February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

As we finish off the last of our Valentine’s Day chocolates, it is a good time to celebrate February’s lesser claim to fame: February is National Children’s Dental Health Month.

This month is a time to raise awareness around children’s oral health.  Tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood illness. It is five times more prevalent than asthma, and can be every bit as disruptive to a child’s ability to learn. The pain and suffering endured by children with dental disease can impact their ability to learn and grow, their speech development and overall health. The Surgeon General reports that nationwide, kids miss 51 million school hours each year because of dental-related illnesses. Children who suffer from tooth decay have, on average, lower grade point averages than students with healthier teeth. Poor oral health can also cause children to suffer low self-esteem due to visible decay or missing teeth and delayed speech development and can cause poor concentration. Far too many New York State children suffer from dental disease even though it is largely preventable; a statewide oral health survey revealed one in four New York third graders has untreated decay.

It is vitally important to increase preventive measures, coverage of and access to dental care among underserved children and families in our communities. After all, investing in the prevention of tooth decay in children will help maintain their health as they enter adulthood and will ultimately benefit the State in lower dental treatment costs.

Good oral health can help children stay healthy throughout the year and the rest of their lives. Visit our Oral Health resources page for more information on our work in children’s oral health and check out resources for Children’s Dental Health Month from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Dental Association.[/vc_column_text]

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

Transforming Child Welfare and Children’s Lives

New York entrusts the care of its most vulnerable children—those experiencing child abuse and neglect—to the State’s child welfare system. However, preliminary data associated with a periodic federal review of the State’s child welfare system shows that the State often struggles to produce positive outcomes for those children.  

The data show that children in New York’s system are more likely to experience multiple occurrences of maltreatment, and less likely to be quickly placed in a permanent home than children in nearly every other state. Specifically, children in New York who have been the subject of an indicated report of maltreatment are more likely to experience maltreatment again within the year than children in 46 other states. New York also ranks near the bottom nationally on the time it takes for children in foster care to be placed in a permanent home.[1] 

These numbers are particularly discouraging given that this is the third time New York has undergone the federal review over the course of the decade, and the State has shown little improvement from one review to the next. And this review is one that has repeatedly flown under the radar in Albany. Indeed, the fate of children involved in the child welfare system in general garners little attention except when there is a tragic death, which typically leads to a few days of finger-pointing and firings, but seldom to a searching review of the system, and the root causes of its shortcomings. It is time for the State to take a comprehensive look at what is driving these outcomes, to determine root causes and develop and implement innovative strategies that will improve outcomes: for children and for the State.

The Schuyler Center’s December 13 policy forum will bring together committed and creative child welfare agency leaders from New York and sister states, along with individuals with personal child welfare system experience, to discuss transforming often overlooked and under-resourced child welfare systems. The forum will feature remarks from Sheila Poole, New York’s Acting Commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services; Linda Spears, Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families; and Molly McGrath Tierney, the director of the City of Baltimore’s Department of Social Services. The speakers will also be joined by youth and parent advocates, individuals who have been personally touched by the system. Together, the speakers will highlight innovative and proven practices in child welfare that are improving outcomes for children and families, and which could present a way forward for New York State.

Kate Breslin
President and CEO

[1] Children’s Bureau. (2015, May). CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators – Workbook.[/vc_column_text]

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

Reducing Poverty IS Economic Development

It is beyond dispute that economic development can be an effective way to fight poverty.  So, too, longstanding anti-poverty programs have been proven to stimulate local economies.  For example, researchers have established that raising the EITC has a positive effect in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, improving health outcomes both for families directly receiving increased credits, and for others living in the community.  The multiplier effect is most substantial in communities with many low-income residents, where the local economic impacts can often equal twice that of the number of EITC dollars received by the community.[1]  Yet, New York State has drawn a sharp demarcation between economic development and poverty reduction efforts, investing exponentially fewer resources into poverty reduction than into economic development, not including poverty reduction as a measureable economic development goal, and demanding much better and quicker returns on its poverty reduction investments.  

