Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071996 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-02 Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa County DATE: April 22, 1996 r�9 COUT SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CHILDREN'S ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. RECEIVE the following summary of our initial meeting on this subject with County staff. 2. REQUEST each affected Department to prepare a brief (one or two page) commentary on the subject of outcome measurements and what positive features the Department sees in the use of outcome measurements, what administrative or other practical problems the Department would have in implementing outcome measurements for the programs the Department administers and what problems there would be in preparing a Children's Impact Statement prior to the Board's taking action on selected major program issues. REQUEST that these commentaries be filed with the County Administrator's Office by June 1, 1996. 3. REQUEST that the affected Departments meet with the Family and Human Services Committee and representatives from Children Now during the month of June, 1996 to continue the dialogue on this subject. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAD C M T EWH APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): M�DeSAULNIER J MI ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED May 7; ; 19 9 6 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 4 aSUPAND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY Sp 3 F&HS-02 BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1995, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a proposal from Supervisor DeSaulnier that the Board of Supervisors implement one of the recommendations made by Children Now in the supplement to their California Report Card '95 entitled "California: The State of Our Children '95", namely that the County undertake a Children's Impact Statement on selected measures. On April 22, 1996 our Committee met with the Superintendent of Schools; the County Probation Officer; the Executive Director, Private Industry Council; and representatives from the Social Service, Health Services, District Attorney, and Sheriff's Departments. Supervisor DeSaulnier provided some background for this referral by indicating that it is important for the community to establish benchmarks which describe what they believe the community should be doing for children and that government must then be able to describe how it is spending the resources which are provided by the taxpayer for this purpose. He noted that the Board frequently approves spending in hopes that the money will accomplish something useful, but with very little ability to document that something worthwhile results from the spending decisions that are made. As a result, it is important to establish benchmarks which will allow some measurement of what progress is being made. Supervisor DeSaulnier also reported that he had also met with the Foundation Consortium in Sacramento. They are very interested in seeing government become more accountable. Service Integration is a part of that. In order to get money from foundations it is important to be able to document what the outcomes are, how the program will impact the community and how the program will coordinate with other programs and providers. In this way it is possible for the foundation to hold the grantee accountable for the money being received. One of the key parts of the suggestion by Children Now is the Children's Impact Statement, which is based on an Environmental Impact Report. Certain triggers would determine when this process would be brought into use. The Statement would describe how the program or decision would affect children and what the anticipated outcomes are on children and families. This meeting is to allow the departments to describe how they see their respective departments being affected by this process. Supervisor DeSaulnier indicated that he believes the community and the Board need to agree on some benchmarks and then establish goals for where we think we need to improve given benchmarks. The use of percentages is seen as a valuable means of measuring our progress over a period of, for instance, 2,5 or 10 years. Danna Fabella noted that there has been a lot of work done on trying to establish outcome measurements for child welfare. The problem is that we do not gather the kind of data that is needed. We are process oriented because that is the way we get our funding. We do not have sufficient staff to gather the kind of data that would be needed to establish and measure benchmarks. Dr. Brunner noted that from his perspective our purpose is to improve the health of the public. It is really appropriate to try to determine whether what we are doing accomplishes anything. However, there are a lot of difficulties in trying to do this. But it is something we need to do. Dr. Brunner described some of the efforts the Health Services Department has made over the past several years to intensify its efforts in improving perinatal outcomes. As a result, the County achieved the lowest -2- F&HS-02 African-American mortality rate in the State of California. Staff think this achievement is related to the perinatal efforts that were made, but it difficult to absolutely prove that those efforts caused the improvement in the morality rate. Dr. Brunner also noted the need for the County and the community to establish priorities on what should be worked on. We cannot do everything. In addition, there is not always an immediate impact from our efforts. We have to make a multi-year commitment in order to have any chance of seeing an impact. Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that in 1997 he would like to have the Board of Supervisors do a series of Town Halls in the community with city and school officials included. Superintendent Ron Stewart noted the need to have specific outcomes in order to get school bonds approved. He also suggested that there may be alternate ways to get the necessary resources by making use of graduate students from U.C. Berkeley and St. Mary's and private sector resources rather than assuming that we always have to add resources of our own. Gayle Graham noted the need to build in accountability for failure to fund some programs. She noted that Family Support is being held back by a decision not to automate their operations several years ago. This needs to be taken into account as well as decisions to fund a program and look at the likely consequences from those decisions. Supervisor DeSaulnier commented on the difficulty of just accounting for how much money is being spent on family and children's services. We are spending a lot but the challenge is to spend the money more wisely. Art Miner noted the need to try to integrate these new requirements into the existing system so we don't create a whole new layer of government on top of what exists now. He noted the difficulty of defining what is a program budget is and exactly what is supposed to be included in a program budget for family and children's services. Danna Fabella noted the difficulty of agreeing on what valid indicators are for some of these benchmarks. How do you measure the well-being of a child? We really need to look at this and how to measure some of these outcomes. Terry Starr noted that one department often does not know what another department does. We are dealing with only 10% of the population. The other 90% of the population doesn't think that the 10% affect them and their lives and we are not very good at convincing them that it does affect them. The general population doesn't know what we do. He gave the example of what can be accomplished when the community comes together to address a problem as happened in Tulare County where the community passed a time-limited sales tax increase to build a new juvenile hall. We need a position paper and data to support our needs. We need to convince people that the problems with which we deal do affect the entire community. Joanne Brooks-Washington, Chair of the Homeless Advisory Committee, noted the need to educate the community because they are not aware of the problems which exist. -3- F&HS-02 Dr. Brunner emphasized that it is important to make children a priority. We need to identify key children's issues and them prioritize them. He agreed that we need to try to measure outcomes. The County as a whole needs to set the priorities. In summarizing the discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier asked each department to write a page or two on what their reactions were to this meeting and what problems they anticipate in implementing something along the lines of what has been discussed. We need to have a larger, broader meeting involving the private sector. cc: County Administrator Social Service Director Danna Fabella, Assistant County Welfare Director Health Services Director Wendel Brunner, M.D., Public Health Director County Probation Officer Sheriff-Coroner Tom Moore, Sheriff's Office District Attorney Gayle Graham, Director, Family Support Services, DA's Office Executive Director, Private Industry Council Ronald L. Stewart, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools -4- w 'iK 4 5f)._5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra r'. FROM: ::� Costa DeSaulnier o; s . �,:. .. .�o¢ cT DATE: September 19, 1995 Fr^ c°.ri County SUBJECT: Proposal for a Children's Accountability Act for Contra Costa County SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Consider proposal of a Children's Accountability Act for Contra Costa County. Refer issue to the Family and Human Services Committee, the Countywide Youth Commission, the Business Leaders Task Force, the Contra Costa Association of School Superintendents, and the Mayors' Conference for their input and recommendations on goals and procedures for implementation. BACKGROUND: Children Now, a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization for children, recently released a report called "California: The State of Our Children 1995." The report begins with "Report Card 95," which rates the issues of family economics (bottom 35%), teen opportunity (bottom 5%), safety (bottom 20%), health (bottom 43%), and education (bottom 15%) against other states in America. As you can see, California did not fair well against other states. It is time for all the people of California to take action. The findings in "Report Card 95" show that while California offers vast opportunities to many of its residents, it is not a child-friendly state. Millions of California children face too many.obstacles and have too little financial arTd social support to be able to thrive. Yet as many dedicated individuals, businesses, agencies, and communities have proven, through many different innovative and effective programs, working together we can make a difference in the lives of our children. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER d Children's Accountability Act September 19, 1995 Page Two Making California a better place for children will not be accomplished through government policies and programs alone. Families, civic and religious organizations, businesses and local communities all have important responsibilities in roles in children's lives. However, we can make a tremendous difference for youth through a government that considers children foremost and invests wisely in their future. With the Children's Accountability Act, Contra Costa County can be a leader in proposing a new, better system of accountability for our local governments and a means of tracking public dollars serving children. Hopefully, Contra Costa's action will encourage other municipalities and businesses to do the same. To accomplish this, Contra Costa County would use a Children's Impact Statement (CIS), which would be an assessment based upon research by county staff and other respected sources for analysis. The CIS would assess the proposed ordinance, program, or budget action according to key considerations for all children. It would specify the impacts on different populations of children according to such characteristics as area of residence, socioeconomic level, ethnicity, and special abilities. A Children's Impact Statement would accurately measure and take into consideration the needs of children in public governance. As a society, we have agreed upon the importance of assessing the environmental impact of our actions through Environmental Impact Reports. Equally as important to our future is the quality of nurturance, support, and preparation we provide for our children. A proposed model for the CIS could include the following: 1. A clear statement of the ordinance, program, or budget action's goals, measures of success, and a timeline; 2. A set of standards for the services designed to achieve those goals; these standards would