PCANY Testimony.indd - Prevent Child Abuse New York

Transcription

134 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12210
518-445-1273 tel
518-436-5889 fax
[email protected]
www.preventchildabuseny.org
Testimony to the
Joint Legislative Hearing on
the
Human Services Budget
February 5, 2008
Michelle Gross
Projects Manager
Prevent Child Abuse New York
Albany, NY 12210
1.800.CHILDREN
1.800.342.PIRC Parent Helpline
518.445.1273 office
518.436.5889 fax
[email protected]
http://www.preventchildabuseny.org
Distinguished Assemblypersons and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today before you.
My name is Michelle Gross, Projects Manager at Prevent Child Abuse New York. Serving our State for the
past 27 years, we are the only statewide nonprofit agency in New York dedicated solely to preventing child
abuse and neglect. Our work is accomplished in cooperation with hundreds of community-based organizations and individuals across the state.
Anyone who has read news stories about Colbi Bullock, a Glens Falls infant beaten to death by his mother,
or the recent story of a 7-year-old Airmont boy whose arm was intentionally burned in an oven as a form of
punishment, is reminded that we need to do much more to prevent child abuse and neglect.
Those cases are among the most extreme of tens of thousands of cases of New York State children who
are abused and neglected by those who should nurture and protect them. During the year 2005, more than
64,207 New York State children were found to have been abused and neglected by their parents and other
caretakers.
The cost of child maltreatment is borne not only by abused children, but by all of us. Research during the
past twenty years demonstrates that an array of human and social problems resist solutions if we do not
respond to the urgent need to prevent the abuse and neglect of children.
For example, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study is one of the largest investigations ever
conducted on the links between child maltreatment and later-life health and well-being. A collaboration
between the US Centers for Disease Control and Kaiser Permanente, the study examined the childhoods and
health outcomes of more than 17,000 people. The ACE Study has found that short and long-term outcomes
of these traumatic experiences include a multitude of adult health and social problems, including:
•Alcoholism and alcohol abuse
•Chronic pulmonary disease
•Depression
•Fetal death
•Health-related quality of life
•Illicit drug use
•Heart disease
•Liver disease
•Risk for intimate partner violence
•Multiple sexual partners
•Sexually transmitted diseases
•Smoking
•Suicide attempts
•Unintended pregnancies
In addition, the ACE Study confirms that child abuse and neglect result in many of the same behaviors and
outcomes during victims’ childhood and adolescence, including:
•Early initiation of smoking
•Sexual activity
•Illicit drug use
•Adolescent pregnancies
•Suicide attempts
Other studies enumerate additional negative outcomes for victims of child maltreatment, including learning
problems that require special education services, juvenile and adult criminal behavior and continuation of
family violence (both domestic violence and abuse of their own children) when victims become adults.
Today I’m here to speak with you about prevention: specifically, the expansion of prenatal and infancy
home visiting programs.
As you may know, the Healthy Families New York Home Visiting program reaches out to high-risk parents
during pregnancy and immediately after a child is born, to offer voluntary services. Weekly home visits
support families’ progress in three areas that are critical to preventing child abuse and neglect:
•Parenting, which includes skills for bonding with and dealing positively with the child, as well as
understanding the child’s development and needs;
•Healthy development, including good prenatal practices on the part of the mother and appropriate
health care and developmental intervention for the child; and
•Family stressors, such as need for employment or job training, substance abuse, mental health prob
lem, domestic violence.
Home visiting focuses on education in postpartum services for infants and toddlers. As a result, children
show stronger school performance, fewer behavioral problems and higher high school graduation rates.
Programs benefit parents as well. Positive results for parents include reduced welfare dependency, higher
educational completion, increased job retention and a reduction in the frequency and severity of abuse and
neglect.
Currently, Healthy Families New York is funded in this year’s executive budget at $25.2 million, serving 41
communities.
But this is simply not enough. An investment in home visiting today is proven to yield a 16-fold savings in
the future through the prevention of mental and physical health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence,
juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior, learning problems, foster care, homelessness and a plethora of
other difficulties that result from parent’s unfulfilled need for support and information when raising their
children.
New York State spends $2.5 billion each year on the consequences of child abuse and neglect, and only
$25.2 million on intensive prevention programs. We must work to balance prevention and treatment, and
to eventually tip the scale, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of children grow up in safe, nurturing environments with supportive, informed parents.
There is no time to wait. There is not another day that we can afford to build barriers to services for our
state’s families. We must tear down those walls; we must do as instructed in our very basic governmental
forms: to provide for the well-being of all children, and ladies and gentlemen, I’m providing you with an
inexpensive, proven way to do just that.
Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of thousands of program participants and providers. Take the
word of your own researchers at SUNY Albany and OCFS. Take study after study and proven practice accreditation after accreditation. Or take the image of one child, just one child, being nurtured, supported and
loved. Let that be your motivation.
Healthy Families New York Home Visiting is a program that works! It is one of the few programs in New
York, and one of the few home visiting programs in the nation to have met the test of a stringent randomized trial (treatment and control groups) evaluation. Two years of findings, at the children’s first and second
birthdays, demonstrate improvements in three areas: parenting, healthy child development and dealing
with family stressors. In fact, the prestigious Rand Corporation’s Promising Practices Network has listed
Healthy Families New York as a Proven Program.
We are seeking additional funding for Healthy Families New York in the optimistic amount of $12.5 million. Even perhaps asking that the Senate follow the Assembly’s lead last year in adding $2 million for the
program with a long-term incremental funding increase would make a great difference for thousands families.
I understand that the executive budget includes an increase in child welfare spending at the rate of $150
million for preventive programs, but these programs are meant to prevent removal from the home, and
provide for reunification services once children and families are involved in the system, not to prevent the
problem before it starts.
We do so much for education, and now for universal pre-k, but learning and nurturing do not begin at age
three or four. Families at risk must be reached right from the start, and infancy must not be ignored.
Any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my agency or me. We are your allies: balancing strong families with fiscal responsibility.
An investment in home visiting is an investment in families, and an investment in families is an investment
in the future of New York State.
Thank you for your time and your commitment.
Michelle Gross, Projects Manager
Prevent Child Abuse New York
Albany, NY 12210
1.800.CHILDREN
1.800.342.PIRC Parent Helpline
518.445.1273 office
518.436.5889 fax
[email protected]
http://www.preventchildabuseny.org
References:
1. Further information on Prevent Child Abuse New York can be found at: http://www.preventchildabuseny.org
2. Child abuse statistics available from the New York State Office of Children & Family Services, August 2006.
3. Further rinformation on the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ace/
4. Information on the costs of child abuse and neglect found in “The Costs of Child Abuse and the Urgent Need for Prevention,”
