Addressing some of the support related issues that cause conditions that may result in contact with the Office of Children’s Services is one way to prevent further escalation of child neglect and maltreatment and perhaps additional contact with OCS. Preventive services as a cost savings action.
Sources:Mathematica-Cody 2010– Cody S, Reed D, Basson D, et al. Simplification of health and social services enrollment and eligibility: Lessons for California from interviews in four states. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research (MPR); 2010.RAND-Europe 2012– RAND Europe, Ernst & Young LLP. National evaluation of the DH integrated care pilots. RAND Health Quarterly. 2012;2(1):8.MDRC-Support center– Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). Work advancement and support center demonstration.King 2006*– King G, Meyer K. Service integration and co-ordination: A framework of approaches for the delivery of co-ordinated care to children with disabilities and their families. Child: Care, Health, and Development. 2006;32(4):477-492.Packard 2013– Packard T, Patti R, Daly D, Tucker-Tatlow J. Implementing services integration and interagency collaboration: Experiences in seven counties. 2013;37(4):356-371.Fisher 2012*– Fisher MP, Elnitsky C. Health and social services integration: A review of concepts and models. Social Work in Public Health. 2012;27(5):441–68.Guerrero 2014*– Guerrero EG, Henwood B, Wenzel SL. Service integration to reduce homelessness in Los Angeles County: Multiple stakeholder perspectives. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. 2014;38(1):44-54.Rosenheck 2001– Rosenheck R, Morrissey J, Lam J, et al. Service delivery and community: Social capital, service systems integration, and outcomes among homeless persons with severe mental illness. Health Services Research. 2001;36(4):691–710.YG-Program search– Youth.gov (YG), Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP). Evidence-based program directories: Program directory search.Smith 2013*– Smith TJ. One Stop Service Center Initiative: Strategies for serving persons with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2013;79(1):30-36.IHI-Craig 2011*– Craig C, Eby D, Whittington J. Care Coordination model: Better care at lower cost for people with multiple health and social needs. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2011.CWF-McGinnis 2014– McGinnis T, Crawford M, Somers SA. A state policy framework for integrating health and social services. Commonwealth Fund (CWF). 2014.CDC-Community center– Alcaraz R. New community center to prevent youth violence. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS).
Early childhood home visitation programs (such as Nurse Family Partnerships, Parents as Teachers, Early Head Start, Head Start, and Infant Learning Programs) are recommended to prevent child maltreatment on the basis of strong evidence that these programs are effective in reducing violence against visited children. Programs delivered by professional visitors (i.e., nurses or mental health workers) seem more effective than programs delivered by paraprofessionals, although programs delivered by paraprofessionals for ≥2 years also appear to be effective in reducing child maltreatment. Home visitation programs in this review were offered to teenage parents; single mothers; families of low socioeconomic status (SES); families with very low birth weight infants; parents previously investigated for child maltreatment; and parents with alcohol, drug, or mental health problems. (From The Community Guide)
Sources:http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/home/RRchildmaltreatment.htmlhttp://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=187http://policyforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Effectiveness-of-Early-Head-Start.pdfSama-Miller 2017– Sama-Miller E, Akers L, Mraz-Esposito A, et al. Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.Casillas 2016*– Casillas KL, Fauchier A, Derkash BT, Garrido EF. Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2016;53:64-80.Selph 2013– Selph SS, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Nelson HD. Behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect: A systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2013;158(3):179–90.Peacock 2013– Peacock S, Konrad S, Watson E, Nickel D, Muhajarine N. Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:17.Sweet 2004*– Sweet MA, Appelbaum MI. Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development. 2004;75(5):1435-56.MacLeod 2000*– MacLeod J, Nelson G. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2000;24(9):1127-49.CG-Violence– The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Violence.Cochrane-Kendrick 2013*– Kendrick D, Mulvaney CA, Ye L, et al. Parenting interventions for the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(3):CD006020.Roberts 1996– Roberts I, Kramer MS, Suissa S. Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1996;312(7022):29-33.MDRC-Michalopoulos 2017– Michalopoulos C, Faucetta K, Warren A, Mitchell R. Evidence on the long-term effects of home visiting programs: Laying the groundwork for long-term follow-up in the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). Washington, DC: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). 2017.Goyal 2013*– Goyal NK, Teeters A, Ammerman RT. Home visiting and outcomes of preterm infants: A systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):502-516.Issel 2011– Issel LM, Forrestal SG, Slaughter J, Wiencrot A, Arden H. A review of prenatal home-visiting effectiveness for improving birth outcomes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing. 2011;40(2):157-65.Kendrick 2000*– Kendrick D, Elkan R, Hewitt M, et al. Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2000;82(6):443-51.Cochrane-Dennis 2013*– Dennis CL, Dowswell T. Psychosocial and psychological interventions for preventing postpartum depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(2):CD001134.El Fadl 2016– El Fadl RA, Blair M, Hassounah S. Integrating maternal and children’s oral health promotion into nursing and midwifery practice – A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166760.RAND-Kilburn 2017*– Kilburn MR, Cannon JS. Home visiting and use of infant health care: A randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics. 2017;139(1):e20161274.Cochrane-Yonemoto 2017*– Yonemoto N, Dowswell T, Nagai S, Mori R. Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;(7):CD009326.Cochrane-Lopez 2015*– Lopez LM, Grey TW, Hiller JE, Chen M. Education for contraceptive use by women after childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;(7):CD001863.Maravilla 2016*– Maravilla JC, Betts KS, Abajobir AA, Couto e Cruz C, Alati R. The role of community health workers in preventing adolescent repeat pregnancies and births. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016;59(4):378-390.Prosman 2015*– Prosman GJ, Lo Fo Wong SH, van der Wouden JC, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Effectiveness of home visiting in reducing partner violence for families experiencing abuse: A systematic review. Family Practice. 2015;32(3):247-256.Sharps 2016*– Sharps PW, Bullock LF, Campbell JC, et al. Domestic violence enhanced perinatal home visits: The DOVE randomized clinical trial. Journal of Women’s Health. 2016;25(11):1129-1138.Mraz Esposito 2017– Mraz Esposito A, Coughlin R, Malick S, et al. Assessing the research on home visiting program models implemented in tribal communities – Part 1: Evidence of effectiveness. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.Cochrane-Turnbull 2012*– Turnbull C, Osborn DA. Home visits during pregnancy and after birth for women with an alcohol or drug problem. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;(1):CD004456
According to Robert Wood Johnson County Health Ranking and Roadmaps What works for health, publicly-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs are large-scale efforts to provide school-based early learning opportunities to preschool aged children. Programs are voluntary and can be for 3- and 4-year-olds, though programs often only or disproportionately serve 4-year-olds. Publicly-funded pre-K programs can be universally available regardless of family income or focus on specific populations, usually children from low income backgrounds. Programs also vary based on state early learning standards and guidelines for choosing curricula. Public pre-K programs are typically funded by the state but can be funded by municipalities and school districts (Brookings-Phillips 2017). The expected beneficial outcomes of universal pre-K programs is increased academic achievement, increased school readiness, improved social emotional skills, reduced child care costs, and longer terms increased earnings.
Sources:There is strong evidence that publicly-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs improve school readiness and increase academic achievement (Brookings-Phillips 2017, Gormley 2018, Haslip 2018, Lipsey 2018, Hustedt 2015*), especially among children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Brookings-Phillips 2017, Fitzpatrick 2008*, Gormley 2005*, Dorman 2017*, NIEER-Lamy 2005*) and English language learners (Lipsey 2018, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Peisner-Feinberg 2013). However, additional evidence is needed to confirm long term effects (Brookings-Whitehurst 2018, Brookings-Phillips 2017, Hill 2015b*).In general, children who attend preschool demonstrate gains in cognitive and social skills (Camilli 2010*, Manning 2010*, Burger 2010*), as well as modest improvements in social-emotional and self-regulatory development (Brookings-Phillips 2017). State-sponsored pre-K programs, whether universal or not, improve children’s language, math, and reading skills (Wong 2008). Among children from lower income backgrounds, state pre-K enrollment is associated with increased time reading at home, likelihood that mothers work, and improved test performance, often lasting through eighth grade (Brookings-Cascio 2013). In an Oklahoma-based study of universal pre-K, positive effects on math achievement, enrollment in honors courses, and grade retention persist through middle school for pre-K participants, although effects on standardized test scores diminish over time (Gormley 2018). State universal pre-K programs are associated with increases in licensed child care availability and enrollment in formal care among 4-year-olds, and enrollment decreases among 3-year-olds (Bassok 2016*). Attending high-quality universal pre-K increases the likelihood a child will be diagnosed with asthma, hearing, or vision problems and receive treatment (NBER-Hong 2017).Several universal pre-K programs demonstrate stronger effects for Hispanics, blacks, and children from very poor families than for whites and children from more advantaged families (NBER-Cascio 2017, Gormley 2005*). Georgia’s universal pre-K program benefits disadvantaged children in rural areas the most, possibly because they cannot access alternative pre-K programs (Fitzpatrick 2008*). Effects for low income children in such programs diminish with time but can last through fourth grade in reading and eighth grade in math (Brookings-Cascio 2013). Effects may be more likely to persist for students enrolled in more mature