Page images

forgo these important prevention programs to meet the demand for treatment and other direct services. The challenge Grant program provides an incentive for States to maintain the children's trust funds for prevention programs.


Question. What steps are being taken to address such issues as neglect and abuse of children in institutionalized care?

Answer. since 1978, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect has been undertaking efforts in the area of child maltreatment in residential institutions. The focus of these efforts includes:

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Demonstration of improved systems for insuring child
protection in institutions; and

[ocr errors]

Research on the needs and resources for child protection in institutions.

As part of ts eligibility for a Child Abuse and Neglect Basic State Grant, each State must provide for the reporting of known or suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect in residential facilities in such a way that legally authorized investigative

agencies may not be made responsible for investigating themselves if they also happen to be responsible for administering such residential programs for children. In addition, to maintain their eligibility for Basic State Grant funds, States are required to certify annually that their reporting statutes or administrative procedures remain in force and effect. The National Center continues to assist States in the development of statutes, regulations, or policy issuances to ensure continued compliance with the eligibility requirements.

The National Center also developed and widely distributed a draft "Model Child Protection Act". The Model Act addresses institutional child maltreatment and, while not a requirement, it has served as a guide for states in developing their policies and procedures. The Model Act continues to be distributed, upon request, by the National Center's clearinghouse.

The National Center is currently in the process of updating its series of User Manuals first published in the early 1980's. The revision of the Manual entitled "Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Guide for staff in Residential Institutions" will incorporate the most recent information from practitioners as well as information developed through a number of research and demonstration efforts funded by the National Center, including:

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Investigation and Correction of Institutional child
Maltreatment Project HANDS, Washington, DC.

[ocr errors]

The Investigation and correction of Child Abuse and
Neglect in Residential Institutions, Trenton, NJ

[ocr errors]

A Project for the Investigation and correction of
Child Abuse and Neglect in Residential
Institutions, Logan, UT.

Research Projects

[ocr errors]

Identification, Management, and Prevention of child
Child Abuse and Neglect lin residential
facilities, Columbus, OH.

[ocr errors]

Organizational Factors in Child Protection in
Residential Institutions, Indianapolis, IN.

[ocr errors][merged small]

In addition to the discretionary funding efforts described above, the funds available under the Basic State Grant Program have been used by States to initiate and continue a number of projects and activities designed to address child abuse and neglect in institutional settings.


Question. Although the number of abused children is on the increase, funding for specific programs to prevent child abuse and neglect has remained relatively stable. Given the fact that we are spending billions of dollars on children in the foster care system, would it not make sense to provide increased funding for those programs that are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect?

[ocr errors]

Answer. We have requested an additional $90 million for the Title IV-B Child Welfare Services program which States can use to help prevent child abuse. In addition, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) is mandated by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to spend a majority of its funds on prevention related activities, and has done so to the extent possible. NCCAN's most recent major prevention undertaking was the funding of nine model projects which were funded in September 1989 at a total projected cost of $9.5 million for five years. The objective of the demonstration is to mobilize and realign community based resources to prevent child abuse and neglect. A third party evaluation will be conducted and will provide information on program replicability and the effectiveness of specific models and interventions.


Question. How is the FY 1991 funding for the new emergency child prevention services grants for children, whose parents are substance abusers being spent ?

Answer. NCCAN expects to publish an announcement requesting applications based on the requirements of Section 107 (A) of CAPTA this Spring. These requirements make project funding conditional on assurances that the proposed projects will be coordinated and multidisciplinary and address a documented need in the community.

Question. Are the services provided under this program being coordinated with those provided under programs such as the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act or the Maternal and child Health Block Grant?

Answer. The announcement will require applicants to document coordination with other substance abuse programs such as those provided under the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act or the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant.


Question. Reports of domestic violence and elder abuse have increased along with child abuse over the past decade. In what ways can or do the Federal Family Violence Prevention Act and child Abuse and Neglect Act coordinate the services they provide to families?

Answer. At the Federal level, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act are coordinated at the staff level and through the joint operation of the clearinghouses on Child Abuse and Neglect and Family Violence Information. The clearinghouses provide research findings, resource materials, bibliographies, and other informative materials to Statelevel contacts and grantees for child abuse and family violence prevention. The Department also encourages States to coordinate and share information between the family violence and child abuse programs at the state and community level, including referrals to services funded under the other program as appropriate.


Question. The FY 92 budget requests $12,687,000 for adoption opportunities, the same level of funding provided in FY 1991. How much of this funding is for the placement of minority children?

Answer. Approximately $3,900,000 of the FY '92 funding will be for projects focusing on the placement of minority children.

