California's Children

800K names & personal data in lost CA child-support files

March 30, 2012: Officials from the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) announced yesterday that storage devices containing sensitive personal data for over 800,000 adults and children, including Social Security numbers, drivers’ license numbers, and heath-insurance providers, have been lost en route from Colorado to California, according to Jordan Robertson for Bloomberg News.

The data files were in transit with a private contractor, Iron Mountain Inc.(IM) that specializes in transporting and storing sensitive corporate data; IM contracted with Fed Ex to return the cartridges from an IBM facility in Colorado.

Officials said they learned of the breach on March 12, 2012, but had just yesterday managed to notify all the people involved.

Four backup tapes were discovered missing after being transported from an IBM facility in Colorado to California following a routine disaster-recovery exercise, according to Christine Lally, assistant secretary for legislation and communications with the California Technology Agency (that provides information technology services to the state). The tapes are believed to have fallen out of an improperly secured shipping container while in transit, she said in an interview.

“Because the devices are in a specialized format, we have no reason to believe, at this time, that the data have been accessed or utilized in any way,” Kathleen Hrepich, interim director of California’s Department of Child Support Services, said in the statement. “Additionally, this incident will have no impact on the processing of child support cases.”

Written for California's Children by Elizabeth J Carlyle.

10% of U.S. kids live w/ alcoholic parent = 4x "more likely" to become one

A new report, Data Spotlight: Over 7 Million Children Live with a Parent with Alcohol Problems, by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, shows that 7.5 million children under age 18 (10.5%) live with a parent who has experienced an alcohol use disorder in the past year; 6.1 million children live with two parents where either one or both parents has experienced problems with alcohol and 1.4 million live in a single-parent house (1.1 million living with a single mother and 0.3 million living with a single father).

Alcohol use disorder is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's newly revised DSM-V manual, (the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals) as a pattern of substance abuse leading to clinically significant impairment by at least two of 10 criteria in a 12-month period, including failure to fulfill major role obligations at work or home, recurrent abuse in situations where it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving), continued use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems.

Children of alcoholics are four times more likely than other children to become alcoholics themselves;  most children also suffer some form of neglect or abuse.  

The report analyzed data from the SAMSHA-sponsored 2005-2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) of 67,500 individuals aged 12 and older and was released in conjunction with Children of Alcoholics Week, February 12-18, 2012.

“The enormity of this public health problem goes well beyond these tragic numbers as studies have shown that the children of parents with untreated alcohol disorders are at far greater risk for developing alcohol and other problems later in their lives,” said SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde.

Data from the 2009 California Health Information Survey, conducted every two years by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, shows that 31.5% of married parents and 34.5% of single parents admit to binge drinking in the past year (binge drinking is 5 or more drinks on one occasion).

A 2002 to 2007 SAMHSA National Surveys on Drug Use and Health found that alcohol use disorder in fathers had a huge impact on alcohol use in their adolescent children: 38.8 % of these teens admited to drinking in the past year, 13% admited to binge drinking in the past month, and 10% had already developed an alcohol use disorder. 

In California in 2008-10, according to Kidsdata.org, a database program compiled by the Lucille Packard Foundation, by 11th grade, 18% of girls and 16% of boys admit to drinking 1-2 times in past month, with 2.1% and 3.5% admitting to drinking on 20 or more days in the past month.

Several counties have much higher statistics: in Calaveras, Lake, Marin, Mariposa, Mono, Napa, Plumas, and Tehama counties, over 25% of 11th grade girls admitted to drinking 1-2 times in the past month; in Calaveras and Marin, 4.5% of girls drank alcohol on 20 or more days. Lower percentages of 11th grade boys admitted to drinking in some of these counties, but at the same time had much higher rates of regular drinking patterns: in Mono County, for example, 18% of 11th grade boys drank 1-2 times in the past month (closer to the state average), but 6.4% admitted to drinking on 20 or more days.

Plumas County (county seat: Quincy) has the highest rates of drinking in teens: 33% of 11th grade girls and 28% of boys drank once or twice a month, and 8% of boys drank on at least 20 days in the past month.

