1

Summer, 2015 Virginia Child Protection Newsletter Volume 103

Sponsored by

Child Protective Services Unit

Virginia Department of Social Services

EditorJoann Grayson, Ph.D.Editorial DirectorAnn Childress, MSWEditorial AssistantWanda BakerComputer ConsultantPhil Grayson, MFAStudent AssistantsAnthony ChhounTigrai HarrisMarissa NoellJessica Woolson

POVERTY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD MALTREATMENT

continued on page 2

Poverty and child maltreatment are related. The association was noted at least as early as 1979 (Wolock & Horowitz, cited in McSherry, 2004). Almost twenty years later, in 1996, Sedlak & Broadhurst highlighted the associa-tion when the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect found that fami-lies with annual incomes below $15,000 were 22 times more likely to experience an incident of child maltreatment than were families with incomes above $30,000. Child maltreatment has been shown to correlate with community and state-level poverty rates, with unemploy-ment rates, with welfare receipt rates and with benefit levels (studies cited in Cancian, Slack & Yang, 2010; Carter & Myers, 2007). CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2009) and others (Hutson, 2010) claim that poverty is the single best predictor of child maltreatment, although it should be noted that the majority of poor parents do not neglect children (Carter & Myers, 2007; Hutson, 2010; McSherry, 2004).

The causal effect of income on maltreat-ment is unknown (Cancian, et al., 2010). Some postulate that the stress of dealing with poverty can negatively impact parents’ abilities to relate to their children. Struggling parents can feel anxious, depressed, fearful and overwhelmed. The stress of dealing with poverty, according to these researchers, can result in inconsistent discipline, failure to respond to children’s emotional needs, or even failure to address potential safety risks (studies cited in Duva & Metzger, 2010; Hutson, 2010).

It is also possible that poverty is cor-related with other conditions that relate to maltreatment (Cancian et al., 2010; Hutson, 2010). For example, poverty rates are highest for single mothers (Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach, & Berman, 2014). The stress of single parenting, rather than poverty per se, may be a factor related to child maltreat-ment. Other factors that raise the risk for maltreatment such as maternal depression or substance abuse may be more prevalent in parents who are living in poverty, and could be causative both of child maltreatment and of the family being in poverty. Alternatively, poverty may cause changes in mental health, caretaking behaviors, and family dynamics that then lead to maltreatment (Cancian et al., 2010). It has also been hypothesized that poverty may increase the visibility and scrutiny of low income families to potential reporters, such as case workers, artificially raising rates of maltreatment for those in poverty.

Incidence

In 2013, more than 45 million people (about 14.5% of the population) lived at or below the federal poverty threshold. The poverty rate for children under age 18 was 19.9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). An esti-mated 20 million Americans account for the “poorest of the poor” or those living at 50% or less of the federal poverty level. Compris-ing about 7% of the U.S. population, this group had income less than $5,570 for an individual or $11,157 for a family of four (Bassuk et al., 2014).

The poverty rate for children under age 18 declined slightly from 21.8% in 2012 to 19.9% in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). However, while children account for 23% of the U. S. population, they represent 33% of all people in poverty (Jiang, Ekono & Skinner, 2015).

Female-headed households are among the poorest households with nearly one-third living in poverty compared to 6.2% of married families. Additionally, three-quarters (77.9%) of homeless families nationwide are headed by single women (Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013). Single mothers with young children tend to have less education and work experience, resulting in lower wages. Their children are among the most vulnerable in the country (Mather, 2010).

Characteristics that raise the risk of child abuse

Providing for children’s basic needs is a fundamental responsibility of parents. Qual-ities of parenting that are associated with children’s competence include warmth and positive affectivity, monitoring of children’s behaviors, contingent responsivity, develop-mentally appropriate guidance, and encour-agement of autonomy (studies reviewed in Torquati, 2002). Parent negotiation with oth-er systems such as child care and education are also instrumental in promoting children’s competence.

While poverty is related to child maltreat-ment, the link is not a simple one (Houshyar, 2014). For example, parents who are preoc-cupied with basic survival needs may have less time and energy to devote to providing children with adequate support. Stressors predict negative parenting and are associated with negative affect and lowered self-es-teem. Stresses associated with poverty and homelessness and compromised physical and mental health of parents can disrupt parents’

2

continued from page 1

Poverty and Child Maltreatment

ability to relate to children and to provide limits and supports (Torquati, 2002).

High rates of substance use disorders have been found in low-income mothers (34.7% according to Bassuk et al., 1998).Parents with substance use disorders are four times more likely to neglect their children than parents who are not abusing substances (Carter & Myers, 2007). Among low-income families, those with family exposure to substance abuse exhibit the highest rates of child maltreatment (Ondersma, 2002, cited in APA, no date).

Close to 70% of low-income mothers have a mental disorder (Bassuk et al., 1998). PTSD rates are high (34.1%) as are major depressive disorder (42.8%) and Anxiety Disorders (23.1%). Additionally, 79% of low-income mothers have been victimized violently in their lifetime (Bassuk et al., 1998). Parental depression is associated with CPS involvement (see VCPN, Volume 56 & 59). Co-morbidity can raise the risk further, for example, if parents have both substance dependence and mental health diagnoses (Carter & Myers, 2007).

While mental health and substance abuse are more frequently investigated, Torquati (2002) found after interviewing parents in temporary shelters that physical health conditions were even more instrumental than mental health conditions in disrupting parenting. One third of parents (32.4%) in Torquati’s study could not accomplish daily activities because of health problems that in-cluded asthma, back problems, lupus, ulcers, and fatigue. A similar percentage (29.7%) had serious or chronic health problems during the prior year. Poor physical health significantly predicted negative parenting. Poverty and poor health are inextricably linked according to Health Poverty Action (no date). Overcrowded and poor living con-ditions contribute to the spread of disease. Those in poverty may lack health insurance and have limited access to health care.

Poor families move 24% to 77% more frequently than non-poor families, and chil-dren who change schools four or more times are disproportionately poor according to research reviewed by Popp (2014). Mobility can harm children’s nutrition and health and is associated with increased grade retention and lower academic achievement.

Poverty May be a Causative Factor for Child Maltreatment

A first-of-its-kind study examined the likelihood of a screened-in child maltreat-ment report for two groups of low-income families. In the experimental group, the family was able to receive child support payments with no change in benefits and in the control group the child support reduced benefits (as was required by state policy). The mothers eligible to receive all of their child support payments had modest increases in income. In the sample of 13,519 econom-ically-disadvantaged mothers, those with modest increases in income were about 10% less likely to have a screened-in report of child maltreatment (Slack et al., 2004).

Berger’s (2006) economic research (cited in Carter & Myers, 2007) found that low income families with more economic resources were less likely to experience CPS interventions. Research reviewed by Slack et al. (2004) found that states with stricter welfare policies and shorter time limits for assistance had greater rates of substantiated child maltreatment, suggesting that increased financial pressure is associated with neglect. A later analysis of three large-scale longitu-dinal studies (Slack et al., 2011) found that economic hardship was the most consistent finding that predicts CPS involvement. These findings are similar to the analysis by Paxson & Waldfogel (1999) where a rise in the numbers of children in extreme poverty was shown to correlate with a rise in substantiat-ed maltreatment cases. The authors comment that moving women from welfare to jobs that do not pay more than welfare could result in greater child maltreatment as the mothers may be stressed by job responsibilities, still have difficulty financially, and have less energy available to care for their children.

Which parents living in poverty are most at-risk for neglect?

Parents living in poverty are not at equal risk for neglect and maltreatment of their children. Research by Slack et al. (2004) examined what characteristics and condi-tions were associated with neglect reports to CPS among low-income parents. They found that among low-income families, abused and neglected children received poorer quality parenting than non-maltreated children and specific aspects of parents in poverty were predictive of a CPS neglect report.

Slack et al. found that employment seemed to operate as a protective influence, with more frequent work associated with fewer CPS complaints. The parent’s percep-tion of hardship was also predictive, with greater hardship associated with a higher level of CPS involvement. Low-income parents who allowed children frequent tele-vision viewing (more than 4 hours per week-day) were more than 4 times more likely to have a CPS report. Frequent television-view-ing has been associated with other adverse

child outcomes such as obesity, lower academic achievement, aggressive behaviors and ADHD. Television may be used as a substitute for adequate supervision and/or children who are difficult may be permitted more television viewing as a respite from the parent dealing with their difficult behaviors.

Parents with greater numbers of chil-dren had more CPS reports, as did parents who reported having a diagnosed learning disability.

Further, the Slack et al. literature review found studies that had identified additional parenting factors that mediated the relation-ship between poverty and neglect. These in-cluded the parent’s level of frustration, their difficulty in managing parenting stress, and the frequency of punishing children. Parents who reported higher use of spanking, more authoritarian parenting style, and who were unlikely to use reasoning were at greater risk for both physical abuse and neglect. Parents with less warmth and less physical affec-tion and less empathy were associated with CPS intervention. Those with less proficient caretaking skills (such as meal preparation and home maintenance) and who knew less about child development were more likely to neglect children. Less frequent and lower quality interaction, responding inconsistently to children’s needs, and attributing negative intentions to children’s behaviors were more common in neglectful parents.

Hunger and Poverty

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (Coleman-Jenson et al., 2012) reported that, between 2009-11, an average of 14.7% of American households were food insecure at least part of the year. Food insecurity is defined as not having access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. There was a significant increase in the subgroup of persons who were very low in food security (from 5.4% to 5.7%).

Participation in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) has varied in recent years. As of February, 2015 nearly 45.7 million people received benefits which was a decrease of nearly 500,000 from February, 2014 (Food Research and Action Center, 2015). In recent years, more than one in seven Americans receive SNAP (15.1%) which is comparable to unemployment and under-employment rates (U. S. Conference of Mayors, 2012). For struggling fami-lies, SNAP is making a huge difference in economic well-being and health. In addition, SNAP benefits local economies with each one dollar in federally-funded SNAP benefits

3

continued on page 4

generating $1.79 in economic activity (Food Research and Action Center, 2015).

A report on charitable food distribution in the United States in 2013 titled Hunger in America 2014 discusses characteristics of households served by food distribution agencies. v The majority of recipients were White

(43%) with Blacks at 26%, Latinos at 20% and ‘Other’ representing 11%.

v Children were living in 39% of the households served, a rate higher than in the general population (32%).

v Most recipients (93%) resided in stable housing. However, 1 in 6 families had experienced eviction within the past five years.

v For households with children, 71% reported that at least one adult in the household had been employed within the past year. In some cases, the work was part-time.

v Most (72%) of the households lived in poverty.

v Twenty percent of households had a member that had served in the military and 4% had a household member currently in the military.

Families face difficult decisions. They sometimes must choose between food and medication or between food and transpor-tation or food and utilities. Sometimes the choice is between food and medical care or food and education. Some families purchase inexpensive and unhealthy food. Some ask for help from friends and family. Others ‘water down’ food, drinks, or baby formula. Some sell or pawn personal property in order to pay for food. A few grow food in a garden (Hunger in America, 2014). Addressing food insecurity will require collaborative efforts between government and the charitable sec-tor. Many families rely upon both to secure food for their families.

Effects of poverty on the child’s developing brain

There is mounting evidence that growing up in poverty can negatively affect a child’s brain. Neuroscientists are recognizing that the brain is a responsive, constantly evolv-ing organ that can change at cellular and larger-scale levels due to environmental in-fluences and experiences (Stromberg, 2013). For example, those who grow up in poverty when shown emotionally-upsetting images show increased activity in the amygdala (in-volved in anxiety, fear, and emotional disor-ders) and decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex (which helps limit the influence of

the amygdala and allows long-term deci-sion-making to prevail over impulse) (Kim et al., 2013). A Washington University study (Luby et al., 2013) found children of parents with poor nurturing skills had slowed growth in white matter, grey matter, and the volumes of several brain areas involved in learning skills and coping with stress. A Northwestern University study (Skoe, Krizman, & Kraus, 2013) found children of low socioeconomic status had less efficient auditory processing, perhaps due to noise exposure.

A team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison partnering with research-ers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have studied the developing brains of children using MRI brain scans (Han-son et al., 2013). They eliminated children whose brain development might be altered by maternal smoking or drinking alcohol during pregnancy, birth complications, head injuries, or family psychiatric history. The infants’ brains were similar at birth but over time grad-ually showed differences. By age 4, children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty line had less grey matter (brain tissue critical for processing of infor-mation and executive actions) than children in families with higher incomes.