pre-K programs (Hill 2015b*) or for students who continue to receive interventions through grade school (Brookings-Phillips 2017). Economically integrated pre-K programs may improve academic achievement more for children from low income families than programs that only serve children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Miller 2017a*, NBER-Cascio 2017).The quality of pre-K classroom experience varies significantly by community characteristics (Bassok 2016a*). In states with high levels of residential segregation, black and Hispanic children from low income backgrounds often experience worse publicly-funded pre-K environments than white children in more affluent areas (Valentino 2018).Some researchers recommend states focus resources on minority and disadvantaged children, who will benefit the most from pre-K access (Fitzpatrick 2008*). Others contend that universal pre-K should be promoted as it garners more public support than programs for vulnerable populations (Gormley 2005*). Offering preschool universally can increase enrollment for children of all income levels. Among high income families, universal programs can reduce child care costs as families enroll their children in public preschool (Brookings-Cascio 2013). Universal pre-K can reach children from lower income backgrounds who do not meet eligibility requirements for targeted programs and otherwise may not enroll in preschool (NBER-Cascio 2017).Preliminary evidence indicates that pre-K programs that focus on instruction and coaching learners as they think through tasks can yield more cognitive growth than those focused on child-directed play and exploration (Chien 2010*). Explicit academic instruction, low staff-to-student ratios (Camilli 2010*), good classroom management, and emotional support can improve children’s cognitive and social outcomes (Hamre 2013*). High quality, successful pre-K programs can support early learning through well implemented, evidence-based curricula, coaching for teachers, initiatives to promote orderly and active classrooms (Brookings-Phillips 2017), and strong instructional and emotional support systems (Anderson 2017a*). Challenges for such programs include staff turnover, student enrollment levels, staff time to complete accountability requirements for public funding, and government regulation changes (Dorman 2017*).In 2017-18, state pre-K programs spent an average of $5,175 per student in addition to federal and local funding (NIEER-Friedman-Krauss 2019). One model suggests additional costs for taxpayers would be between $2 and 4 billion annually to increase access to state pre-k programs enough to cover all 4-year-olds currently without access to such programs (Brookings-Whitehurst 2015).
According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings and Roadmaps What Works for Health, Health insurance enrollment outreach and support programs assist individuals whose employers do not offer affordable coverage, who are self-employed, or unemployed with health insurance needs. Such programs can be offered by a variety of organizations, including government agencies, schools, community-based or non-profit organizations, health care organizations, and religious congregations. Outreach activities vary greatly, and can include community health worker (CHW) efforts, other person-to-person outreach, mass media and social media campaigns, school-based efforts, case management, or efforts in health care settings. Outreach can occur at local events, via hotlines, or at fixed locations (e.g., community centers, non-profit offices, etc.) and are often supported through grants from federal agencies or private foundations. The expected outcomes of this strategy is increased health insurance coverage for children.
Sources:There is some evidence enrollment outreach and support activities increase enrollment in health insurance programs (Mathematica-Hoag 2014), especially among children (Cochrane-Jia 2014*, Cousineau 2011). However, additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.Health insurance application support and information by community-based case managers may increase enrollment of uninsured children and reduce the time it takes for them to be enrolled (Cochrane-Jia 2014*). Providing insurance applications to families seeking care in emergency departments may also increase child enrollment (Cochrane-Jia 2014*). Multi-component approaches may also increase new enrollments of children (Cousineau 2011).Based on the experience of programs working to enroll children in public insurance programs, school-based programs and campaigns appear to be successful strategies to reach those who are uninsured (Urban-Courtot 2009, Mathematica-Irvin 2006). An evaluation of Covering Kids and Families, a broad effort to reach uninsured children and their families, indicates that the program increases awareness of the availability of public health insurance programs for low and moderate income families, and may increase enrollment (Urban-Courtot 2009).Partnering with other organizations (Urban/SHADAC-Courtot 2012, Urban-Courtot 2009) and using a mix of targeted messages and approaches is often recommended for successful outreach and enrollment activities (Urban/SHADAC-Courtot 2012). Including technology-based systems (e.g., online benefit applications) in enrollment efforts may maximize enrollment overall, while more traditional methods (e.g., community health worker outreach) may increase enrollment among harder to reach populations (Cousineau 2011). Outreach efforts that consider cultural and linguistic norms appear to increase insurance enrollment among Hispanic populations (AHRQ HCIE-Capitman, AHRQ HCIE-Chaves-Gnecco).
