Gardner, S. L. & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

PUBLIC POLICY

Youth Violence and Delinquency
$155 million to prevent violence and head off delinquency for thousands of youth
While crime rates- including juvenile crime rates- have been declining for several years, juvenile crime rates remain unacceptably high. Prevention efforts can reduce the incidence of juvenile delinquency and related problems and enable young people to transition successfully into adulthood.

The Delinquency Prevention Program, (Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act), is the only federal funding source dedicated solely to delinquency and youth violence prevention. The program has a good track record of success.

Funding for the Title V Delinquency Prevention Program has remained flat since 1999. The program is currently funded at less than one-half the level provided for juvenile incarceration initiatives and corrections programs (i.e. $250 million in FY 2000 for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant). Increasing funding by $155 million, bringing the total to $250 million, will help over 800 local communities develop and expand effective delinquency prevention programs for children and youth.

RESEARCH

Youth Violence and Delinquency
$155 million to prevent violence and head off delinquency for thousands of youth
Several programs have been cited as having successfully prevented delinquency by fostering positive and healthy youth development. Young people who participated in the Quantum Opportunities Program, a high school graduation incentive program, were only one-fourth as likely as their classmates to be convicted of a crime during their high school years, and two years after the program ended, were arrested only half as often as that of the control group.

Independent living skills programs for youth living in residential group care, such as the Work Appreciation for Youth Program (WAY), have been identified as assisting troubled teenagers to get an education, get and keep a job, and make sound decisions in planning for the future. WAY involves an intensive aftercare component that provides youngsters with an array of long-term, individualized services—work ethics education, job readiness training, direct work experience, tutoring and counseling. Preliminary findings from a study of 65 WAY alumni found that 92% completed high school or the equivalent, 59% had some college education, half were working full time, but only 6 to 8% had been arrested [Dale 2000].

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (1998) evaluated the potential crime reduction costs and benefits of a range of child development, youth development, and juvenile offender programs. The institute concluded that some interventions, if well implemented, can lower crime rates and total crime costs. Among child development programs, the Perry Pre-School Project was estimated to be capable of lowering the subsequent level of felony offending among participants in Washington by 49%. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters Mentoring program was estimated to reduce felonies by 20%, and to save nearly $978 in taxpayers’ criminal justice costs avoided and $2,505 in crime victims costs avoided, for a total savings of $3,483 per participant.

The Institute concluded that the best interventions for juvenile offenders lowered the chance of re-offending by approximately 40%. For example, treatment foster care was estimated to lower the subsequent level of felony offending by 37%. The program was estimated to yield an average taxpayer net gain of $5,815 for every participant and crime victim savings of $11,760, for a total net gain of $17,575 per participant.

REFERENCES

  • Hahn, A., with Leavitt, T. and Aaron, P., Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program: Did the Program Work? (Waltham, MA: Center for Human Resources, Brandeis University, June 1994).
  • Dale, N. (2000). What works in employment programs for youth in out-of-home care. In Kluger, M., Alexander, G., & Curtis, P. A., (Eds.), What works in child welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
  • Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (1998, January). Watching the bottom line: cost-effective interventions for reducing crime in Washington. Olympia, WA: Author.
Budget Surplus Page


Back to top      Homepage