Written for California's Children by Elizabeth J Carlyle.

 

NAEYC: Early ed has "an obligation to bridge the digital divide"

Still in the final draft stages, the new draft of the joint position paper on technology from the National Assocation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children's Media at St. Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania), open for public comments since last May, will be published this spring. 

Seeking to clarify the role, purpose and effective use of technology in early ed, the new paper is an update of the NAEYC 1996 white paper on the same issue; the update reflects both the inevitability of technology in the lives of toddlers and preschoolers -- and the challenges confronting educators and parents to integrate technology appropriately and constructively.

Photo, above, was taken in late January at the Child Development Center on base at the US Marine Corps Logistics Base in Barstow (San Bernardino County). The event was an open house for parents (all on-base personnel, military and civilian) to demonstrate the use of technology in the teaching and play of the children (infants to 5). The center is NAEYC accredited.

In the summarized position, the joint statement declares:

It is the position of NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center that technology and interactive media are learning tools that, when used in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways and in conjunction with other traditional tools and materials, can support the development and learning of young children.

Acknowledging the inequities of learning opportunities that exist among children from starkly differing economic and educational home environments, the paper concludes by emphasizing that need to "handle" technology as a young child is comparable today to the 1960s recognition by Head Start that children needed to "handle" books. In the excerpt below, the emphases are ours.

... To be successful and productive members of society in the 21st century, young children need opportunities to develop the early “technology-handling” skills ... Opportunities to explore digital cameras, audio and video recorders, printers, and other technologies in early childhood settings give access to these materials to children who may not otherwise have opportunities to explore the learning potential of technology. Educators must also give serious thought to the learning advantage that high quality digital content brings to children, especially when combined with skillful teaching and complementary curriculum resources that work together to accelerate learning and narrow the achievement gap between low-income children and their more affluent peers.

The LAO take on CalWORKS cuts: "...too severe"

February 28, 2012: Following up on its first take on the Governor's 2012-13 budget re: subsidized child care, the Legislative Analyst' Office (LAO) released alternative suggestions for the legislature to consider rather than the proposed cuts to CalWORKs the LAO called, in January (see story below) "too severe."

 January 12, 2012: From the report, "Overview of the Governor's Budget," released yesterday by the Legislative Analyst's Office [emphases ours]:

"The Governor proposes to reduce General Fund support for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) and subsidized child care -- the state's primary sources of cash assistance and work support for low-income families -- by a total of about $1.4 billion. His proposal would focus reforms in the CalWORKS program on achieving the goal of emphasizing work. The Legislature may wish to consider whether the proposed reductions to families most in need of support to achieve self-sufficiency are too severe, as well as the Governor's proposal to restrict eligibility criteria and time lines for subsidized child care....

Under the Governor's proposal, the current CalWORKS program would be replaced by a three-part system...two calWORKS subprograms -- CalWORKS Basic and CalWORKS Plus -- and a new Child Maintenance program. The ...Basic program would ...continue the current...program, including current cash assistance levels and employment services, for eligible adults for up to 24 months. After 24 months in...Basic, families working a sufificient amount of hours (30...for single-parents; 35 for 2 parents; 20 for single parent with child  under 6] in unsubsidized employment would be eligible for an additional 24 months (48 total) of cash assistance, employment services, and child care through the ...Plus program. Families who fail to meet ...work ...requirements...would be transferred to the Child Maintenance program...[and] receive reduced cash assistance (27% below current levels) and no employment services or child care. Participation in the Child Maintenance program would not be time limited....

...although these programs would continue to serve the same population as the current CalWORKS program, a majority of current recipients would face a reduced cash grant and all recipients would face more restrictive limitation on receipt of employment services and child care....the Governor's budget also proposes to transfer $736 million in federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds (the primary source of federal funding for the CalWORKS program) ...to the Student Aid Commission to fund Cal Grants...

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert explains this shift:

...the state cannot cut $1 billion of its own money on welfare, or else it would spend so little on the program that the federal government would take away federal funds. On paper, it looks like Brown would only cut $248 million in state welfare costs, even though $1 billion in welfare programs would be reduced.

