Page images

maintained the stewardship of programs through the reprogramming of funds from other accounts.

Simply put, OHDS cannot continue to provide needed services with the spiraling reduction in critical staff and FTE. For example, one of the areas which is reflective of the diminishing resources OHDS has suffered over the past decade is the grants monitoring activity. A recent review was conducted in all programs, except Head Start. As a result of that review, OHDS has declared a material weakness under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act in every program reviewed. The ability to correct the weakness depends on providing the grants management function with added staff and travel dollars for monitoring.

In addition to requesting more staff, OHDS has established a Workforce Planning Group to look at work processes, long term needs, to identify ways to improve the use of resources, and to plan for the future.




Question. What steps has the Department taken to prepare the Head Start programs for the number of children who have been exposed to drugs and the developmental problems associated with that


Answer. The Head Start Bureau has developed a substance abuse initiative, and has identified the needs of children who have been exposed to drugs as a key issue to be addressed in this initiative. The substance abuse initiative includes the establishment of a national Head Start Substance Abuse Workgroup, consisting of national substance abuse experts both inside and outside the Federal government, as well as a representation of Head Start grantees. This Workgroup has met twice, and has assisted Head Start in developing a substance abuse agenda to address this and many other issues.

By September 30, 1991, the Head Start Bureau will award up to $10 million in FY 1991 discretionary quality improvement funds to Head Start grantees to develop their capacity to address issues of substance abuse. We expect to fund between 75 and 100 grantees through a competitive process. Children affected by exposure to substances will be a critically important issue to be addressed by these projects.

Several Regional Offices, in conjunction with Regional Resource Centers, have conducted substance abuse conferences for Head Start grantees. A key topic addressed during training workshops at these conferences has been working with children exposed to substances, and their families.

Head Start will publish a Head Start Substance Abuse Resource Guide in early summer, 1991. This Guide will be a desk reference for Head Start grantees and other community, State and Federal programs which address substance abuse and want to understand Head

Start's involvement in this issue. The Guide will feature information and resources which address Head Start substance abuse issues of staff, families, children and community partnerships.

Head Start is planning to contribute to the production of a video and manual which will bring together national experts who work with (1) infants who have been prenatally or postnatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs, as well as (2) preschool aged children whose behavior suggests they have been harmed by the effects of exposure to substances. These experts will share the latest information and strategies for working with these affected preschool children.


Question. Does your budget contain adequate funding to train Head Start personnel to deal not only with these developmental problems but with problems associated with drug abuse of family members?

Answer. The increased funds available to local Head Start programs for training this year will improve their ability to deal with these difficult issues. In addition, the various national Head Start training and technical assistance resources, including Regional Resource Centers which provide general training to grantees, Resource Access Projects which support services to children with disabilities, and our health support providers, the Public Health Service and the Indian Health Service, are all including substance abuse issues in their training and technical assistance agendas with grantees.

In addition, the Head Start Bureau (HSB) is working with the Office for Treatment Improvement (OTI) and the Office for Substance Abuse Prevention (OSAP) to develop collaborative partnerships which will assist Head Start in addressing training needs for staff. A specific collaboration has been developed between OTI and HSB concerning the OTI Target Cities grants. HSB plans to offer Head Start grantees located in the eight Target Cities the opportunity to compete for funds (up to a total of eight awards) to develop collaborative efforts with the Target Cities grantees. A key issue to be addressed in this collaboration is training for Head Start staff in identification and early intervention with families. are also exploring ways in which OSAP's Community Partnership and Pregnant Post Partum Women and Their Infants grantees can work collaboratively with Head Start grantees on prevention and early intervention issues.


Head Start has funded 13 demonstration Family Support Centers to Head Start grantees to address innovative strategies for helping families with issues of literacy, substance abuse and employability. In FY 1991, we anticipate funding an additional 16-20 Family Support Centers, along with an evaluation of their process and results.


Question. Are Head Start programs adequately staffed to deal with the problems associated with drug exposed children as well as the use of drugs by family members?

Answer. Head Start grantees have capacities to address all four of the Head Start components, (education, health, social services and parent involvement). Performance Standards for each of these components are established and the performances of one third of the grantees are monitored each year. There is no question that issues of abuse of alcohol and other drugs have strained the capacities of grantees to help families, which is why the Head Start Bureau has established a Substance Abuse Initiative.

We are encouraging grantees to increase program resources, where necessary, to add qualified consultant or staff capacities to help address these problems. Of the increased funding available in FY 1991 to improve program quality, more than $80 million can be used by grantees for this purpose, as well as to meet needs in other areas. Up to an additional $10 million in substance abuse demonstration funds will also be awarded by September, 1991 and collaborative arrangements with community State and Federal resources to help grantees enhance their staff capacities will be encouraged.


Question. How many young people do you estimate are being reached through the Youth Gang Drug Abuse Prevention Program?

