« PreviousContinue »
EMERGENCY CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICES
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.
NATIONAL ADOPTION CLEARINGHOUSE
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.
RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH
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, Congress 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. We 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 families 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.
BASIC CENTER GRANTEES
Question. How many Basic Center grantees also receive funds from Transitional Living Program or from the Drug Education and Prevention Program?
Answer. In FY 1990, 29 Basic Center grantees competed successfully for Transitional Living Program grants. of the 337 currently active Basic Center grantees, 103 also receive funding under the Drug Abuse Prevention Program for Runaway and Homeless Youth. Fifteen agencies currently receive funding under all three programs.
WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON AGING
Question: What is the status of the White House Conference on Aging?
Answer: A decision about whether to convene a 1991 White House Conference on Aging is pending within the Executive Branch.
Question. Under Title III-B, the largest amount of monies provided are being used for transportation services. Obviously, transportation is a critical service for the elderly, especially in rural areas where there are no public transportation services. What is the unmet need in this area?
Answer. Transportation is a critical service in itself for some clients. However, transportation is usually part of another service or used to facilitate another service or make it possible for some other service to be provided. Therefore, the unmet need for transportation must be considered in the overall context of the service needs of an expanding and increasingly frail and vulnerable elderly population. We have no specific projections of the unmet needs of the elderly for services. There are huge variables, such as national health policy, national income maintenance policy, employment trends and national economic conditions that complicate estimation of service needs.
Question. What steps are being taken by the Administration on Aging to deal with the lack of transportation services to the elderly?
Answer. The Administration on Aging has supported a number of grants for studies, demonstrations and training on a range of approaches to improve special transportation services for the elderly. These efforts and experiences have been widely disseminated and have been helpful in the development transportation services throughout the title III program.
Transportation remains an important area of concern because it is critical to any system of services and so much of our program funds are spent on transportation. We have an interagency agreement with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration to work collaboratively in several areas to improve transportation for the elderly, particularly the coordination of transportation services.
Question. How many congregate meal sites were in place in FY8 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, and how many people were served at these sites?
Answer. In FY 1986, States reported that 2,853,953 elderly persons were served at 14,772 congregate meal sites. During the following two years, FY 1987 through FY 1988, the number of elderly who participated in congregate meals programs dropped from 2,780, 101 to 2,748,985 while the number of congregate meal sites rose from 15,087 in FY 1987 to 15,222 in FY 1988. In FY 1989, the Administration on Aging eliminated collecting information about the number of congregate meal sites. The number of persons served congregate meals rose slightly in FY 1989 to 2,763,273 and declined to 2,749,626 in FY 1990.
Question. How many congregate meal sites are assumed in the FY 1992 request and how many people will be served ?
Answer. While we cannot make any assumptions about the number of congregate meal sites for FY 1992, we anticipate no major changes from the FY 1991 figures in the number of elders served.
Question. How much of the office of Human Development Services FY 1992 Budget request includes funding for administrative costs, other than those monies requested under program administration?
Answer. Approximately $500,000 of program funds across Human Development Services are used for printing. These costs include the printing of such publications as Children Today and Aging.
Question. The budget requests $16, 249,000 in increased funding to support an additional 115 FTE's for the Office of Human Development Services. This represents a substantial increase in staffing over the past years. Why is such an increase requested for FY 1992 -- especially when most accounts within HDS received little or no increases?
Answer. Over the past ten years, the office of Human Development Services (OHDS) has suffered a continual reduction in Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) levels (from 1,507 FTE in 1981 to 975 in 1991) while program responsibilities have increased. As a result, OHDS is operating with a bare bones staff, an aging work force which has increased the average grade and salary, and limited support and developmental staff.
During most of Fiscal Year 1988 and 1989, OHDS operated under a limited hiring freeze because of Salary and Expenses (S&E) constraints (severe, unexpected increases in uncontrollable costs, i.e., rental of space, employee benefits, etc.). During Fiscal Year 1990, to increase staff while reducing the average grade and staffing costs, OHDS implemented a new policy of hiring only entry level staff from outside the agency. In August of 1990, the office of Management and Budget's anticipation of a 31.9% sequester for Fiscal Year 1991 forced OHDS to curtail its recruiting effort to avoid increases in liabilities against the Fiscal Year 1991 budget, and OHDS ended the year with 969 FTE. In Fiscal Year 1991, OHDS received funds to fill 1,006 FTE; however, because of the departmental S&E reduction and the 2.41% Graham-Rudman reduction, OHDS can afford only 975 FTE. During the past few years, OHDS has