Family Preservation
Services
--An Alternative to Foster Care
Minnesota currently has approximately 7,000 children in foster
care at cost of more than $35 million per year.
The number of Minnesota children entering
"placement" into shelter care (less than 30 days) or
substitute care (greater than 30 days) for the first time
increased 48% from 1986 to 1989.
In Ramsey County, all out-of-home placement facilities are
full.
Family Preservation Services Strive to
Keep Families Together And Avoid the Need for Foster Care
Family preservation programs work with families in which
children are at imminent risk of removal from the home. They
provide help (counseling, skill building, and case management) to
families with problems in child rearing and family functioning
that pose immediate, critical risks to child safety. The services
are intensive, short-term interventions aimed first at
alleviating crises and, second, at altering the patterns of
dysfunctional behavior that caused the crisis.
"Families First" --
Minnesota's Family Preservation Program
Typically services in this crisis intervention program begin
within 24 hours of referral and are provided in the family home
for five-to-fifteen hours per week for a total of four weeks.
Services are available 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
Goals are to:
strengthen family functioning in times of crisis
diminish barriers to effective parenting protect children at risk
of inappropriate placement outside the home
reduce the time spent in shelter care for children who must be
taken from their homes during times of crisis
Program components include:
individual and marital counseling
child development and parent education
home maintenance skills
household budget information
job readiness activities
There are six "Families First" projects currently
serving eleven Minnesota counties: Becker, Beltrami, Benton,
Clay, Crow Wing, Hennepin, Otter Tail, Ramsey, St. Louis,
Sherburne, and Steams.
A Record of Success
Cost Savings
Family preservation services cost approximately $2,500 per
family for an entire course of treatment compared to an annual
cost of over $5,000 per child for foster care.
Positive Family Change
Studies show that family preservation services: reduce
out-of-home placement by 70%-90% help minimize the length of time
spent in substitute care increase chances of successful
reunification for children placed in temporary foster care
Families involved in family preservation programs experience
positive changes in patenting behavior, family relationships,
communication skills, and emotional well-being.
There are Several Other Programs That
Provide Support for Families
Community-based family support and education programs: These
predominantly voluntary programs take a proactive, preventive
approach to addressing family support needs. They focus on:
- promoting development rather than diagnosing and treating
dysfunction
- sustained support to young families by interacting with
them regularly over a period of months or years.
The goals and types of services are shaped by local social
conditions and concerns.
Prenatal care outreach programs: These
programs strive to help clients gain early enrollment and active
participation in prenatal care by linking families to other
services.
Parent training programs: These programs
focus on specific sets of parenting skills, such as behavior
management and communication.
Number 2, January 1992
Children in
Single-Parent Families
Suffer from Lack of Support
Single Parents Receive Inadequate Child
Support
Mothers with custody in Minnesota report getting an average of
$177 per month in support for each child. The USDA estimates that
the cost of raising children is almost twice as much. The
estimates do not include child care or post-secondary education
costs.*
A study** of 1, 153 Minnesota custody and divorce settlements
shows that:
- 32% of child support awards were less than Minnesota child
support guidelines
- In court settlements, other forms of income and expenses were
stated inconsistently and/or incompletely. These included income
from bonuses and commissions, and expenses such as private school
costs, life insurance, and health and dental insurance.
Most Children in Single-Parent Families
Are Poor
Female-headed, single-parent families have the highest poverty
rate of any type of family. 54% of children in such house-holds
are poor. Their average income was $12,000 in 1988, compared to
over $40,000 for two-parent families.***
12 % of Minnesota children lived with a single parent in 1980.
1990 figures are expected to show that 20% of Minnesota children
lived in a single-parent household. Incomes in these households
average one-half of the state's median income. 76% of Minnesota
children on AFDC (80,560) live in single-parent homes.***
Children Suffer Because of Lack of
Attention in the Courts
Many private attorneys do not understand Minnesota's automatic
income withholding (AIW) law.
Child support guidelines are often disregarded. (Are judges
uninformed, or do they lack interest in child support cases?)
FACT FIND Suggests that Legislators:
Define more rigorous penalties and methods to implement
enforcement of payments to ensure that awards are actually
collected.
Develop a child support insurance system that will provide
funds when child support from the absent parent is uncollectable
in order to guarantee every child a minimum level of support.
Provide information and training regarding existing Minnesota
laws for judges and lawyers.
Review child support guidelines to be sure that custodial
parents will have enough money to provide adequate care for their
children.
