Posts About Youth

Why is child welfare finance reform so important? Because we want federal financing to reinforce good practice and provide incentives to ensure that children and youth grow up in safe, stable and loving families.

Currently, there are numerous prevention programs and evidence-based practice models being implemented across the country to keep children safe and families together. As a result, fewer children and youth are entering foster care. Consequently, as fewer children and youth enter foster care, states receive less federal funding to support child welfare practices.

In order to encourage healthy development for children and youth, it is essential to support and fund efforts to keep families together and reunite them quickly and safely when children do enter foster care. To achieve these results, federal financing must support the services and best practices that have a positive impact on children, youth and their families. Reforming federal financing to provide dollars for prevention and post-permanency services will incentivize child welfare systems to implement best practices that support the healthy development and well-being of children and youth.

A new infographic from The Annie E. Casey Foundation highlights the decrease in two key federal funding sources, Title IV-E and Title IV-B, over the last decade and provides projections for the funding decreases if federal financing does not change. The Cost of Doing Nothing will result in this projected decrease in federal financing for children, youth and families in need of supports and services to live in safe, stable and loving families.  

Earlier this month, Washington Post education reporter Valerie Strauss posted a blog asking if the U.S. Department of Education is “obsessed with data” when it comes to their Promise Neighborhoods grantees.

The answer is, yeah, kind of.

But we’d argue the real obsession is with results.

Focusing on specific indicators means focusing on progress. What the government is doing is creating a new level of accountability. Of shared accountability that every partner in every Promise Neighborhood site is clear about.

Why are they doing this? Because to make sure that every child in a low-income neighborhood has the opportunity to get to and graduate from college means everyone involved has to understand what’s going on. Everyone has to be on the same page. And unless you’re tracking along the way – watching data on daily school attendance or critical milestones like reading well by the end of third grade – you risk waiting until kids fail to realize there’s a problem.

Another reason the focus on data and results is so important? It makes for much more efficient use of the resources at hand. Because as Strauss points out, there’s far less funding for Promise Neighborhoods than other education initiatives.

And so yes, it might take some time to get some of the details worked out on the best indicators organizations should be collecting and reporting. But it’s all part of a bigger picture. 

Working with each of these communities, we know what’s at stake. We’re glad the Department of Education, neighborhood stakeholders, parents and everyone else who touches the lives of children in Promise Neighborhoods are relentless about results. It’s because they all understand what the end goal is.

And we’d argue that’s something worth being obsessed with!

Frank Farrow is the director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy, the training and technical assistance provider for the federal Promise Neighbhorhoods initiative.

September is National Recovery Month, a time to promote the societal benefits of prevention, treatment, and recovery for mental and substance use disorders, celebrate people in recovery, laud the contributions of treatment and service providers, and promote the message that recovery in all its forms is possible. Nowhere is this emphasis on recovery more profound and necessary than for families involved with the criminal justice system, because of the far-reaching impact that incarceration has on parents, their children and future generations. Nonviolent offenders with drug-related charges would be much better served by drug treatment rather than mandatory minimum sentences, which do little to rehabilitate individuals or to increase public safety.  In fact, incarceration can have the opposite effect.

In line with this view, last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Justice Department would cease pursing mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders.  Citing racial disparities, prison overcrowding as well as the related economic and social impacts, Holder questioned some assumptions about the criminal justice system's approach to the "war on drugs," saying that excessive incarceration has been an "ineffective and unsustainable" part of it.

In their article in the Future of Children, authors Christopher Wildeman and Bruce Western compiled multiple sources of research to describe the intergenerational effects of imprisonment on inequality. Research on adult men suggests that imprisonment diminishes their earnings, disrupts their romantic unions, and compromises their health. Likewise, the imprisonment of a partner, on average, compromises the well-being of those who are left behind. Parental incarceration has been linked to increased physical aggression in boys, and criminality and delinquency throughout the life course.

Many studies have considered the consequences of parental incarceration for children’s behavioral problems more broadly. Having a parent incarcerated causes children of all ages to express a mix of internalizing behaviors, such as being anxious, depressed, or withdrawn, and/or externalizing behaviors, such as acting out or having temper tantrums. The internalizing behaviors tend to occur in older children, but the externalizing behaviors hold across the life course.

Not only does parental incarceration affect children’s behavior, but it is associated with other social problems that can lead to severe marginalization in childhood and adolescence. Children of incarcerated parents are at elevated risk of homelessness, foster care placement, and infant mortality. Maternal incarceration may have even more substantial effects on foster care placement than paternal incarceration does, a risk especially high for African-American children.

