'OCUMENIT RESUME CG 008 388 ED 083 511 Kahn, Alfred J.; And Others AUTHOR Child Advocacy, Report of a National Baseline TITLE Study. Children's Bureau (CHEW), Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY REPORT NO LHEW-OCC-73-18 PUB DATE [72] NOTE 183p. AVAILABLE FROM U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, C.C. 20402 (Stock No. 1791-00185, $1.50) MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 EDRS PRICE Child Development; Children; *Child Responsibility; DESCRIPTORS *Child Welfare; Family Involvement; Family Life; Family Relationship; Family School Relationship; Government Role; *Mental Health; *Parent Responsibility; *Social Services ABSTRACT This study defines child advocacy and considers what it can and should become. The contents of the study are divided into the following chapters: Background of Child Advocacy; National Picture; Proposed Focus for Child Advocacy; Advocacy in Action; Program Variables and Search for Results; Overview and Recommendations. The project, supported by a grant from the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, indicates that many activities and projects which are labeled child advocacy are in no sense new or different from what has occurred in the children's field for a long time. The study defines the unique activity called child advocacy as intervention on behalf of children with those services and institutions that serve children or impinge on their lives. It is action that focuses on transactions between individuals and institutions or among institutions as they determine the immediate circumstances of children and families. These services and institutions begin where the family leaves off. WItereas child welfare's primary concern is interventionwith secondary institutions such as schools, juvenile courts, health programs and child welfare programs. Child advocacy is thus a shorthand term for advocacy on behalf of families and children. (wsk) f.' 4 . 4" s i t ... ,44 .., ; t...* _ q '' It 1+01' !.44tt'''144+6;T: 4 ....sr ...,...'44.".-,:.;...: -:. ..417A r ',', A; a4. 4,1 in xs ti CHILD ADVOCACY Report of a national baseline study Allred J. Kahn Sheila B. Kamerman Brulla G. McGowan U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEALT!!, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Child Developrrient Children's Bureau OHEW Publication No. (OCD) 73-18 This project was supported by Grant No. OCD CB-68 from the Children's Bureau, U.S. Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contents Introduction 7 1. The Background of Child Advocacy 13 2. The National Picture 35 3. A Proposed Focus for Child Advocacy 62 84 4. Advocacy in Action 5. Program Variables: Search for Results 102 6. An Overview and Recommendations 117 Appendixes A. Reports From the Field 143 B. Child Advocacy Programs 173 179 C. Reading List on Child Advocacy D. General References 181 Introduction [To The Governor} Your Honor: May I bring to your attention a bit of shocking news? At the present time I am an inmate in the county jail. . . . Today a child of 12 years old was placed in custody of the Warden of this jail by court order of a Judge presiding here. Now I ask you, should a child be placed behind bars (in a maximum security cell) when other means of corection are presently avalible for persons of such a young age? I have been in contact with the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prison, and have conveyed this information to Mr. Norman A. Carlson, Director of the Bureau for investigation in this matter. I know not wheather there is a phycological reason for the placing of this child in a maximum security jail, but by past experience I have learned that no matter what the reason, placing a child in jail only hurts the mind rather than helps it. May I suggest that an investigation be progressed in this matter not only to look into the correctional system of this state but also into its Judicial system. I am quite sure I will be offically reprimanded for taking action on this matter but when the welfare of our children is so misused I think its time that someone should get involved! Sincerely Advocacy on behalf of children is not usually initiated so dramati- cally. But it always requires that someone cares about children or is strongly motivated by a sense of fairness or law. The boy described in the letter was in the custody of an outstand- ing state department of child welfare, in a state that has widely recommended and humane legislation prohibiting the jailing of 8 INTRODUCTION Yet because an appropriate placement was not available juveniles. for him, the state department of child welfare, the local child welfare institution in which the boy had been placed, the county sheriff, and the boy's parents all concurred in the decision to place the boy in jail temporarily in violation of the state's juvenile court act. After a weekend in jail, the boy was placed in the psychiatric division of a hospital. The prisoner's letter was forwarded from the governor's office to the executive director of the state commission on children. but it arrived too late to affect the specific situation that inspired it. However, the commission's executive director believes that her responsibilities go well beyond intervention into specific cases. First, she contacted the deputy director of the responsible depart- ment (which was represented on the commission) and reminded him that his department had supported the legislation to raise the age limit for jailing juveniles. Then, in no uncertain terms, she suggested that he remind his staff of the prohibition against jailing children which appears in the state's juvenile court law and that he She also recommended that he meet with insist on compliance. representatives of placement agencies to develop more satisfactory ways of coping with similar emergencies in the future. Finally, she reminded all participants in the incidentthe county's chief probation officer, the county sheriff, and the director of the child welfare institutionthat they had violated the state's juvenile Her statements were clear and firm: a child's rights had court law. been disregarded and such acts would not be tolerated in the future. Intervention into families or programs to assist and protect chil- dren may take many forms, and its theory and practice have devel- Once again, however, for a variety of reasons, oped over time. many people are asking: How can a society assure that its services for children will be sufficient, relevant, responsive, and effective? The field of children's services has a long tradition of monitoring programs, evaluating problems and needs, initiating new programs Indeed, a national field of and facilities, and legislative lobbying. children's services was developed to carry out these functions before World War I. But the children's field, like all organized governmental and pri- vate activities, has gone through many periods of consolidation and preoccupation with organizational and professional matters. This is natural, given the vast operational responsibilities involved in programs sucE as education, child health, foster care, mental health, Processes must be identified, skills and nutrition, and the like. knowledge must be specified, personnel must be trained, and cre- 9 INTRODUCTION Through bureaucratization and professionaliza- dentials must be set. tion the field may improve and upgrade its services, but