The list of potential environmental factors effecting brain development is lengthy. Poor nutrition, lack of sleep, lack of books and educational toys, parental stress, unsafe environments, limited enriching conversation and interaction are just a few of the potential contributors. The brain changes described in the studies above have damaging effects ranging from poor cognitive outcomes and school performance to a higher risk for anti-social behaviors and mental disorders.

The Vocabulary Gap

Hart and Risley (1995) describe the War on Poverty’s optimistic effort to intervene early to forestall the terrible effects that poverty has on some children’s academic growth. Discouraged by witnessing early gains fade over time, Hart and Risley under-

took a project to observe 42 families for an hour each month to learn about interactions in homes as children are learning to talk. They found that ordinary families differed immensely in the amount of experience with language and the amount of interaction provided to children. The differences were linked to the children’s language develop-ment at age three.

Hart and Risley found that 86 to 98 per-cent of the words recorded in the children’s vocabulary consisted of words in their par-ents’ vocabularies. By age three, children’s numbers of different words were very similar to the parents. Simply in words heard, the average child in the families receiving welfare benefits was having half as much conversation per hour compared to the aver-age working-class child and less than a third of the average child in a professional family. A linear extrapolation showed that by age four, the average child in a family receiving welfare might have 13 million fewer words of cumulative verbal experience than the average working-class child and 32 million fewer words of cumulative experience com-pared to a child in a professional family.

Not only did the quantity of language experience differ between the groups in the Hart and Risley experiment, but the quality of verbal interaction was also different. The average child in a professional family was accumulating 32 affirmatives and five pro-hibitions per hour (a ratio of six encourage-ments to each discouragement). For the child in a working-class family the ratio was two encouragements for each discouragement. For the children living in families receiving welfare, the ratio was 1 encouragement to two discouragements.

Hart and Risley conclude that the magnitude of the differences in children’s experiences by age 3 gives an indication of the enormity of the gap. The day-to-day and hour-to-hour experiences are crucial for brain development, for setting cognitive patterns, and for training children in how

National Center for Children in Poverty

215 W. 125th Street, 3rd FloorNew York, NY 10027(646) 284-9600

Fax: 646-284-9623E-Mail: info@nccp.orgWebsite: http://www.nccp.org/

The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) is a nonpartisan, public policy center dedicated to the promotion of economic security, health, and well-being of low-income families and children in the U.S. It uses research in order to inform pol-icy and practice to ensure positive outcomes for the next generation. NCCP envisions a country of strong, nurturing families with economic security and healthy child devel-opment. The organization was founded in 1989 as a division of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. NCCP is a trusted source for policymakers, service providers, advocates, and the media.

4

continued from page 3to think about experiences. More recently, Fernald, Marchman, and Weisleder (2013) found that significant disparities in vocabu-lary and language processing were already evident at 18 months between infants from higher- and lower-SES families and by 24 months there was a six-month gap between SES groups in processing skills critical to language development.

While variability in verbal abilities is influ-enced to some extent by genetic factors, the contributions of early experience to differenc-es in language proficiency are also substantial. In families where adequate resources and sup-port are consistently available, children can be buffered from adverse circumstances and are more likely to achieve their developmental potential (Fernald et al., 2013).

While some have cited limitations in the Hart and Risley study (see for example, Saiyed & Smirnov, 2015), there is recent research (such as Fernald et al., 2013, cited by NAEYC, 2014) that confirms a vocabulary gap between wealthier children and low-income children. The vocabulary gap is a robust finding in re-search such as the Early Childhood Longitudi-nal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, a comprehen-sive analysis of young children’s achievement scores in literacy and math based on a large and nationally representative sample. Even prior to Kindergarten, children in the highest SES-quintile group had scores that were 60% above children in the lowest SES group (cited in Fernald et al., 2014).

There is increasing scientific evidence that experiential factors play a critical role in infants’ early language development.It appears that rich and varied engagement with language from an attentive caretaker provides the developing infant and child not only with models for language learning but also with valuable practice in interpreting language in real time. Child-directed talk sharpens processing skills, enabling faster learning of new vocabulary.

Other Child Effects Linked to Poverty

Not only does parent interaction and verbal stimulation differ for advantaged chil-dren compared to children in poverty, but the physical conditions of daily life can differ on safety, sanitation, noise level, exposure to toxins, adequate nutrition and medical care. Higher levels of stress, instability, and ex-posure to violence all have known negative effects (Fernald et al., 2014).

Poverty and Child Maltreatment

Poverty has been linked to a wide range of negative effects on both physical and mental health. It is linked to lower academic achievement, school dropout, behavioral problems and emotional difficulties. So-cially, children living in poverty may have trouble with friendships, have higher levels of aggression, and are more likely to be diag-nosed with ADHD or conduct disorder.

Economic Costs

Other authors (Holzer et al., 2008) stress the economic costs of poverty. Forgone produc-tivity and earnings, costs of crime, and health costs due to poverty total to 3.8% of the gross national product (GNP) each year. Costs in 2007 totaled about $500 billion per year.

Supportive factors

It is believed that negative effects of poverty on the brain can be mediated by the level of support in the child’s caregiver as well as the level of stressful events. Further, the vast majority of parents who are poor are adequate or better than adequate parents and do not come to the attention of child protective services. Protective factors can buffer the risks and stress of poverty. These include maternal employment, parents who were competently parented themselves, a strong informal social support network, and availability of supportive family members (studies cited in Duva & Metzger, 2010; Mental Health America, no date).

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, Inc. ( 2013) the greatest protective factors are good parenting, strong bonds between children and parents, and a stable family unit. Schools can function as a pro-tective factor if children have strong supports

at school and feel successful. Mentoring and healthy engagements with adults outside of the home can be a protective factor, as can help from immediate and extended family (Mental Health America, no date).

Concluding Thoughts

Attempts to reduce violence and maltreat-ment in the lives of children must take into account their entire environment as well as the protective factors in those environments. Circumstances such as low income, low edu-cational attainment, and poor mental and physical health can easily trigger poverty. While improving income, by itself, is unlikely to end maltreatment, strategies that improve the entire family’s functioning and status are promising (Child Poverty Action Group, Inc., 2013).

Strategies that might improve overall outcomes include: safe, affordable housing; better access to primary health care; and early childhood education (Child Poverty Action Group, Inc., 2013). Strategic initia-tives of the Annie E. Casey Foundation such as “Creating Opportunity for Families: A Two-Generation Approach” (see AECF.org) are being piloted in Virginia and elsewhere. A comprehensive approach to reducing poverty connects low-income families with early childhood education, job training, home visiting services and tools to achieve financial stability.

Children succeed when their families succeed. Comprehensive strength-based in-terventions that consider the whole family’s needs can break the cycle of poverty as well as reduce child maltreatment.

Reference List Available on the Website

Prevention Resource GuideMaking Meaningful Connections 2015 Prevention Resource Guide Administration on Children, Youth, and Families 1250 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

Website: https://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/preventionmonth

This 2015 Resource Guide was created to support service providers who work with parents, caregivers, and children to prevent child abuse and neglect. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, its Child Welfare Information Gateway, the FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, and the Center for the Study of Social Policy Strengthening Families worked together to develop this Resource Guide. Its contents are informed by input from over 25 National Child Abuse Prevention Partners and members of the Federal Interagency Work Group on Child Abuse and Neglect.

The Resource Guide primarily supports community-based child abuse prevention profes-sionals; however, it may be useful for policymakers, parent educators, family support workers, health-care providers, program administrators, teachers, child care providers, mentors, and clergy members. It offers support to service-providers as they work with parents, caregivers, and their children in order to prevent child maltreatment and promote socio and emotion-al wellness. Specifically, the Resource Guide focuses on protective factors to build family strengths and promote appropriate child and youth development. Furthermore, it covers topics concerning protective factors that promote well-being in families, engage communities, and protect children. It includes tip sheets for parents and caregivers and other resources that can be used on the national level to strengthen families. The tip sheets are translated into Spanish.

5

continued on page 6

Incidence of Poverty

There are a number of ways to define poverty. Differences in statistics can be due to differing ways of defining poverty. Poverty can also be affected by the cost of living, which can vary in different sections of the country.

According to Virginia Performs (Virginia.gov), in 2013 Virginia’s overall poverty rate was 11.7%. This rate was the 9th lowest in the nation. Still, more than one in ten Virginians live in poverty and one in twenty live in “deep poverty” which is less than half of what is defined as the poverty level (The Commonwealth Institute).

Using the federal definition of poverty, the KIDS COUNT data center, a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reports that in 2013, 288,000 children in Virginia (16%) lived in poverty. The percentage of children in poverty has gradually risen since 2006 when 12.2% of Virginia’s children lived in poverty.

Using a somewhat different measure, the Virginia Poverty Measure or VPM that includes ‘near poverty,’ researchers from University of Virginia (Rorem & Juelfs-Swanson, 2014) found that one in three Virginia children in 2011 lived in a home where parents struggled to provide basic necessities. According to the federal poverty measure, in 2011 a two-adult, two-child family living in the Commonwealth needed $22,000 per year to be above poverty level and 15% of Virginia’s children lived in families under that cut-off. Under the VPM developed by the researchers, the cut-off for a two-adult and two-child family is $29,000 per year including any social safety net benefits. Using this definition, 13% of Vir-ginia’s children were living in poverty. The researchers defined ‘near-poor’ as income of $29,000 to $43,000 (including the value of any benefits). An additional 19% of Virgin-ia’s children live in families with this level of resource, making a total of 32% of children in Virginia living either in poverty or ‘near poor’ and struggling to provide necessities.

Poverty in Virginia affects some groups more than others. Black children are the most likely to be impoverished with Hispan-ic or Latino children next most likely, then non-Hispanic White children, and finally Asian or Pacific Islander children. Children

in a single-parent household are five times more likely to be poor than those living with two parents. Only 5% of children living in two-parent families are poor versus 28% of children in single-parent homes (Voices for Virginian’s Children). Small cities and rural areas are struggling. Danville and Peters-burg have the highest poverty rates, each at around 41%. Eight of the 10 locations in Virginia with the highest poverty rates are rural areas (Voices for Virginia’s Children).

Training

Mylinda Moore works with CHIP of Virginia. CHIP stands for Comprehensive Health Investment Project which serves at-risk families in poverty who are expecting a child or have a child under age seven. The project offers home visitation and health supervision in five counties in Southwest Virginia, in the New River Valley, in the Charlottesville area, in Richmond and in South Hampton Roads. Moore is a certified trainer for Bridges Out of Poverty, a training based on the book with the same name by Dr. Ruby Payne, Phillip DeVol and Terie Drussi Smith.

The training helps service providers understand the mind set and the realities of families living in poverty. “Their choices are functional given the circumstances,” relates Moore, “but are likely not the choices that someone in the middle or upper classes might make. Relationships are a driving force for people in poverty. They don’t have as many other resources to use in times of crisis as those who live in the middle class. This makes relationships even more essential in helping people get through difficult circumstances.” Moore explains that people living in poverty live in a reactive world. They don’t earn enough to save, so any emergency can start a downward spiral. If a car needs repair, the person may miss work and then lose their job. The loss of income means that the family loses housing. “Something simple can cause the family’s circumstances to spin out of control,” she says.

Moore says the training is “eye-opening” and can translate into better relationships with the families. Service providers can begin to approach families in a non-judg-mental way. “Change occurs in the context of relationships. Our program is voluntary so parents do not have to participate unless they want to do so,” says Moore. A service provider who understands and can empathize is in a better position to be helpful.

Moore generally trains only for her own organization. She offered a short overview at a conference last year and a 1-hour Webinar for Part C workers. She has no trainings planned for 2015.

VIRGINIA’S PICTURE–

POVERTY

Hunger in Virginia

Virginia has an 11.8% food insecurity rate, according to the Federation of Virgin-ia Food Banks. This rate means that over 912,790 people do not know from where their next meal will come. Food banks in Virginia account for 76% of items distribut-ed by food pantries, 57% of food at kitchens and 34% of food distributed by shelters. The food bank recipients are children (42%), elderly (6%), households with an employed adult (45%) and homeless (6%). Most recipients (76%) are living below the poverty level.