Prevent Child Abuse New York, 2003. Full report can be found at http://www.preventchildabuseny.org/resource.shtml
5. Further information on HFNY accreditation can be found at: http://www.promisingpractices.net
Appendixes
I. Healthy Families New York Sites/Target Areas by County, Map
II. Healthy Families New York: Results of First Year of Evaluation
III. Healthy Families New York: The Gold Standard of Evaluation
IV. Healthy Families New York: Supporting Parents Right from the Start
V. Healthy Families New York: Guide to Effective Programs for Children and Youth,
Childtrends.org
VI. RAND Promising Practices Network: Healthy Families New York: A Program that Works!
VII. The Direct and Indirect Costs of Child Abuse and Neglect in New York State
VIII. Time for Reform: Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect
IX. Press Release: Child Abuse and Neglect Cost Nation over $100 Billion per year
X. Total Estimated Cost of Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States
XI. PCANY State and National Partnerships, Committee Membership and Other Collaborations
XII. PCANY Partner Organizations
Sites/Target Areas by County
��
1 . Albany – Healthy Families of Albany County;
Albany, Cohoes, Watervliet, Green Island
2 . Allegany – Healthy Families Allegany; entire
county
3 . Bronx – Bronx Lebanon Hospital
Center;South Bronx
4 . Bronx – Healthy Families Catholic Guardian
Society Home Bureau; Southeast Bronx
5 . Bronx – Special Beginnings, Morris Heights
Health Care Center; Morris Heights
6 . Broome – Healthy Families Broome; entire
county outside Binghamton City School
District
7 . Cattaraugus – Healthy Families Cattaraugus;
entire county
8 . Cayuga/Seneca – Healthy Families of Cayuga/Seneca; several towns in both counties
9 . Chemung – Comprehensive Interdisciplinary
Developmental Services; entire county
1 0 . Clinton – Early Advantages; entire county
1 1 . Delaware – Healthy Families Delaware
County; entire county
1 2 . Dutchess – Dutchess County Healthy Families; Beacon, Hyde Park, Poughkeepsie
1 3 . Erie – Buffalo Home Visiting Program; Buffalo
1 4 . Herkimer – Herkimer County Healthy Families;
several areas in the county
1 5 . Kings (Brooklyn) – CAMBA, Flatbush
1 6 . Kings (Brooklyn) – Bedford-Stuyvesant
Family Medical Health Center; Bedford
Stuyvesant, Crown Heights
1 7 . Kings (Brooklyn) – Bushwick Bright Start;
Bushwick
1 8 . Kings (Brooklyn) – East New York Healthy
Families Program; Central Brooklyn
1 9 . Kings (Brooklyn) – Healthy Families NY
Diaspora; Crown Heights
2 0 . Madison – Starting Together; entire county
2 1 . New YYork
ork (Manhattan) – Northern Manhattan Perinatal Partnership; Central Harlem
2 2 . New YYork
ork (Manhattan) – Best Beginnings,
Alianza Dominicana; Washington Heights
2 3 . New YYork
ork (Manhattan) – University
Settlement’s Healthy Families Program; East
Harlem, Lower East Side
2 4 . Niagara – Healthy Families Niagara; Niagara
Falls, Lockport, North Tonawanda
2 5 . Oneida – Healthy Families Oneida County;
entire county
2 6 . Ontario – Healthy Families Ontario; eastern
Ontario County
2 7 . Orange – Newburgh Healthy Families;
Newburgh. Middletown Healthy Families;
Middletown
2 8 . Otsego – Building Healthy Families Otsego;
entire county
2 9 . Queens – Healthy Families Jamaica; Jamaica
3 0 . Rensselaer – Healthy Families Rensselaer
County; entire county
3 1 . Richmond (Staten Island) – Healthy
Families Staten Island; North Shore
3 2 . Schenectady --– Healthy Schenectady
Families; Schenectady County
3 3 . Steuben – Healthy Families Steuben; entire
county
3 4 . Suffolk – Healthy Families Suffolk; Brentwood
3 5 . Sullivan – Healthy Beginnings of Sullivan;
entire county
3 6 . Tioga – Tioga PACT Healthy Families; entire
county
3 7 . Ulster – Ulster County Healthy Start; entire
county
3 8 . Westchester – Westchester County Healthy
Families; Yonkers
**See reverse for site map
�
�
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
Healthy Families New York:
Results of First Year of Evaluation
Program Summary
Healthy Families New York (HFNY) is an OCFS initiative operating in 28 sites across the state in
which expectant and new parents are provided with home visits until their child enters school or
Head Start. The program has operated since 1995, targeting mothers who are at high risk due to
factors such as being a single parent, a teen parent, or having a history of substance abuse. The
goals of HFNY are to:
� promote positive parenting skills and parent-child interaction thereby preventing child
abuse and neglect and reducing out-of-home placement;
� support optimal prenatal care, better birth outcomes, and child health and
development; and
� improve economic self-sufficiency.
OCFS’ Bureau of Evaluation and Research, in collaboration with the Center for Human Services
Research at SUNY Albany, has just completed the first year of an evaluation of HFNY. The evaluation
demonstrates that the program helped mothers
develop healthier parenting attitudes, adopt less
harmful parenting practices, experience better birth
outcomes, and reduce their levels of alcohol,
tobacco and drug use. These short-term effects are
expected to produce long-term impacts on children’s
emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development.
Methodology
The evaluation used a randomized trial—the gold standard for testing program effectiveness—
in which nearly 1,200 eligible mothers from Erie, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties were randomly
assigned to a treatment group that was offered HFNY or to a control group that received referrals
to community services. Mothers from both groups were interviewed at the outset of the evaluation
and again one year after their child’s birth. The effects of the program were measured by comparing
the treatment and control groups on several outcome measures.
This randomized trial will continue to track each mother and family’s progress through the
child’s third birthday. The results documented below are from the 1-year interview and include
findings for the entire sample, as well as from specific sites and subgroups defined by demographic
and other risk factors.
-over-
��
��
� ��
��
� ��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
� ��
��
� ��
��
��
��
� ��
� ��
��
� ��
��
� ��
��
��
��
� ��
��
� ��
� ��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� A r a n d o m i z e d t r i a l s t u d y i n g 1 , 1 7 3 w o m e n and a statewide data management and
feedback from the University at Albany, which provides a continuous stream of feedback on
performance indicators from each program.
� Since all of the individuals had an equal chance of being selected, the only differences
between the two groups can be attributed to Healthy Families New York (HFNY) program.
The randomized trial evaluation allowed us to obtain credible evidence regarding the
effectiveness of HFNY in achieving its goals.
� Mothers receiving HFNY services were interviewed at the time of the child’s birth, and
each of their first three birthdays by interviewers independent of the HFNY program,
reducing any bias.
� The retention rate of these families over these three years remained high.
� Currently, the evaluation is conducting a seven-year follow-up that is being funded, in part, by
the National Institute of Justice and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
Hea l t hy Fa mi li es New York ha s b een su ccessfu l i n severa l ca pa cit i es:
� L o w e r i n g t h e i n c i d e n c e o f l o w b i r t h w e i g h t s : HFNY was particularly effective in
reducing low birth weight among subgroups of women at high risk: Latinas, blacks, women
receiving TANF and women under the age of 18.
� S u s t a i n i n g a c c e s s t o h e a l t h c a r e : HFNY children were more likely to have health
insurance and less likely to go without needed medical care than the control families.
� R e du c i ng a b u si v e a nd ne g l e c t fu l par e nt i ng pr a c ti c e s a nd pr o m o t i ng po si t i v e
p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s : HFNY mothers were observed engaging in more sensitive structuring
(e.g., showing empathy, setting appropriate limits and offering reassurance).
The study, performed by the University of Albany, has received national recognition as a “ w e l l i mpl ement ed, ri g orou s st u dy of t he ef f ect i v eness of t he H eal t hy F a mi li es model . ”
The RAND Corporation’s Promising Practices Network (PPN) has designated the New York
Healthy Families program a P r o v e n P r o g r a m , indicating HFNY has demonstrated effectiveness