In an effort to keep families together whenever possible and to further the action taken by Attorney General Holder, policymakers can support several policies that will decrease children’s exposure to having a parent incarcerated:

• Limit prison time so that nonviolent drug offenders are not needlessly exposed to the psychological damage of incarceration, are free to work and earn an income, and spend time with their families.
• Provide effective drug treatment for nonviolent drug offenders to support their recovery, enabling them to improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential.
• Identify and address substance use disorders early on. Research shows that for every $1.00 invested in prevention and early treatment programs, $2.00 to $10.00 could be saved in health costs, criminal and juvenile justice costs, educational costs, and lost productivity.

Providing drug treatment is a family strengthening policy that rehabilitates individuals, promotes the integrity of the family, and furthers  the justice system’s goal of public safety. For more policies related to reducing incarceration, including promoting workforce strategies for reintegrating ex-offenders, see Policyforresults.org. It is also important to consider alternatives to detention for juveniles.  Brain sciencehas shown that juveniles are resilient and are very likely to be successfully rehabilitated with appropriate interventions.   Many juveniles are also parents, and thus strategies to reduce juvenile detention will prevent the youngest generation from inheriting the stressors associated with the incarceration of their young parents.

• Clare Anderson, Deputy Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
• Amy Templeman, Well Being Supervisor, Office of Well-Being for the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency;
• Carla Perkins, Well Being Education Supervisor, Office of Well-Being for the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency;
• Aisha Hunter, Trauma Grant Specialist, Office of Well-Being for the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency;
• Julie Fliss, Supervisory Planning Advisor, Office of Well-Being for the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency;
• Dr. Cynthia Tate, Deputy Director, Office of Child Well Being, Illinois Department of Children & Family Services

Homeless youth are much more likely to become victims of crime, especially violent crimes. A study of homeless youth found that 76% had been victims of a crime in the previous 12 months, and that most homeless youth surveyed had been victims of violent crime-- far higher rates of crime victimization than those found among youth with housing. The study found that homeless youth of color and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth are victimized at even higher rates than other homeless youth. 

The Importance of Data. 
Serving the needs of homeless youth is made more challenging by the difficulty in getting an accurate count of how many young people don’t have a safe place to live. Reliable information about how many homeless youth there are and what they need is essential for effective service provision; however, it is very difficult for researchers to find homeless youth willing to talk to them, much less get a clear picture of their needs.  This month the Urban Institute released a new report on the Youth Count! Initiative, highlighting promising practices in getting an accurate count of the homeless youth population. 

According to the report, surveys that ask youth about their housing situation rather than just asking if they are homeless yield better data since homeless youth often rely on a range of strategies to find shelter, including ‘couch surfing’ with friends or relatives, staying in shelters, sleeping in abandoned buildings, cars or other places. Broader survey questions about housing stability also allow researchers to identify the related needs of homeless youth—not only their need for stable housing, but also other needs that cause or result in youth homelessness.

Understanding the needs of homeless youth requires engaging with organizations that provide services to this population since youth may be more willing to connect with trusted service providers. Methods such as hosting magnet events and utilizing social media were found to be effective in finding homeless youth to participate in surveys. Engagement with organizations that serve LGBTQ youth was found to be particularly important, as LGBTQ youth may be reluctant to share personal information about their housing situation, gender identity and sexual orientation. 

Research conducted by the Williams Institute suggests that about 40% of homeless youth receiving services identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. The leading cause of homelessness cited by LGBTQ youth is family rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity resulting in youth running away or being forced to leave home by family members. Since research suggests that LGBTQ youth are both disproportionately likely to become homeless and more likely to be victimized while homeless, effective methods for assessing and serving the needs of LGBTQ youth is a key aspect of ending youth homelessness.

Trying to Survive is Not a Crime.
It is important to have an accurate count and assessment of the needs of youth with unstable housing; however, policies that encourage youth to reach out when they need help rather than further marginalizing them are also critical. Youth may resort to theft or other petty crimes to survive, and many trade ‘survival sex’ to meet basic needs such as food and shelter.  Homeless youth are often targeted by adults who offer them food and a place to stay and then coerce them into prostitution or other forms of exploitation. Homeless youth are frequently arrested for such survival crimes, including survivors of human trafficking. 