To actually save the full $1 billion, the state needs to play the annual fund shift game. Brown's solution: Rather than use only state money to fund Cal Grants - college scholarship aid for the poor - California would use $736 million of federal funds that formerly went to welfare recipients.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/welfare-cut-relies-on-shifting-money-to-scholarships.html#storylink=cpy

The LAO report clarifies the proposal regarding subsidized child care overall, explaining that subsidized child care programs currently target three populations:

"...(1)current CalWORKS recipients, (2)former CalWORKS recipients, (3)other low-income working families not receiving CalWORKS cash assistance. The Governor's proposal [would] reduce fudning for these programs by roughly $450 million or almost 30%. ...additionally, the proposal would reduce the maximum amount the state pays child care providers (savings about $80 million) and reduce family income eligibility thresholds from 70% of the state media income to 200% of the federal poverty, which equates to 62% of SMI...the administration estimates that its package of child care-related reductions would elmiiniate about 62,000 slots from a current total of about 293,000 slots.

Overall, the LAO report concludes:

....More generally, the Legislature should consider whether focusing CalWORKS and subsidized child care primarily on support efforts of low-income families to obtain employment is consistent with its priorities or whether other objectives are also important. Focusing these programs on a different set of objectives and priorities than the Governor would not necessarily elminate opportunities for budgetary savings; however, the potential for savings could be less and there could be trade-offs in other areas of the budget."

The Daily Quote: Who decides what a "parent" is?

"The courts are starting to look at parentage issues from a child's perspective, which is a very big shift. Before, children were treated more like property." -- California attorney Deborah Wald, at left, quoted in today's Sacramento Bee regarding a child custody case argued this month before the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

Reporting on a recent California child custody case involving the two children of a lesbian couple, Hudson Sangree wrote that one of the children's mothers was unable to adopt the children because she was a colonel in the Air Force and the legal action would have revealed her sexual orientation that, under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, would have resulted in her loss of career and income (that supporting the family).

Judges are "moving beyond traditional notions of biology and adoption," the Bee article states, "and assigning parental rights to adults with no genetic or legal ties to the kids."

The precedent, attorney Wald says, is the case In re Nicholas H., a California Supreme Court decision:

In In re Nicholas H. (6/6/02) 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6249, the ...Court has ruled that when a man seeks parental rights, the presumption that a man who receives a child into his home and openly holds the child out as his natural child is not necessarily rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that he is not the biological father.

Family Code § 7611(d) creates a presumption that a man is the natural father of a child if he “receives the child into is home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.”  Pursuant to Family Code § 7612(a), that presumption is “a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and convincing evidence.”

"Now, these courts are beginning to ask," Wald says, "who do these parents think their children are? It's  child-centered approach that relies on looking at behavior. Courts aren't willing to take children away from people whom they rely on."

Traditionally, adults not related by blood or adoption would have been deemed "legal strangers" to children, but things have changed, said Courtney Joslin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, who specializes in family law and sexual orientation and the law.In the recent case, "the court says you have to look at the reality of families' lives, and the most important inquiry is whether a person is actually functioning as a parent."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136837/california-courts-redefining-who.html#storylink=cpy

The three justices on the panel – including Justice George Nicholson and Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch – upheld a ruling by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Helena Gweon.Experts said the case continues a trend in which courts have ruled that adults who aren't biological or adoptive parents can still be assigned parental rights and responsibilities.The purpose: to promote the well-being of children and ensure their financial support, Levine said."The state has a great interest in having those who want the benefits of parenthood to take on the responsibilities and obligations that go with parenthood," he said. "That's true for straight and gay couples."The string of cases that led to this month's ruling in S.Y. v. S.B. included the California Supreme Court's 2002 decision in a case involving a boy identified as Nicholas H. In that case, the court granted custody to a woman's former live-in boyfriend, who admitted he was not the boy's biological father but had acted as his father since birth.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136837/california-courts-redefining-who.html#storylink=cpy