using extremely rigorous scientific standards as determined by anonymous peer reviewers.
Heal t hy Fami li es New York joi ns t he Nurse Fa mi l y Pa rt nershi p a s t he onl y home
v i si ta ti on prog ra ms t ha t ha v e recei ved P P N’s pr ov en pr og r a m desi g na t ion.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Healthy Families New York (HFNY)
http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/hfny.htm
��
��
��
��
Healthy Families New York (HFNY) is a home visitation program for mothers who are at risk for developing abusive or neglectful behaviors toward
their children. The goals of HFNY are to promote positive parenting, prevent child abuse and/or neglect, support prenatal care and child health and
development, and improve parental self-sufficiency. An experimental evaluation of HFNY found that the program was effective in reducing the
amount of child abuse and neglect in the experimental group. Also, among parents in “prevention” and “psychologically vulnerable” subgroups, those
parents in the experimental condition were less likely to report severe abuse and/or neglect than mothers in the control group.
��
��
��
Healthy Families New York was developed as a prevention effort against child abuse and neglect. The program is geared specifically towards young,
first-time mothers who join the program before the birth of their children. The program is centered on home visitation services from trained
paraprofessionals and home visitors from the community who help promote positive parenting, prevent child abuse or neglect, support prenatal care
and child health and development, and improve parent self-sufficiency. Parents who are evaluated as being potentially eligible for the program are
given a brief screening to determine final eligibility for the program. Once eligibility is determined, the women in the program receive home visits
every other week during the mother’s pregnancy. Once the child is born, visits are conducted weekly until the newborn is six months old. Then, the
visitation schedule is slowly decreased until the child enrolls in a school program, Head Start, or reaches the age of 5 years. The home visits are
designed to improve the parent-child relationship, teach about child development, encouraging optimal growth, address family problems, and develop
individual family plans for self-sufficiency and functioning. Visits are individually suited to the child and use varied curricula selected by staff
(example curricula used include “Partners for a Healthy Baby” and “Parents as Teachers”). Children are also screened using instruments that
measure developmental progress and referrals to other programs are available and recommended to parents as needed. The cost per family of the
HFNY program ranged from $3000-3500 per year.
��
��
��
�� 1173 women from 3 sites who were determined eligible for participation in the program based on scores from a screener, the
Family Stress Checklist. To be eligible, women had to score above 25 points which defined those who were at risk of engaging in child abuse and
neglect. 1254 women were deemed eligible through the screener and baseline interviews were conducted with 1173 of those women. This study
adopted an Intent To Treat (ITT) analysis whereby these 1173 women were included in final analyses even if they dropped out of the program. 34%
of mothers in the study were white, 45% were African-American, and 18% were Latina. 31% of mothers were under 19, 54% were first time
mothers, 53% had never completed high school, and 82% had never been married.
�� Mothers were identified using an initial screening as being potential study participants. A Family Assessment Worker (FAW) then visited
the home of potential participants and described the program and evaluation. After agreeing to take part in the program, the FAW administered the
Family Stress Checklist (FSC) to determine if the woman was eligible to participate in the study. Those deemed eligible (>25 points on the FSC) were
randomly assigned to either an experimental condition (N=579) which received all of the HFNY services or a control condition (N=594) which
received referrals to other programs based on a needs assessment given at the beginning of the interview.
Baseline measures were taken 2 weeks after the intake interview. Then, women were assessed again when their child was born and on the child’s
first and second birthdays.
Mothers were given a self-report measure of abusive and neglectful parenting and data was taken from OCFS, which keeps records of child abuse and
neglect. Mothers were paid $40 for participation at each of the three waves of data collection.
For analysis, two subgroups were designed to measure the program’s impacts on different populations. The first subgroup, the “prevention subgroup”,
consisted of 170 first-time mothers under the age of 19 years who had been assigned to the evaluation at a gestational age of 30 weeks or less. The
second subgroup consisted of 122 mothers determined to be “psychologically vulnerable” based on the presence of depressive symptoms and mastery,
measured respectively by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression scale and the Mastery of Psychological Coping Resources Scale. These
variables were combined into an index of psychological vulnerability and women scoring in the top 10% were categorized as psychologically
vulnerable.
To measure parenting behaviors, parents were given the Conflict-Tactics Scale (Parent-Child) to determine how often in the past year mothers
engaged in abusive or neglectful behaviors. The researchers also included substantiated reports from Child Protective Services (CPS) as a measure of
child abuse and neglect.
�� At the first birthday follow-up, mothers in the HFNY program reported fewer acts of very serious physical abuse compared with mothers in
the control group. Mothers in the HFNY program also reported fewer cases of minor physical aggression, psychological aggression and harsh
parenting behaviors compared with mothers in the control group. At year 2, mothers in the HFNY program reported fewer cases of serious physical
abuse compared with mothers in the control condition. There were no differences found between groups at any of the follow-up assessments with
respect to substantiated reports from CPS.
Within the “prevention subgroup”, mothers in the HFNY program were less likely to report minor physical aggression compared to their counterparts
in the control condition (51 compared with 70 percent). Likewise, “prevention subgroup” mothers in HFNY were less likely to report harsh parenting
behaviors than “prevention subgroup” mothers in the control condition (41 vs. 62 percent).
1 of 2
2/8/08 9:58 AM
Healthy Families New York (HFNY)
http://www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/hfny.htm
Within the “psychologically vulnerable subgroup”, mothers in the experimental program reported fewer acts of serious abuse or neglect at year one
compared with their counterparts in the control group (1.95 vs. 8.57 incidents of abuse or neglect). At year one follow up, “psychologically
vulnerable” mothers reported less psychological aggression and, at year two, fewer instances of serious abuse and neglect than mothers in the control
condition (.02 vs. .62 incidents).
��
��
��
��
DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., & Rodriguez, M. (2006). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized
trial: Impacts on parenting after the first two years. ��
��
��
Evaluated participant ages: 16-19 / Program age ranges in the Guide: Youth
Program components: child care/early childhood education; clinic-based, provider-based, or miscellaneous; home visiting; parent or family component;
Measured outcomes: social and emotional health and development; physical health
��
© Child Trends
2003
2 of 2
2/8/08 9:58 AM
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
The Mitchell-Herzfeld et al. (2005) study found overall positive program
effects in terms of childbirth outcomes and parenting practices. HFNY
mothers experienced better childbirth outcomes than control mothers.
Moreover, compared with parents in the control group, HFNY
participants were less likely to report neglecting their children and
reported committing fewer acts of severe physical abuse, minor physical
aggression, and psychological aggression against their children.
The study used low birth weight as one of the measures for the
childbirth outcomes. According to standard practice in the public health
field, babies born weighing less than 5.5 pounds are considered to be low
birth weight. Among those in the sample who were randomized at least