Question. How successful has is program been--how many children has this program helped to place?

Answer. The current minority child placement grants were funded 9/30/89 through 2/28/91. These grants have already requested and received no cost extensions. Therefore, the final results on the number of children placed are not availabale at this time.

Question. The adoption opportunities program is the only federal program that targets funding to post-adoptive services. Adoption agencies are citing the need for these services for an increasing number of adoptive families. How do you propose to meet this growing need for such services with limited funding?

Answer. The Adoption Opportunities Program provides seed money for adoption programs, not money for on-going services. Therefore, agencies must plan in their budgets for post legal adoption services as they do for all other adoption and child welfare programs in their States. States may choose to use their Social Services Block Grant or Child Welfare Services funds for this purpose.


Question. How much in the FY 92 budget request for adoption opportunities will support the National Adoption Clearinghouse?

Answer. The FY 1992 request for the National Adoption Information clearinghouse is approximately $272,000.


Question. The Abandoned Infants Assistance Program was one of the first Federal programs specifically targeted to abandoned babies, including drug-exposed infants. Given the anecdotal reports on the dramatic effect drugs are having on families, what data is the administration using to justify not asking for an increase in funding for this program?

Answer. Because of the budget situation, we did not request increases for most programs in FY 1992. However, we have requested a substantial increase of $90 million for title IV-B child welfare services, which can be used for some of these same purposes.


Question. Monies in the Runaway and Homeless Youth program, and both of the runaway and homeless youth drug programs, are being reserved for research, demonstrations, evaluation, etc., instead of putting the money into the field for services. Please furnish the Committee with a detailed report on how much and where money is going for research and demonstrations, evaluation, and technical assistance.

Answer. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, 90 percent of the appropriation is earmarked for service projects, called Basic Centers, and in FY 1992, an additional $750,000 is earmarked for the National Communication System (runaway hotline). of the remainder, in FY 1992, the Department intends to fund approximately $1,250,000 in demonstration grants; $450,000 for an evaluation of the basic centers; and $600,000 for technical assistance. All of these activities will be awarded competitively. Direct service projects receive priority in Runaway and Homeless Youth Program demonstrations, as required by law. Moreover, all of these nonservice activities are designed to enhance services in the field by contributing new knowledge and models to address emerging issues.

In FY 1992, funding under the Drug Abuse Prevention Program for Runaway and Homeless Youth will be primarily targeted to comprehensive services in the field. Some service projects will be demonstrations in order to develop and test new approaches to addressing substance abuse among runaway and homeless youth. In addition, approximately $300,000 will be competitively awarded in FY 1991 and refunded in FY 1992 to provide technical assistance to service providers. Funding for a national incidence study of drug abuse among this population, a statutory requirement, began in FY 1990 and will be refunded in FY 1991 for approximately $550,000. A third year of funding at a reduced level may be required to complete this major study in FY 1992.

Finally, under the Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program, the vast majority of funding in FY 1992 will be competitively awarded to service projects. In addition, technical assistance will likely be provided by a national contractor for approximately $500,000 in FY 1992, and six field-initiated research projects which were awarded in FY 1990 will be continued in FY 1992 for approximately $575,000. In general, these research funds are supporting State or local assessment activities which will enable the field to better address the gang problems identified. An evaluation of the Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program was also initiated in FY 1990 and will be continued for a third year of funding of approximately $450,000 in FY 1992.

Question. Last year, a GAO study "Homelessness: Homeless and Runaway Youth Receiving Services at Federally Funded shelters" concluded that centers are not able to address long-term needs of runaway and homeless youth. How have you responded to these findings?

Answer. Shelters funded under the authority of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act are, by law, designed to meet the "immediate" needs of runaway and homeless youth and are not intended to address long-term needs of clients. For this reason, Congre88 enacted in 1988 the Transitional Living Program for Homeless Youth, which the Department is now implementing. Projects funded under this program are designed to meet the long-term needs of this population.


At the same time, the Department is concerned about the inability of these shelters to address needs that they identify. are therefore proposing a regulatory change to extend the maximum length of stay in a Federally-funded shelter from 15 days to 30 days. Although maintaining the crisis intervention nature of these programs, this additional time may allow for more effective interventions for the most troubled youth receiving services from the shelters. In addition, the Department continues to emphasize the importance of aftercare services for youth and their familles once the shelter stay has ended, and we are supporting the development and testing of home-based approaches to addressing the longer-term needs of at-risk youth and their families.


Question. How many Basic Center grantees also receive funds from Transitional Living Program or from the Drug Education and Prevention Program?

« PreviousContinue »