In many areas, even ‘acts of living’ such as sleeping, eating, sitting or panhandling in public placeshave been made illegal in an effort to drive homeless people from high-visibility public spaces. Attempts to access or improvise clean drinking water or restroom facilities can lead to arrest. A report by a United Nations investigator found that homeless populations in the United States are often denied access to water and sanitation facilities in violation of international standards. Criminalizing such survival tactics makes it harder for youth to stay safe and meet their basic needs when they find themselves on the streets, and the fear of being arrested can discourage youth from seeking help.  A2012 report from the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness found that criminalizing acts of living through ‘zero tolerance’ approaches to homelessness are not effective and that “[c]ommunity residents, government agencies, businesses, and men and women who are experiencing homelessness are better served by solutions that do not marginalize people experiencing homelessness, but rather strike at the core factors contributing to homelessness.”

Strengthening Families and Supports for Youth.
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), the key to addressing the core factors of homelessness is employing prevention and early intervention services for at-risk youth as early as possible. The NAEH highlights the importance of measures that strengthen families through counseling and resources so that youth have the support they need. Without such resources, factors such as family conflict, poverty, lack of affordable housing, inaccessible health care and systemic racism may result in youth being displaced from their families.

Ensuring that every child has a safe, permanent home is crucial, not just for reducing homelessness, but for ensuring their well-being. For young people aging-out of foster care, an effective support system is needed so that youth can access safe housing, health care, education opportunities and other supports.  A number of states including California, Illinois and the District of Columbia have extended foster care eligibility to age 21 in an attempt to ease this transition. Funded in part by the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, extended support is a positive step toward preventing youth from becoming homeless after aging out. A study found that Illinois foster youth were twice as likely to have attended college - and more than twice as likely to have completed at least one year of college by age 21- compared with former foster youth from neighboring states where eligibility ends at 18. Extended eligibility was also associated with delayed pregnancy, higher earnings, and a greater likelihood of receiving independent living services. 

There are a number of interrelated factors that impact a child becoming homeless Addressing those factors in a comprehensive way through public policy is a critical part of addressing youth homelessness.  State policymakers can implement child welfare, health care, education and social safety net policies in their state that are more effective in preserving and strengthening families to ensure that children and youth have what they need to thrive. They can also strengthen laws and policies to prevent the criminalization and victimization of homeless young people and assist them in accessing the resources they need to survive homelessness and move forward as successful adults.

For more information on ways to increase exits from foster care to permanence and support youth transitioning from foster care, please visit PolicyforResults.org 

1. Elect the option to provide Medicaid coverage to former foster youth in different states.
2. Create an automatic enrollment process for youth prior to aging out of care.
3.  Implement a one-time Medicaid eligibility determination until the age of 26.
4.  Engage former foster youth and child welfare workers in designing an outreach campaign to identify successful outreach strategies in hopes of increasing the number of youth who enroll under this provision.
5. Select the most appropriate managed care program, instead of automatic enrollment for state-selected plans, for foster youth when possible.
6. Educate all child welfare agency representatives about the process of enrollment and to implement integrated care models, such as Health Homes.
7. Work with Medicaid agencies to coordinate enrollment eligibility of former foster youth even after the age of 26.

 Medicaid provides a concrete support for young people transitioning into adulthood. To learn more about concrete supports that help youth to thrive, please read CSSP’s brief on Concrete Supports in Times of Need. For more results-focused policy strategies for children, youth and their families visit PolicyforResults.

According to a report by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), pregnant and parenting youth still often face discrimination at school that violates their legal rights under Title IX. Tremendous stigma surrounds teen pregnancy, and some teachers and school staff still assume that pregnant students will inevitably drop out. The report finds that these negative assumptions about pregnant and parenting youth often lead to overt discrimination such as the illegal expulsion of pregnant students, pressuring these students into enrolling in low-quality ‘alternative’ education programs, refusing to excuse absences for medical appointments or even childbirth, and not letting students make up work that they missed when absent due to pregnancy. Pregnant students are often denied the services available to other students with temporary medical conditions including home or hospital-based instruction. Although schools are required under the law to have Title IX coordinators to ensure that claims of sex discrimination are addressed, some schools either have a coordinator who does not know what his or her responsibilities are or have no coordinator at all. 