two months before the birth of their children, control group mothers
were significantly more likely to deliver low-birth-weight babies than were
HFNY group mothers. The mean rate of low birth weight was 2.5 times
higher for the control group (8.3 percent) than for the HFNY group (3.3
percent). Means were measured while controlling for other factors
including race, age, depression, marital status, social support, and
economic hardship.
With regard to parenting practices, the study used two measures for
evaluation: child-abuse and child-neglect reports substantiated (or
confirmed) by Child Protective Services (CPS), and parents’ self-reported
behaviors measured by the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS).
The following is a summary of major findings based on the CTS
measures:
Compared to the parents in the control group, HFNY parents
reported having engaged in significantly fewer acts of abuse and
neglect of their children that were serious enough to have
potentially resulted in a substantiated CPS report (0.48 for the
control group versus 0.20 for the HFNY group). However, the
prevalence (fraction of parents that engaged in a behavior at least
once) of such serious abusive or neglectful practices did not differ
significantly between the HFNY group and control group.
Although the prevalence of self-reported severe/very severe
physical abuse did not differ significantly between the HFNY group
and control group, the average number of self-reported
severe/very severe physical abuse acts was significantly higher for
the control group (0.42) than for the HFNY group (0.06).
For self-reported neglect, the HFNY group (5.4 percent) had a
significantly lower prevalence than the control group (8.5
percent). However, the frequency of self-reported neglect did not
differ significantly between the two groups.
Although the prevalence of minor physical aggression was not
significantly different between the two groups, the frequency of
minor physical aggression was significantly higher for the control
group (3.27) than for the HFNY group (2.34).
The prevalence of psychological aggression was not tested. The
frequency of psychological aggression was significantly higher for
the control group (4.92) than for the HFNY group (3.21).
However, no significant differences were observed between the HFNY and
control groups with respect to the rate or average number of
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
Public health and social welfare services.
Top
��
The project is funded through the state budget, and the allocation for
the program was $25.2 million in 2007. The cost per family ranges from
$3,000 to $3,500 per year, with slightly higher costs in New York City.
Top
��
��
HFNY is a variant of the HFA home visiting model, and this variant is
shown to have significant and positive impacts. HFNY participants may
receive home visiting services until the child reaches the age of five or is
enrolled in Head Start or kindergarten. Families are served at different
service levels that correspond to different frequencies of home visits
based on families’ needs. Home visits are scheduled one or more times
per week during pregnancy (Level 1), and families usually remain on
Level 1 until the child is at least six months old. As families progress
through the service levels, home visits occur on a diminishing schedule,
from biweekly (Level 2), to monthly (Level 3), and then quarterly (Level
4). The content of home visits is individualized and culturally appropriate
to address the unique needs of each family.
HFNY is managed by OCFS, which contracts with public and
community-based agencies to provide home visitation services. Funded
programs are required to follow HFA and HFNY standards and participate
in the HFA credentialing process.
��
All new home visitors attend a one-week core training program provided
by approved in-state Healthy Families America trainers. They receive
training on parent-child interaction, child development, strength-based
service delivery, and on a range of topics such as domestic violence,
substance abuse issues, abuse and neglect, and well-baby care. HFNY
supervisors receive an additional four days of training on their role in
promoting quality services. New home visitors are mentored by
experienced home visitors. Supervisors meet with each home visitor for
at least 1.5 hours every week and observe one home visit per quarter.
��
The program selects paraprofessionals from the community being served
to be home visitors. Personal attributes such as warmth, the ability to
establish trusting relationships, the ability to work effectively with
� ��
��
��
��
children and families, and nonjudgmental attitudes are the primary
selection criteria. Although postsecondary education is not a
requirement, many home visitors (43 percent) have attended college,
and about a third (34 percent) are college graduates.
Top
��
The HFNY program received a "proven" rating. The study utilized
random assignment with a fairly large sample size of over 1,000 women.
Parents who were randomly assigned to the HFNY program were kept in
the analysis, regardless of whether or not they actually received any
home visiting services. To maintain data quality, interviewers were
independent of the HFNY program and were not informed of a
participant’s group assignment. The study found significant and positive
program effects on a range of outcomes including child abuse and child
neglect and childbirth outcomes. Note, however, that some of the
program effects found in Year 1 did not persist into Year 2.
Based on the Mitchell-Herzfeld et al. (2005) study, the attrition rate at
Year 1 is relatively low (8 percent), and the attrition analysis showed no
significant difference between the HFNY group and the control group
with respect to attrition. However, the analysis indicated significant
differences in baseline measures of race and parenting attitudes between
parents lost to attrition and those retained in the sample.
The DuMont et al. (2006) study reported a 10 percent attrition rate at
Year 1 and a 15 percent attrition rate at Year 2. Two percent of the
study sample completed the Year 2 but not the Year 1 interview.
Attrition analysis showed no significant difference between the HFNY
group and the control group at the time of Year 1 and Year 2 interviews.
However, parents who remained in the study were found to be more
likely to be first-time mothers and less likely to have been randomly
assigned at a gestational age of 30 weeks or less than parents lost to
attrition.
An abbreviated version of the DuMont et al. (2006) report is forthcoming
in a peer-reviewed journal. This summary will be updated upon
publication of the journal article.
Dozens of evaluations of HFA have been conducted, but most lacked a
comparison group or used quasi-experimental designs, and most failed
to find significant positive effects. Possible reasons for the evaluations not
finding significant effects could be the relatively small sample sizes and a
low base rate for child abuse and neglect reports. The three studies
summarized here are the only ones of an HFA model that have met the
Promising Practices Network (PPN) evidence criteria, including such
factors as study design, effect size, and statistical significance.
HFNY is very similar to many other HFA programs in that it satisfies all
the critical elements required by the HFA model, including participation
eligibility, service content, home visitor selection and training, and service
monitoring and supervision. HFNY differs from other programs only in
� ��
��
��
��
some program details that are allowed under the HFA structure.
Previous studies have shown larger program effects from the Nurse
Family Partnership (NFP) home visiting model (see PPN program
summary of NFP) than the HFA model. One hypothesis forwarded to
explain the difference focuses on the training of the provider of the home
visitation services—the NFP model uses nurse home visitors while the
HFA model employs paraprofessional home visitors. However, DuMont et
al. (2006) found more pronounced program effects among the first-time
mothers under age 19 than among the entire sample, and this
subgroup of first-time young mothers resembled the type of participants
typically served by NFP programs. Therefore, the HFNY evaluation team
proposed that the characteristics of recipients might be a key factor in
explaining the differences in the program effects between the NFP and
HFA model. In fact, consistent with these findings from the HFNY
subgroup analysis, the NFP data have shown that higher-risk mothers