guard against inequities or discrimination; 3. Appropriate funding to achieve desired results; 4. A set of indicators for measuring and assessing progress regarding children served, quality of services provided, and results achieved; 5. A system of frequent reviews and public reporting of results for children; 6. A system of rewards and consequences to the department or agency responsible. It would be determined by the Board of Supervisors which proposed measures require a CIS based upon those deemed likely to have a significant impact on children. Each CIS would be referred to the Family and Human Services Committee and be prepared by the appropriate staff or advisory body. Attached is an example. A focus on results has the potential to benefit children in a number of ways. First, results-based accountability can replace rigid bureaucratic rules and allow greater flexibility to tailor services at the local level, with the understanding that departments and agencies are accountable for certain basic service standards and for ultimate results for children. Second, the emphasis on evaluation of results promotes frequent, critical re-examination of current strategies and, therefore, provides a mechanism for ending ineffective practices. Finally, communicating to taxpayers the results of serJices for children will strengthen support for investments that improve children's well-being. The Children S of Contra Costa Now County The profile of each county brings home the facts about children in that community. The picture for all children is grim; it is particularly disturbing for African-American and Latino children. From the California recession, to an eroding tax base, to a crumbling infrastructure, it is not hard to understand why so many children are in crisis. While there is good news in some areas, every county needs improvement for all its children. Solutions are at hand. Communities W are improving the lives of children every day, especially those children who are hurting the most. When we invest in children, it pays off. We hope this "close-up" look spurs every Californian to make a difference for children in their community. I�who are they? � 215,520 children 59.4% Anglo 11.5% African-American 16.9%Latino 12.2% Asian/other percent with limited English skills: 8.2% l I� how well are they educated? percent of 4th graders that can't fully understand a basic reading assignment: 19% proportion of 8th graders that can't write a basic essay: 16% percentage of the class of 1993 that dropped out: 6.8% percentage of high school graduates prepared for college: 37.6% i® number of dropouts/number of high school graduates prepared for college: 654/2,657 Anglo: 357/1 ,900 African-American: 110/112 Latino: 135/142 Asian/other: 52/503 poverty rate of children of high school dropouts: 64% i_ poverty rate of children of parents with some college: 4% I� I�how safe are they? � number of child abuse reports: 17,322 ratio of child abuse reports to incidents of violent crime: 2.4 to 1 chances a gun in the home will kill a family member or friend rather iL than a criminal: 43 times greater ©1994 Children Now*"" Na=data not available for that county number of children killed by guns in 1992: 17 =too few incidences to calculate juvenile felony arrest rate (per 100,000 children): 2,313 flow healthy are they? percentage of babies born with late or no prenatal care: 4.0% Anglo: 2.3% African-American: 7.6% Latino: 7.0% Asian/other: 3.6% how much each dollar spent on prenatal care saves: $3 percentage of babies born at low birthweight: 6.1% Anglo: 4.7% African-American: 13.7% Latino: 5.2% Asian/other: 6.1% Mexico's low birthweight rate: 6% proportion of neonatal infant deaths due to low birthweight:.3 of 4 cost of neonatal intensive care for a low birthweight baby: $1 ,000 Per day infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000 births): 6.4 Anglo: 5.8 African-American: 12.0 Latino: 5.7 Asian/other: -- Sweden's infant mortality rate: 4 proportion of infants born to teen mothers: 8.4% percentage of two-year-olds fully immunized: 53% health costs saved for each $1 invested on immunizations: $10 i how economically secure are they? percentage of babies born to parents who cannot afford health care: 20.89/o number/percentage of children who cannot afford lunch at school: 22,279/16.6% percentage of babies born to unmarried parents: 25.91/o odds a baby born to unmarried parents will live in poverty (CA): 47% proportion of children with court-ordered child support who receive any money from an absent parent: 45.7% summary of key benchmarks for children of contra costa county County Rank Better or Worse than CA Avg. Education 4th grade CLAS Reading Scores 15 of 58 Better 8th grade CLAS Writing Scores 15 of 58 Better High School Graduates Prepared for College 8 of 57 . Better High School Dropouts 7 of 57 Better Health Late or No Prenatal Care 9 of 53 Better Low Birthweight 42 of 54 Worse Infant Mortality 8 of 34 Better Teen Births 7 of 56 Better Immunization 9 of 29 Better _ Safety Child Abuse Reports 22 of 58 Worse Juvenile Felony Arrests 27 of 50 Better Security Newborns Whose Parents Cannot Afford Health Care 2 of 56 Better Children of Unmarried Parents 20 of 56 Better Child Support Payments 17 of 57 Better 1 4 � a d S.z;A g. . a a F'm a CALIFORNIV THE STATE ' 1995 O 1995.CHILDREN NOW•".PERMISSION TO COPY,DISSEMINATE OR OTHERWISE USE THIS WORK IS NORMALLY GRANTED AS LONG AS OWNERSHIP IS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED TO CHILDREN NOW. i CALIFORNIA: THE STATE OF OUR CHILDREN '95 A Supplement to California Report Card '95 © 1995 Children NowTM. Permission to copy, disseminate or otherwise use this work is normally granted as long as ownership is properly attributed to Children Now. CALIFORNIA REPORT CARD '95 DISTINGUISHED CITIZENS PANEL California Report Card '95 has been prepared in conjunction with a panel of distinguished Californians: Allen Broussard California Supreme Court; Retired John Bryson President and C.E.O., Southern California Edison Delaine Eastin State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bob Fisher Chief Financial Officer,The Gap Richard A. Kayne President, Kayne, Anderson Investment Management,Inc. Andrew G. Galef Chairman and C.E.O.,MagneTek Becky Morgan President and C.E.O.,Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network Cruz Reynoso - " Vice-Chair, United States Commission on Civil Rights Eugene S. Rosenfield Principal, Highridge Partners Herb Sandler President and C.E.O., World Savings and Loan Association Chang-Lin Tien Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley kids We would like to acknowledge our special appreciation of the Annie E-. Casey Foundation for its support of our Kids Count project. We would also like to thank the Bettingen Corporation, the Joseph P. Drown Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the James Irvine-Foundation, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Koret Foundation for their general support of Children Now. CHILDREN NOW A Strong and Independent Voice for Children Children Now is a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization for children. Children Now acts as a strong and independent voice for millions of children who cannot speak for themselves--in the legislature,in the mass media and in the community. We focus particular attention on children and families who are poor or at risk. Combining substantive policy expertise with effective communications and advocacy strategies,our mission is to make children a top priority in California and the nation. Children Now: • Educates the public and decisionmakers about the needs of children; • Develops and promotes effective strategies to improve children's lives; • Generates new resources for cost-effective programs that benefit children and families; • Reaches out to parents and children to inform them of opportunities to help themselves. Children Now is financed through foundation grants,individual donations,and support ffom the corporate and entertainment communities. CHILDREN NOW'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS Richard Atlas Goldman,Sachs&Co. Hon.Allen E.Broussard California Supreme Court-Retired William Coblentz Coblentz,Cahen,McCabe&Breyer Anita L.DeFrantz Amateur Athletic Foundation Robert Fisher The Gap,Inc. Danny Goldberg Warner Bros.Records Mimi L.Haas Community Volunteer Kati Haycock American Assn.of Higher Education Denis Hayes The Bullitt Foundation,Inc. F.Warren Hellman Hellman&Friedman Allan K.Jonas Jonas&Associates Donald Kennedy Stanford University Michael Klein Vitel International,Inc. I Hon.Elwood Lui Jones,Day,Reavis&Pogue Theodore R.Mitchell UCLA Graduate School of Education Jim Plunkett Los Angeles Raiders-Retired John A.Pritzker Red Sail Companies Hon.Cruz Reynoso UCLA Law School George Roberts Kohlberg Kravis Roberts&Co. Susan Rothstein The San Francisco School _ Leigh Steinberg Steinberg,&Moorad James Steyer,President Children Now Kaye Theimer,Ph.D. Psychologist Chang-Lin Tien University of California,Berkeley. Michael Tollin Tollin/Robbins Productions Reed V.Tuckson,M.D. Charles R.Drew Univ.of Medicine&Science Iain Watson HAL Investments,Inc. James Steyer Children Now,President Lois Salisbury Children Now,Executive Director Note:Organizations are listed for identification purposes only. CHILDREN NOW OFFICES Los Angeles Bay Area Sacramento New York, Washington,DC 2001 S.Barrington Ave. 1212 Broadway 926'T'Street 800 3rd Ave. 1555 Connecticut St.,NW Suite 100 Suite 530 Suite 1400 40th Floor Washington,DC 20036 Los Angeles,CA 90025 Oakland,CA 94612 Sacramento,CA 95814 New York,NY 10022 (202)232-4962 (310)268-2444 (510)763-2444 (916)441-2444 (212)446-9325 California: The State of Our Children '95 Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 IL Data Findings 2 State Benchmarks Chart 2 Key Findings 3 Data Highlights 4 III. Recommendations 10 IV. Conclusion 16 V. A Guide to the.Facts: State.Benchmarks for Children 17 Family Economics 17 1. Child Care 17 2. Homeless Children 17 3. Public Assistance 18 4. Hungry Children 19 5. Child Support 20 6. Children in Poverty 21 Teen Opportunity 21 7. College Bound Students 21 8. Unemployed Youth 22 9. Teen Births 22 10. Drug and Alcohol Use 22 11. Incarcerated Juveniles 23 Safety 24 12. Child Abuse/Neglect 24 13. Foster Care 24 14. Drug Exposed Babies 25 15. Youth Homicide 25 Health 26 16. Infant Mortality 26 17. Prenatal Care 26 18. Immunizations 27 19. Uninsured Children 27 20. Use of Nutrition Program 28 21. Mental Health 28 Education 29 22. Dropout Rate 29 23. Preschool Education 29 24. Student/Teacher Ratio 30 25. Per Pupil Expenditures 30 26. Reading and Math Skills 30 VI. Acknowledgments 32 VII. Children Now's Policy Advisors 34 ..<:::[ - :::.<:<.'..::...u....Ua+ci.n'i....•niSiti{itJ:)SYS�SfiLs'U`tI.SCX�"..Ci�SiY.a iJ/ t<.+u.[a+.r Y.x> NY..hnYLruvJ. u. . ... . ..S.n,....... ... .... -.. ..... .. .. - -.. I. INTRODUCTION The year 1995 presents a critical challenge and an opportunity to re-examine how we provide health,education and social services for kids. As Congress and our state Legislature consider significant changes in how the public sector fulfills its role,we must protect children's well-being fust and foremost, and ensure that every child has the opportunity to fulfill his or her potential. The State of California must be especially vigilant in representing children's interests in these debates: the California Report Card '95 data shows that California ranks in the bottom of the class among the states in fostering the healthy development of our children. While some of the most serious problems facing California's children have.grown even more widespread in recent years,better prenatal care rates and fewer high school dropouts show that we can make a significant difference in children's lives when we exert the will to do so and strategically direct our resources. This report highlights just a few of the cost-effective programs that are meeting the needs of children and young people throughout California. As we seek to reform and improve services for children and their families, we must build upon such successful initiatives. But a piecemeal approach will not work. Our future economic security depends on how well today's children grow into tomorrow's productive,responsible adults. This means that California must reorder its priorities and put children first in public decisionmaking and governance. Children Now is recommending a Children's Accountability Act to hold our leaders and public institutions accountable for the decisions they make that affect children. This Act would require a Children's Impact Statement on all legislation and would restructure public services to focus on results achieved for children(see Section III). Children Now is also proposing next steps for every Californian to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn, grow and thrive-- securing a better future for all of us. Children Now Page 1 II. DATA, FINDINGS State Benchmarks Chart California Comparison Rank among Trend.