In last year’s budget, the State allocated $2.5 billion for economic development purposes under various programs, and $25 million to fund poverty reduction programs under the Governor’s Empire State Poverty Reduction Initiative.[2]  In both its economic development and poverty reduction initiatives, the State has taken a regional approach to achieving project goals.  To draw a more specific comparison at the regional level, the Capital Region Economic Development Council was recently awarded $4 million for the Port of Albany to construct a new heavy lift cargo operations building (this was just one of several  funded projects).[3]  Under the Empire State Poverty Reduction Initiative (ESPRI), the City of Albany expects to receive total funding of $1.5 million.[4]  

In the area of economic development, the State has shown a willingness to take a long-view on investments, not requiring significant results for years.  Take the case of Start-Up New York, perhaps the State’s most celebrated economic development project, under which New York State’s colleges and universities partner with new and growing businesses.  Since the inception of the program two years ago, the State has invested tens of millions of dollars promoting the program, and granted more than $1.1 million in tax breaks, yet to date, the program has created just 484 jobs.  The State has defended the program against its many critics, explaining that its investments in advertising and infrastructure were building momentum that would lead to dramatically greater results in the coming year.  The State has given the program five more years to achieve its targeted goal of 4,100 jobs.[5]  

In contrast, the State expects a much quicker return on its considerably smaller investment in poverty reduction initiatives under the ESPRI program.  Specifically, funds are not to be awarded to a proposed project if it will necessitate ongoing State financial support beyond the first allocation.  These “start-up” poverty reduction projects are expected to achieve measurable outcomes and leverage alternative funding almost immediately.

Looking ahead, we urge the State to reorient the demarcation between economic development and poverty reduction initiatives and eliminate the double standards.  Already, the State is encouraging poverty reduction task forces convened under ESPRI to consult with the local Regional Economic Development Council (REDC).  This is an important step.  Next, REDCs should be required to consult with local poverty reduction task forces in communities that have them—or with local human services organizations in communities without task forces—when making regional economic development plans and distributing economic development resources.  Proposed economic development projects with poverty reduction potential should be given priority by REDCs.  At the same time, we also urge the State to give poverty reduction programs more of a chance to succeed by investing real start-up dollars over a longer period of time into promising programs, and providing them with a more realistic timetable for achieving sustainability and measurable outcomes.

Kate Breslin, President & CEO, Schuyler Center for Analysis & Advocacy

[1] Holmes, N., & Berube A. (2015, November 20). The Earned Income Tax Credit and Community Economic Stability. Brookings.

[2]Office of the NYS Comptroller. Report on the State Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Enacted Budget. (2016, May). pp. 26, 28.

[3] Capital Region Economic Development Council. (2015). 2015 Progress Report: The Tech Valley In Focus.  p. 46.

[4] New York State Community Action. (2016, April 5). Policy Alert April 5, 2016.

[5] NYS Empire State Development. (2015). The Business Incentives Report.[/vc_column_text]

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

A Look Back at Session

New York’s 2016 legislative session was a mix of historic wins for New York children and families, and deeply disappointing losses. Most of the big wins came during budget, including Paid Family Leave, which will allow working families to care for newborns or ill family members without risking job loss or losing all pay, and a phased-in hike to the minimum wage, which will pull thousands of New York children and families out of poverty. Another victory for New York children achieved during budget was allocation of an additional $1.5 million for the Foster Youth College Success Initiative (bringing the total to $3 million), which will help more youth in foster care pursue higher education.

The post-budget legislative session saw another important achievement for New York families with the State’s passage of a package of bills to fight the heroin/opioid epidemic. These bills will expand treatment beds and increase program slots for those recovering from opioid use disorder. They will also extend a program of wrap-around services—which provide critical, holistic support to individuals in recovery.

These important victories threaten to be overshadowed by the losses. Once again, the State failed to pass legislation to raise the age of criminal responsibility for juvenile offenders. In fact, raising the age of criminal responsibility did not even make it onto the Governor’s list of priorities this year; With this failure, New York is left as one of only two states—along with North Carolina—to automatically treat all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in our criminal justice system. Nor did the State advance legislation that would have increased the housing subsidy for housing-insecure families involved in the child welfare system and youth who have aged out of foster care. This legislation would also have allowed youth aged out of foster care to have roommates, and would have increased the upper age limit to 24 so that youth who age out of foster care at 21 could avail themselves of the subsidy for 3 years. The failure to enact this sensible legislation means that the housing subsidy remains at the rate set in 1988 (at $300 per month), and continues to leave former foster youth at high risk of homelessness. The opioid legislative package, while an important step forward, failed to make an investment focused on the unique and intersecting treatment, recovery and child well-being needs of pregnant and parenting opioid users and their children. This is a serious failure because with timely access to effective, family-centered treatment programs, parents are much more likely to recover, and children are much more likely to remain safe with their families. Any successful strategy to fight this epidemic must feature such programs.