also benefit more from NFP services (see the discussion in Karoly et al.,
2001). Further studies that examine this hypothesis would be valuable.
The first author of the Year 1 report (2005) and the second author of
the Year 2 report (2006), Susan Mitchell-Herzfeld, is a member of the
PPN Board of Advisors.
Top
��
Erie, Rensselaer, and Ulster Counties in New York State
Top
��
Bernadette Johnson
Program Coordinator
Healthy Families New York
New York State Office of Children and Family Services
52 Washington Street, 334N
Rensselaer, NY 12144
phone: (518) 402-6770
fax: (518) 402-6824
email: [email protected]
Top
��
Healthy Families New York Web site:
http://www.healthyfamiliesnewyork.org/
New York State Office of Children and Family Services website:
http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us
Center for Human Services Research, University at Albany website:
http://www.albany.edu/chsr/reports.htm
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Foster care provides a much-needed safety net for children and youth when they have experienced abuse or
neglect and cannot remain safely with their families. However, a broad array of services and supports may
effectively prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place. A full continuum of services
can help more children safely stay with their families or reunify with them more quickly from foster care.
States and localities need federal support to provide the services that families need to safely care for their
children – services such as family counseling, emergency housing support, referrals for drug treatment
programs, and parenting classes, among others.
Unfortunately, the majority of dedicated federal funding for child welfare is currently reserved for supporting
children in foster care placements and cannot be used for prevention or reunification services or supports.
States may access dollars under Title IV-E, the principal source of federal child welfare funding, only after
children have entered foster care. Of the $7.2 billion federal funds dedicated for child welfare in 2007,
approximately 90 percent supported children in foster care placements ($4.5 billion) and children adopted
from foster care ($2.0 billion). States can use only about 10 percent of federal dedicated child welfare funds
flexibly for family services and supports, including prevention or reunification services.
Failure to invest in the services needed by vulnerable children and families, and in particular, prevention and
reunification services, is costly to society. A recent analysis estimated that the nation’s total annual cost of
child abuse in 2007 was nearly $104 billion. This total represents more than $33 billion in direct costs of
child maltreatment, including judicial, foster care, law enforcement and health system responses and $70
billion in indirect costs, including long-term economic effects.
Effective front-end services, including family support, family strengthening, and family reunification
services, have shown great promise in ensuring the safety and well-being of children. The Nurse-Family
Partnership and Healthy Families New Jersey decreased the incidence of abuse and neglect; Renewal House
in Tennessee reduced short and long term trauma to children; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania lessened the
need to remove children from their families; and Wraparound Milwaukee lowered the costs of care per child.
The federal child welfare financing system should better support the full range of services needed to keep
children safe and strengthen families. States could significantly improve the lives of children and families
through changes at the federal level that make existing federal child welfare dollars more flexible while
maintaining protections for children in need and by making targeted new federal investments in front-end
services to prevent child abuse and neglect and reduce the need for foster care. These reforms would also
allow states to support services that could help children in foster care leave for safe, permanent families more
quickly through reunification or, when reunification is not possible, through adoption or subsidized
guardianship.
The following policy options for federal child welfare financing could help keep children safe and strengthen
families:
1. Ensure a sufficient, flexible and reliable federal resource to help support a broad range of services for
at-risk children and families.
2. Reward states for safely reducing the number of children in foster care and achieving all forms of
permanence.
3. Make all children who have experienced abuse or neglect and who cannot remain safely with their
families eligible for federal foster care support.
��
��
��
��
��
�� – An economic impact analysis released today estimates the costs of child abuse and neglect to
society were nearly $104 billion last year, and a companion report highlights the unavailability of federal child welfare
funding for programs and services known to be effective at reducing incidences of child abuse and neglect.
�� , by Prevent Child Abuse America (PCAA) and
�� , by Kids Are Waiting (KAW), a project of
The Pew Charitable Trusts, show that while the economic costs associated with child abuse and neglect rose to a
staggering $103.8 billion in 2007, merely ten percent of federal money dedicated for child welfare, approximately $741.9
million, can currently be used to prevent child abuse and neglect from occurring by strengthening families.
The PCAA report documents pervasive and long-lasting effects of child abuse on children, their families, and society as a
whole. The $103.8 billion cost of child abuse and neglect includes more than $33 billion in direct costs for foster care
services, hospitalization, mental health treatment, and law enforcement. Indirect costs of over $70 billion include loss of
productivity, as well as expenditures related to chronic health problems, special education, and the criminal justice
system.
“Prevention of child abuse and neglect makes sense – and makes ‘cents,’ too,” said PCAA President & CEO Jim
Hmurovich. “The data in these reports show that a greater focus on prevention will decrease both the short and long-term
costs to society. But it is impossible to calculate the pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life that victims of violence
against children experience throughout their lifetime.”
The KAW report finds that the current federal child welfare financing structure does not adequately support services and
supports that could help keep more children safely with their families. The report shows that the majority of dedicated
federal funding for child welfare is currently reserved for placing and maintaining children in foster care and cannot be
used for prevention or reunification services or supports.
States may access dollars under Title IV-E, the principal source of federal child welfare funding, only after children have
been removed from their home and enter foster care. Of the $7.2 billion federal funds dedicated for child welfare in 2007,
approximately 90 percent supported children in foster care placements ($4.5 billion) and children adopted from foster care
($2.0 billion). States can use about 10 percent of federal dedicated child welfare funds flexibly for family services and
supports, including prevention or reunification services.
The report recommends specific policy options to keep children safe and strengthen families:
�
�
�
Ensure a sufficient, flexible and reliable federal resource to help support the continuum of services needed by atrisk children and families.
Reward states for safely reducing the number of children in foster care and achieving all forms of permanence.
Make all abused and neglected children eligible for federal foster care support.
The KAW report also shows that most children (54%) who leave foster care reunite with their families, after having
stayed in foster care for an average of six months. In fact, safely reunifying foster children with their parents is a primary
goal of the child welfare system. States vary widely in the percentage of children rejoining their families upon leaving
foster care, from 30 and 33 percent in DC and Virginia respectively to 76 percent in Idaho. (Top 15 and bottom 15 state
reunification rates listed in the table below.)
��
��
��
��
�
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Federal child welfare financing reform could help prevent child abuse and neglect in the first place and reduce the current
reliance on foster care by lessening the need for some children to enter the foster care system and helping others safely