The primary mission of the Federation of Virginia Food Banks and its network is to feed hungry Virginians. In 2014, the Federation’s network distributed over 142 million pounds of products to more than 1,199,500 individuals through more than 2,608 member agencies that directly serve those in need. Individuals needing food assistance annually visited food bank dis-tribution agencies 9,654,900 times. These agencies operate programs such as soup kitchens, after school programs, senior centers and elderly feeding programs, Head Start, transitional housing programs, and homeless and domestic violence shelters as well as individual household distribution.

6

Mylinda Moore can be reached at: (804) 783-2667.

The website for the national training is: ahaprocess.com

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Poverty Reduction Task Force

Virginia’s Poverty Reduction Task Force was formed in early 2009. It was comprised of 31 individuals with diverse professional backgrounds and strong expertise in their fields. Additionally, over 1,200 Virginians participated in public input sessions or con-tributed via a website survey.

In 2008, more than 10% of Virginians lived below the poverty level. (Readers can note that figure is a bit different in recent years than in 2008.) The most vulnerable are children (13.8 percent living in poverty), those over age 85 (27 percent poverty rate) and those with disabilities (19 percent poverty rate). More than 750,000 Virginians, including 250,000 children, live in poverty. According to the Task Force, the current federal poverty measures do not adequately capture the extent to which some Virginians struggle with economic self-sufficiency. Existing measures fail to consider the high cost of living in Northern Virginia and some other parts of the commonwealth.

While Virginia’s poverty rate has gen-erally been below the national average, it also has been consistent. Virginia’s poverty rate has not decreased substantially over the past 30 years. The factors in Virginia that influence the poverty rate are educational attainment, household type, and the num-ber of full-time employment incomes in the household. The typical Virginian below the poverty line is a white female head of household, ages 25 to 34, with less than a

high school education, with children and who is employed. The primary avenues out of poverty are education, work, and living in a household with more than one worker. The rise in single-parent households and the lack of inflation-adjusted earnings for less skilled workers are two factors cited by the Task Force as the most challenging trends that work against poverty reduction.

According to the Task Force, preschool interventions that focus not just on cognitive skills but also on social-emotional skills have a higher return than interventions later in life.

Richmond’s Anti-Poverty Commission

In the spring of 2011, Mayor Dwight C. Jones appointed an anti-poverty commission and launched an effort to create a compre-hensive plan to tackle Richmond City’s poverty crisis. The Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Commission Report (2013) noted that a quarter of Richmond City and 2/5ths of its children lived in poverty. The report details recommendations and strategies ranging from investing in workforce development to supporting early childhood education.

Virginia’s Supports to Reduce Poverty

v A strong economic and employment base- Virginia’s unemployment rate is consistently lower than the national average and Virginia’s median family income is consistently higher than the national average.

v An exceptional educational system- Virginia’s public university system is one of the best in the nation. The commonwealth’s community college system is large and innovative. The public school system is well-regarded. In recent years, Virginia has increased its focus and investment in early child-hood education.

v A Workforce Development program serves more than 250,000 individuals a year. It includes traditional programs and outreach to disadvantaged high schools and an apprenticeship program between community colleges and the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry.

v SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assis-tance Program (formerly food stamps)

continued from page 5

Virginia’s Picture– Poverty

is enhanced by local food banks and food pantries and soup kitchens.

v TANF benefits.Some of these support systems are dis-

cussed in more detail below.

TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)

In 1996, TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF is cash payments to families that meet certain criteria (such as having a child under age 18; regular school attendance of school-aged children). Virginia’s TANF program emphasizes personal responsibility. Par-ticipants may be provided with job skills training, work experience, job readiness training, child care assistance, transportation, and work-related expenses. There is a two-year limit to receiving TANF benefits and a 5-year lifetime limit. In Virginia, TANF currently serves about 25,000 families with a dependent child.

In 1995, over 70,000 families were receiving TANF. After VIEW (below) was implemented, the TANF enrollment fell dras-tically. By 2000, about 30,000 families were receiving TANF. Since 2000, there have been some fluctuations, presumably due to economic conditions, and the numbers have fluctuated but the highest was 37,628.

Mark Golden supervises the common-wealth’s TANF program. He feels the pro-gram is successful. For example, he relates that 75 to 80% of those who receive diver-sionary assistance (a lump sum payment of up to four months’ worth of TANF at once to resolve an emergency), do not return to the program.

Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW)

VIEW supports the efforts of families receiving TANF to achieve independence through employment. VIEW focuses on the participants’ strengths and provides services to help overcome job-related challenges, as well as personal, medical and family chal-lenges that affect employment.

Adults receiving TANF who are able to work must participate in VIEW when their youngest child is 12 months of age or older. Participants must work or engage in work activities (such as volunteer work or training or attending a vocational school) the entire time they are in VIEW. Participation in VIEW is a full-time commitment.

TANF eligibility is limited to 24-month periods for a VIEW participant followed by a 24-month break. Federal law limits TANF assistance to 60 months. VIEW participants may earn up to the federal poverty level and still receive the TANF benefit.

The program provides supports such as: child care; transportation; medical or dental services needed to obtain or maintain employment; screening and evaluation for hidden disabilities; help with emergencies and crises; referral and help with local

Federation of Virginia Food Banks800 Tidewater Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23504

Website: http://vafoodbanks.org/

The Federation of Virginia Food Banks is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit association of food banks and the largest hunger-relief association in the state. The Federation’s mission is to build collective power within its network to create a hunger-free region. It is comprised of the seven regional Virginia/Washington DC food banks and is affiliated with Feeding America. The Federation assists the food banks in providing food, fund-ing, education, and other services and programs throughout Virginia. It served over 1,199,500 Virginians in 2014 and distributed over 142 million pounds of food through almost 3,000 agencies around the state.

7services. Education and training (such as help obtaining a GED or learning English or training for a specific job) may be available for some participants.

Virginia Health Care Foundation

The website (www.vhcf.org) has informa-tion about state-sponsored health insurance (the FAMIS Programs and Medicaid). They also have a comprehensive listing of free and reduced cost medical care and prescription medications at “Health Safety Net Organi-zations.” At some organizations, those who income-qualify can obtain dental care and mental health services. The site also has the Health Insurance Marketplace where indi-viduals can view various insurance plans and learn how much financial help is available for health insurance.

ConnectVA

This site (www.connectva.org/basic- needs/) contains a Basic Needs Directory. Individuals can locate food, health, housing, and education programs based on need by entering their zip code.

211 Virginia

This easy-to-remember phone number connects people with information on avail-able community resources.

WIC (Women, Infants, and Children)

VCPN reported on WIC in volume 98. Readers are referred to that volume for a full description of Virginia’s WIC program. It is interesting that some research has suggested that recipients of WIC are less likely to have a substantiated neglect finding. It is speculat-ed that the program is effective in changing diet, infant feeding practices, childhood immunization rates, and even cognitive de-velopment of children. Since WIC specifical-ly targets young children who are vulnerable to neglect, the program’s effectiveness is reflected in lowered rates of substantiated neglect (Carter & Myers, 2007).

What Additional Measures Can Help?

Virginia’s Poverty Reduction Task Force (2010) made many recommendations. A sample are: v Continue to expand early childhood

educationv Increase support for at-risk studentsv Expand Smart Beginningsv Increase high school graduation rates

(those who graduate are 50% less likely to live in poverty)

v Increase support for subsidized child care

v Expand English as a second language (ESL) services

v Enhance prisoner re-entry programsv Reduce teen pregnancyOther recommendations and rationales

are available in the complete report (see www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/ agency_wide/poverty_long.pdf).

VIRGINIA’S CHILDREN’S CABINET AND THE COMMONWEALTH COUNCIL ON

CHILDHOOD SUCCESS

Children are the commonwealth’s most important resource. In order to provide all children with the tools and resources they need to survive in the 21st century economy, both the Children’s Cabinet and the Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success are working on the complex issues that affect children’s development.

Governor McAuliffe signed an Executive Order in August, 2014 creating the Children’s Cabinet solely dedicated to the education, health, safety and welfare of Virginia’s children and youth. The Children’s Cabinet co-chairs are Secretary of Education Anne Holton and Secretary of Health and Human Resources Dr. William Hazel, Jr. Other members are Lt. Gover-nor Ralph Northam, Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran, Secretary of Commerce and Trade, Maurice Jones and the First Lady of Virginia, Dorothy McAuliffe. The Children’s Cabinet will develop and implement a policy agenda that will help better serve Virginia’s children and also foster collaboration between state and local agencies.

The second Executive Order established the Commonwealth Coun-cil on Childhood Success. This Council is chaired by Lt. Governor Ralph Northam. It is focusing on improving the health, education and well-being of the youngest children in the Commonwealth. Children’s early years are extremely formative and have a significant impact on the child’s readiness to succeed.

The work of the Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success will include a comprehensive, statewide assessment of current programs, services, and local, state, and federal public resources that serve Virginia’s children ages 0-8. In coordination with the Children’s Cabinet and relevant state agencies, the Council will serve as a central coordinating entity to identify opportunities and develop recommendations for improvement, including but not limited to: 1) funding for preschool; 2) Kindergarten readi-ness; 3) strategies to close the achievement gap in early elementary years; 4) the quality and accountability of child care programs and providers; and 5) coordination of services for at-risk families.

The Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success has been meeting regularly. They are divided into several workgroups: School Readiness Workgroup; Data and Governance Workgroup; Health and Well Being Workgroup. Each has generated detailed reports and recommendations. More information is available from Patricia Popp, E-mail: pxpopp@wm.edu

Virginia Community Action Partnership Phone: 804.644.0417

Website: http://www.vacap.org/

Virginia Community Action Partnership707 East Franklin StreetSuite BRichmond, VA 23219

Virginia Community Action Partnership (VACAP) is a statewide membership associa-tion comprised of Virginia’s 31 non-profit private and public community action agencies. The agencies work together to fight poverty and build self-sufficiency for families and commu-nities throughout Virginia. Each agency focuses on its unique local needs. Each is also part of the community action network, coming together to discuss common issues, and to share ideas, experiences and strategies for success.

VACAP serves its members with state and federal legislative representation and advoca-cy, member training and education, public relations and marketing, resource development, facilitating collaboration, and statewide efforts to increase public awareness of Virginians in poverty and strategies to improve their lives and their communities.

8

In 2002, VCPN reported on Homeless Children and Families. Over a decade has passed. VCPN is updating the 2002 infor-mation. The older issue makes an interesting comparison to the present.

Definitions

The HEARTH (Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing) Act of 2009 defines homelessness as: v An individual who lacks a fixed, regu-

lar and adequate nighttime residence;v An individual whose primary night-

time residence is a public or private place not designated for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommoda-tion for humans (including cars; parks; abandoned buildings; bus or train station; airport or camp ground);

v An individual living in a supervised public or private shelter designated to provide temporary living arrange-ments;

v An individual who was residing in a shelter or a place not meant for human habitation who is now temporarily in an institution;

v Someone who might imminently lose their housing and lacks resources for acquiring permanent housing;

v Families that have experienced a long-term period without living inde-pendently in permanent housing.

Some sources use a broader definition of homelessness. For example, they include parents and children who are “doubled up” (living with family and friends) or living temporarily in hotels or motels as well as those facing eviction, lacking resources to continue to pay for housing, showing perma-nent instability, or fleeing domestic violence. The VCPN website contains a document detailing several definitions of homelessness.

Incidence

Almost by definition, homeless chil-dren are difficult to count. Some homeless families disguise their status. Researchers and entities such as schools, governmental bodies and agencies use disparate counting techniques and different definitions. As a result, there are widely different estimates of the numbers of homeless children.

In the 1980’s, families accounted for less than one percent of all homeless people. Over the last three decades, the numbers of homeless families have increased and now

AN UPDATE ON HOMELESS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

they are 32 percent of the overall homeless population (Bassuk, 2010). A typical shel-tered homeless family is comprised of a single mother with two or three children, often younger than six years old (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, 2009).

A report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, The State of Homelessness in America 2013, identified a total of 633,782 homeless people on a given night in 2012 with 239,403 living in families. The major-ity of these individuals were in emergency shelters or transitional housing, but 38% were unsheltered (living on the street, in cars, or in places not intended for human habitation).

A U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Research Brief (2011) reported that an estimated 168,000 families with 567,000 persons had used an emergency shelter or transitional housing program at some point during 2010. In 2011, families experiencing homelessness increased 1.4% (reported in U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2012).