it also runs the risk of becoming preoccupied with protecting its sphere of Program consolidation may lead to better services for influence. courage fragmentation among also may individuals, but it programs. Thus from time to and generally in the context of , broad initiatives for social reform, an effort is made to shift the balance from consolidation to change, from perfecting an individual technique or agency process to improving or renewing systems. Child advocacy appeared during such an era of social reform the late 1960s. The oncept was attractive because it combined the promise of needed change with a lack of specificity; i.e., it repre- sented a kind of social venture capital. It was soon identified as an activity that might be financed. Thus child advocacy understandably took many forms and had many sponsorsit was a banner behind which to rally, a funding bandwagon on which to ride, and a gim- mick to exploit. But it also represented a series of efforts to cope with children's unmet needs in one or more of the following ways: affirming new concepts of legal entitlements; offering needed ser- vices in areas where none existed; persisting in the provision of ser- vices when other more conventional programs dropped cases; assur- ing access to entitlements and help; mediating between children or families and institutions such as schools, health facilities, and courts; and facilitating self-organization among deprived commu- nity groups, adolescents, or parents of handicapped children. By the spring of 1971 it was clear that some kind of movement President Nixon had assigned to the Office of was developing. Child Development (OCD), U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the mission of establishing a National Center for Child Advocacy. OCD and other federal agencies were funding experiments, demonstrations, explorations, and research under the general heading "child advocacy"----as were some private founda- But it was also clear by then that tions and local funding sources. whatever child advocacy was to bemovement, field, or program There was no componentit was neither defined nor understood. And basis for separating the old-with-a-new-name from the new. because the initiatives were widespread, there was no central source of information. In this context, we undertook a national baseline study to (1) identify what was developing under the label "child advocacy" and (2) seek some conceptual order in the domain, if a domain it proved This book is a report of our findings. to be. 10 INTRODUCTION Although summaries and generalizations exclude most of what is important, the reader should know at once that we reached the following conclusions: 1. Although many activities and projects labeled child advocacy are in no sense new or different, it is possible to identify numerous projects, programs, and activities that appear to embody an approach which can appropriately be called child advocacy. 2. Despite ambiguity, confusion, and some gimmickry, child advocacy also has inspired some valuable activities and trends that are too promising to give up. 3. Because children are often short-changed by American society, broad social action and policy initiatives on behalf of children are To get Americans to desperately needed and of highest priority. rally to the cause of children may require charisma, spontaneity, Initiatives will and should take place in anc.1 confrontation tactics. many ways and through many channels, and they usually cannot and should not be standardized, bureaucratized, coordinated, or For the most part, these activities will not be contained ordered. Therefore, much of the necessary within formal advocacy systems. social action and policy initiatives cannot be funded by govern. mental programs or. tax-exempt foundations. Nevertheless, some help and encouragement is possible from funding sources and even governmental programs. 4. In addition to social action and policy initiatives on behalf of children that cannot be planned, coordinated, or centrally funded, there are many essential advocacy functions that can be identified and provided on a regularized basis. Some of these regularized activities focus on assuring help or service to families or individuals who need it (case advocacy}; others focus on changing policies, procedures, personnel, rules, laws, and so forth (class advocacy }. Therefore, this type of regularized and planned advocacy ranges from direct service to social action. 5. In this latter sensei.e., creating, opening, improving, and changing programschild advocacy is what policy-makers often Although it is no substitute for money or call a service strategy. broad social policy, it can be effective and important nonetheless. 6. The case and class advocacy function deserves to be nurtured, supported, guided, and carefully assessed because it may fill an important gap in social provision on behalf of children. We define child advocacy in this sense as intervention on behalf of children 4 I 1 INTRODUCTION in relation to those services and institutions that impin,4e on qieir lives.1 7. Child advocacy, in the sense of a regularized case- or class- focused function, may be a specialized role or a component of It requires professionals, parapraccsicuals. and vol. another role. unteer laymen and involves roles for both staff and board niembez--. It has relevance for a variety of disciplines and profe%sions, and it belongs in both public and voluntary sectors on various geogTaphic and governmental levels. 8. Although we note the emergence of a promising phenomenon and identify what we think could be the continuing advocacy func- tion, we do not exaggerate the state of the art. The goals of child advocacy are general, and specifics are not easily set. Knowledge about the consequences a structuring agencies in alternative ways and of the auspices under which these agencies might operate to carry out advocacy is limited. Conventional wisdom about such matters may lie wrong. Methods and processes are unstudied and underdeveloped; evaluations are oxen premature and off-target. In short, friends of children and proponents of child advocacy have serious work to do. This report offers some glimpses of child advocacy, several primi- tive conceptual schemes, and hypotheses about critical variables that will shape advocacy in the future. Our ongoing research focuses on (1) conceptualization of the advocacy process in com- munity-based programs (McGowan) and development of (2) guidelines, criteria, and a timetable for evaluating programs in the field of child advocacy (Kamerman). Our findings about the nationwide advocacy phenomenon are based on data from three types of questionnaires, case studies, inter- views, and relevant professional literature. We have been blunt in this introduction to give our readers a compass as they review the Although many readers may several facets of our empirical work. be skeptical at this point, we also hope they are curious about the evidence. We have taken an independent position on a subject However, we did about which there are strong, contrary positions. so only after the most comprehensive survey attempted to date. In developing policy proposals, we have confronted our data with a conscious philosophy about children's rights and society's respon- sibilities. We have requested information and advice from federal, 1 For a more complete definition, see p. 62.