reunify with their families more quickly.
The Kids Are Waiting report highlights an array of services that have been shown to be effective at:
1. �� and neglect. The Nurse-Family Partnership program, active in 20 states,
resulted in a 48 percent lower level of abuse and neglect for children whose families received home visitation
services compared with the control group. An evaluation of the Healthy Families New Jersey program showed
that 99 percent of the children served were free from abuse and neglect.
2. �� . In Tennessee, Renewal House, a residential program for
mothers who have an addiction and their children, demonstrated that fewer infants born to mothers in the program
require neonatal intensive care.
3. �� Due to increased investment in prevention
services, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was able to maintain more than 65 percent of children at home for the
entire time they were served by the child welfare system.
4. �� In Wisconsin, wraparound Milwaukee decreased the number of children
in foster care placement by sixty percent and reduced the cost of care from $5,000 to less than $3,300.
“Taking children away from their families is a traumatic experience that will stay with them forever,” said Marci McCoyRoth, program officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts. “Foster care should not be the only option available to keep
children safe and help families in crisis. States and the federal government must work in partnership to prevent child
abuse and neglect and ensure that all children have safe families. The importance of family is a fundamental American
value. How much longer must our children wait for the permanent families they deserve?”
�� Prevent Child Abuse America is a national nonprofit that advocates for public policies to
diminish or eliminate risk factors for child abuse and neglect, while promoting protective factors.
For more information visit
www.preventchildabuse.org
�� : �� a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, is a national,
nonpartisan campaign dedicated to ensuring that all children in foster care have the safe, permanent families they deserve through reform of the
federal financing structure that governs our nation's foster care program. For more information visit: ww.kidsarewaiting.org
###
Economic Impact Study (September 2007)
Page1
��
��
��
��
Ching-Tung Wang, Ph.D. and John Holton, Ph.D.
Child abuse and neglect are preventable, yet each year in the United States, close to one
million children are confirmed victims of child maltreatment. An extensive body of research
provides promising and best practices on what works to improve child safety and well-being
outcomes and reduce the occurrence of child abuse and neglect. These efforts are essential as
child abuse and neglect have pervasive and long-lasting effects on children, their families, and
the society. Adverse consequences for children’s development often are evident immediately,
encompassing multiple domains including physical, emotional, social, and cognitive. For many
children, these effects extend far beyond childhood into adolescence and adulthood, potentially
compromising the lifetime productivity of maltreatment victims (Daro, 1988).
It is well documented that children who have been abused or neglected are more likely to
experience adverse outcomes throughout their life span in a number of areas:
�
Poor physical health (e.g., chronic fatigue, altered immune function, hypertension,
sexually transmitted diseases, obesity);
�
Poor emotional and mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidal
thoughts and attempts, post-traumatic stress disorder);
�
Social difficulties (e.g., insecure attachments with caregivers, which may lead to
difficulties in developing trusting relationships with peers and adults later in life);
�
Cognitive dysfunction (e.g., deficits in attention, abstract reasoning, language
development, and problem-solving skills, which ultimately affect academic
achievement and school performance);
�
High-risk health behaviors (e.g., a higher number of lifetime sexual partners, younger
age at first voluntary intercourse, teen pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse); and
�
Behavioral problems (e.g., aggression, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality, abusive
or violent behavior) (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2006; Goldman, Salus,
Wolcott, & Kennedy, 2003; Hagele, 2005).
��
�� This brief updates an earlier publication
documenting the nationwide costs as a result of child abuse and neglect (Fromm, 2001).
Similar to the earlier document, this brief places costs in two categories: direct costs, that is,
© 2007 Prevent Child Abuse America
This report was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts
��
��
those costs associated with the immediate needs of children who are abused or neglected; and
indirect costs, that is, those costs associated with the long-term and/or secondary effects of
child abuse and neglect. All estimated costs are presented in 2007 dollars. Adjustments for
inflation have been conducted using the price indexes for gross domestic product published by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov).
Based on data drawn from a variety of sources, the estimated annual cost of child abuse
and neglect is �� in 2007 value. This figure represents a conservative estimate as a
result of the methods used for the calculation. First, only children who could be classified as
being abused or neglected according to the Harm Standard in the Third National Incidence
Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) are included in the analysis. The Harm Standard
requirements, compared to the Endangerment Standard requirements used in NIS-3, are more
stringent (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Second, only those costs related to victims are
included. We have not attempted to quantify other costs associated with abuse and neglect,
such as the costs of intervention or treatment services for the perpetrators or other members of
the victim’s family. Third, the categories of costs included in this analysis are by no means
exhaustive. As examples, a large number of child victims require medical examinations or
outpatient treatment for injuries not serious enough to require hospitalization; maltreated
children are at greater risk of engaging in substance abuse and require alcohol and drug
treatment services; and youth with histories of child abuse and neglect may be at greater risk of
engaging in risky behaviors such as unprotected sexual activities as well as greater risk of teen
pregnancy. We were not able to estimate these types of costs as data are not readily available.
Although the economic costs associated with child abuse and neglect are substantial, it is
essential to recognize that it is impossible to calculate the impact of the pain, suffering, and
reduced quality of life that victims of child abuse and neglect experience. These “intangible
losses”, though difficult to quantify in monetary terms, are real and should not be overlooked.
Intangible losses, in fact, may represent the largest cost component of violence against children
and should be taken into account when allocating resources (Miller, 1993).
��
��
��
��
Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. National Income and Products
Accounts (NIPS) Tables – Table 1.1.4. Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product.
Retrieved September 4, 2007 from
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=4&FirstYear=2005&La
stYear=2007&Freq=Qtr
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2006). ��
�� Retrieved January 30, 2007, from
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm
Daro, D. (1988). �� New York:
Free Press.
Fromm, S. (2001). ��
�� Chicago, IL: Prevent Child Abuse America. Retrieved September 4,
2007 from
http://member.preventchildabuse.org/site/DocServer/cost_analysis.pdf?docID=144
Goldman, J., Salus, M.K., Wolcott, D., & Kennedy, K.Y. (2003). � ��
�� Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual
Series. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/foundation/foundation.pdf
Hagele, D.M. (2005). The impact of maltreatment on the developing child. ��
�� , 356-359. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from
http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/sept-oct-05/Hagele.pdf
Miller, R.M., Cohen, M.A., & Wiersema, B. (1996). ��
The National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/victcost.pdf.