*Putting It All Together: Building an Early Childhood
Development System in Minnesota, Task Force on the Early
Education and Care of Young Children for the Minnesota Council on
Children, Youth and Families, October 1989.
**K. Rettig and L. Thunderbird, et al., Economic Consequences
of Divorce for Men, Women, and Children in Minnesota: A
Preliminary Report, June 1989.
***"Minnesota Children: Indicators and Trends," 1990
Report of the Minnesota State Planning, Agency, December 1990.
Number 3, April 1992
Programs for Young
Children and Families:
The Need to Collaborate
Children's early experiences have a significant impact on
their future. Early experiences influence a child's ability to
form positive relationships with adults and peers, affect a
child's motivation and excitement toward learning, and provide
the foundation for a child's intellectual development.
High-quality programs are effective. Research in the last two
decades has consistently found that high-quality early childhood
development programs better prepare children, particularly
disadvantaged children, for school and for the work force.
Low-quality programs produce negative effects. In fact, there
is also evidence that poor-quality programs can actually harm
children. In a recent national study of child care staffing
patterns, children in programs with higher turnover rates spent
less time engaged in social activities with peers and more time
"wandering." They also scored lower on a measure of
cognitive ability compared with children in centers with more
stable teaching staff.
Minnesota's Programs for Children--
Artificial Distinctions Are Compromising Quality
Recent Minnesota citizen reports* found that the current
system of children's programs is inadequate and includes
ineffective or inefficient services. They found the programs are
plagued with:
- fragmentation
- inequity
- discontinuity
Current services are designed to correspond to distinct problems
and are administered by various agencies, each with its own focus
and source of funding. The reports are united in their call for a
collaborative approach to service delivery.
Working Towards Collaboration of
Services
Services must be comprehensive if they are to effect positive
change in a child's life. Most programs cannot offer
comprehensive family services. However, collaborative
partnerships among programs can be developed to promote better
outcomes for families and their children.
Individual programs focus on single agendas. Collaborative
partnerships establish common goals; pool resources; and jointly
plan, implement and evaluate services, policies, and procedures.
Fundamental change in the way we do business is essential to the
creation of an integrated service delivery system able to meet
the total needs of the child and family.
In order to achieve such a collaboration, FACT FIND suggests
that policy makers:
- study state regulations and eligibility requirements that
impede collaboration and recommend revisions of rules to
provide flexibility
- encourage state agencies to design a shared work plan for
collaboration at the system level
- design incentives to promote collaboration among state
agencies and among service providers at local levels
examine/develop state and local funding strategies which
result in maximized federal funding as well as pooled
funding for service integration
- hold service providers collectively accountable to stated
objectives which anticipate improved outcomes for
children and families, rather than simply numbers of
children served
*Kids Can't Wait: Action for Minnesota's Children, Action for
Children Commission, February 1992.
Putting Children First: Coordinating Early Childhood Care and
Education, Task Force, Commission on the Economic Status of
Women, February 1992.
Putting It All Together: Building an Early Childhood Development
System for Minnesota, Minnesota Council on Children, Youth, and
Families, October 1989.
Child Care and Welfare
Reform
Welfare reform is a two-generational issue
affecting both
the parent and child
Quality often is measured in terms of the
basic health and safety practices that are met through licensing
regulations. Just as importantly, quality indicators also include
care that nurtures the physical body so that healthy development
occurs, prepares children intellectually so they can learn, and
teaches children to trust their environment emotionally so they
develop appropriate attachments that allow them to develop into
"moral" adults.
Minnesota's Children and Welfare
(1)
In 1994, about 126,000 Minnesota children, or 1 in 10, were on
welfare on any given day. Because many families earning low wages
go on and off AFDC, about twice as many children are directly
affected by AFDC policy over the course of a two-year budget
cycle.
Minnesota families on AFDC are mostly small (74% have 1 or 2
children), and have shrunk an average of one child since 1968.
Most families (84%) have only 1 parent (mostly mother), but the
number of 2-parent families on AFDC has grown from 7% in 1979 to
16% today. Less than 7% of mothers on AFDC in Minnesota are in
their teens, and only 1% are under 18.
The two main reasons for being on AFDC are job loss and
absence of a parent--who is also not paying child support.
Waiting for Child Care Subsidies
(2)
Waiting for child care subsidies has a devastating effect on
families. Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association's study found
the following emotional and economic effects on families waiting
for help from the Child Care Sliding Fee Program:
Without child care assistance, one quarter of the families on
the waiting list have turned to AFDC for economic survival and
one-half rely on food stamps and Medical Assistance.