The United States Conference of Mayors reported that in 2010 more than 1.6 million children (1 in 45 children) in America were homeless. About 650,000 of the children were below age six. The 2012 status report indicated an average increase of 8% in fam-ilies experiencing homelessness with 71% of 25 cities reporting an increase, 12.5% reporting a decrease and 26% saying the rate remained the same.

Using a broader definition of homeless-ness, schools reported about 1.3 million students were homeless during the school year of 2012-2013 (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015). The data from 2012-13 became available in September, 2014. Using the assumption that half or more homeless children are under school age, some estimate the total number of homeless children at 2.5 million or 1 in 30 children (Bassuk et al., 2014; National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, no date). The majority of the 1.3 million homeless stu-dents (76%) were “doubled up” with other families while 16% were staying in shelters, 6% were in hotels or motels, and 3% were ‘unsheltered’ and living in places not meant for human habitation (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015).

Changing Numbers

Since there are differing definitions and differing counting methods, it is not surpris-ing that some reports indicate that homeless families with children are increasing while others report a decrease.

In October, 2014 HUD, using a ‘point-in-time’ counting method, reported an overall reduction in family homelessness from 2010 to 2014 of 10.6%. The HUD PIT count is criticized for excluding “hundreds of thou-sands” of homeless children living ‘doubled up’ with friends and relatives (Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach, & Berman, 2014).

In contrast, Bassuk et al. (2014) report that from 2012 to 2013, the number of chil-dren experiencing homelessness annually in the United States increased by 8% national-ly. Increases were documented in 31 states and the District of Columbia. In the fall of 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita led to massive evacuations that drove the numbers of homeless children to 1.5 million. Over the next two years, numbers of homeless children dropped to 1.2 million in 2007. The national economic recession triggered a rise in homelessness to 1.6 million children in 2010. To summarize, in 2006, 1 in 50 children experienced homelessness annually compared to 1 child in 45 in 2010 and 1 child in 30 in 2013.

Characteristics of Homeless Children

Sheltered homeless children are dispro-portionately young. In 2012, 10% of children in shelters were under age one, 40% were between ages one and five, 33% between ages 6 and 12, and 17% between ages 13 and 17 (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015). These statistics are similar to others studies (Sam-uels, Shinn, & Buckner, 2010). Runaway youth who are homeless will be discussed in a future issue of VCPN.

Characteristics of Homeless Parents

As mentioned above, the typical homeless family is a single mother and several young children. The mothers are likely to lack a high school education or GED, have few job skills and limited employment opportunities. As a group, homeless parents have many more mental health and substance abuse diagnoses compared to parents who were housed (studies cited in Bassuk, 2010; Bassuk et al., 2014). According to Bassuk et al., (2014) homeless parents have higher than average rates of chronic medical conditions and histories of untreated trauma. They often lack positive role models for parenting.

According to the American Psychological Association (2009), homeless single mothers often have histories of violent victimization and over a third have experienced diagnos-able symptoms of PTSD. Half experience major depression while homeless. An esti-mated 41% have substance dependency.

9

continued on page 10

The U.S. Conference of Mayors (2012) reports on homeless adults which include mothers. In their most recent survey, 30% of homeless adults were severely mentally ill, 18% were physically disabled, 83% were unemployed, and 16% were victims of domestic violence.

Findings of direct studies of homeless mothers have found: v Criteria for clinical depression are met

by 19% to 85%v Criteria for diagnosable anxiety are

met by 20% to 43%v In the past year, 21.6% have been

hospitalized.v Over 32% report being unable to

accomplish daily activities because of health reasons.

v The incidence of substance use dis-orders is almost twice as high as the general female population. Studies found incidences as high as 41%.

v Between two-thirds and almost three-quarters of mothers who are homeless met criteria for at least one mental disorder.

v A high percentage (88%), have been violently victimized at some point in their lives.

v Over a third (36%) of homeless mothers meet criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD.

v Between one-fourth and one-third report at least one suicide attempt

(Bassuk & Beardslee, 2014; Bassuk et al., 1998; studies cited in Bassuk, 2010; Gewirtz et al., 2009; Torquati, 2002)

Once parents are homeless, relationship difficulties may increase the duration of housing instability. The absence of strong informal and family support systems can exacerbate economic and housing problems (Torquati, 2002). Being unmarried, lacking literacy skills, suffering from chronic unem-ployment, and having few supportive people in their lives are all barriers to effective par-enting (studies cited in Swick & Williams, 2010).

The challenges experienced by homeless parents compromise their ability to form safe, trusting relationships, work consistent-ly, and parent effectively. Since the health and well-being of children is inextricably linked to the health and well-being of the parent, the effects of homelessness can be devastating for children (Bassuk, 2010).

Racial Differences

Black families are disproportionately represented among homeless families with children (Bassuk, 2010). In 2012, Black

families were 14% of the general population with 25% living in poverty. However, they were 44% of sheltered homeless families. Whites comprised 55% of all families with children and 27% of sheltered homeless fam-ilies. Hispanics were also under-represented. They were 23% of families with children and 37% of those in poverty but only 21% of sheltered homeless families. Asian families were under-represented while American Indians, Pacific Islanders and those with multiple racial backgrounds over-represented (Child Trends Data Bank, 2015).

The Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness (2013), reports that in 2010, American Indian family members experi-enced homelessness at a rate 11 times higher than members of White families. Black families were seven times more likely than White families to stay in shelters and His-panic family members were three times more likely to reside in shelters.

Effects of Homelessness on Children

For children, homelessness is more than the loss of a residence. It disrupts every aspect of life. Children are challenged by un-predictability, insecurity, and chaos. Home-lessness adds an additional layer of vulnera-bility and deprivation that may increase the child’s risk for continued exposure to various forms of violence. Additionally, the process of becoming homeless involves the loss of belongings, one’s neighborhood and perhaps one’s community, and one’s sense of safety. Living in shelters is isolating and can lead to a loss of personal control (Guarino & Bas-suk, 2010; The National Center on Family Homelessness, 2012). Despite the challenges for all homeless children, it is important to note that they are not a homogenous group. Some homeless children may be doing well while others struggle (Samuels, Shinn, & Buckner, 2010).

Poverty and hunger can predate home-lessness for children and children may enter the homeless status already damaged by poverty (see main article, this issue). Children whose parents have major depres-sion or substance abuse diagnoses can show compromised attachment and cognitive development, behavioral regulation, aca-demic performance and socialization can be negatively affected (see VCPN volumes 16, 53, 56, 59, and 79).

It is important to note that many home-less mothers are able to maintain a positive family dynamic in spite of stressful circum-

stances (Swick & Williams, 2010). Positive parenting can be especially important in homeless families. Research has shown that higher levels of positive parenting are related to higher levels of academic success and better executive functioning in children (Herbers et al., 2011).

As one examines the research below, Buckner (2008) offers a word of caution. The state of being homeless is a changing status and but one of many stressors that children living in poverty may encounter. Homelessness is generally a temporary state through which families may pass. Homeless children share characteristics with other impoverished children and those symptoms may be more related to the effects of poverty than the effects of lacking housing. Buckner notes that the studies comparing housed and homeless low-income children have incon-sistent results. Also, some homeless children may have significant needs while others have fewer problems.

Overall, the risks of adverse outcomes for children are high. According to the Child Trends Data Bank (2015) and information published by the American Psychological Association (2009), among other authors, children experiencing homelessness are vul-nerable to a number of adverse outcomes:v They are more likely than other

children to have moderate to severe acute and chronic health problems. For example, studies have shown higher prevalence of asthma, low birth weight, ear infections, and ADHD.

v Homeless children are twice as likely to experience hunger as non-homeless peers. Hunger and malnutrition have negative effects on the physical, social, emotional and cognitive development.

v Homeless children have less access to medical and dental care and experi-ence inconsistent health care.

v Children without stable homes are more than twice as likely to repeat a school grade, have a learning disabil-ity, be expelled or suspended, or drop out of high school. They have had disruptions in schooling that negatively impact academic performance.

v A quarter or more of homeless children have witnessed violence. Exposure to violence can cause emotional difficul-ties (depression; anxiety; withdrawal) and behavioral difficulties such as aggression or acting out. (For more information see VCPN, volume 60.)

v More than half of homeless children have diagnosable anxiety or depression and one in five homeless preschool children have emotional problems that require professional care, three times the rate of housed children. There are also higher rates of behavioral problems, delayed developmental milestones, emotional dysregulation, and attachment disorders.

10

v Family homelessness increases the likelihood of separation from parents, whether through parental placement with relatives/friends or entry into fos-ter care. Nearly a fourth of homeless children experience separation from parents. Those most likely to be sep-arated from their parents are children with a mother who is drug dependent, in an institutional placement, and/or experiencing intimate partner violence.

v Attachment difficulties can result if parents have been traumatized and are unable to be responsive to children’s needs.

Over half to 85% of homeless single mothers experience diagnosable depression, over a third have PTSD, and over 40% have substance dependency. Having a parent with a substance dependency or with major depression can cause negative outcomes for children. In brief, mothers with depression who are homeless display limited parent-ing skills. They can be disengaged, lack understanding of child development, provide inadequate structure, use harsh and inconsis-tent discipline, communicate infrequently, lack empathy and warmth, and have trouble establishing predictable routines (studies reviewed in Bassuk & Beardslee, 2014).

Overall, the impact of homelessness on children can be devastating, leading to changes in brain architecture that can inter-fere with learning, emotional self-regulation, cognitive skills, and social relationships (Bassuk et al., 2014). The cumulative risk factors and multiple traumatic stressors, not simply the impact of being homeless, must be considered when assessing the effects on a child (Bassuk, 2010).

Causes of Homelessness

Causes of homelessness are varied and complex and appear intertwined with other social and personal difficulties. Causes cited in many publications include:v Poverty-See the main article for further

information about poverty. Single mothers have the highest rate of poverty (32% com-pared to 16% of households headed by single men and 6% of married couple households) (Bassuk et al., 2014; Institute for Children,

continued from page 9Homeless Families

Poverty and Homelessness, 2013). v Unemployment-Although the loss of

a job may not immediately result in housing instability, it can cause families with limited resources to deplete savings and eventually lose their homes (Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).v Lack of Affordable Housing-Af-

fordable housing has not kept pace with the rising number of renters with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2013). For every 100 extremely low-income households seeking to rent housing, there are just 30 affordable units. Households on a waiting list for housing assistance have a median wait time of two years (Leopold, 2012). The National Low Income Housing Coalition calculated that in no state could one individual working a 40-hour-per-week minimum wage job afford a two-bedroom unit for his or her family. While there is variation in costs nationally, an average wage of $18.92 is needed to afford a two-bedroom dwelling (Arnold et al., 2014). Additionally, homeless families are often in precarious financial condition pre-dating the homeless-ness (Hayes, Zonneville & Bassuk, 2013).

Over three decades, decreased production of federally subsidized housing units, rising rental costs and shrinking incomes mean that over half (53%) of all U. S. households are cost burdened and spending 30% or more of their income on housing with more than a quarter (27.4%) experiencing severe cost burden by spending over 50% of income on housing (Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013). Severe cost burden means families cut back on food, medical care, transportation and other necessities. v Impact of the 2007 Recession and

the Widening Income and Wealth Inequality-Families at the bottom ofthe income distribution continue to experi-ence declines (Bassuk et al., 2014). v Lack of Educational Attainment-

Between 39 to 65% of homeless mothers did not graduate from high school or earn a GED compared with 17.7% of mothers nationwide (Institute for Children, Poverty and Home-lessness, 2013). v Wage Discrepancy-Female workers

earn significantly less than males and Whites earn more than Blacks or Hispanics in almost every income bracket. Homeless fam-ilies are predominately minority households headed by single women who can expect to earn lower wages, regardless of education-al attainment level (Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013). v Challenges of Single Parenting-The

poverty rate for single-mother families was 39.6% in 2013, nearly five times the rate for married couple families (7.6%) (Bassuk et al., 2014).v Traumatic Stress-While it is not clear

whether trauma always predates the home-lessness, studies have shown higher rates of traumatic events for homeless women (some

of whom are also mothers and responsible for children). Intimate partner violence (IPV) is cited as the reason for homelessness for 20% to 50% of women (studies cited in Bassuk et al., 2014; Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013).v Health-A single serious illness or in-

jury can result in prohibitively high medical expenses and create housing instability. Over half (62.1%) of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by health problems (Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, 2013). v Mental Health Challenges-According

to studies reviewed in Bassuk et al. (2014), lifetime rates of depression in homeless mothers range from 45% to 85% compared to a 12% rate in all women. Depression can affect a person’s management, their employ-ability, and the ability to maintain routines and meet daily responsibilities. Depression adds to a mother’s difficulty in parenting, and is one of the strongest predictors of poor parenting and child maladjustment. Children of depressed mothers are at risk for compromised growth, development, and school readiness. Substance abuse disorders have a detrimental effect on a parent’s ability to maintain employment and can cause financial strain as money is drained for sub-stance use. Homeless mothers have a rate of substance abuse (41.1%) which is twice that of women in the general population (20.3%) (Institute for Children, Poverty and Home-lessness, 2013). v Intimate Partner Violence-It is

estimated that half of all homeless mothers experienced IPV and over one quarter of women in shelters cite domestic violence as the cause of their homelessness (Insti-tute for Children and Poverty, 2010). An analysis of data from the 2003 California Women’s Health Survey (Pavao et al., 2007) found that IPV was associated with housing instability. After adjusting for all covariates, women who experienced IPV within the past year were four times more likely to report housing instability than women who did not experience IPV.