As a more general matter, the State has continued to underinvest in programs proven to help families and children thrive, and to create cost-savings for the State in the long-term. For instance, the State decreased its funding for evidenced-based home visiting as compared to last year, notwithstanding that this intervention has been proven time and again to improve outcomes for children in the areas of health, education, child welfare, and to strengthen families. What is more, these programs are cost effective and yield savings for years to come by reducing children’s need for costly health care, decreasing need for child welfare and educational interventions, and increasing family economic stability. The final budget also failed to include any new funding for child care subsidies even as the State is faced with implementing new, federally-mandated regulations under the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act, which will likely cost at least $190 million annually. Accordingly, the budget contained no funds to improve access to child care for low-income families and inadequate funding to support implementation of the new CCDBG Act regulations. This means that thousands of New York parents will be prevented from pulling their families into economic security for lack of affordable quality child care.

Looking ahead, Schuyler Center will continue to work with our partners and friends to shine a light on the unmet needs of New York families and children, including family-oriented substance abuse treatment, family strengthening interventions, quality education and child care, and family-friendly workplace supports. It is true that the solutions to some of the problems facing New York families—like poverty, substance abuse, and poor mental health—can be complicated and not amenable to quick fixes. But, New York knows how to mitigate these problems. This State—rich in talent, expertise, and resources—could launch a groundbreaking campaign to fully invest in proven programs that would give all the State’s children a fair opportunity to thrive. All that is needed are leaders with the will and courage to make real long-term investments in New York families.

Kate Breslin
President & CEO
Schuyler Center for Analysis & Advocacy[/vc_column_text]

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation

Hunger doesn’t take a vacation So says the title of a 2015 report by the Food Research and Action Council (FRAC) on the status of the federal Summer Nutrition Program.  How jarring it is to link the joys of a carefree summer with the sobering realization that during this time, thousands of children who otherwise receive meals through the school breakfast and lunch programs will go hungry.

Over 1.5 million students in New York participate in the school lunch program and almost 650,000 in school breakfast.[1]  That’s a lot of children who rely on school meal programs for a good portion of their daily nutrition.  The Summer Nutrition Program is designed to replace the school meal programs at sites that also provide enrichment activities, educational programs and opportunities for physical activity.  The sites are safe places for children and provide some child care for working poor families. 

According to an analysis done by FRAC, New York ranked 3rd in the nation in the percentage of children enrolled in school meal programs who were reached by a summer food site.[2]  This is a tremendous accomplishment and a testament to the commitment of state agencies, advocacy organizations and summer food sites.  Still, more than 68% of eligible children do not receive summer meals – more than 2 out of 3.  That means a large number of New York children will have no access to nutrition programs for nearly three months this summer.

Hunger Solutions New York has created resources to assist programs and families identify summer food sites and promote local sites.  The New York State Library Association has been a tremendous partner in this work, opening up the way for many of the state’s libraries to be resources for healthy meals and healthy minds. 

Even while all this good work is going on, a Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 5003) introduced last month in the U.S. House of Representatives’ Education and Workforce Committee would roll back years of progress in food programs including by reducing the threshold for eligibility in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), a hugely successful program that allows high-poverty schools to offer breakfast and lunch at no charge to all students.  This change would increase administrative burdens on schools and decrease the rate of participation in lunch and breakfast programs.  According to analysis by Hunger Solutions New York, over 400 schools already implementing this option would be forced out of the program[3] under H.R. 5003 and almost 800 schools would lose the ability to apply.[4]  Advocates are urging substantial amendments to H.R. 5003, including, but not limited to, amendments to include an additional snack for children in child care for long hours.  The bill also fails to address shortfalls in the Summer Nutrition Program.  Learn more about this deeply flawed legislation and what actions you can take by following us (@SchuylerCenter) and Hunger Solutions New York (@NewYorkHunger) on Twitter.