Sedlak, A.J., & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996). ��
�� U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC.
��
Page 4
��
��
��
��
1
��
��
��
��
Rationale: 565,000 maltreated children suffered serious injuries in 1993 . Assume that
2
50% of seriously injured victims require hospitalization . The average cost of treating
3
one hospitalized victim of abuse and neglect was $19,266 in 1999 .
Calculation: 565,000 x 0.50 x $19,266 = $5,442,645,000
��
��
Rationale: 25% to 50% of child maltreatment victims need some form of mental health
4
treatment . For a conservative estimate, 25% is used. Mental health care cost per
victim by type of maltreatment is: physical abuse ($2,700); sexual abuse ($5,800);
4
emotional abuse ($2,700) and educational neglect ($910) . Cross referenced against
1
NIS-3 statistics on number of each incident occurring in 1993 .
Calculations: Physical Abuse – 381,700 x 0.25 x $2,700 = $257,647,500; Sexual Abuse
– 217,700 x 0.25 x $5,800 = $315,665,000; Emotional Abuse – 204,500 x 0.25 x $2,700
= $138,037,500; and Educational Neglect – 397,300 x 0.25 x $910 = $90,385,750;
Total = $801,735,750.
��
��
Rationale: The Urban Institute conducted a study estimating the child welfare
expenditures associated with child abuse and neglect by state and local public child
5
welfare agencies to be $23.3 billion in 2004 .
��
��
Rationale: The National Institute of Justice estimated the following costs of police
services for each of the following interventions: physical abuse ($20); sexual abuse
4
($56); emotional abuse ($20) and educational neglect ($2) . Cross referenced against
1
NIS-3 statistics on number of each incident occurring in 1993 .
Calculations: Physical Abuse – 381,700 x $20 = $7,634,000; Sexual Abuse – 217,700
x $56 = $12,191,200; Emotional Abuse – 204,500 x $20 = $4,090,000; and
Educational Neglect – 397,300 x $2 = $794,600; Total = $24,709,800
��
��
1
Sedlak, A.J, & Broadhurst, D.D. (1996). The third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-3).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC.
2
Daro, D. (1988). Confronting child abuse: Research for effective program design. New York: Free Press.
3
Rovi, S., Chen, P.H., & Johnson, M.S. (2004). The economic burden of hospitalizations associated with child abuse
and neglect. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 586-590. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/4/586?ck=nck
�
Miller, T.R., Cohen, M.A., & Wiersema, B. (1996) Victim costs and consequences: A new look. The National
Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/victcost.pdf
5
Scarcella, C.A., Bess, R., Zielewski, E.H., & Geen, R. (2006). The cost of protecting vulnerable children V:
Understanding state variation in child welfare financing. The Urban Institute. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311314_vulnerable_children.pdf
Page 5
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
1
Rationale: 1,553,800 children experienced some form of maltreatment in 1993 . 22% of maltreated
6
children have learning disorders requiring special education . The additional expenditure
7
attributable to special education services for students with disabilities was $5,918 per pupil in 2000 .
Calculation: 1,553,800 x 0.22 x $5,918 = $2,022,985,448
��
��
1
Rationale: 1,553,800 children experienced some form of maltreatment in 1993 . 27% of children
who are abused or neglected become delinquents, compared to 17% of children in the general
8
population , for a difference of 10%. The annual cost of caring for a juvenile offender in a residential
9
facility was $30,450 in 1989 .
Calculation: 1,553,800 x 0.10 x $30,450 = $4,731,321,000
��
��
1
Rationale: 1,553,800 children experienced some form of maltreatment in 1993 . 30% of maltreated
6
children suffer chronic health problems . Increased mental health and health care costs for women
with a history of childhood abuse and neglect, compared to women without childhood maltreatment
histories, were estimated to be $8,175,816 for a population of 163,844 women, of whom 42.8%
10
experienced childhood abuse and neglect . This is equivalent to $117 [$8,175,816 / (163,844 x
0 .428)] additional health care costs associated with child maltreatment per woman per year.
Assume that the additional health care costs attributable to childhood maltreatment are similar for
men who experienced maltreatment as a child.
Calculation: 1,553,800 x 0.30 x $117 = $54,346,699
��
��
Rationale: The direct expenditure for operating the nation’s criminal justice system (including police
11
protection, judicial and legal services, and corrections) was $204,136,015,000 in 2005 . According
4
to the National Institute of Justice, 13% of all violence can be linked to earlier child maltreatment .
Calculations: $204,136,015,000 x 0.13 = $26,537,681,950
��
12
��
Rationale: The median annual earning for a full-time worker was $33,634 in 2006 . Assume that
1
only children who suffer serious injuries due to maltreatment (565,000 ) experience losses in
potential lifetime earnings and that such impairments are limited to 5% of the child’s total potential
2
earnings . The average length of participation in the labor force is 39.1 years for men and 29.3
13
years for women ; the overall average 34 years is used.
Calculation: $33,634 x 565,000 x 0.05 x 34 = $32,305,457,000
��
��
��
� ��
6
Hammerle, N. (1992). Private choices, social costs, and public policy: An economic analysis of public health issues. Westport, CT:
Greenwood, Praeger.
7
Chambers, J.G., Parrish, T.B., & Harr, J.J. (2004). What are we spending on special education services in the United States, 1999-2000?
Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved August 28, 2007 from http://www.csefair.org/publications/seep/national/AdvRpt1.PDF
8
Widom, C.S., & Maxfield, M.G. (2001). An update on the “cycle of violence”. U.S. Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice.
Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184894.pdf
9
th
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). Statistical abstract of the United States, 1993 (113 edition.) Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office. Retrieved September 6, 2007 from http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1993-03.pdf
10
Walker, E.A., Unutzer, J., Rutter, C. Gelfand, A., Saunders, K., VonKorff, M., Koss, M., & Katon, W. (1999). Costs of health care use by
women HMO members with a history of childhood abuse and neglect. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 609-613. Retrieved August 22,
2007 from http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/56/7/609?ck=nck
11
U.S. Deaprtment of Justice (2007). Key facts at a glance: Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982-2005. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/exptyptab.htm.
12
U.S. Department of Labor (2007). National compensation survey: Occupational wages in the United States, June 2006. U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Retrieved September 4, 2007 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0910.pdf
13
Smith, S.J. (1985). Revised worklife tables reflect 1979-80 experience. Monthly Labor Review, August 1985, 23-30. Retrieved
September 4, 2007 from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/08/art3full.pdf
��
��
��
� PCANY Partner Organization Network: Forty-eight locally-based organizations who share our mission and
provide prevention services, education and advocacy in their localities.
� Healthy Families New York Home Visiting Council: Christine Deyss, Co Chair. Council members represent
state and local, public and private sectors: children’s advocacy groups, service providers, professional
associations, government agencies and others who support the goals of the early childhood home visiting
program.
� New York State Parenting Education Partnership: Christine Deyss and Michelle Gross, Core Leadership
Team. Partnership members include private and public agency and association members who provide and/or
support effective, evidence-based parenting education, as well as representatives from New York State’s Office
of Children and Family Services, Council on Children and Families, Department of Health, Education
Department and Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
� New York State Children and Families Trust Fund Strategic Planning Group: Jennifer Matrazzo, Member. The
group includes members of the Trust Fund Advisory Board, family violence prevention service providers and
staff from the NYS Office of Children and Family Services and NYS Office for Prevention of Domestic Violence.