Homelessness and Child Maltreatment

There are several intersections between homelessness and child maltreatment. A sig-nificant percentage of homeless adults report a history of being in foster care as children. Findings range from 25% to 58% (studies reviewed by CWLA, no date).

Poor housing or lack of housing can trigger CPS involvement, in some cases (Shdaimah, 2009). While families should not be separated solely because of lack of housing, neither should children be left in unsafe conditions. A lack of consensus about the definition of “adequate housing” makes assessing the adequacy of housing more difficult. Furthermore, CPS workers are not generally trained in knowledge of building

11

continued on page 12

structures, electrical wiring, and housing safety and may lack guidelines for evaluat-ing dwellings (Shdaimah). CPS generally partners with building inspectors and the department of health if there are issues about the safety of dwellings.

Housing can become an issue after CPS involvement, for example, if a parent loses housing due to entering a residential program for substance abuse. The parent needs the treatment, but the loss of housing will complicate being reunited with their children. Loss of housing can also be due to fleeing domestic violence, and leaving an abusive situation may even be a part of a service plan.

According to Dworsky (2014), research has consistently found higher rates of child welfare system involvement among homeless families than among low income families that are housed. Homeless families are more likely to be the focus of a CPS investigation, to have an open child welfare case, or to have a child placed in out-of-home care. It may be that the stress of homelessness leads to child maltreatment or it may be that living in shelters makes family interactions more observable to mandated reporters.

It should be apparent that while CPS is not a housing agency, housing can become a CPS problem as workers are challenged to try to keep families together. Neither CPS nor other parties such as judges have the ability to require housing agencies to be responsive to the needs of a family involved with CPS. Yet families arrive on CPS case-loads when lack of safe and adequate hous-ing puts children at risk (Shdaimah, 2009).

Responses to Family Homelessness

While there is housing assistanceavailable in most communities, housingassistance is not an entitlement. Only onein four eligible households receive anyform of federal rental assistance (Steffenet al., 2011 cited in Leopold, 2012). To beeligible for public housing or the HousingChoice Voucher Program (“Section 8”), ahousehold’s income must be less than 80%of the Area Median Income within a PublicHousing Authority’s area. Although no oneknows exactly how many households are currently on waiting lists, the number is thought to be in the millions. The wait for housing assistance is a year or longer in most areas (Leopold, 2012).

Obviously, safe, affordable housing is the primary response needed when a family is homeless. However, housing is not enough. Housing only addresses structural needs which do not completely alleviate the complex stresses that led to homeless-ness (Hinton & Cassel, 2012). Parents must have access to education and employment opportunities. There should be comprehen-sive needs assessment of all family mem-bers. In particular, attention is needed to

Resources from the National Center on Family HomelessnessNational Center on Family Homelessness

201 Jones Road, Suite 1Waltham, MA 02451

Phone: (781) 373-7072Email: info@familyhomeless.org

America’s Youngest Outcasts: A Report Card on Child HomelessnessBy: Ellen Bassuk, Carmela DeCandia, Corey Anne Beach, and Fred Berman, 2014, 130 pages.

Available at: http://new.homelesschildrenamerica.org/mediadocs/280.pdf

This publication describes child homelessness in America and pro-vides data on children who are homeless, including statistics, individual state reports, causes of child homelessness, and federal response to the issue. In the article, Bassuk and colleagues stress the increase of child homelessness and the importance of awareness in the United States. The authors propose solutions to child homelessness, such as providing safe and affordable housing, offering education and employment opportunities, conducting comprehensive needs assessments of all family members, providing trauma-in-formed care, providing parenting support, and developing and funding a research agenda.

Trauma-Informed Organizational Toolkit for Homeless Ser-vicesBy: Kathleen Guarino, Phoebe Soares, Kristina Konnath, Rose Clervil, and Ellen Bassuk, 2009, 100 pages.

Available at: http://www.familyhomelessness.org/media/90.pdf

This toolkit was developed to help programs meet the needs of trauma survivors by stating the prevalence of traumatic stress among homeless

family members and emphasizing the family’s needs. The authors also provide the definition and principles of trauma-informed care, support systems, and tips on developing a trauma-in-formed plan. The toolkit includes an organizational self-assessment, a user’s guide, and a how-to manual for creating organizational change.

Understanding Traumatic Stress in ChildrenBy: Ellen Bassuk, Kristina Konnath, Katherine Volk, 2006, 28 pages.

Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535527.pdf

This article highlights prevalent traumatic events and the effects that these traumas have on children and their caregivers. The article defines trauma and common traumatic events. The authors explain the effects of trauma on children, including physical, emotional, academic, and relational symptoms. The article also explains factors that may increase, decrease, or interfere with the likelihood of a child recovering from trauma. Common stress-related disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, are explained throughout the article. Finally, the article explains both acute (short exposure) trauma and complex (long exposure) trauma and the effects both have on children. The article offers tips to caregivers on avoiding trauma, as well as handling the issues, should they arise.

12

identify, prevent and treat major depression in mothers and to treat mental health issues such as substance abuse. Services need to incorporate trauma-informed care, as parents and children are likely to have experienced traumatic events. Parenting supports need to be made available to parents and develop-mentally-appropriate services and activities made available for children (Bassuk, et al., 2014).

While children are resilient and can recover from negative experiences, time is precious. Services for parents and children should be provided as soon as families enter emergency shelters or housing and essential services should follow children when the family has permanent housing (Bassuk et al., 2014).

Bassuk et al. (2014) note that a sys-tematic review of the literature found no evidence-based program models or practic-es to address family homelessness. While promising practices have emerged, there is no consensus or research data to support what mix of housing models and services is most effective for which families. Housing programs may use evidence-based practic-es from other fields, such as child welfare. Readers should note that the practices dis-cussed below are not proven practices. Promising Practice # 1–Assessment and Individualized Plans

Incorporating a comprehensive assess-ment into the intake process of housing programs has some advantages. The needs of the parent(s) and children can be identified, services can be delivered as early as possi-ble, urgent needs can be addressed, health difficulties can be known and treated earlier, and the family resiliency is strengthened (Bassuk et al., 2014). Ideally, this assessment would start at the point of intake into the emergency housing system (Perlman et al., 2012).

To avoid stigma and blaming parents for the challenges that they face, a strength-based assessment is recommended. Ap-proaches that are trauma-informed and strength-based try to maximize the parent’s choices and autonomy, and share power and control. Reviews of some publications detail-ing this approach are available on VCPN’s website.

Promising Practice # 2–Rapid Re-HousingRapid re-housing is a method to as-

sist families and individuals experiencing homelessness to access housing as quickly as possible and then deliver uniquely tailored services to help people maintain stable hous-ing. This strategy does not require families or individuals to live in an emergency shelter or transitional housing prior to obtaining permanent housing. The core components of rapid re-housing include housing identifi-cation services, financial assistance for rent and moving in, case management, and sup-portive services (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, no date).

Other options are Permanent Supportive Housing (long-term affordable housing with ongoing services for families with a parent with disabilities or a high level of need) or Transitional Housing (which combines a temporary residence for up to 24 months with intensive services). Promising Practice # 3–Housing First Efforts

Housing First provides permanent (not time-limited) housing to homeless women and their children immediately and does not make housing contingent on requirements such as employment, treatment attendance, or abstinence. The theory is that subsistence needs must be met prior to addressing the substance abuse. The approach recognizes that few mothers are willing to attend a long-term residential treatment program and that drop-out rates for these programs are high (U.S. Inter-agency Council on Homelessness, no date).

A study (Slesnick & Erden, 2012) pilot-tested a comprehensive intervention administered to 15 substance-abusing and homeless women with children. At the six-month mark, 66% were still in their housing. One woman moved in with her mother after utilities were cut off, three women moved in with romantic partners, and one woman entered residential treatment. Only two of the 15 women were able to maintain jobs. Half of the women who had experienced do-mestic violence (4 of the 8 women who had reported intimate partner violence at base-line) continued to report abuse by intimate partners. Substance use declined but not significantly. However, there were improve-ments in children’s behaviors after moving into housing and the mothers’ mental health showed improvements.

To succeed with housing, families with extensive needs require more assistance (Bassuk et al., 2014). When problem behav-iors arise that might violate the terms of the lease, service strategies such as motivational interviewing are used and service providers try to work with landlords to avoid evictions (U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, no date). A number of model programs in New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, Rhode Island, Portland, Oregon, California, Maine and Chicago, Illinois have demonstrated effectiveness and offer guidance about im-plementation (see usich.gov).

Promising Practice # 4–Education and Employment Opportunities

Limited education and employment histories, coupled with unreliable child care arrangements are risk factors for continued unemployment among single mothers. Some homeless mothers may have worked spo-radically at service jobs that pay minimum wage, but many mothers have never worked at all (Bassuk et al., 2014).The National Transitional Jobs Network suggests that employment programs for homeless families provide skills training and placement in local industries. Jobs should offer flexible sched-ules. Family life skills such as budgeting should be taught in addition to job placement to promote family self-sufficiency (Bassuk et al., 2014).

Promising Practice # 5–Parenting SupportQuality parenting is the single most ro-

bust protective factor for children exposed to various adversities, including homelessness (Reed-Victor, 2008). Research has found that there are resilient families. For example, parents who are more positive, less coercive, and better at problem-solving had children rated with more strengths and fewer emo-tional and behavioral symptoms (Gewirtz et al., 2009).

Given the extreme stress experienced by homeless mothers, both prior to and after homelessness, it is not surprising that studies have documented that homeless mothers tend to provide less structure and stimula-tion, are less warm towards their children, and tend to use coercive disciplinary prac-tices compared to housed mothers (studies reviewed in Bassuk et al., 2014). Providing parenting classes and parenting support can make a large difference in the lives of home-less children.

One parenting program that has been adapted for homeless mothers is Parenting Through Change. The program is a group 14-week parenting program based on the work of Gerald Patterson and the Parent Management Training–Oregon developed in his lab. The program targets five core parent-ing practices: skill encouragement; prob-lem-solving; limit setting; monitoring; and positive involvement. The 90-minute group sessions emphasize active learning and role play as methods for parents to practice the skills being taught.

Parenting Through Change was original-ly developed to address children’s behavioral problems emerging in the context of separa-tion and divorce. Studies with this popula-

continued from page 11Homeless Families

13tion demonstrated significant benefits for 238 mothers and their Kindergarten to sec-ond-grade sons. Positive outcomes included improved parenting practices, reduced child behavior problems, and increased academic performance. Additionally, maternal arrests and maternal depression were lower in the program group. The effects lasted over a 9-year time period. At the 9-year follow up, mothers who had participated in the program were outperforming control group participants on socioeconomic indicators of education, income, and occupation (Forgatch & Patterson, 2010 reviewed in Perlman et al., 2012).