Addressing childhood hunger is critical to ensure that all children are healthy and ready to learn. Children without adequate food or in food insecure homes suffer the consequences of poor health, developmental and behavioral problems and learning difficulties.  Programs connecting families to nutritious food provide benefits to both children and parents in the short- and long-term. 

As important as food programs are to families, the real solution is to improve economic security by reducing poverty.  Economic policies that allow working families a livable wage is the permanent solution.  In the meantime, supporting nutrition programs at the State and Federal levels remains essential to ensuring that all children have enough nutritious food to eat year round so they have the opportunity to thrive.

[1] Profile of Hunger, Poverty, and Federal Nutrition Programs: New York.  Food Research and Action Council

[2] Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation. Food Research and Action Council (2015)

[3] http://hungersolutionsny.org/sites/default/files/included/cep_schools_at_risk_under_hr_5003_-_hsny_-_5_4_16.pdf

[4] http://hungersolutionsny.org/sites/default/files/included/cep_eligible_schools_at_risk_under_hr_5003_-hsny-_5_4_16.pdf[/vc_column_text]

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month

April is Child Abuse Prevention Month

The best way to keep New York’s children safe and foster their overall well-being is to prevent child abuse and neglect.  Research has shown unmet mental health needs, substance use disorders, financial distress, lack of social support, and other factors contribute to abuse and neglect.3  Recognizing that risk factors associated with maltreatment are societal, parental, and child-related, interventions need to address all of these domains.

We have tools proven to prevent child maltreatment.  Maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting—where trained professionals partner with families to strengthen parenting skills, and connect families with community resources—is one of those tools.  Home visiting has been shown to reduce child abuse and neglect by up to 50%,4, 5 while also improving child health outcomes6 and school readiness.7  Notwithstanding home visiting’s proven record of strengthening families, the State has consistently appropriated only enough funds to make home visiting available to a small fraction of new and expecting New York State families with young children who would benefit from this service.  In 2014, there were fewer than 12,000 opportunities available in evidence-based home visiting programs for New York families, while there were more than 330,000 New York children under age five living in poverty who might have benefited from this type of service.8  This year’s State budget reduced funding for home visiting programs, compared to last year, meaning that it will be hard for programs to maintain present caseloads, let alone expand services to the tens of thousands of families currently unserved.  At the same time, funding for preventive and protective care of children remained flat-funded.

We are confident that New York can do better. We have the tools. It will take a focused commitment of resources together with a deep understanding of the challenges.  The Schuyler Center is committed to working with partners from around the state to protect and improve the well-being of all New York’s children.

For more information and recommendations regarding child welfare in New York State, read Schuyler Center’s Hopeful Futures for New York’s Children: Advancing Child Welfare.

Kate Breslin
President and CEO

__________________

  • Children’s Bureau. CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators – Workbook. Amended May 2015. Retrieved from: https://training. cfsrportal.org/resources/3105#Data Indicators and National Standards. The data set includes data from all states except MO, PA, PR, TN and VA, which was excluded due to “quality of data.”
  • Children’s Bureau. CFSR Round 3 Statewide Data Indicators – Workbook. Amended May 2015. Retrieved from: https://training. cfsrportal.org/resources/3105#Data Indicators and National Standards. The data set includes data from all states except FL, NC, PR and WV, which was excluded due to “quality of data.”
  • For a review of literature related to each of these topics, see the Child Welfare Information Gateway: Factors that Contribute to Child Abuse and Neglect. 
  • Reanalysis of Kitzman et al. (1997). Journal of the American Medical Association; 278(8):644-52
  • Dumont, K., Kirkland, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., Rodriguez, M., Lee, E., Layne, C., & Greene, R. (2010). Final Report: A Randomized Trial of Healthy Families New York: Does Home Visiting Prevent Child Maltreatment?
  • Lee, E, Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Lowenfels, A., Greene, R., Dorabawila, V., & DuMont, K. (2009). Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: a randomized controlled trial; American Journal of Preventive Medicine; 36, 154-60.
  • Drotar, D., Robinson, J., Jeavons, I., & Kirchner, H.L. (2009). A randomized controlled evaluation of early intervention: The Born to Learn curriculum. Child: Care, Health & Development, 35(5), 643-643.
  • Kids Count Data Center. Children in Poverty by Age Group: New York. 2014 data.

[/vc_column_text]