* to U.& Average*.' States** i Family.Economics Child Care Incomplete n/a n/a,. Homeless Children Incomplete n/a n/a Public Assistance . Worse Better 19 (of 50) Hungry Children Incomplete n/a, n/a Child Support Worse Worse 40 (of 46) Children in Poverty Worse Worse 35 (of 51) Bottom 35% Teen Opportunity College Bound Students Worse n/a. n/a Unemployed Youth Worse Worse 50 (of 50) Teen Births Worse Worse 43 (of 50) Drug and Alcohol Abuse Incomplete n/a n/a Incarcerated Juveniles Worse Worse 50 (of 50), Bottom 5% Safety. Child Abuse/Neglect Worse Worse 40 (of 50) Foster Care Worse Worse. n/a Drug Exposed Babies. Incomplete n/a n/a Youth Homicide Worse Worse n/a Bottom 20%, Health Infant Mortality Better Better. 7 (of 51) Prenatal Care Better Worse 39 (of 51) I Immunizations Better Worse n/a Uninsured Children Same Worse 41 .(of 51) Use of Nutrition.Program Better n/a n/a Mental Health Incomplete n/a n/a Bottom 43% Education, Dropout Rate; Better Worse 40 (of 50) Preschool Education Incomplete n/a r n/a Student/Teacher Ratio Worse Worse 51 (of 51) Per Pupil Expenditures Better Worse 40 (of 51) Reading Skills for 4th grade Incomplete Worse 40 (of 42) Math Skills 4th Grade Incomplete Worse 38 (of 42) 8th Grade Incomplete Worse 28 (of 42) Bottom 15% * An"incomplete"indicates that the data to determine a trend is not available. An"n/a"indicates that the data for comparison to other states is not available. See page 31 under"Comments on Methodology"for an explanation of how the trend and national comparison are determined. ** For some indicators,data is not available for all 50 states. When the rank is out of 51,data for Washington D.C.has been included. Children Now. Page 2 Key Findings of California: The State of Our Children '95 California children are: tit more likely to grow up poor • more likely to face overcrowded classrooms • . more likely to dropout of high school- • more likely to be unemployed . • more likely to have babies as teenagers than other children in the United States. They are also: . • less likely to receive child support payments • less likely to have health insurance :. less likely to go to college than other children in the United States. Children Now Page 3 SD3 Data Highlights Family Economics -- A record number of California children(2.7 million)are living in poverty. The percentage of children living in poverty (less than$15,150 yearly income for a family of four)is the highest recorded since the state began tracking this measure in 1976. • More than one in-four(28.6%) of California children live in poverty. Poor children are more likely to die in infancy,become ill in childhood, fall behind a grade in school and drop out of school. • Poverty among California children is outpacing the rest of the nation. • Effective child support enforcement can end poverty for many children. Yet, in California,only 37% of the more than 480,000 cases due payment in September 1994 actually received some amount. TOP OF THE CLASS: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Statewide In the last three years,California's child support caseload has increased 69%to more than 2.2 million cases in fiscal year 1994.Although state efforts to collect child support have increased in recent years,only 7.3%of$3 billion in past support due was collected last year. Through an innovative interagency effort, the Franchise Tax Board.(FTB), the State Department of Social Services and county District Attorneys collaborated to initiate a two-year demonstration project.to collect child support more effectively. The program began its test phase in six California counties -- Fresno, Los Angeles, Nevada, Santa Clara, Solano and j Ventura. Through legislation sponsored by the Children's Advocacy Institute and carried by ' Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, delinquent child support cases are referred by the county District Attorneys to the FTB for collection. With $260,000 from the General Fund for ! program implementation and an active caseload of 114,000 cases,FTB uses its tax collection tools of wage withholding,bank and other levies,tax liens,and contacts for collection out-of- state, similar to delinquent personal income tax cases. In one year, FTB collected $34.6 million,more than double their original estimate. u�l The program's surprising success sparked new legislation by Assemblywoman Speier that would expand the program statewide by December 1996: So far,44 other counties have agreed to participate,and by the end of 1996,all but eight will.have been phased into the program. Children Now Page 4 .r Teen Opportunity -- The most recent data shows more unemployed youth and fewer college bound students than in previous years. • In 1993,California had the highest youth unemployment rate in the country: 26.2% of 16-to 19-year-olds were unemployed and actively looking for work. •- Each year, about 100,000 California high school graduates do not go directly to college. A nationwide survey found, in 1990, that only 25%of high school counselors spent 30%or more of their time helping students with occupational choices or career planning, and only 4% spent 30% or more of their time helping work-bound students find jobs. California's youth need much more support to help them get on the right track toward productive adulthood. • Five out of six job applicants in the U.S. are rejected because they cannot read or write adequately, according to a 1992 survey of 400 member companies of the National Association of Manufacturers. • Among young adults ages 20-24, high school dropouts earned 42% less in 1986 than in 1973,while high school guaduates without a college education earned 29% less. In addition to limited job prospects, increasing numbers of young people face the daunting challenge of teen parenthood. • In 1992, over 70,000 babies were born to teenage girls in California. Teen parenthood increases the likelihood that both the mother and child will struggle with long-term poverty. • Fewer than one-half of all young male workers (ages 20-24)and fewer than one-fourth of young black male workers now earn enough to support a family of three above the poverty line. TOP OF THE CLASS: SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM/ SUMMER TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAM San! Francisco, The San Francisco Summer Youth Employment and Training(SYETP)Program serves approximately 2,500 youth, providing them with valuable job experiences that help them to develop important job skills during the summer months. Teens work in a diversity of jobs in public and non-profit agencies. For example,young people serve as aides in.senior centers,schools and child care centers;they are lab assistants at San Francisco General Hospital;they work as video production aides and museum guides. Youth'served.by the program are ages 14-21 and must have family incomes below the federal poverty level..Each year,about twice as many qualifying youth apply to the program.than can.be served by the jobs available. .In SYETP, each young person helps to develop his or her own Individual Service Strategy Plan, in which they clarify their current educational and vocational goals. In addition, a Teacher Advisor provides youth with a Work Skills Progress Report to reflect the youth's progress at the job site. An important,related program serving San Francisco youth is the.Summer Training and Education Program(STEP). STEP offers work experience and classroom instruction during the summer for students entering 9th grade who are at-risk of school failure. During the school year,STEP provides further support to these young people through mentor-tutors. Students may remain in the program throughout high school. The program's 1994 evaluation found that,as a group,STEP students had increased their reading and math scores from one year to the next;in addition,employer ratings of student job performance increased over the summer. Children Now Page 5 -- 3 Safety -- Reports of child abuse and neglect continue to rise as do foster care placements. • The number of California children reported abused and neglected has doubled since 1985, reaching over 660,000 in 1993. • The rise in reports of child abuse and neglect has led to increasing,numbers of children in foster care. In the last 3 years in California, foster care placements have risen over 14%; today, 94,000 children are in foster care. • Comprehensive research by the National Institute of Justice found that childhood abuse increased the odds of future delinquency and adult criminality by 40%. Increasing numbers of children are victims ofihomicide. • In 1993, 857 children and youth,the equivalent of more than 25 classrooms,were victims of homicide. The rate of homicides perpetrated against children in California is 59%higher than in the rest of the nation. • Over 75% of young,homicide victims are killed with firearms. The number of California children murdered every year by firearms more than doubled between 1988 and 1993. TOP OF THE CLASS: CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE Oakland j Caught In The Crossfire demonstrates how youth are helping their peers and their community, serving as peer counselors to prevent violence. i Developed three years ago in a collaborative effort by Youth Alive,Highland Hospital and the Oakland Unified School District,Caught In The Crossfire is an outgrowth of Teens On Target (TNT), a program started in 1989 by a group of high school students. Each summer, TNT trains teens to become peer advocates for violence prevention.To date,more than eighty teens have participated in TNT's intensive, six-week training on advocacy skills, leadership and incidence of violence. Currently, ten TNT teens are actively broadcasting their message against violence to students, community leaders, media representatives and government officials. With an additional ten hours of training on hospital protocol, TNT teens are prepared for Caught In The Crossfire.The program aims to stop the cycle of teen violence by having these young advocates present alternatives and offer support to teen gunshot victims recuperating in Highland Hospital's.trauma unit.The program recently launched its first group of five trained peer counselors,who have visited approximately forty-five teen victims. Sherman Spears, Program Coordinator,makes follow-up calls to victims after their hospital release to provide additional support. The success of both violence prevention programs has been credited to Spears,who in his youth,also experienced violence as a teen gunshot victim. Dr.Vern Henderson at Highland Hospital comments that teen gunshot victims are"crying out for help"while.dealing with feelings of fear,pain,and survival of a near-death experience.His description of young victims of violence as a"captive audience that would appreciate the need to change"is reinforced by a TNT teen's experience. V.,whose older brother was killed by gun violence, related his own feelings as a victim— "I wanted to retaliate when I was shot but I kept my posture.,It happened to my brother and it happened to me..But I kept my cool and here I am, still living." Children Now Page 6 Health -- Prenatal care and immunization rates improved in California, and infant mortality continues to decline. However,one-fifth of California children lack health insurance from either public or private sources. • The improvement in the prenatal care rate means that about 11,000 more California women received timely prenatal care in 1992 than would have had the rate remained at the 1989 level. • California now ranks 7th best among the states in infant mortality,having reduced the rate of infant deaths by 14% from 1990 to 1993. • Nearly 2 million California children lack health insurance. Children without insurance are less likely to receive adequate health care and are at higher risk of medical complications due to lack of treatment. • More than 8 in 10 of the uninsured are working people and their families. TOP OF THE CLASS: DENTAL HEALTH IN HEALTHY START SCHOOL BASED SERVICES Alameda County In July 1992, with Healthy Start funding, the Oakland Unified School District initiated the implementation of an integrated health and social services delivery system for at-risk children at two elementary schools. Initial assessments of health care needs for children at Hawthorne- Whitton and Whittier.Elementary Schools showed that 74% of the children needed dental treatment and 28% of those examined had"baby bottle tooth decay." Consequently, dental .health was identified as.a priority.for preventive services and educational outreach. The Alameda County Department of Public Health contributed to the development of a collaborative,community-based model for on-site dental preventive and educational services, as well