In a series of studies, Gewirtz and col-leagues modified and evaluated Parenting Through Change for homeless families in a domestic violence shelter and in 16 sup-portive housing agencies. At the domestic violence shelter 9 of 10 participants com-pleted the program, even though some had left the shelter by the end. At the housing units, 64 parents (about two-thirds of those eligible) participated and retention was 70%. Preliminary data indicated positive outcomes (studies reviewed in Perlman et al., 2012 and in Herbers & Cutuli, 2014).

A second parenting program being piloted and tested with homeless families is Family Care Curriculum (FCC). FCC is a strengths-based 6-week program that meets once a week for 60 minutes. It was developed specifically for families living in temporary and transitional shelter. FCC integrates principles of attachment theory and social-learning theory and incorporates aspects of trauma-informed practice, Effec-tive Black Parenting, and self-care. The core hypothesis is that learning to think about and reflect upon what parents and children need will lead to more responsive parenting and greater sensitivity to children’s needs. Research on this program is in process but not yet published.

Information on additional programs (such as: Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral therapy; Early Risers; Building on Strengths and Advocating for Family Empower-ment- BSAFE) are available on the VCPN website. Promising Practice # 6–Involving Consumers in the Plans

A major barrier to effective parenting for mothers in shelters is feeling loss of self-control (Swick & Williams, 2010). Shelters may have schedules that are differ-ent from how the family is accustomed to operating. Certain child-rearing practices (such as prohibitions on corporal punishment or enforcement of curfews) may mean that mothers must adjust and adapt their parent-ing to suit the shelter staff. Individualizing the plan for the family with their input can help restore some feelings of control. Staff should avoid negative stereotypes by ap-proaching each family unit by listening with open and creative thinking and individual attention (Swick & Williams).

Promising Practice # 7–Mental Health Treatment

Treatment for parents with substance dependence, depression, PTSD and other mental health disorders is essential to the successful maintenance of housing (Bassuk et al., 2014). Intervening to address the par-ent’s mental health needs may be necessary to support child adjustment (Gewirtz et al., 2009). While shelters are unlikely to employ licensed mental health treatment profession-als, arrangements can be made with clinics for expedited intake and services or perhaps shelters could arrange for treatment profes-sionals to deliver services at the shelter.

In their 2014 review, Bassuk and Beards- lee found that evidence-based treatments for depression were rarely provided to homeless mothers. They found that most programs for homeless mothers do not screen for depres-sion or mental health treatment. Further, women of color were much less likely to be identified as depressed or offered treatment, indicating a need for culturally-competent care.

When mothers are treated for depression, their children have fewer emotional and be-havioral problems. There are numerous brief screening tools for depression, which take only minutes to administer and score.

Promising Practice # 8–Trauma-Informed Care

Homeless mothers report extremely high rates of trauma. Traumatic experiences involve a threat to one’s physical or emotion-al well-being that is overwhelming, results in intense feelings of fear, helplessness and lack of control, and changes the way a person understands himself or herself, the world, or others (Guarino & Bassuk, 2010).

In one study (Hayes et al., 2013 cited in Bassuk et al., 2014) 79% of homeless mothers reported experiencing trauma in childhood, 82% reported significant trauma experienced during adult years, and 91% re-ported trauma in both childhood and during adult years. The mental health consequences were thought to be profound with PTSD, depression and anxiety disorders having high prevalence.

Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) offers a framework for providing services to trauma-tized individuals within a variety of service settings, including homeless service settings (Hopper, Bassuk & Olivet, 2010). Trau-ma-informed care is a strengths-based frame-work that is grounded in an understanding of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma. Trauma-informed care emphasizes physical,

psychological, and emotional safety for both survivors and providers. The approach aims to create opportunities for survivors to rebuild a sense of control and empowerment (Hopper et al., 2010).

Homeless providers should understand and be able to recognize the signs of PTSD. Screening with validated instruments can be helpful in alerting staff to the presence of a trauma victim. Staff needs to learn how to engage parents in trusting relationships that promote choice, empowerment and self-ef-ficacy. Because trauma survivors often feel unsafe (and may be in danger, especially if they are victims of domestic abuse), TIC works towards building both physical and emotional safety. Because interpersonal trauma often involves boundary violations, providers should establish clear roles and boundaries as well as collaborative deci-sion-making. Because control is often lost during trauma and victimization, providers should seek opportunities to help homeless mothers rebuild control.

According to Hopper et al. (2010), there is no data to indicate whether or not TIC is effective specifically within homeless services, as quantitative studies are lacking. However, in other settings, the authors note that TIC leads to better outcomes, including lessened psychiatric symptoms and decreas-es in substance use. Children who receive TIC show better self-esteem, improved relationships, and improved safety. TIC may result in a decrease in crisis-based services such as hospitalization. It also results in increased residential stability. Since the cost of TIC is similar to standard care, the methods are cost-effective. Hopper et al. conclude that the implementation of TIC is in its infancy but is an important area for further exploration. They discuss six separate approaches that are being piloted.

The National Center on Family Home-lessness has created a resource, Trauma-In-formed Organizational Toolkit for Homeless Services, which is also available through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (see review, this issue, page 11).Promising Practice # 9–Intensive Service Packages

According to Herbers and Cutuli (2014), an analysis of housing stability revealed that families receiving case management and more intensive services in addition to the ‘Section 8’ housing voucher fared better on housing stability. Additional Needs

According to the National Center on Family Homelessness (2012), change is needed in how mainstream services coordi-nate and collaborate. There is also a need for training of service providers about the needs of homeless families. Homeless families should be prioritized. In order to gather more useful data and to eliminate confusion, a single definition of homelessness across all federal programs would be helpful.

continued on page 14

14

Children’s Needs

It is not enough to simply obtain housing for the family. Services that help children attend school regularly (such as enrollment assistance; bus tokens; transportation) are needed as are services that support student success in school (dental care; medical care; hearing and vision care; tutoring). Training staff to promote positive parent-ing and to create parent-centered family shelter or housing is essential (Bassuk et al., 2014). However, a review of interventions to address the needs of homeless children (Herbers & Cutuli, 2014) found that within the guidelines of the What Works Clearing-house (WWC) standards for evidence-based practices, none of the interventions reviewed had sufficient evidence to be rated as having ‘Positive Effects.’ While the needs of home-less children have been documented, inter-ventions to assist have not been rigorously evaluated. Evaluation is complicated by the highly mobile families and high attrition rates. Promising Practice #1- Screening

Universal screening for homeless children ages birth to five years of age is essential in order to identify possible developmental problems (Bassuk et al., 2014). For infants and toddlers, this service is available through Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA or IDEIA), created in 1986. In each state, a lead agency administers early intervention screening. (See VCPN Volume 99 for more information.)

Children should be assessed using brief, standardized measures. Children should be assessed for developmental delay as well as the presence of mental, emotional and behavioral disorders and referrals should be made based on the results. One resource (reviewed in this issue) is the Early Child-hood Self-Assessment Tool for Family Shelters (by the Administration for Children & Families). Promising Practice #2–Enable Families to Maintain Routines

Interviews of families experiencing homelessness have suggested that main-taining family routines is important and sometimes difficult to accomplish in tem-porary housing (Guarino & Bassuk, 2010; Mayberry et al., 2014). Family routines can reinforce a sense of control and self-efficacy.

Children fare better with predictable rou-tines. Routines can contribute to a sense of security for children. Collaboration between shelter staff and parents at the entry into the shelter can include how to manage family routines within the restrictions of shelter programs. Promising Practice #3–Child Care Support

Quality child care and preschool ex-periences provide homeless children with a greater likelihood of academic success and decrease the risk for later behavioral problems (Reed-Victor, 2008). The provi-sion of after-school programs and tutoring are important supports for parents who are working. Promising Practice # 4–Child Centered Spaces

It is important for shelters and transi-tional housing to provide both indoor and outdoor play spaces with developmentally- appropriate toys and equipment. Provision of activities and opportunities for positive interactions between parents and children can enhance children’s adjustment (Perlman et al., 2012). Creating safe environments that are welcoming and relaxing can provide a sense of security (Guarino & Bassuk, 2010). Promising Practice #5–Mentoring

Mentoring has proven effective in diverse settings and with many populations. The im-portance of a caring adult such as a mentor or teacher can be a crucial support for a child experiencing homelessness (Mitchell, 2011; Powers-Costello & Swick, 2011; Whelan, 2015).Promising Practice # 6–Involving Schools as a Support System

A positive school environment can be a child’s refuge. School is not only a source of learning, but also has important social as-pects. Involving homeless children in activi-ties such as a sports team or musical groups can offer a sense of belonging. For younger children, early childhood professionals can function both as supports to children and as support and guidance for the parent (Swick, 2009). Schools can even address practical aspects of daily living. Some schools have taken on the stigma of poor hygiene and provided laundry facilities and showers to homeless children. Some schools maintain clothing closets where children in need can obtain clothing, shoes, coats and boots. Schools have sometimes provided medical and dental services and even treated head lice (Berliner, 2002). Promising Practice # 7–Trauma-informed Care

High numbers of homeless children have experienced the effects of witnessing IPV and high numbers have themselves been maltreated and neglected (Bassuk et al., 2014). For those children who have not been abused or neglected, there still are the effects of stress due to homelessness. The term complex trauma refers to the multiple trau-matic events that are recurrent or ongoing

and of long duration. Complex trauma often originates with the care-giving system during critical developmental stages and can lead to both immediate and to long-term difficulties in many areas of functioning, but commonly is associated with disrupted attachments. The prevalence of chronic interpersonal violence, for example, coupled with the stress of strug-gling with daily survival may not be unusual for homeless children and their mothers (Guarino & Bassuk, 2010).

When providers understand trauma responses, they can assist children in prac-ticing self-control and can teach techniques to de-escalate situations. Providers can help children understand what happens in their bodies and brains and teach techniques for self-soothing and for coping (Guarino & Bassuk, 2010).

Two resources (reviewed in this issue of VCPN) are: A Long Journey Home: A Guide for Creating Trauma-Informed Services for Mothers and Children Experi-encing Homelessness (by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network) and Understand-ing Traumatic Stress in Children (by the National Center on Family Homelessness). The care components of intervention should involve both the child and the care-giving system. Homeless children who experience positive parenting are likely to show fewer trauma symptoms (Bassuk et al., 2014).Care components should include attention to safe-ty, self-regulation, information-processing, relationships and strategies for integrating the traumatic experiences (Bassuk, 2010). An Additional Idea

Some innovative programs such as the DeKalb KidsHome Collaborative in Decatur, Georgia also offer financial assistance for school supplies and extracurricular activities (such as rental fees for band instruments, uniforms, and summer enrichment camps).

Resiliency

Not all children who experience home-lessness do poorly. Many, perhaps even a majority, maintain or even thrive in the face of adversity (Bassuk, 2010). Resilience is defined as the capacity of children to exceed expectations when faced with hardship or adversity (Reed-Victor, 2008). Under-standing how resilient children process and incorporate traumatic experiences can assist in developing interventions and preventing negative outcomes.

Herbers et al. (2014) examined expo-sure to potentially traumatic events among children residing in emergency housing with their families. They found that parenting characterized by warmth, structure, and responsiveness was consistently associated with positive child outcomes such as better self-regulation, higher executive function-ing, and fewer behavioral and emotional problems. Therefore, parents and caregivers can provide some protection from negative impacts of adversity through supportive parenting behaviors.

continued from page 13Homeless Families

15Prevention-Addressing Root Causes

Why are families unable to afford housing? This issue is political, in part, and opinions vary about root causes. Prevention efforts vary, according to perceived causative factors.

Societal Factors

Some authors (such as APA, 2009; Child Trends Data Bank, 2015; National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2013) cite a “lack of affordable housing” and low minimum wage. A parent working a full-time minimum-wage job still cannot afford housing in most parts of the country. Therefore, even in families where the parent is working full-time, the family lacks housing because housing costs more than 50% of their income. Economic downturn, high levels of foreclosure, and high poverty rates can all contribute to larger numbers of homeless individuals and fami-lies. Provision of affordable day care can be a factor. Some parents cannot afford quality day care (Bassuk et al., 2014).

Individual Factors

Some parents cannot find work or cannot keep work. Factors that are associated with poor work histories include: low levels of ed-ucation (dropping out of school); substance addiction; serious mental health difficulties; low level of work skills; lack of motivation to work. Teen parents without family support are particularly vulnerable. Domestic vio-lence or intimate partner violence is cited by sources as a reason for family homelessness. IPV can be a factor in teens that run away and are homeless.