� Northeast New York 2-1-1 Collaborative: Christine Deyss, Executive Committee. Members include United
Way of the Capital Region (formerly NENY and Schenectady), Family and Children’s Services of the Capital
Region, and other agencies working to establish a 211 human services call center for the Capital Region.
� New York Children’s Action Network (New York CAN), Child Welfare and Early Childhood Committees:
Christine Deyss, Member. The broad-based initiative includes more than 100 coalitions and organizations, as
well as individuals, concerned about issues affecting children and families.
� New York Home Visiting Discussion Group: Christine Deyss, Member. A group of over 35 public and private
agencies working to conceptualize a comprehensive system of care, including intensive home visiting services.
� New York State Alliance of Information and Referral Services: PCANY, Member Agency. Agency membership
provides training and support for Helpline staff, and our representation on the NENY 211 Executive Committee.
� New York State Kincare Coalition: Michelle Gross, Member and Planning Committee Member. Dozens of
public and private agencies dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights of formal and informal
kincaregivers in New York State.
� Kinship Navigator: Michelle Gross, Liaison. A new statewide program operated by Catholic Family Center and
specifically designed to provide information and resources to kinship caregivers across all of New York State.
� Parenting Education Network of New York: Michelle Gross, Member. The state chapter of the National
Parenting Education Network.
� New York State Loves Safe Babies: PCANY and Helen Marshall, Members. A collaborative of public and
private agencies working to provide public education on keeping children and infants safe.
� Albany Area Teen Consortium: Helen Marshall, Member. A network comprised of youth serving organizations
that meets monthly and concentrates on enhancing the quality and coordination of services to teens in the
Albany area.
� Tech Valley Non-Profit Business Council: PCANY and Christine Deyss, Members. A joint initiative of the
Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce and The Chamber of Schenectady County - collaborates with
the business community to enrich quality of life, create a healthy and robust economy, engage the public in
advancing nonprofit missions and increase public appreciation for the role nonprofits have in the development
of Tech Valley.
� Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of Commerce Women’s Business Council: Christine Deyss, Jennifer
Matrazzo, Michelle Gross, Jennifer Dailey, Members. Michelle Gross, Member of the Membership and
Newsletter Committee. A group of professional women who work together to improve the local community
through networking, philanthropic efforts and business initiatives.
��
� Prevent Child Abuse America Chapter Network Executive Committee: Christine Deyss, Chair. Liaison
between the national PCA and its 42 state chapters.
� PREVENT Child Maltreatment Institute: Christine Deyss, NYS Representative. Five-person New York team
joined ten other states’ teams in developing public health-based prevention projects.
� Prevent Child Abuse America involvements:
� Evaluation Summit. One of eight chapters taking part in a year-long training and technical assistance
summit to increase the use of evidence and evaluation in our prevention services and activities.
� BECAUSE Kids County Work Group: Christine Deyss, Member. Representatives from other national
organizations and PCA chapters advise the CDC-funded project to enhance the field of prevention through
the national network.
� Online Network Committee: Jennifer Matrazzo and Jennifer Dailey, Members. Work to extend the reach of
the national PCA network through a growing on-line constituency.
� National Parenting Education Network: Michelle Gross, Member. This nationwide network is committed to
advancing the field of parenting education.
� National Effective Parenting Initiative: PCANY, Affiliate. The group works together to make it the birthright of
every child in the United States to be raised effectively and humanely by loving and skillful parents who receive
the best possible parenting education and support.
� National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights: Michelle Gross, Member. A coalition of concerned
grandparents, citizens and agencies united to create one powerful voice and to network with groups throughout
the nation that share our goals, whose mission is to advocate and lobby for substantial and urgent legislative
changes that protect the rights of grandparents to secure their grandchildren's health, happiness and wellbeing.
� Invest in Kids Working Group & Partnership for America’s Economic Success: Michelle Gross, Member. The
group was created to examine and document the economic benefits of investments in young children and
explore policies to finance expansion of such services.
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
Our Conf er enc e P artn ers:
� NYS Children and Family Trust Fund
� National Parenting Education Network
� Parenting Educators Network of New York
� NYS Kincare Coalition
� OTDA’s Fatherhood Initiative
Our P artn er
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O rgan ization s:
Aid to Victims of Violence Program: YWCA of Cortland
Andrus Children's Center
Broome County Family Violence Prevention Council
Buffalo Home Visiting Program: Buffalo Prenatal
Network
CAMBA Home Visiting Program, Church Avenue
Merchants Block Association
Capital District Child Care Council
Cardinal McCloskey Children's & Family Services
CASA NYS: Advocates for Children NYS
Catholic Charities Alliance Program
Chemung County Task Force for Children & Family:
Family Counseling Center
Child Abuse Prevention Center of Poughkeepsie
Child Abuse Prevention Program of New York
Child Abuse Prevention Services, Inc.
Child Care Coordinating Council of the North Country,
Inc.
Child Find of America
Child Protection Center, Montefiore Medical Center
Children at Risk Response Team (CARRT)
Children's Advocacy Center of Manhattan
CHS-Community Human Services
Coalition Against Child Abuse & Neglect, Inc.
Community Action Program for Madison County
Community Maternity Services
Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Developmental Services
Inc. (CIDS)
Council of Family & Child Caring Agencies (COFCCA)
CPS, Tioga County Department of Social Services
EAC Child Advocacy Center
Family & Children's Service of Niagara, Inc.
Family Nurturing Center of Central New York
Family Resource Center of Rochester
Four Winds of Saratoga
Good Shepherd Services
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
PACT, Fordham-Tremont Community Mental Health Center
Healthy Families Steuben, Kinship Family & Youth Services
Healthy Families Niagara
Healthy Schenectady Families
Heartshare Human Services
Hillside Family of Agencies
Jewish Board of Family and Children Services
Julia Dyckman Andrus Memorial, Inc., Andrus Community Services
Law, Order & Justice Center
Mothers & Babies Perinatal Network
Nassau County Department of Social Services
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, New York Branch
New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Injury Prevention
New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Ontario County DA Victim Assistance Program
Orange-Ulster BOCES
Otsego Committee on Child Abuse & Neglect
P.E.A.C.E., Inc.
Parsons Child & Family Center
Perspectives on Youth
Rockland Family Shelter
Safe Space
Saratoga Center for the Family
Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy
Schuyler County Task Force on Child Abuse Inc.
Scope Education Services
Seneca County Cornell Cooperative Extension
St. Vincent's Hospital Parent Education Program
STEPS To End Family Violence
The Astor Home for Children
The Children's Home of Jefferson County
The Salvation Army
Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection New York Foundling
Hospital
Washington County Head Start
Westchester Task Force on Child Abuse & Neglect
Whitney M. Young Jr. Health Services
Women's Housing & Economic Development Corporation
(WHEDCO)
Youth Advocate Program

PCANY Testimony.indd - Prevent Child Abuse New York

Transcription

Similar documents

Who are Social Workers?

Med Student Presentation v2.pptx - CSAM

ARO u NDTHETABLE - Exchange Club Family Resource Center

Read it online now!

6-10 - Ambush Mag

NY bill would nix statute of limitations on child sex abuse – WRGB

the sweatergang standard

Safety Planning When Substance Abuse is Present

May 2013 – Issue #101

Is This Love?