Because of the high cost of care and education, almost half of
the parents feel trapped. Some are unable to work at all, much
less pursue training for higher-wage jobs.
Many children on the waiting list are deprived of consistent,
stable care and appropriate early childhood education; 35% of the
children change care three or more times while on the waiting
list. We know that this may result in the inability to form
healthy, strong relationships that are the foundation needed for
success in school and life.
Low-income parents spend a disproportionately high percentage
of their income on child care. Even though the majority of
parents on the waiting list are working, their annual income
averages only $15,400. Child care costs for a preschooler average
$4,525 annually, or 29% of this income. The percent of earned
income going toward child care expenses is even higher for a
parent working at minimum wage with an annual income of $8840;
child care takes up 51 % of income.
Call for Action
Shortages already exist for affordable child care and
assistance through sliding fee scales programs.
If subsidies for child care are cut, children may be left in
dangerous situations or unsupervised at home.
Good quality child
care enables children to grow and learn and be ready for school.
Welfare can't be reformed without provisions for good quality
child care.
(1) Children's Defense Fund-MN report from February, 1995.
Their data sources include Public Assistance in Minnesota: Facts
about Programs and Recipients, Legislative Commission on the
Economic Status of Women, January, 1995; "AFDC--Realities
that Counter the Myths," Minnesota NOW; unpublished data
provided to MN Legislature by the MN Department of Human
Services, February, 1995.
(2) Valuing Families: The High Cost of Waiting for Child Care
Sliding Fee Assistance, Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association,
1995.
Number 4, October 1992
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
(FAS) in Minnesota
What is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)?
The alcohol a pregnant woman drinks crosses the barrier of the
placenta and can cause birth defects by affecting the growth and
proper formation of the fetus. The brain and central nervous
system of the unborn child are particularly sensitive to
disorders caused by alcohol.
Although the effects of alcohol depends on the amount and the
timing, prenatal exposure can lead to long-term developmental
disabilities. The medical diagnosis of FAS includes: intrauterine
growth deficiency; small head size; abnormal eye, mouth, ear, and
facial malformations; and central nervous system dysfunction
(evidenced by developmental delay, hyperactivity, problems in
attention and Teaming, and intellectual deficits). Fetal Alcohol
Effects (FAE) is a condition where some but not all four effects
occur.
FAS is the number one cause of mental retardation in the U.S.
and the third leading cause of all birth defects (1).
FAS is irreversible--the damage is permanent.
In Minnesota, more than 500 babies per year are affected by
FAS/FAE (2). The cost for special services over the lifetime of
one person with FAS is estimated at $1.4 million (3).
FAS costs Minnesotans over $42 million each year (4).
A higher percentage of Minnesotans use alcohol than the
national average. In Minnesota, 75% of adults 18-25 years old use
alcohol. The national figure is 65% for the same age group (5).
There is no safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy. The
extent of the damage depends on the amount and timing. There is
risk of damage from even a small amount of alcohol.
The Opportunity for Minnesota:
What Can Be Done?
1. Incentives for collaboration and coordination are needed.
No new bureaucracy is needed. The Legislature could provide
incentives to encourage program coordination between the
Department of Human Services and the Office of Drug Policy.
Together, the two departments could expand statewide prevention
clearinghouse functions and assist all sectors of society in
prevention, information sharing, and training.
2. New legislation is needed.
Screening of females of childbearing age would be
an important step in prevention. For example, a non-intrusive, four-question
screening process has been suggested by physicians at the Wayne State University
to detect females who will drink enough to damage their babies. These people can
then be referred to counseling before they become pregnant (6). Minnesota groups
are reviewing existing screening tools to determine the most effective.
Improvement of planning and case management to meet
educational needs of FAS/FAE children is essential. Research is
needed to determine appropriate management techniques. Training
is needed for school administrative personnel and teachers.
3. New Regulations are needed.
Expectant mothers must not be excluded from state-funded
alcohol treatment centers. Significant barriers to providing
treatment are:
1. lack of child care;
2. many expectant mothers do not have insurance to pay for
treatment; and
3. providers are unwilling to treat pregnant women.
Separate counseling specifically for pregnant women is needed.
Many drug-dependent women do not fare well in coed treatment
programs due to previous abuse by a male partner or family
member.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is 100% preventable. However, only 55%
of women of childbearing age have heard of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
(7).
FAS and FAE ARE PREVENTABLE.
We must raise public awareness, provide alcohol/drug treatment
services, and educate professionals about alcohol effects.
For children born with FAS/FAE prevention is no longer
possible.