Prevention Thoughts

Preventing homelessness equates to having youth arrive at adulthood happy, healthy, able to care for themselves, and ready to work. Efforts to educate youth, to steer them from hazards such as drug abuse, to encourage delaying parenting until the youth is financially stable, to help youth have positive relationships with others and to provide a support network for those who need additional assistance will all help pre-vent homelessness.

Concluding Thoughts

Housing is essential but not sufficient for ending homelessness (Bassuk, 2010). Housing must be accompanied by services and supports. The needs of families are heterogeneous and each family has strengths and challenges. Individualized plans and approaches can reflect the family’s and the children’s needs. Given the complex needs of homeless families, it is essential that staff be well-trained and responsive. As our knowledge base grows, evidence-based methods with high effectiveness should be-come available. Until then, use of promising practices can move us closer to the goal of reducing homelessness.

Reference List Available on VCPN’s Website

P.O. Box 26274Minneapolis, MN 55426

Website: http://www.naehcy.org/

NAEHCY is a national grassroots membership organization with a vision to see every child and youth experiencing homelessness be successful in school at all levels, from early childhood through higher education. NAEHCY is the only professional organization ded-icated exclusively to meeting the educational needs of children and youth who experience homelessness. The organization provides resources, training, and support for anyone interest-ed in improving the academic achievement of children and youth experiencing homelessness. The NAEHCY website also contains helpful information on current legislation, research, and professional development opportunities.

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is the first significant federal response to homelessness. It was signed into law in 1987, amend-ed in 2001, and was reauthorized in 2009 as the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The law is designed to remove barriers to education created by homelessness, there-by increasing enrollment, attendance, and success of children and youth affected by family homelessness. Under this law, funds are made available to local school districts to hire liaisons to coordinate services for homeless children attending public school.

The educational rights of homeless children are several. According to the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, key provisions are:v Students who are homeless can remain in their school if that is in

their best interest, even if the student is housed temporarily in anoth-er school district or attendance area. Schools must provide transpor-tation.

v Children and youth who are homeless are permitted to enroll in school and to begin attending immediately, even if they cannot pro-duce normally-required documents such as birth certificates, immuni-zations, or proof of residency.

v Every school district must designate a homeless liaison to ensure that the McKinney-Vento Act is implemented in their district. Home-less liaisons have many critical responsibilities, including identifica-tion of homeless children, enrollment, and collaboration with commu-nity agencies.

v Every state must designate a state coordinator to ensure that the Act is implemented properly in the state.

v State and school homeless liaisons must coordinate with other agen-cies serving homeless children to enhance educational attendance and success.

v State departments of education and local school districts must review and revise school policies and practices in order to eliminate barriers to enrollment and retention of homeless youth.

Phone: (866) 862-2562Fax: (763) 545-9499Email: info@naehcy.org

16

What is the incidence of homelessness in Virginia?

The Virginia Coalition to End Home-lessness (2014) reported that rates of home-lessness in Virginia have decreased 13% between 2005 and 2009 and decreased by 16% across the commonwealth from 2010 to 2013. About 8,400 men, women and children are homeless on any given night in Virginia with nearly 40,000 Virginians experiencing homelessness during the course of the year. The VCEH 2013 report offered a break down by type. That report found 7,625 individuals experiencing homelessness, representing 5,464 households, including 984 households with at least one child. While 13.4% were unsheltered, only 3% of the families with children were ‘living on the street’ or in plac-es not intended for human habitation. Half of the families with children were in transi-tional housing and 47% were in emergency shelters.

of Project HOPE-Virginia said that schools in Virginia have identified more than 18,000 homeless students a year over the past two years. Schools have observed a 87% increase between 2006-07 and 2013-14.

How does homelessness in Virginia compare

to other states?

How Virginia is faring depends upon which report or individual is consulted.

The American Institutes for Research (Bassuk, DeCandia, Beach & Berman, 2014) ranked each state on four domains related to child homelessness. They report a composite score and ratings for each domain. On the overall composite rating, Virginia ranks 15th (1= best and 50= worst) in the nation.

The first domain is Extent of Child Homelessness. Virginia ranks 14th on this domain with an estimated 35,716 children homeless in 2012-13. The second domain is Child Well-Being. Key indicators on this domain are health problems of children below 100% of poverty; child food securi-ty; and educational proficiency. Virginia’s ranking is 17th on this domain. For children below 100% of the poverty line, 13% have one or more chronic health conditions, 12% have asthma, and 13% are diagnosed with ADHD. Three percent of households have very low food security and 79% of eligible households participate in SNAP (Supple-mental Nutritional Assistance Program). Of children eligible for free lunch, 21% of 4th grade students were proficient in reading and 25% were proficient in math while 18% of 8th grade students were proficient in reading and 17% were proficient in math.

The third domain is risk for homeless-ness, where Virginia ranks 17th. This domain consists of Home Foreclosure rank (20th), percent of children in poverty (15%), percent of children without health insurance (5.6%), female-headed households (6.7%), teen birth rate (22.9 per 1,000), state minimum wage ($7.25), income needed for a 2-bedroom apartment ($20.72/hour), and households paying more than 50% of income for rent (21%).

The fourth and last domain is State Policy and Planning. Virginia does have a state housing trust fund, a state plan for home-lessness that includes children and families, and a State Interagency Council on Home-lessness. There are 585 emergency shelter housing units, 872 transitional housing units and 373 permanent supportive housing units.

The National Alliance to End Home-lessness and Homeless Research Institute offers a somewhat different assessment. Of the 633,782 homeless in January, 2012, there were 239,403 people in 77,157 households. In Virginia there were 8,424 homeless and Virginia ranked 6th best in the nation. The median Virginia income was listed as $61,882 and the poverty rate for the Com-monwealth was 11.5%.

The Issue of Affordable Housing

As is true for the nation (see the main article on homeless families), affordable housing is an issue in Virginia. VCPN staff talked with Mel Jones, MA, MS, Research Associate, of the Virginia Center for Hous-ing Research. She related that, according to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), families who pay more than 30% of their income for housing are con-sidered cost-burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. Paying more than 30% of household income for housing expenses may place low-income families at an increased risk of experiencing homelessness.

Jones confirmed that a significant number of Virginia families are cost-burdened by housing and have to make choices between housing and other basic needs. She of-fered the following figures: Based on the 2013, 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), approximately 982,510 Virginia households include at least one child 17 years of age or younger. Of those Virginia households, 318,899 (32.46%) pay more than 30% of their income for housing. More than a third of the cost-burdened households, 130,205 (or 13.25% of Virginians), pay more than 50% of their income for housing.

Wages have not kept pace with housing costs. According to the National Low In-come Housing Coalition, a total of 115 hours per week of minimum wage work is needed in the Commonwealth of Virginia in order to afford a 2-bedroom dwelling and stay within the recommended budget of 30% of wages dedicated to rent. Therefore, even two parents working full-time fall short if both are work-ing full-time at minimum wage employment.

It is more typical for a homeless family to be headed by a single parent. According to Shannon Porter, Executive Director of Harri-sonburg’s Mercy House shelter, entry-level jobs rarely offered full-time work. Therefore, a parent must string together two part-time jobs to obtain full-time hours.

VIRGINIA’S PICTURE– FAMILY HOMELESSNESS

The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, in its 2013-14 report (Virginia’s Homeless Programs 2013-14), says that homelessness in the commonwealth declined 22.6%from 2010 to 2014. During that time period, family home-lessness decreased more than 25%. They report 7,020 individuals homeless during any given night with approximately 28,080 to 35,100 individuals homeless during the course of the year. Many have special needs such as serious mental disability (16%) or substance abuse disorder (17%). Thirteen percent were homeless due to domestic violence. Seventeen percent of households experiencing homelessness included house-holds with dependent children.

The document, Virginia’s Homeless Programs 2013-14 reports that 15,217 indi-viduals were served in the commonwealth’s homeless shelters. Of these, 27% (4,174) were under age 18. Those ages 5 and young-er were 13% of the total (2003) while 10% were ages 6 to 12 (1571) and 4% were ages 13 to 17 (600).

The Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness (2013) estimated Virginia had 1,145 homeless families on a single night in January, 2011. These families contained 3,585 individuals. Using a different defini-tion of homelessness, Patricia Popp, Ph.D.

17What efforts are being made to

address homelessness in Virginia?

Pamela Kestner, MSW, the Special Advisor on Families, Children and Poverty, Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, discussed the evolution of the Gov-ernor’s Initiative on Homelessness.

In 2010, Executive Order Number Ten called for an active review of housing policy issues facing the Commonwealth of Virginia. This order built on a 2006 report of the Vir-ginia Housing Commission entitled Guiding Principles for State Housing Policy. The hous-ing policy framework initiative was chaired by Bob Sledd, the governor’s Senior Economic Advisor. A Homeless Outcomes Advisory Committee was convened by Bob Sledd and Dr. William Hazel, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, to assist in drafting an action plan to prevent homelessness and to address the needs of homeless Virginians.

Kestner explained that in 2011, Virgin-ia’s homeless prevention plan attracted the attention of the Freddie Mac Foundation and the commonwealth received a grant to utilize the Rapid Re-Housing approach as a key intervention. The National Alliance to End Homelessness partnered with the commonwealth and the Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness to administer the grant. Over a three-year period, the Alliance and its partners focused on helping organiza-tions shift from a traditional shelter service to addressing homelessness through Rapid Re-Housing. Also, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development shifted resources into Rapid Re-Housing.

According to Kestner, the efforts have re-sulted in a significant reduction in homeless-ness between 2010 and 2014 of over 25%. The reduction can be largely attributed to the shift in moving people into permanent hous-ing more quickly while providing support services through community resources. The collaborative efforts at state and local levels and the work of the Homeless Outcomes Coordinating Council have provided the structure for the successful effort.

At the 2014 Virginia Governor’s Hous-ing Conference, Governor Terry McAuliffe issued Executive Order 32 to advance critical components of Virginia’s housing policy agenda. Executive Order 32 states, in part, “The sustained economic and social vitality of communities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia depends upon the quality, avail-ability, and affordability of housing.” (See www.virginia.gov/ for more information.)

HUD provides a significant percentage of funding for homeless assistance efforts in Virginia. The second highest source of support is private funding, followed by local government funds and state funds and other sources (such as grants).

Arlington County has a core network of interconnected programs and services called a Continuum of Care or CoC to assist people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. It includes both government pro-grams and non-profit organizations.

Tony Turnage is the Coordinator for Homeless Programs. In a recent interview with VCPN staff he related that Homeless-ness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing is the core of Arlington’s approach to families. “We use a Progressive Engagement Model to determine the best combination of services for a particular family. There is no assump-tion about what sorts of services are needed or for how long. Rather than offer everyone 24 months of transitional housing, as we used to do, we try to determine the need and fit the need to particular services and time frames,” he explains. Turnage says that the Rapid Re-Housing model removes barriers to obtaining housing.

Arlington operates a Centralized Access System. At intake, the worker uses the brief form of the SPDAT (Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) to determine whether or not the family can be diverted from homelessness. If the family has to be housed at a shelter, there are five in the coun-ty that provide a safe, structured environ-ment. Some of the shelters have children’s

SPOTLIGHT ON ARLINGTON

services coordinators. If the shelter is not successful in re-housing the family, they perform a more in-depth assessment using the full SPDAT. Turnage said that Arlington implemented the centralized intake system about a year ago. They are collecting data to determine whether or not the new approach will allow them to serve more families.

There is an increasing concern about homeless youth, such as those aging out of foster care. Turnage related that the commu-nity recently (May 21, 2015) sponsored a workshop on the topic to try to examine the gaps in serving this population. A diverse group of community leaders and school personnel gathered to attend workshops and share ideas.

In addition to traditional offerings (such as Transitional Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing), Arlington operates a Safe Haven Program for persons with severe mental illness. They also do Street Outreach and offer a drop-in center. In cooperation with mental health, there is a Treatment on Wheels mobile service that can do assess-ments and begin treatment for homeless persons with mental health disorders.

To learn more about Arlington’s innova-tive approaches, contact Tony Turnage (703) 228-1350 or (703) 228-1300 or by E-mail: tturnage@arlingtonva.us

The Virginia Center for Housing Re-search (VCHR), located at Virginia Tech, serves as an interdisciplinary study, research and information resource on housing. One full-time research faculty, affiliated facul-ty in three departments and six graduate students provide research-based information and technical assistance to policy makers, communities and businesses to create afford-able housing.