as linkage to ongoing dental and child health care. Other groups involved in this endeavor included school district staff, 25 volunteer dentists and dental hygienists from the Alameda County Dental Society and the East Bay Dental Hygiene Component, community health outreach workers from the Child Health and Disability Prevention program, and the Dental Health Foundation. ! In the program's first 18,months,more than 900 children received dental exams,and classroom j education_on dental health was conducted for over 2,000 students. The program provides dental cleanings,fluoride treatments and dental sealants,in addition to health care support and referrals. Health care staff meet with'parents to discuss their child's dental exam results and the entire family's health history. The staff also inform parents of other available services, such as family support groups,.parenting skills classes and tutoring workshops. Plans are underway to replicate this school-based,health care services model for preventive dental care and family support at six more schools by the end of 1995. Children Now Page 7 1.. D,,3 • A 1994 survey of kindergartners found that a much higher percentage had received their recommended immunizations at age two, 57.2% compared to 48.4% in the 1993 survey. This improvement is probably attributable.to the 1990 measles epidemic and heightened awareness of immunizations at that time. Unfortunately, we are again starting to see new outbreaks of measles among kids. • Many countries maintain better immunization records than California,including: Romania, Honduras, Vietnam, China,Canada, Saudi Arabia,Thailand, Great Britain,Mexico, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Columbia, Chile, Hungary and Portugal. TOP OF THE CLASS. THE CHILDREN'S CLINIC Long Beach Although a child's health directly impacts on his or her success in school, life opportunities, personal growth and development,one in five California children(or nearly 2 million)do not have health insurance or access to a regular health care provider. Confronting this challenge since 1939, The Children's Clinic, a non-profit community medical clinic, provides innovative,quality health care services to disadvantaged children and youth in the greater Long Beach area. Staffed by sixty, volunteer physicians, several staff pediatricians and resident physicians from University of California at Irvine,the Clinic had more than 23,000 patient visits in fiscal year 1994. The Clinic provides comprehensive health care--medical care and counseling for well- child care,acute and chronic pediatric problems,inpatient hospital care,and over twenty types of subspecialty clinics--to nearly 10,000 children, and with 24-hour telephone accessibility, exists as a "true medical home" for its young patients. This continuity of care provides disadvantaged children in Long Beach with health security unparalleled in the state. In collaboration with other community.service organizations, schools, hospitals, state. agencies,and private businesses,the Clinic operates eight community outreach programs that target critical issues in child and adolescent health. Recently,with only`38%of two-year olds appropriately immunized in the city, the Clinic embarked upon a two-year immunization awareness campaign for Long Beach. Through partnerships with state and local child health care and civic groups, the project will build upon the clinic's success in providing immunizations to more than 8,400 children last year. Other effective outreach.programs include Tender Loving Care (TLC), which provides postnatal follow-up care for over eighty drug=exposed babies,most of whom are.in.foster care families,and the Teen'InfantProgram,a school-based health care clinic'for infants-and toddlers of teen`mothers. Developed in conjunction with the Long Beach Unified School District and Reid High School to facilitate continued parent education for teen mothers,the latter program provides innovative child health care and interactive health education parent groups. Actively taking on challenges to improve the quality and range of care, the Clinic serves as a training site- for more than 100 health professionals-in-training. Incorporating multidisciplinary, community-based approaches to program planning, training and delivery, The Children's Clinic succeeds as a long-term model of seamless health care services for all children. Children Now Page 8 Education-- California made progress in reducing dropout rates, but our, investment in public education remains well below the national average and we are not realizing satisfactory achievement levels. • The high school dropout rate:has.steadily declined in recent years. The . overall rate dropped 25% from 1990 to 1993 (from a 20.2% to a 15.2% dropout rate). • California has the most crowded classrooms in the nation and spends about $1,000 less per student than the national average. California's per capita income is 13th highest among states. •, California,home to Silicon Valley,has fewer computers in its classrooms t han schools in any other state. • California ranks below the U.S, average in national achievement tests taken by 4th and 8th graders. TOP OF THE CLASS: EUCLID ELEMENTARY SCHOOL San Bernardino The reform effort at Euclid Elementary began with Mary Gonzales'entrance as principal six years ago.Under her leadership,school staff and parents drafted their vision of an ideal school and developed a mission statement, grounded in the concept of outcome-based education. Outlining their reform ideas in a community newspaper, the group engaged representatives from colleges,churches,and businesses to become involved in the effort. I While outside consultants provided expanded learning opportunities for the students, Euclid teachers and Ms..Gonzales worked on developing curriculum, standards,teaching strategies, and evaluation criteria that would best address student needs.Today,all sixth graders(180)are required to meet seven performance-based outcomes, and also, to prepare and orally present individual portfolios of their work. For students having difficulty meeting these standards, afterschool homework clubs, detention,:tutoring and Saturday school.offer assistance and support.The school's Family.Resource Center provides additional support by addressing the. social and emotional barriers.to.student learning.During the 1994-95 school year, more than 200 families were'served by the center. Moreover, with one month left before this year's graduation, nearly three-fourths of Euclid sixth graders have already completed their requirements. Other Euclid initiatives include community partnerships with local businesses, colleges and. other groups to increase school resources.Also,two leadership groups,involving both parents and teachers, meet regularly to strategize on school reform plans. Euclid staff expect to develop similar performance-based standards for the lower grades, as requirements for grade advancement. Children Now Page 9 SQ3 III. RECOMMENDATIONS The findings in Report Card `95 show that while California offers vast opportunities to many of its residents, we are not a child-friendly state. Millions of California children face too many obstacles and have too little financial and social support to be able to thrive. And yet, the efforts highlighted throughout this report demonstrate that wecan change the way we support our children`-- as many dedicated individuals,businesses, agencies.and; communities have proven--and thus, promote better opportunities for every, child to fulfill his or her potential. Making California a better place for children will not be accomplished through; government policies and programs alone. Families,civic and religious organizations,businesses and local communities all have important responsibilities and roles in children's lives. Yet,we can make a tremendous difference for kids through a government that considers children foremost and invests wisely in their future. With the Children's Accountability Act, Children Now is proposing a new,better system of accountability for our state legislature, and a means of tracking public dollars serving children. We encourage private agencies and businesses to consider how accountability for children's well-being can become part of their work as well. Children's Accountability Act A. Accountability of.Elected Representatives The time for empty rhetoric about valuing children has past. Lawmakers must now demonstrate through their votes and leadership that all children are a priority. To help lawmakers better understand and represent children's interests,we propose that a Children's Impact Statement be incorporated as part of the analyses prepared on designated state and federal legislative and budget proposals. A Children's-Impact Statement(CIS)would be a nonpartisan assessment based upon independent academic research and other respected sources for analysis. The CIS would assess the proposed law or budget action according.to key considerations.for all,children. The CIS also would specify the impacts on different populations of children according to such characteristics asarea of residence, I socioeconomic level,ethnicity and special abilities, A Children's Impact Statement would accurately measure and take into i consideration the needs of children in public governance. As a society,we have agreed upon the importance of assessing the environmental impact of our actions through Environmental Impact Reports. Equally as important to our future is the quality of nurturance,.support and preparation we provide for our children. Children Now Page 10 How A Children's Impact Statement Would Work The Rules Committee of the respective legislative bodies would determine which proposed measures require a CIS -- selecting those deemed likely to have a significant impact on children. Each assessment would be prepared by a nonpartisan governmental agency, such as the General Accounting Office. >s As an example,a proposal outlining a state health program to serve low-income children previously served by the federal Medicaid program would be examined according to the estimated impact on children receiving preventive health care,their access to other health care services,and the quality of care they would receive. The impact on various populations of children also would be presented. Children's Impact Statement All federal legislative and budget proposals deemed to have a significant impact on children must be analyzed according to their potential to help or harm children. The CIS would state the likelihood that a proposal would make progress toward at least one of the following: • healthier children • better educated children • safer communities • greater work,educational and personal development opportunities for young people • greater economic security for families. The CIS would also specify relevant indicators (e.g.,infant mortality rates, school test scores,youth employment figures) that should be monitored to gauge progress toward the proposal's intended outcomes. The CIS would also analyze: 4 whether the proposal would disproportionately impact children of a particular age,economic background,or region; • what proportion of the overall problem the proposal would address; • the likelihood that all children who need services actually would be served (in proposals concerning direct services to children) . This analysis would provide elected representatives the necessary information to make informed decisions on issues affecting children. The CIS and the votes of individual elected representatives would be made available to the public and to the media,who could then use this information to hold representatives accountable for their support of children. Children Now Page 11 . B. Accountability of Public Agencies Over the past year,public programs that support children and.families have come under intense scrutiny--with prominent national representatives calling for the dismantling of many children's programs. If we are to ensure that children receive the basic support they need as well as satisfy the public's desire to see tax dollars spent efficiently and effectively, -j we must require public services to demonstrate their effectiveness in achieving substantive outcomes for children. True government reform for children would mean that at all levels of public service delivery. --city,county and state-- we would regularly re-examine the dollars we spend and the strategies we use according to their actual effectiveness in improving children's lives. If current strategies do not prove reasonably effective, it would be incumbent-upon public leaders to assess the barriers to achieving results, and then to either restructure, augment or eliminate current programs. National polls indicate that most people support adequate public investment in education, children's health and other children's services,but they also want to ensure