Answer. We are in the process of collecting data on the number of youth being served by the 84 grantees funded under this program. This information should be available within the next year. In general, however, we estimate that each of 16 community-based consortium grantees is reaching between 200 and 600 youth. Smaller grantees normally propose to serve between 50 and 200 youth. It is difficult to calculate the exact number of youth being reached because of the nature of many of the projects. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District grantee is developing a self-esteem enhancement curriculum which is aimed primarily at a targeted group of young at-risk children and their parents. However, the curriculum is also being taught to many teachers and administrators throughout the school system and may have a ripple effect throughout the Los Angeles School District. It is virtually impossible to measure the impact this training will have on non-targeted students.

Question. How are Youth Gang Drug Abuse Prevention projects coordinating their activities among the various agencies and programs that serve young people, such as schools, the juvenile justice system, employment agencies, and other social services agencies?

Answer. The most successful coordination activities are occurring in the so-called youth gang consortia projects. Since FY 1989, ACYF has awarded over $19.6 million in discretionary grants to 16 community-based consortia to conduct innovative, comprehensive approaches to the current and emerging problems of youth gangs and their involvement with illicit drugs. Each consortium is a broadbased partnership which draws upon the resources, expertise, energies and commitments of many different groups within a community.

For example, the Denver Consortium, which is headed by the Governor's Job Training Office, brings together the school districts

of Denver, Aurora and Cherry Creek; the Denver and Aurora Police Departments; the Denver Juvenile Court system; and non-profit youth and family serving agencies from all three communities. Another model being tested by many consortia is similar to that of the City of Los Angeles, where a broad range of Federal (ACYF, Housing and Urban Development, Labor and Justice) resources are being coordinated and concentrated to undertake youth gang prevention activities in five public housing sites.

Question. Is the Youth Gang Drug Abuse Prevention Program limited to urban communities only, or are there gangs or groups in suburban or rural areas that are being targeted under this program?

Answer. ACYF has funded grants ranging from $1,000,000 service projects in large urban centers, such as Los Angeles and Denver, to $50,000 planning projects in small communities with emerging gang problems, such as Caldwell, Idaho, and Jefferson County, Alabama. One very successful community-based consortium project is headed by Cities in Schools in Pinal County, Arizona. This county is rural and is rated the poorest in the State. Several grantees cover urban, suburban and rural areas through extended partnerships.


Question. Researchers estimate that 375,000 babies per year had been exposed to illicit drugs. In FY 1989, 4,875 infants were reported to the Child Welfare Agency in New York City with a positive drug test--a 26% increase from 1986. The Center for Disease Control projects that by 1991 there will be 10,000 to 20,000 children with HIV. Given these increased needs, why are you requesting level funding for this program?

Answer. First, we have already funded or are in the process of funding 32 major metropolitan areas, and we feel that we have reasonably good geographic coverage at this time. Secondly, we have requested a substantial increase in the funding for title IV-B child welfare services, which dollars can be used for some of these same purposes.

Question. The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services conduct a study to determine how many infants and young children are abondoned each year. When will this study be completed?

Answer. We will complete this study by December 1991 and will be ready to submit it to the Congress in February 1992.



Question. There are approximately 1 million youth who run away annually, and by all indications, this number is increasing. In addition to the runaway population, there are approximately 300,000 youth who are homeless. Your budget request would support 360 centers and will serve approximately 65,000 youth, the same number

as in FY 91. Why are you proposing to level fund this program when there are many homeless youth still in need of services?


Answer. We recognize that the problems of runaway and homeless youth are great, but we do not feel that the Federal government alone carries full responsibility for resolving these problems. our view, responsibility for these at-risk youth lies (1) with the parents, (2) with local, county, and State welfare agencies, such as child protective services and foster care, and (3) with the Federal government. The shelters supported by the Federal government are essentially crisis and referral centers. We provide short-term lodging, food, and counseling while we arrange for either the parents or local agencies or both to assume their responsibilities for long-term care.

The typical youth center we fund has from 10 to 12 funding sources in addition to the Federal dollars. These sources include the United Way, local churches, local governments, and others. demonstrates that many groups across the country are addressing these youth problems.


Question. One of the requirements of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is that a grantee have a plan for keeping statistical profiles of the clients (both youth and families). What have you learned from these data profiles?

Answer. We have learned that, in general, troubled youth come from troubled families. Youth do not run away from home casually. In almost all cases, youth are running away from severe conflicts, usually with their parents or guardians, often with social institutions such as schools or the juvenile justice system. Two-thirds of the youth cite arguments or fights with parents as their principal reason for leaving home.

Often these conflicts are accompanied by violence. Parental physical abuse, parental domestic violence, parental sexual abuse, physical or sexual abuse by other family members, and physical or sexual abuse by non-family members are cited respectively by 19.9, 9.6, 5.9, 4.6, and 3.5 percent of the youth.

The personal problems the youth carry with them when they enter runaway shelters are equally disturbing, and equally difficult to resolve. Approximately half have very low self esteem and are depressed. Fourteen percent are possibly suicidal.

One-third of the youth are having trouble with the school system, as shown by poor attendance, truancy, bad grades, and inability to get along with teachers. One quarter of the boys are in trouble with the juvenile justice system.

Shelter directors note that, increasingly, the youth they serve are multi-problem youth. For example, they are in conflict not only with their parents but also with the schools and the juvenile justice system. In addition, many have problems with alcohol and other drugs, as well as with teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

« PreviousContinue »