According to Mel Jones, MA, MS, Re-search Associate, there are many challenges to creating affordable housing. Challenges include regulations concerning minimum lot size and minimum building fees. There also are factors such as ‘lack of political will’ to utilize tools to require affordable housing. In spite of challenges, many communities are working hard and making progress.

Jones mentioned two recent projects. VCHR worked with the Richmond Part-nership for Housing Affordability and with

SPOTLIGHT ON VIRGINIA TECH

Virginia Commonwealth University to assess housing affordability in the Richmond region and identify strategies to improve access to affordable housing for people in the region. The research product offers data to guide decision-making. VCHR also assisted Fair-fax County with developing data analysis for their 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan. They recently completed a study of the impact of energy efficient construction in the Virginia Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and are working with the Window and Door Manufactures Association on their Annual Product Use report.

“Affordable housing is a large challenge everywhere,” says Jones. “The main issue is that wages are not increasing proportionately to climbing housing costs.”

Contact Mel Jones at: (540) 231-3993 or by E-mail: Mel.Jones@vt.eduWeb Site: www.vchr.vt.edu/continued on page 18

18

HUD requirements were altered by the federal 2009 HEARTH (Homeless Emer-gency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing) Act. The HEARTH Act seeks to radically transform the traditional system of delivering homeless services. HEARTH moves the emphasis from temporary housing and emergency food to a system centered upon permanent housing as the solution to homelessness, a model commonly referred to as “Rapid Re-Housing.” The HEARTH Act approach centers upon providing those experiencing homelessness with housing as quickly as possible and preferably within 30 days. The HEARTH Act has not yet been fully implemented and communities are in the process of aligning with the require-ments. In Virginia, seven of the Continuums of Care (below) reported meeting the 30-day goal, while the remainder had average stays that ranged from 30 to more than 90 days.

The local community planning enti-ties that are responsible for implementing changes in delivering housing are called the Continuums of Care (CoC). Currently there are 15 CoCs in Virginia. They collective-ly have 1,013 organizations participating. Members included private sector organiza-tions, nonprofits and faith-based groups. All CoCs in Virginia have homeless or formerly homeless representatives involved in the decision-making and providing consumer input. Some communities have consumer advisory councils to provide input and feed-back to the CoC.

In 2013, the largest unmet needs were: permanent supportive housing; affordable rental housing; ‘Section 8’ vouchers for low income housing; and adequate funding for case management. Access to employment opportunities was frequently identified as a major factor, with CoCs expressing difficul-ty in securing employment for clients with mental illness (including addiction) and dis-ability. Single parents in particular were dif-ficult to assist with employment due to lack of available and affordable child care. Eleven of the CoCs reduced the number of homeless households with children and these CoCs collectively reduced the number of homeless households by 94 (Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness, 2013).

The Virginia Homeless Solutions Pro-gram (VHSP) is a state- and federally-fund-ed program. Funding sources are the State General Fund and the federal Emergency Solutions Grant that supports Continuum

VIRGINIA RESOURCES

continued from page 17Virginia’s Picture

Virginia Coalition to End HomelessnessP.O. Box 14649Richmond, VA 23221(703) 861-0102Website: http://www.vceh.org/index.phpEmail: vceh@vceh.org

The Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness (VCEH) is a state-wide, non-profit organization that connects people who are concerned about homelessness. Their goal is to bring effective policies, systems, and services into practice across Virginia. The organization was created to prevent and end homelessness in Virginia through community collaboration, capacity building, education, and advocacy. VCEH maintains a database of information regarding homelessness rates in order to analyze trends and to plan and to conduct research on long-lasting solutions. In addition, they provide training and information for practitioners and providers alike involved with homelessness. The website offers resources and media related to homelessness.

Continuum of Care (CoC) ProgramRichmond Field Office600 East Broad Street, 3rd FloorRichmond, VA 23219-4320

Website: https://www.onecpd.info/coc/Phone: (804) 822-4831

The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is designed to promote communitywide com-mitment to the goal of ending homelessness. The program provides funding for efforts by nonprofit providers and state and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families, while minimizing the trauma and dislocation faced by homeless individuals, families, and communities. They also work to promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families. CoC also optimizes self-suffi-ciency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

Virginia Housing Trust Fund Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development600 East Main Street, Suite 300Richmond, VA 23219

Phone: (804) 371-7000Website: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/index.php/virginia-housing-trust-fund-plan.html

The Virginia Housing Trust Fund was created by Budget Bill 108, Section G in order to fund loans to reduce the cost of homeownership and rental housing and provide grants for targeted efforts to reduce homelessness. The fund is administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Virginia Housing Development Au-thority. The loan program for homeownership and rental housing offers a majority of loans through a competitive loan pool open to a variety of eligible projects and a smaller percent-age of loans that are dedicated to a residential foreclosure rehabilitation and resale program. The Virginia Housing Trust Fund also permits the allocation of funds for grants to several types of organizations, including local governments, local housing and redevelopment au-thorities, and regional or statewide organizations.

19of Care (CoC) strategies. VHSP has several goals: 1) reducing the number of individuals and households who become homeless; 2) shortening the length of time an individual or household is homeless; and 3) reducing the incidence of recurring homelessness for the same individuals or families.

Funding from VHSP can be distribut-ed to units of local government, nonprofit groups, planning district commissions, and public housing authorities. The funding can support shelter operations, rapid re-housing, prevention efforts, centralized or coordinat-ed assessment systems, CoC planning, and administrative activities.

Nichele Carver is the Housing Program Manager for the Homeless and Special Needs Housing Unit of the Virginia Depart-ment of Housing and Community Devel-opment. She also is the coordinator for the Child Care for Homeless Children Grant Program. She recently spoke with VCPN staff. Carver said that 27 different local planning groups and CoCs applied for the Virginia Homeless Solutions funds.

The program supports rapid re-housing efforts. Carver explains, “Each community has a diversion person who tries to prevent homelessness. Barriers to re-housing are eliminated whenever possible. Once there is a barrier, it is harder to re-house. We try to get people housed within 30 days.” A hous-ing locator keeps a data base of landlords who work with the Virginia Homeless Solu-tions program. Carver relates that services to support families can be provided for up to two years, based on the family’s or the individual’s need.

The Child Care for Homeless Children Program is provided through a federal-ly-funded Child Care and Development Block Grant. The Virginia Department of Social Services is the lead agency and the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development administers the program through an interagency agreement with DSS. The goal of the program is to increase the availability and affordability of quality child care to home-less families residing in emergency shelter or transitional housing. The 2013-14 grant fund-ing was $300,000. The funds were used to pro-vide child care services for homeless families when the parent was working or in a training

or education program. Awards were made on a non-competitive basis to grantees that received Homeless Solution grant funds or Emergency Solutions grant funds. This funding is still available through the same process.

Virginia also has created a Virginia Housing Trust Fund dedicated to: a) providing flexible financing for low-interest loans for affordable rental housing, down payment for home buyers, and loans to re-duce the cost of home ownership and rental housing; and b) providing grants to eligible organizations for targeted efforts to reduce homelessness (see block, page 18).

Housing Virginia provides the latest comprehensive data on housing affordability with its tools Sourcebook and Playbook. Sourcebook compiles a wide range of afford-ability data by every locality and statewide, such as comparisons of income versus housing cost and personalized affordability calculators. With Sourcebook, housing pro-viders and community supporters can access all of the data related to affordable housing needs in one place. Currently, researchers are working to add data on homelessness in Virginia to the Sourcebook. Playbook is a tool that records best practices in policy and programs around the commonwealth,

including those relating to homelessness and supportive housing. Both tools were developed in partnership with the Virginia Center for Housing Research at Virginia Tech and are offered for free on the Housing Virginia website: www.housingvirginia.org

Project HOPE-Virginia at The College of William and Mary contracts with the Vir-ginia Department of Education to coordinate services for homeless children and youth in Virginia schools. VCPN spoke recently to Patricia Popp, Ph.D. who has headed Project HOPE since 2003. She explained that each school has a Homeless Education Liaison who assists homeless children and families with school enrollment and adjustment. “Our school liaisons are doing far more than the law requires!” Popp related. (The requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act are detailed in a separate block, page 15.)

Mobile students may require assistance in acquiring former school records, they may need school supplies, and transportation must be arranged. Homeless students have the right to continue to attend their school of origin, even if they are temporarily out of that school district and schools must provide transportation. To keep pace with other stu-

continued on page 20

Project HOPE-Virginia: Education for Homeless Children and YouthCollege of William & Mary School of EducationP.O. Box 8795Williamsburg, VA 23187(757) 221-40021-877-455-3412

Website: http://education.wm.edu/centers/hope/index.phpContact: Patricia Popp, Ph.D.Email: homlss@wm.edu

Project HOPE-Virginia is a federally-funded grant program that uses public awareness efforts and subgrants to local schools in order to ensure enrollment, attendance, and success of homeless children and youth in school. Project HOPE-Virginia funds activities during the school year, including early childhood education, mentoring, tutoring, parent educa-tion, summer enrichment programs, and domestic violence intervention programs. Project HOPE-Virginia works with the Governor’s Advisory Committee on Homelessness, the Interagency Partnership to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness, the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, The National Center for Homeless Education, as well as various other agencies, programs, colleges, and universities throughout the United States.

Virginia Workforce Connection

Website: https://www.vawc.virginia.gov/vosnet/Default.aspx

The Virginia Workforce Connection is an online resource created to connect employers and job seekers. The website contains comprehensive job matching between job seekers and employers, job information, wage data, skill requirements, industry and occupational trends, and information on potential training opportunities. The Virginia Workforce Connection contains sections for both employers and job seekers, an area to create a resume, unemployment insurance information, labor market information, training providers, and other relevant information and resources. The Virginia Workforce Con-nection also contains information and links to other commonwealth sites and resources.

20

91 E. Grace Street, MSC 7704

Harrisonburg, VA 22807

Attn: J. Grayson

Return Service Requested

Department of

Psychology

Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. POSTAGE PAID

Harrisonburg, VA 22802PERMIT NO. 161

© Commonwealth of VirginiaDepartment of Social Services

VCPN is copyrighted but may be repro-duced or reprinted with permission. Write for “Request to Reprint” forms. Request or inquiry is addressed to: Joann Grayson, Ph.D., Department of Psychol- ogy, MSC 7704, James Madison Univer- sity, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, or call (540) 568-6482. E-mail: graysojh@jmu.edu

VCPN is on the web – Visit us at:http://psychweb.cisat.jmu.edu/graysojh/

Go GreenIf you prefer an electronic notice when VCPN is published rather than a hard copy, please e-mail your preference to Joann Grayson at graysojh@jmu.edu

See the Website for more Articles!

540-429

dents, mobile students may require addition-al instruction or remedial help. Parents may need help in maintaining school records. The Homeless Education Liaison provides these services as well as personal contact. “We strive to have each child feel safe and secure, valued, welcomed, and connected to the community. Achievement is important, but we know that we must meet some basic needs first,” explained Popp.

Popp related that the Virginia State Coun-cil on Higher Education is planning a pilot project in four Virginia schools targeting seniors who are homeless and who want to enroll in higher education. The project is ongoing at schools in Lynchburg, Roanoke, Petersburg, and Newport News. Project HOPE–Virginia also offers grants for schools by RFP on a three-year cycle.

Project HOPE–Virginia provides train-ing and monitoring. They also coordinate a statewide conference in December of each year. Project HOPE–Virginia has many publications available through their website. A sample are: Tips for Supporting Mobile Students; Virginia Standards of Learning: A Guide for Families; Identifying Homeless Youth on their Own; Questions and Answers on Homeless Education.

Readers wanting more information can contact Patricia Popp at (757) 221-4002 or by E-mail: homlss@wm.edu/hope or can visit the web site at: www.wm.edu/hope

Conclusions

The Virginia Coalition to End Homeless-ness and their state and local partners have set a goal of reducing the rates of homeless-ness and preventing homelessness before it occurs in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ending or even reducing homelessness will require a strong local and state response that engages an entire system of agencies, organizations and individuals.

References are Available on the VCPN website

continued from page 19Virginia’s Picture

Special Thanks To…..

Patricia Popp, Ph.D.Pamela Kestner, MSW