that-their 1 dollars are being spent efficiently and wisely. A Model for Accountability A support system for children that is accountable for outcomes should include the following components: • A clear statement of the program's goals (which would relate to the,state's. goals),measures of success and a timeline; •- A set of standards for the services designed to achieve those goals;these standards would guard against inequities or discrimination; I ' Appropriate funding to achieve desired results; • A set of indicators for measuring and assessing progress regarding children served, quality of services provided and results achieved; IJ j A system of frequent reviews and public.reporting of results for.children; A system ofrewards and consequences to the agency responsible according to the:program's,progress in meeting its objectives. * A great deal of work has been conducted in the field of outcome-based measures for public agency accountability. In addition to an array of research-based models outlining desirable components of such systems,various governmental entities are experimenting with innovative ways to re-focus their work on outcomes for children. A reference list is provided on page 18. Children Now Page 12 'r DIV TOP OF THE CLASS: AB 1741 – Youth Pilot Programfor Outcome-Based Services Alameda, Contra Costa Marin, Placer and San Diego In 1993, the State Legislature and Governor Pete Wilson passed AB 1741 (Bates), which established the five-year Youth Pilot Program to improve the coordination and delivery of social services for California children and families. The Youth Pilot Program takes several bold steps in initiating service reform – first, it decategorizes existing program funds (public and private) to allow for more flexibility in integrating services; second, the program sanctions waivers for any fiscal and administrative barriers to service integration; and lastly, the program concentrates on measurable outcomes for children and families in evaluating its success. Five California counties—Alameda,Contra Costa,Marin,Placer and San.Diego-were selected to particpate in the pilot program. .Through the program, all five counties are encouraged to experiment with collaborative approaches to funding and delivery of social services.Reflective of the program's emphasis on planning and decision-making,each county must conduct a community needs assessment,outline a plan for integration of services;develop specific,measurable outcomes for the children and families targeted,and monitor these goals consistently in program evaluation. Moreover,to accurately gauge success, program evaluations will be based on how (and to.what extent)program efforts have directly helped children and families,and not on the level of efficiency resulting from service integration. Placer County has initiated the Special Multi-Agency Administration and Resource Team (SMART),which incorporates the key components of the pilot program.In operation since 1987, SMART predates AB 1741's passage. SMART aims for interagency collaborative efforts for efficient delivery of comprehensive quality services, with flexibility in funding allocation. SMART targets children and youth at-risk of out-of-home placement, with severe emotional and behavioral problems, or in families in need of multiple services involving several agency programs. Last year, Placer County officials initiated a new service payment plan that encourages;service providers to focus on a child's needs, without being hampered by program definitions...Also, SMART developed a model leadership structure for constructive feedback on.service quality. improvement. Leadership groups consisting of mid-level managers and consumers, including parents and community-based organizations meet regularly for case conferences and for evaluation of program process. Soon Placer County, as well as the other four counties participating in the pilot program, will present models for future statewide implementation of comprehensive quality services and ' integrated service-delivery. i Children Now Page 13 Benefits of Accountability for Outcomes A focus on results has the potential to benefit children in a number of ways. First, results- based accountability can replace rigid bureaucratic rules and allow greater flexibility to tailor . services at the local level,with the understanding that agencies are accountable for certain basic service standards and for ultimate results for children. Second,the emphasis on. evaluation of results promotes frequent, critical re-examination of current strategies and, <± therefore,provides a mechanism for ending ineffective practices. Finally,communicating to taxpayers the results of services for children will strengthen support for investments that improve children's well-being. Next Steps for California The Legislature and Governor should: Al support the inclusion of a CIS in the analyses of designated legislative and budget measures. Individual representatives can begin setting an example immediately by specifying the children's impact of their own proposals. support a process to develop a core set of goals for California's children and the indicators by which we would measure our progress in attaining those goals. These core goals would serve to guide policymaking and agency actions at the state and local level. With a common set of goals and indicators, agencies may be more likely to work together in complementary efforts. These objectives would inform the activities'-of the private sector as well--hopefully guiding business and philanthropic decisions. State agencies and other service providers should evaluate their current systems of operation and develop specific measures to gauge their progress in achieving results for children. County governments.should institute the same process of setting goals, determining measurements and reviewing outcomes to benefit children. Counties could establish local models that,would guide the state in developing its own.. i:i??;7 Individuals should ask their elected representatives about the impact their actions will have on California children. 4 The'media should focus greater attention on the.impact on children:that would result from proposals under discussion in Sacramento and Washington,D.C. I ;j Children Now Page 14 TOP OF THE CLASS: OREGON BENCHMARKS In 1989,the Oregon State Legislature created the Oregon Progress Board, a panel of leading citizens chaired by the governor, and charged the Board with the task of developing and monitoring a state strategy to promote Oregon's economic progress. With the input of hundreds of Oregon residents,the Board developed Oregon Benchmarks, 272 measures of Oregon's progress relating to child and family well-being,as well as environmental and economic concerns. Oregon Benchmarks outlines goals in each area for the years 1995, 2000 and 2010. For example,Oregon has set incremental goals to increase the percentage of third grade students who reach an established reading skill level from 80% today to 99%in the year 2010. Oregonians seek to reduce their rate of child abuse from 9 reports per 1,000 children today to no more than 2 reports r< � in the year 2010. These common benchmarks have helped to focus and coordinate the efforts of the public and private sector on behalf of children and families. The state government is using the benchmarks for establishing budget priorities and the benchmarks are widely used in community planning. In 1993,the Legislature directed all state agencies to develop performance measures with ties to the benchmarks and many local goverments are pursuing a similar model. In the j private sector,the Oregon Community Foundation and Portland area United Way use the benchmarks to focus their grantmaking priorities. By setting high goals for child well-being and regularly monitoring the state's progress toward achieving those goals, Oregon serves as a national model in public accountability for children. Reference List.- Children's ist.Children's Defense Fund,"Crafting Block Grants That Help--Not Hurt--Children"(Washington, `8 DC 1995). Gardner,Sid,"Reform Options for the Intergovernmental Funding System: Decatagorization Policy Issues'(Washington,DC: The Finance Project, 1995). National Association of Child Advocates,`Benchmarking: A Strategic Approach to Change for Child Advocates"(Washington,DC, 1995). I National Center for Service Integration,"Making a Difference: Moving to Outcome-Based Accountability for Comprehensive Service Reforms"(Falls Church,VA: NCSI, 1994). I I Children Now Page 15 IV. CONCLUSION The reality faced by children in California today is one of limited opportunities for educational advancement, skill building,recreation, and healthy development. How California ensures beneficial outcomes in health, education, safety and economic security will affect all children as well as every California adult. Though our children will lead California into the future, we all share in the outcome. The Children's Accountability Act, if enacted, would be an important step toward refocusing government on children's well-being. Yet,each one of us has a role to play in improving children's lives -- as parents, neighbors, employers, voters, community members and leaders--and we can begin today to help children in our own community. .Call or write Children Now for ideas and specific information about how to make an important difference for kids in your neighborhood,community and the state of California. Find out today the many ways you can be a part of the solution. i i I I , i { Children Now Page 16 V. A GUIDE TO THE FACTS: STATE BENCHMARKS FOR CHILDREN j FAMILY ECONOMICS 1. CHILD CARE The percentage of children whose families need affordable child care, and the actual number that are currently being served. California Trend: There is no annual count of the number of children in California whose families need child care,nor the number of children currently served: • About 18,000=2000 children were served through subsidized school-age care. • Approximately 150,000 children are enrolled in State Department of'Education programs,among which include school-age,general child development,and preschool programs. • In December 1994,DSS reports that 33,049 families received Title IV-A child care with 46,148-children receiving care. Title-IV-A programs,among which include GAIN,Transitional Child Care and CAL Learn for teen parents,provide child care subsidies or reimbursement to low-income,working families and to families on AFDC. For 1992 tax returns,797,000.California filers received a tax credit for child care,a total of$106 million. National Average: Not available. State Rank: Not available. Source: California State Department of Education, Child Development Division; California State Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau; Franchise Tax Board,Public t 2r1 Affairs (pers. comm. 1995). l 2. HOMELESS CHILDREN The number of children and youth under age 18 who live in shelters:and on the street { because they have no home. California Trend: There is no annual count to document the extent of homelessness among families, particularly those with children. Given that California has one of the highest housing costs among.states, many families, particularly low-income and those with children, experience difficulty securing affordable,permanent.housing. Based on 1991 housing market estimates by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development, a modest, two-bedroom apartment in California rented for$750, which ranked California second highest in housing costs among states. Children Now Page 17 59-3 In 1994, the State Department of Social Services provided assistance to more than 118,000 low-income families for temporary and permanent housing. An annual multi-city survey conducted by the U.S.Conference of Mayors documented the prevalence of homelessness in four California cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Santa Monica). In 1994, requests for emergency assistance by homeless families in Los Angeles increased-sixty percent from the previous year and half of the requests went unmet due to lack of resources. Similarly, San Diego and San Francisco experienced respective increases of ten and twelve percent in families requesting housing assistance,yet both cities reported that families were turned away.Families with children accounted for one-quarter of the homeless population in both cities,and 19 percent in Los Angeles. Children accounted for more than half of all homeless family members in San Francisco, and at least 2/3 in both San Diego and Los Angeles. Lastly, for low-income families seeking assistance through public housing, the wait period ranged from 13 months to a year and a half for Los Angeles and San Francisco,respectively,__As evidence of the lack of options and resources available for affordable housing,all four California cities are no longer accepting applications for at.least one housing assistance program due to an extensive waiting list. National Average: Not available. Rank: Not available. Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; California Homeless and Housing Coalition, "Facts on Housing and Homelessness" (1992); California State Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau; The United States Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hugger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1994 (Washington, DC: U.S Conference of Mayors, December 1994) j 3. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE The maximum monthly,.AFDC grant for a family of three with no other income compared to the fair market rent (FMR) for the state. The figures in parentheses are the inflation j adjusted .value of grant payments in 1989-90 dollars. Also shown is' the number of children receiving,AFDC payments for that year. i California Trend: 1990-91 . 1991=92` 1992-93 1993-94 _ J AFDC Grant: $694 $663 . $624 $607 ? >? $$(89/90): ($663) ($601) ($556) ($528) FMR/%of income: $640(97%) * * $635.005%) #of Children 1.4 million 1.6 million 1.7 million 1.8 million Note: For 1994-95, the AFDC monthly grant remains at a maximum of$607 for,a family of three with no other income, 58% of the official poverty level. In 1994,just 8.7%of California AFDC families receiving housing aid. *Information not available. National Average: In January 1994, the median state's maximum monthly grant for a family of three with no other income was $366 and the FMR for a one-bedroom was $417. The rent equaled 115%of the family's income. State Rank: 19th. Source: California State Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau (pers. comm. 1995); U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Overview of Children Now Page 18 ti Entitlement Programs: The Green _Book. 1994 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Technical and Computer Support(pers. comm. 1995); note calculation by Children Now. 4. HUNGRY CHILDREN is< The number of children who experience hunger. California, Trend. Currently, there is no annual count of the extent of hunger among families,particularly those with children: The-best related indicator of malnutrition is undoubtedly the poverty rate, which,tracks the amount of persons without sufficient income to provide for their basic needs; he: food; clothing! and', shelter. In 1993; 23 million (or 2&.6%) of California's children were living below.the federal poverty level($11,890 for a family of three-in 1993): f Several recent studies provide information illustrating the prevalence of hunger in California and its.devastating impact on the lives of children.,A study by the California Policy Seminar released earlier this year defined hunger as "food insecurity." -- lack of access and resources to sufficient food without resorting to emergency food assistance, theft and other.crisis.actions. Based on 1993 poverty.and population data, the study estimates that the approximately 5 million Californians, including two million children; living below the federal,poverty level experience hunger. Increased participation in food assistance programs elucidates the growing number of low- income families.unable to provide for their dietary needs. In March 1994, 3.5 million California residents, 70% of whom are children, received food stamps. The average monthly benefit in California in 1994 was$63.14, or only 47% of the USDA's estimate of monthly food costs for an average three-person family in the western region. In 1993, 1.7 million California children received free or reduced-price schoof lunches, and more than 635,000 participated in the School Breakfast programs. Moreover,a daily average of over 138 ,000 children (less than 5% of all eligible) participated in the 1993 Summer Food program during the month of July. Finally, an annual multi-city survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors provides detailed information on hunger in four California cities (Los Angeles, San _ Francisco, San Diego and Santa Monica). Last year, more than three'-fourths of L.A. residents requesting emergency food assistance were from families with children. Santa `i Monica reported that it was unable to meet 40%of the demand for emergency food(30% unmet need in both San Francisco and San Diego). National Average: Relying on 1993 population and poverty data, as used in the j California Policy Seminar's study, an estimated 39.3 million people, including 15.8 million children, nationwide living below the federal poverty level are experiencing ! hunger: In 1993;a national survey on emergency food assistance conducted by Second Harvest,the largest U.S.provider of emergency food relief,showed that nearly 22 million people(or 8.8.%of total U.S.population)received emergency food through its programs. Seventy-seven percent of Second Harvest programs reported that due to inadequate food supplies,they had to turn people away. Nationwide in 1993, 27 million people received food stamps, including more than 14 million children. On atypical day, 8.6 million U.S.low-income children received free or ?j subsidized school lunches, and over 3 million children were served through the School Breakfast programs. Additionally, the average daily attendance for the Summer Food program during the month of July was 2.1 million children. Children Now Page 19 SDI"" Recent studies on hunger and its impact on children and families have linked malnutrition and severe nutritional deficiencies to the potential for healthy growth and development. The U.S.Department of Agriculture estimates that only 12%of families living below the poverty level actually receive the basic nutrients necessary in a healthy diet. The Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy at Tufts University recently released its study comparing the dietary intake of poor and non-poor children ages 1-5. According to the ?i study, poor children had a greater likelihood of nutritional deficiencies than non-poor children. Specifically,poor children are 2.5 times more likely to have lower food calorie intakes than higher income children. In 1993, an estimated.4 million poor children . received insufficient amounts of zinc, more than 3 million children did not get enough iron, and over 2.5 million lacked the recommended daily intake for vitamin E. With 33%-50%of poor children nutritionally deficient in nutrients vital for positive growth and development, the study concludes that these children are at greater risk for illness, including anemia,fatigue and stunted growth. State Rank: Not available. Source: California State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center, Current Population Survey Report, March 1994; California Policy Seminar; Hunger and Food. W.— Insecurity in California'(Berkeley, CA: Regents of the University of California, 1995); California-Nevada Community Action Association, Hunger in California: A State of Need (Sacramentoi CA: Cal-Neva, June 1994); The United States Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: 1994 (Washington, DC: U.S Conference of Mayors, December 1994); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Services; Children's Defense Fund; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60-188, Income Poverty. and Valuation of Noncash Benefits 1993 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995);' Center on.Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, "Differences in Nutrient Adequacy.Among Poor and Non-Poor Children" (Medford,MA:Tufts University,March 1995). j ' 5. CHILD SUPPORT Percentage of cases with current support due in the month of September* that actually received some payment. i *September presents a snapshot month of child'support collection and;may,be considered, typical in child support payment. As of September 1994 over 2.2 million cases were in the state child support system,representing over 3.3 million children:. California.Trend: September: 1991 1992 1993 199,4.- .42.9% 99'4__.42.9%a 43.8%, 40:1% 37.1% .(483,865 cases) i An additional 240,000 cases with orders either- were not due payment this particular month or had no specific amount set. As of September 1994, 1.3 million cases (or 57.5% of child support caseload) were without support orders, and required paternity establishment,order establishment or location of noncustodial parents. i National Average: 60% in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1993. State Rank: 40 out of 46 states for the FFY 1993. California collected payment on 43%of the cases(420,466 total)in FFY 1993 for which current support was due. Source; California State Department of Social Services, Child Support Management Information System, Annual Report Fiscal Year 1993/1994 and September 1994 CS 825B. Annual Point in Time Report of Counts (Sacramento, CA: DSS, 1994), calculations by Children Now Page 20 Children Now; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, 18th Annual Report to Congress on Child Support Enforcement Fiscal Year 93 (Washington, DC: U.S. DHHS, 1994). California State Department of Social. Services, Child Support Enforcement Program, A Characteristics Survey on The Social and Economic Characteristics of Families Receiving Child Support,Enforcement Services During the Study Month of June 1993 (Sacramento,CA: DSS,in press) 6. CHILDREN IN POVERTY The number and percentage of children under age 18 living below the poverty level ($11,890 annual income for a family of three in 1993). California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1,993 Poverty Rate 22.3% 25.3% 24.4% 28.6% #of Children 1.8 million 2.2 million 2.1 million 2.7 million N=: The poverty threshold is froin the U.S. Bureau of the Census and is based on the Consumer Price Index. For eligibility for federal programs, families must meet the poverty guidelines as defined by the U.S.Department for Health and Human Services(in 1993,$11,890 for a family of three). National: Average: 23.5% for all persons under the age of 18 (or 16.2 million) in 1993. State Rank: 37th in 1992. State Rank reflects five-year average of income received during 1989-1993. Source: California State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center, Current Population Survey Reports (1991-1994); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty and Wealth Branch; U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Technical and Computer Support (pers. comm. 1995); state rank from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count: State Profiles of Well-Being. 1995 (Baltimore, MD: AEC Foundation, 1995). TEEN OPPORTUNITY if=s' 7. COLLEGE BOUND STUDENTS { The percentage of recent public and private high school graduates who go on to I postsecondary education in California public and independent colleges and universities.* California Trend: Total 1993 graduates: 272,800 1990 1991 1992 1993 59.6% 60.1% 57.6% 57.2% Note: All past year figures published in previous,State of Our Children documents have been revised due to corrections in reported figures,and to also include the percentage of graduates that enroll in Californias independent institutions. 1 Children Now Page 21 1 7 r * According to the National Center for Education Statistics,approximately 4-5% additional graduates enroll in out-of state institutions each year. National Average*: Not available. State Rank: Not available. Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission, Student Profiles. 1994 (Sacramento, CA: PEC, March 1995) and The State of the State's Educational Enterprise (Sacramento,CA: PEC, December 1993). 8. UNEMPLOYED YOUTH The number and percentage of 16-to 19-year-olds who are unemployed and are actively looking for work. California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1993 Percent 15.6% 20.1% 25.1% 26.2% Number 121,000 153,000 187,000 193,000 National Average; 19.0% (1,296,000) in 1993. State Rank: 50th in 1993. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment.Statistics, Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment. 1993, Bulletin #2446 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, September 1994). -i rtr 9. TEEN BIRTHS i The number of births to females ages 15 to 19 per 1,000 females of that.age group. i California Trend: 1989 1990 1991 1992 64 71 75 74 (69,401) National Average: 61 in 1992. €f€ State Rank: 43rd in.1992. Source: Child Trends, Inc., Facts At A Glance (Washington, DC: Child Trends, February 1995); Califomia State Department of Health Services, Office of Vital Records and Statistics (pers.comm. 1995);state rank calculated by Children Now. . 10. DRUG AND .ALCOHOL USE The percentage of 11th grade students using beer, marijuana, or cocaine once per week or more often. California Trend: 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 Beer 19.5% 16.1% 17.4% 17.2% Marijuana 8.5% 6.9% 8.3%* 14.5% Cocaine 1.