The report emphasizes that rather than pregnancy being the end of the road for students, it can be a powerful motivating factor in encouraging formerly disengaged students to succeed in school and in their careers in order to provide their children with a better life. The report also argues that pregnancy is not the root cause of lack of educational achievement among students, but rather that factors like poverty, lack of access to health information and care, and a weak support system are the underlying factors that increase students’ risk of both teen pregnancy and low educational attainment. If students do not complete high school, it becomes far more difficult for them to go on to college or access jobs that pay a family-sustaining wage. With a young child to look after, it becomes even more critical for young parents to be able to earn a good living. Yet the child that may motivate a parenting student to succeed may be viewed by school staff as a liability and a reason to write the student off as ‘hopeless’. 

Some states have enacted policies to support pregnant and parenting youth in continuing their education and developing the parenting and life skills they will need to raise a child. The District of Columbia’s New Heights program serves pregnant and parenting youth at 14 DC public schools using a youth development framework. The New Heights program provides supportive case management and educational workshops for expectant and parenting (male and female) students enrolled in DC public high schools. The program includes assistance with securing services such as child care vouchers, food assistance, job training opportunities, as well as workshops on topics such as pre-natal care, parenting, life skills, financial literacy, career planning, healthy relationships and other issues. 

The California School Age Families Education (Cal-SAFE) program provides students with academic and support services to finish their education, build parenting skills and enroll their children in child care and development programs. According to a 2010 report to the California state legislature:

Unfortunately, many programs to support pregnant and parenting youth face budget cuts. In California, for example, the Cal-SAFE program showed a major drop over three consecutive years in the number of youth served after its funding was changed to a block grant with more flexible requirements for school districts, allowing schools to move funding away from the program. Prior to the funding change, participation had grown for eight straight years since the program was introduced.  

Title IX is the minimum legal requirement for schools, but it is only a beginning. Federal law leaves a lot of room for state policymakers to develop strategies to promote the well-being of pregnant and parenting youth and their children. State policymakers may wish to consider reviewing how well schools in their state protect the rights of students to have equal access to education regardless of their gender. They may also want to consider what programs are currently in place to support pregnant and parenting youth and explore research-informed approaches that have produced positive results for young families.

For more information about how to reduce teen and unplanned pregnancies, as well as how toincrease high school graduation rates, please visit PolicyforResults.org.  For CSSP resources on supporting pregnant and parenting youth who are also involved in the child welfare system click here.

Although the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act of 2000  recognizes minors under 18 who have been induced to perform commercial sexual acts as human trafficking victims, child survivors of sex trafficking are still often arrested and put on probation or in juvenile detention. Some state policymakers have attempted to resolve this issue by passing legislation such as ‘Safe Harbor’ laws that protect child survivors of commercial sexual exploitation from being prosecuted for prostitution and require that agencies recognize them as survivors of sexual abuse rather than viewing them as criminals. States that have already passed such legislation include Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington State. A bill has been proposed and is currently being considered in the U.S. Senate which would extend such protections to child survivors nationwide.

Some states have implemented policies to better protect children from sex trafficking and address the related issues in the child welfare system. Connecticut now accepts all cases of child sex trafficking through its Careline (the child welfare intake and information center) whether or not the alleged perpetrator is the ‘entrusted’ caregiver. The state has established an Interagency Human Anti-Trafficking Response Team (HART) led by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families which reviews and monitors Careline to ensure an appropriate response to children’s needs (including for victims with still unsubstantiated cases) and coordination with FBI and Homeland Security to ensure cases of child sex trafficking are prosecuted to fullest extent of state and federal law.

• 32% of children from birth to five years old have developmental problems;
• Among school-aged children and adolescents, 10% are at risk of cognitive problems or low academic achievement, 43% have emotional or behavioral problems, and 13% have both;
• Adolescents engage in more risky behaviors than their same-aged normative peers—almost 50% have used alcohol at some time during their lives and over 20% have used other substances.

Research has shown that caregivers can buffer the impact of trauma and promote better outcomes for children even under stressful circumstances when the following Strengthening Families Protective Factorsare present:

• Parental resilience
• Social connections
• Knowledge of parenting and child development
• Concrete support in times of need
• Social and emotional competence of children

To achieve the goals of safety, well-being and permanency for youth in the foster care system, policymakers can adopt policies that strengthen reunification, adoption and guardianship. Requiring family involvement in decision-making can aid in reunification, establishing state adoption credits can encourage more adoptions, and setting adequate subsidy and benefit levels can support guardianship.

• Results-based policies to aid children and youth in foster care
• Results-based policies to promote children’s social, emotional and behavioral health
• Promoting Children’s Social, Emotional and Behavioral Health (report)
• National Child Traumatic Stress Network