There is some evidence that parent education and engagement classes such as Parents as Teachers (PAT) improves cognitive skills and school readiness among children from families with low incomes (YG-PAT, Welsh 2014, PPN). These coures can also have positive effects on child development (Avellar 2013). Additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.
Sources:YG-PAT– Youth.gov (YG), Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP). Parents as Teachers (PAT).Welsh 2014– Welsh JA, Bierman KL, Mathis ET. Parenting programs that promote school readiness. In Boivin M, Bierman KL, eds. Promoting School Readiness and Early Learning: The Implications of Developmental Research for Practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2014:253-278.PPN– Promising Practices Network (PPN). On children, families and communities.Avellar 2013– Avellar SA, Supplee LH. Effectiveness of home visiting in improving child health and reducing child maltreatment. Pediatrics. 2013;132(Suppl 2):S90–S99.Zigler 2008*– Zigler E, Pfannenstiel JC, Seitz V. The Parents as Teachers program and school success: A replication and extension. Journal of Primary Prevention. 2008;29(2):103-20.Carroll 2015*– Carroll LN, Smith SA, Thomson NR. Parents as Teachers Health Literacy Demonstration project: Integrating an empowerment model of health literacy promotion into home-based parent education. Health Promotion Practice. 2015;16(2):282–290.PAT– Parents as Teachers (PAT).
The Alaska Tribal Child Welfare Compact is a one of a kind landmark government-to-government agreement between the State of Alaska and Alaska Tribes and Tribal organizations that recognizes the Tribes’ inherent authority to oversee placement of their children and provide child welfare services. This umbrella agreement broadly defines the services and support that are to be carried out by each Tribe (Co-Signer) within their service area and memorializes how information and resources are shared between the State and each Co-Signer. This unique Compact has been created in the hopes of reducing the disproportionate number of Alaska Native children in State custody and improving the lives of Alaska Native families state-wide.
Sources:The Compact’s novelty (started in 2017) makes it difficult to gauge its effectiveness up to this point. However, a formal evaluation of the Compact is currently underway
The strategies presented in this Report Form are from the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence, which highlights strategies based on the best available evidence to help communities and states prevent and reduce sexual violence. Many of the strategies focus on reducing the likelihood that a person will engage in sexual violence. These strategies include the following: 1) Promote Social Norms that Protect Against Violence, 2) Teach Skills to Prevent Sexual Violence, 3) Provide Opportunities to Empower and Support Girls and Women, 4) Create Protective Environments, and 5) Support Victims/Survivors to Lessen Harm.Community initiatives in Alaska, supported by state and federal funds, are encouraged to be comprehensive, coalition driven, and culturally relevant. Ensuring that Alaskan communities are engaged in supporting the social and structural environments that promote healthy relationships is a key strategy across many statewide plans.Preventing sexual violence requires addressing factors at all levels of the social ecology—the individual, relational, community, and societal levels. The strategies presented below are focused on primary prevention efforts.
Sources:https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.htmlhttps://andvsa.org/pathways/UCR Crime in Alaska 2018 Publication-https://dps.alaska.gov/getmedia/cedaeccd-674a-476a-a6fd-db16a609c15e/Crime-in-Alaska-2018
Current research through the CDC, identifies that sexual violence shares common risk and protective factors with other forms of violence including child maltreatment, bullying, teen dating violence and suicide attempts (CDC-connecting the dots and SV-Prevention-Technical Package). State level policy and implementation efforts that are integrated and align with shared factors have the potential for the broadest reach and positive impact.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed technical packages to help states and communities take advantage of the best available evidence to prevent violence.
Universal school-based violence prevention programming, that is evidence based, is recognized by the CDC as an effective approach to reducing violence and victimization among students. In recognition of the positive impact universal, grade specific, curriculum has in reducing violence, the Alaska Legislature passed legislation in 2015, titled the Alaska Safe Children’s Act that has (as part of the act) a requirement for school districts, across the state, to implement curriculum in grades 7-12 that specifically addresses teen dating violence and healthy relationships.
There is now significant research highlighting the relationships between the development of social-emotional competencies during early childhood and outcomes in learning and academic success, mental health, and general wellbeing (Rhoades, 2011; Shonkoff, 2000; Zins, 2004). In a meta-analytic review of SEL programs across diverse student outcomes, Durlak and colleagues (2011) found that students exposed to an SEL intervention demonstrated enhanced SEL skills/attitudes (e.g. motivation), positive social behaviors, and less emotional distress compared to a control group. Further, academic performance was significantly improved, with an 11% point difference between groups on standardized scores.
August 5, 2020
January 22, 2020
December 9, 2019
November 1, 2019
October 1, 2019