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% Children Now Page 22 * Figure has been corrected from error in previous The State of Our Children document. Note: Only 59%of California-11th graders view marijuana use as harmful. The lure of marijuana and other drugs has also attracted younger students,as one-fourth of 7thgraders and 42% of 9th graders reported using an illicit drug in the six months prior to the survey. 40%of 9th graders and more than one-third of l Ith graders surveyed reported the absence of alcohol/drug prevention classes at their schools in the last year. Rates of alcohol use have remained relatively stable among these grades in recent years. Nonetheless,ignoring widespread attention on the dangers of drinking and driving,nearly one-third of California 9th graders and 41% of 11th graders reported being in a car in which they or a friend was"drinking and driving." In 1993, 123 California children(ages 0-17 years)were killed and more than 4,700 injured in alcohol-related accidents. Of those injured,54%were high school age youth. National Average: National data available uses different data sets, and thus, is not comparable to California's data. It is important to note that when compared to seniors nationally, California 11th graders have lower rates of alcohol use, but higher rates of illegal drug use. For example, 26% of California 11th graders used marijuana in the 30 days prior to the survey,as compared to 16%of seniors surveyed nationally. National statistics also document substance use among junior high school students, and their perceptions of harm from frequent drug use. Nearly half of the 8th graders surveyed had tried cigarette smoking. Peak initiation grades for smoking were identified as 6th and 7th grades,though 18%of 8th graders reported having had their first cigarette in the fifth grade. Only 53% of 8th graders and 61% of 10th graders view smoking a pack of cigarettes a day as harmful. More alarming, 3.6% and 4.3% of 8th and 10th graders respectively,reported using cocaine at least once,and only slightly more than half the 8th graders associated crack cocaine use with"great risk"(a 8.5%drop since1991). State Rank: Not available. Source: Rainey Skaser and Gregory Austin, Fifth Biennial California Student Substance Use Survey for Grades 7. 9.and 11. 1993-94: Preliminary Findings. June 21. 1994 (Sacramento, CA: DOJ,in press);U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring The Future Study. 1975-93 (Maryland: NIDA, 1994); California Highway Patrol, Office of Public Affairs. i 11. INCARCERATED JUVENILES xl;' I The number of juveniles placed in custody in public institutions (including California Youth Authority, county juvenile halls and camps) per 100,000 juveniles. California Trend: ` 1985 1987 1989 1991 430 498 529 492 National Average: 221 per 100,000 juveniles in 1991. State Rank: 50th in 1991. Note: The Department of Justice (DOJ) commissions the Census Bureau to conduct a survey of juvenile detention,correctional and shelter facilities every other year. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Children in Custody 1991: Public Juvenile Facilities (Washington D.C.: DOJ,April 1993). Children Now Page 23 SAFETY . 12. CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT The number of children reported for abuse and neglect (known as emergency responses) per 1,000 children. �i California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1993 Number 553,777 571,214 615,602 660,942 Rate per 1,000 70.4 70.3 74.0 77.7 National Average: 43.2 per 1,000 children in 1992. The comparable figure for California in 1992 was 55 per 1,000. State Rank: 40th in 1992. Note: The state rates were calculated with information provided by the California State Department of Social Services, and are not directly comparable to national figures. The national average and state rank were calculated from U.S. Department of Health and" Human Services's Summary Data, as compiled by the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect. The rate for 1992 published in previous State of Our Children documents was recalculated using revised population estimates from the California State Census Data Center. Source: California State Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau; California State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center, 1993 Series Population Projections and 'Budget Letter #94-06; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Child Maltreatment 1992: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994); calculations Children Now. 13. FOSTER CARE The number and rate per 1,000 children under 18 years of age who are in out-of- home/substitute care, including children in foster care(relative and non-relative homes) and children on probation who are not in institutionalized care(i.e., California Youth Authority, county camps,etc.). California Trend: Jan 1992 Jan 1993 Jan 1994 Jan 1995 1 Number 81,651 85,031 90,107 94,509- Rate 4,509Rate per 1,000 9.8 10.0 10.4 10.6 National Average: 6.6 per 1;000 children (449,000) in 1993. State Rank: Not available. Source: California State Department of Social Services, Information Services Bureau; American Public Welfare Association (pers. comm. 1995) —reference to ChildSubstitute Care Flow Data Fiscal Year 93, Voluntary Cooperative Information System (Washington, DC; APWA, December.1994); California State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center., 1993 Series Population Projections and Budget Letter #94-06; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104, Population Projections of the United States by Age. Sex. Race. and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050, November 1993; calculations by Children Now. Children Now Page 24 14. DRUG EXPOSED BABIES The prevalence of drug or alcohol use among pregnant women and the percentage of infants born exposed. California Trend: No annual statewide statistics are available. A statewide prevalence study was conducted in 1992 by the California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,and according to the study, the prevalence rate of drug and alcohol use among pregnant women in hospitals for delivery statewide was approximately 11%,or about 69,000 women. About 1 in 20 pregnant women had used one or more types of drugs, not including alcohol and tobacco. One in 14 drank alcohol, and 1 in 11 smoked cigarettes, in the hours or days before delivery. For women who did not receive prenatal care,30%tested positive for alcohol or drug use, and were seven times more likely to test positive for drug/alcohol exposure than women who received prenatal care. f ' National Average: Not available. State Rank: . Not available. Source: California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Office of Perinatal Substance Abuse, Profile of Alcohol and Drug Use During Pregnancy in California. 1992 (Sacramento,CA: DADP,September 1993). 15. YOUTH HOMICIDE The number and rate of homicides of persons younger than 20 years of age per 100,000 population. California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1993 Number 702 828 781 . 857 i Rate per 100,000 8.0 9.2 8.6 9.2 National.Average: 5.8 homicides per 100,000 persons under 20 in 1993 (4,375). State Rank: .Not available. Source: California State Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Information Center, Homicide in California. 1993 and Homicide in California. 1992 (Sacramento, CA: DOJ, 1993, 1992); Federal Bureau of Investigation; Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States (Washington, DC: FBI, December 4, 1994); California State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center, 1993 Series Populations Projections and Budget Letter#94-06; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1104, Population Projections of the United States by Age. Sex. Race. and Hispanic f Origin: 1993 to 2050, November 1993; calculations by Children Now. I ! i Children Now Page 25 .r v� HEALTH 16. INFANT MORTALITY The number of infants who die in their first year of life per 1,000 live births. California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1993 7.9 7.5 6.9 6.8 (3,925 deaths) National Average: 8.3 deaths per 1,000 live births (or 34,628 deaths) in.1991 State Rank: 7th in 1993. Source:'.California State Department of Health Services, Office of Vital Records and Statistics, calculations by Children Now; U.S. Department of Health and,Human Services, ?'? National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report: Annual Summary of Births Marriages Divorces and Deaths: United States 1993, Vol. 42,No. 13, October 11, 1994. 17. PRENATAL CARE The proportion of infants born to women who received no prenatal care or no care until the last three months of pregnancy.* California Trend: ! 1989 1990 1991 1992 i 7.2% 7.0% 6.3% 5.3% X2te: To make our figures consistent and comparable to national data,past year figures i published in previous State of Our Children documents have been revised to exclude women with unknown prenatal care from calculation. �R * It is important to clarify that access to prenatal care does not equate with appropriate care received. The Kessner Index was developed to chart the timing and quantity of prenatal care,and also the baby's gestational age with three levels of care: adequate, . intermediate and inadequate. Basedupon the Index in.1992,only.70%,of all U.S. mothers received.adequate care,and 7%received inadequate care. Thus,although more women are seeking early care, 1/3 of U.S. mothers still do not receive the:appropriate care needed for optimal pregnancy outcomes. National Average: 5.2% in 1991 State Rank: 39th in 1992. Source: California State Department of Health Services, Office of Vital Records and Statistics, calculations by Children Now; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report: Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics. 1992, Vol. 43, No. 5 (S), October 25, 1994. Children Now Page 26 18. IMMUNIZATIONS The percentage of two-year-olds appropriately immunized for their age. Full vaccination is defined as 4 doses of DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), 3 doses of OPV (oral.polio vaccine), and 1 dose of MMR(measles, mumps, rubella). California figures reflects the percentage of kindergarten children (mostly age 5)who were appropriately immunized at age two, or three years earlier. All figures included in previous State of Our Children documents have been revised to report full vaccination levels. California Trend: Year of Survey: 1991 1992 1993 1994 48.7% 48.2% 48.4% 57.2% National Average: Nationwide, 67.1% of two-year-olds in 1993 were appropriately immunized. State Rank: Not available. ',i Source: California State Department of Health Services, Immunization Branch, "IZ Pact Sheet" (1994); national average from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Immunization Branch, "Vaccination Coverage of Two- Year-Old Children United States, 1993", Reprint from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, October 7, 1994, Vol. 43, No. 39,pp. 705-724. 19. UNINSURED CHILDREN The percentage and number of children under age 18 who had no health insurance coverage,public or private,through an entire year. Children who had even. a single day of coverage during the year are not counted as uninsured. Thus, we suspect that many more children are uninsured for some part, if not most, of the year. California Trend: 1990 1991 1992 1993 Percent 21'% 20% 19% 21% #of Children 1.72 million 1.71 million 1.64. million 1.92 million. ote: In 1988,the Census Bureau changed the formula used to determine the number of uninsured children in the U.S. As a result, the new count of uninsured children nationwide was lower than previous counts. To make California figures consistent with national'data and comparable for long-term trends, we have recalculated all past figures according to the post-1988 formula. National Average: 17% (or nearly 12 million uninsured children) in 1993. State Rank: 41st in 1993. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey Report, March 1994, calculations by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Children Now Page 27 ' Ir 20. USE OF NUTRITION PROGRAM The average monthly number and the percentage of eligible pregnant and nursing mothers, infants; and,children younger: than 5 who receive WIC (the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children). California does not provide funding for the WIC program. The increase in the number of women and children served is due solely to increased federal funds. California Trend: Federal Fiscal Year 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Number 446,678 486,254 537,496 658,466 837,704 Percent eligible 37% * * 44% 59% Note: The California estimate is based on the number of pregnant women and children living below 200%of the federal poverty.level ($11,890 for a family of.;three in 1993), and does not take nutritional risk into account. *Data is,not available. National Average: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 9.6 million women and children are eligible for WIC. The average monthly participation in FY 94 was 6,445,728 -- 67% of the estimated eligible. National eligibility is limited'to those with incomes below 185%of thepoverty level and who are at nutritional risk. State Rank: Not available. Source: California State Department of Health Services; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Center.for Budget and Policy Priorities; Califomia Food Policy Advocates:. i 21. MENTAL HEALTH The percentage of children under age 18 who need mental health services and receive them. California Trend: According to.several past studies, estimates of the number of children with diagnosable mental disorders range from 12%to 22%of the total child/adolescent population(ages 5- > 17). A. 1994 household survey by the California State Department.of Mental Health estimated that 445,000-623,000 children, or approximately 5-7% of California children, i need special.mental health services..In FY 93,approximately 75,000 children were served through local county mental health programs. National,Average: Not available. _ State Rank: Not available. Source: California State Department of Mental Health, Systems of Care,."Children and Adolescents" (tablas/Jerrell), The California Household Mental Health Survey of 1992 (Sacramento, CA: DMH, January 1994); Califomia State Department of Finance, State Census Data Center,Budget Letter#94706; calculations by Children.Now. Children Now. Page 28 EDUCATION 22. DROPOUT RATE The percentage of 10th, 11th and 12th graders who leave school and do not notify the school of a change of residence. 1) cumulative estimate: The estimated three-year cumulative dropout rate for a graduating class from the time they enter 10th grade. 2) event: reflects the actual loss in one year for all three grades. California Trend': Class of:- . 1990 1991 1992 1993 3-year cumulative: 20.2% 18.2% 16.5% 15.2% 1-year event: 6.9% 6.2% 5.6% 5.2% National Average: The national one year dropout rate for the Class of 1993 was 4.5%or approximately 381,000 students. State Rank: For public high school graduates as a percentage of 9th grade enrollment four years earlier, California ranked 40th for Class of 1992 (68.6% or 244,594 total graduates). The national percentage was 71.2%. Source: California State Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Dropout Rates in the United States. 1993 (Washington, DC: LACES, September 1994). 23. PRESCHOOL EDUCATION The number and percentage of three-, four-, and five-year-olds who receive early childhood education through programs such as Head Start. i California Trend: No data is collected to measure the extent of need for early childhood education in California. In 1994,approximately 40,000 children were served through the Department of Education's Preschool Programs: In addition,almost 71,000 low-income children were ! served through Head Start programs. Unfortunately,no data is available on the extent of unmet need for preschool education in j California, since no information is collected annually on the number of preschool-age children who would qualify for programs based on their families' income. Our best indicator of the unmet need of preschool education for children from low-income families is the Head Start program, which served an estimated 28% of all eligible children in California in FY 93. National Average: Not available. With $3.3 billion appropriated by Congress in the federal fiscal year 1994,740,493 U.S. children received preschool education through the Head Start program. Of the approximately 2 million children eligible for the program in FFY 93,an estimated 36%were served. State Rank: Not available. Children Now Page 29 Source: California State Department of Education, Child Development Division; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau, "Project Head Start Statistical Fact Sheet" (February 1995); On the Capitol Doorstep, "Fact Sheet: Child Development and Preschool Programs" (1994); Children's Defense Fund. 24. - STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO The number of pupils in average daily attendance per teacher in California public elementary and secondary schools.* California Trend: Fall 1990 Fall 1991 Fall 1992 Fall 1993 23.2 23.0 23.9 DA * The figures above reflect our change in reporting student/teacher ratio based on average daily attendance,rather than enrollment,as experts note that student attendance yields a more accurate count of students in the classroom. National Average: 16 pupils in average daily attendance per teacher in Fall 1993. State Rank: 51st in Fall 1993. Source: National Education Association, Ranking of the States. 1994 (Washington, DC`: NEA, 1994). 25. PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES The current expenditures for public elementary and secondary day schools per pupil in average daily attendance. California Trend: 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 $4,540* $4,592 $4,620 $4,640 *Unpublished revision by the California Department of Education. National Average: $5,730 per pupil in 1993-94. State Rank: 40th in 1993-94. Source: National Education Association, Ranking of the States. 1994 (Washington, DC: NEA, 1994); California State Department of Education, Fiscal Policy Planning and Analysis Division. 26. READING AND MATH SKILLS The average proficiency in overall math and reading comprehension for 4th and 8th graders, as determined by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). California Trend: MATH* 1990 1992 4th grade n/a 207 8th grade 256 260 Children Now Page 30 S D National Average: 217 for 4th graders and 266 for 8thgraders in 1992. State Rank: 38th for 4th graders and 28th for 8th graders(out of 41 states) in 1992. * Proficiency levels for both grades: (200) simple addition and problem solving; (250) simple multiplication and 2-step problem solving; j (300) reasoning and problem solving for fractions,decimals,percents, elementary geometry and simple algebra. READING 1990 1992 4th grade n/a 203 National Average: 216 for 4th graders in 1992. State Rank: 40th (out of 41 states) in 1992. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics. 1993 and Digest of Education Statistics. 1994 (Washington, DC: NCES, ?f''•` ? October 1993, October 1994). Comments on Methodology Trend Analysis: In order to analyze the trend for each benchmark,the most recent 4 years of data are presented. A trend was considered to be improving if performance improved for the most recent 2 years. If the pattern was not consistent for 2 consecutive years, we included the performance for a third year in our analysis. If there was still no consecutive 2-year pattern, we compared the performance in the earliest year presented with the most recent year. An "incomplete" indicates that the data to determine a trend is not available. An "n/a" indicates that the data for comparison to other states is not available. Comparison to the National Average: The analysis of"better"or"worse"than the national average is based on whether California performed better or worse during + w� the most recent year for which data are available. The overall percentage for each category is calculated by averaging California's state rank for which data is available. Children Now Page 31 S� 3 Acknowledgments Children Now would like to express out gratitude to all individuals, organizations, State of California and federal agencies who contributed their knowledge, technical assistance and resource materials towards production of California: State of Our Children, 1995. We are especially grateful for the invaluable insight and guidance provided by Children Now Policy Advisors (listed on page 34) in the development of this document. In addition to those already credited for the information outlined in this document,we would like to thank the following for their assistance in data collection and clarification: Association for Bay Area Governments (ABAG) California Child Care Resource&Referral Network California Head Start Association California Homeless and Housing Coalition California Youth Authority Center for the Vulnerable Child Child Abuse Council EdSource Metropolitan Transportation Commission/ABAG Library National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse National Criminal Justice Reference Service Policy Analysis for California Education(PACE) The American Humane Association, Children's Division U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance Western Center for Law and Poverty We would like to acknowledge certain individuals whose patient response and repeated assistance to our information requests were greatly appreciated. California Sarah Andrade Nina Grotch Rick Saletta Nancy Austin Rachel Guerrero Carlene Schmidt Ray Bacon Mike Harold Mertie Shelby Marie Benedetto Paula Higashi Jim.Shepherd Linda Birke Rod Hinkle Sandra Silva Brenda Brown Penny Howell Brian Smith Robert Brown Fran Kipnis Bonny Southwick Deane Calhoun ZoAnn Laurente Sherman Spears Fay Cowgill Richard A. Lovelady Lee Stomalyck Tricia Clark Jeanne S.,Ludwig Levi J. St-Mary DePressa Coleman Vince Mandella Kathy Styc Bonnie Collins Donna Martin Susan Thompson Michael R. Cousineau Casey McKeever Laurie True Richard Diaz Barbara Miller Melvin H. Voyles Sharon Eghigian Elisa Nicholas Mary Wakefield Jared Fine Jackie Nod Steve Wirtz Les Fujitani Marco Orlando Rosa Wright Emma Garcia Richard Owen Sara-Jane Gilb Marion Porter Sarah Graeber Charlotte Ray Children Now Page 32 Children Now ' s Policy Advisors Nancy Amidei,Associate Professor of the Center for Policy and Practice Research, University of Washington, School of Social Work Margaret Brodkin,Executive Director,Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth Brian Cahill,General Manager, San Francisco Department of Social Services. Julius L. Chambers, Esq., Chancellor, North Carolina Central University Peter DuBois,Chief Executive Officer, Medical Group of Children's Hospital, Los Angeles Marian Wright Edelman, President, Children's Defense Fund Dan Galpern,Legislative Advocate, Child Development Policy Institute Robert Greenstein, Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Neal Halfon, Associate Professor, UCLA, School of Public Health Kati Haycock,Director,Education Trust,American Association for Higher Education Karen Hill-Scott, Director, Crystal Stairs Hon. Shirley M. Hufstedler, Attorney, Hufstedler, Miller, Kaus, & Beardsley Judith Jones,Director, National Center for Children in Poverty Celeste Kaplan, former President, Los Angeles Roundtable for Children Sam Karp,Chief Executive Officer,HandsNet ' Michael Kirst,Director,Policy Analysis for California Education; Professor of Education, Stanford : ,,• University Dorothy Leonard, Director of Community Services, March of Dimes Jacquelyn McCroskey, Associate Professor, University of Southern California School of Social Work Luis Nogales, Business Consultant; Former Chairman and CEO, UPI; former President of Univision Carolyn Reid-Green, Director, Drew Child Development € Paula Roberts, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Social Policy Ann Rosewater,former Staff Director, Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families Carla Sanger,Co-Chair, School Readiness Task Force; Executive Director, LA's BEST Lisbeth Schorr,Author of Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage;Lecturer in Social Medicine,Harvard Medical School Patty Siegel, Executive Director, Youth.Law Center Robert Valdez, Health Policy Analyst, The Rand Corporation; Assistant Professor of Health Policy and i Management,UCLA School of Public Health i Vivian Weinstein, Board Member, California Children's Council Linda Wong, Co-Chair, Rebuild LA NOTE: Organizational affiliations are listed for identification purposes only Children Now Page 34 Washington, DC and other Gina Adams Ellie Baugher `s Monica Brady Bob Clemons Jan Cooper Alison Cutter Susan Goode Abeni Edelin Gordon Fisher Felisha Hawkins Gerald A. Joireman Herb Lieberman William P. O'Hare Joe Moone Pat Shapiro Arloc Sherman Tom Synder Toshi Tatara Martha Teitelbaum I The California: State of Our Children 1995 reflects the efforts of all Children Now staff. In particular,Amy Abraham and Suzie Jacinthe conducted the principal research,writing and analysis. Lois Salisbury, Stephanie Brady, Lorena Hernandez, Margaret Lyons Pena and Judith Reigel contributed to the overall development of concepts and design. Patty Bulena, Sheri Dunn Berry, Sandra Gross and Sandra Simpson-Fontaine served as editors. Lastly, ` Demetrio Roldan assisted in the layout of the document. I Children Now would like to thank its supporters and its colleagues,who.as individuals and as collectives, actively engage in multiple efforts to improve the quality of life for all of America's children. Children Now Page 33