Effective Prevention is Community
Wide and Comprehensive
PREVENTION MEANS a public education campaign that treats
FAS/FAE as a major health problem rather than just another
by-product of greater social ills. This will require
collaboration of social service and health agencies, children and
family support networks, schools, churches, the business
community, and other community groups. State government could
provide incentive grants for such activity.
PREVENTION MEANS continuous and age-appropriate education.
This must begin when a child enters school and continue through
to graduation. The whole community must be inundated with
information: billboards, radio ads, and better warning
information where alcohol is sold.
PREVENTION MEANS youth centers and family centers to provide
immediate counseling for expectant mothers who have questions or
need direction.
Footnotes
1 Focus on Alcohol Abuse, Briefing for Minnesota
Broadcasters Association, C. Turnure, 1990.
2 Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - Fetal Alcohol Effects, University of
Minnesota, R. tenBensel, 1991.
3 "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome," N. Satterlee, Innovative,
Interdisciplinary Problem Solving in Developmental Disabilities,
The Institute for Disabilities Studies, August, 1990. 4 Parker,
D.L., Shultz, I.M., and Genz, L., Review and Cost of Alcohol
Abuse in Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Minnesota Department
of Health, 1985.
5 Focus on Alcohol Abuse, Briefing for Minnesota Broadcasters
Association, C. Turnure, 1990.
6 Perennial Education, Inc., "Preventing FAS"
(videotape), 1989. 7 U.S. Office of Substance Abuse Prevention
References
Zero to Three, National Center for Clinical Infant
Programs, Volume 13, No. 1, August/September 1992. NCADD Fact
Sheet: Alcoholism, Other Drug Addictions and Related Problems
Among Women, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence,
Inc., New York, NY.
Early Childhood Programs
More Money? Are They Worth it?
Consider:
- What the research says
- How Head Start stacks up
- How future $ $ $ should be invested
High quality, intensive early childhood programs benefit
children!
Research indicates that such programs benefit children by:
Increasing IQ, language fluency, and academic skills for
low-income children;
Increasing social maturity and independence; Decreasing severe
academic problems in grade and high school; Increasing high
school graduation rates; Decreasing delinquent behavior and teen
pregnancies; Increasing employment rates in adulthood; and
Decreasing dependency on welfare.
These Benefits Pay Off!
Best cost/benefit figure is $3 saved for every $1
spent on high quality early childhood programs (cost/benefits
estimates range from $2 to $7 per $1)
Does Head Start Measure Up?
Yes and No ...
Head Start effectiveness is similar to that of Non-Head Start
Programs, but:
- The level of quality is not consistent in all Head Start
programs. There is a range from excellent to poor. Increased high
school attendance, decreased grade retention, and use of special
education programs is higher for Non-Head Start programs.
- Head Start provides employment to low-income individuals, but
positions are low-paying.
- Data is unavailable to assess the cost/benefit ratio for Head
Start programs.
How should additional dollars for young
children be invested?
Certain characteristics of high quality early childhood
programs are associated with better educational and social
outcomes:
- Interventions that begin early in life and continue longer
produce greater benefits.
- More intensive programs (hours per day, days per week, weeks per
year) produce greater benefits.
- Programs offering comprehensive services tend to have greater and
longer lasting effects.
- Teachers and caregivers trained in child development tend to
improve outcomes for children.
Funding Recommendations
Provide funding which will enable programs
(including Head Start) to offer more than one year of services.
Provide funding which will enable programs (including Head Start)
to offer full-day, year-round services. Provide funding which
will allow programs (including Head Start) to offer
individualized, comprehensive services to children and families.
Provide funding for appropriate education and training for
teachers and caregivers in all early childhood settings. Provide
funding for specialized training surrounding current issues of
homelessness, violence, substance abuse, and poverty. Provide
funding for programs (including Head Start) to link with programs
offering comprehensive special services for low income students
in early elementary grades.
Provide funding which will allow high quality early childhood
programs to maintain standards of excellence.
High quality early childhood programs exceed the minimum
licensing requirements. Legislative oversight is needed to ensure
that monies invested in Head Start are used to improve quality
and raise standards above minimum requirements. Additionally,
existing high quality programs must not be penalized. Money must
be invested which will allow programs already exceeding minimum
requirements to maintain standards of excellence!
Source: Robert B. McCall (1 993). Head Start: Its potential,
its achievements, its future. (A Briefing Paper for
Policymakers), Office of Child Development, University of
Pittsburgh.
|
1992 (compilation
issue)