Posts About Child Welfare and Family Supports

Adolescence is a challenging time. It’s a period of rapid change during which youth shape their sense of identity, adjust to their growing bodies, develop peer relationships and social ties within the greater community, and master critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.  Now imagine trying to do that all alone, without the support of family and friends from home, in a new country where you may (or may not) speak the language and are certainly not made to feel welcome. 

That’s the reality for the thousands of unaccompanied children who enter the United States every year seeking refuge from war, gangs or abusive homes. Others come to reunite with family members already here or seeking economic opportunities.

The large increase in children crossing the southern border – almost doubling in each of the past three fiscal years – has sparked a media frenzy. Who are these children? Where are they coming from? Current estimates project that more than 60,000 unaccompanied youth will enter the US in FY2014 making these important questions. But, I would argue, not the most important.

The majority of these children, who are primarily male adolescents, are coming to the US from the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Many, if not all, of these youth have experienced trauma prior to and during their journey to the US, not to mention the unfamiliar and uncertain situation in which they find themselves upon arrival. In fact, a report released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees this spring found most of the newly arrived unaccompanied and separated children may qualify for international refugee protection due to a legitimate belief they are unsafe at home, whether due to gang violence or abuse

No, the more pressing issue is what to do now that they’ve arrived. Official responsibility for these children falls to the Division of Children’s Services within the Office for Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, which operates under a child welfare-based model of care rather than the detention model used with adults. That’s great, except the system is overwhelmed.

The Youth Thrive work done at CSSP offers a unique lens through which to view these unaccompanied children.  This framework examines the protective and promotive factors necessary to reduce risk factors to ensure healthy development and well-being for adolescents.

Let’s start with the risk factors:

1. Psychological stressors – Fleeing their country alone and being detained by foreign officials.
2. Inadequate or negative relationships with family members, adults outside the family and peers – Many of these children are running from gang pressure or abusive family members.
3. Insufficient or inadequate opportunities for positive growth and development – These children are coming from developing countries with high poverty rates and low levels of education.
4. Unsafe, unstable, inequitable environments –Their native countries have increasing levels of violence and crime.

So what do these children need in order to overcome the risks they’ve faced?  What is necessary for them to move towards healthy development and overall well-being?

1. Youth resilience – This is the process of managing stress and functioning well even when faced with adversity and trauma. The youth entering the US have already demonstrated resiliency through their journey but need additional support to mitigate the high level of stress they’ve experienced during their lives and ensure they develop a sense of self-efficacy.
2. Social connections – Connections to people and institutions to help youth increase their knowledge and develop their skills, have a sense of belonging and find meaning in their lives. These connections provide emotional, informational, spiritual and concrete support as children develop.
3. Concrete support in times of need - Assisting youth to identify, find and receive concrete support in times of need helps to ensure they receive the basic necessities everyone deserves in order to grow and thrive (e.g., healthy food, a safe and protective environment), as well as specialized academic, psychoeducational, health, mental health, social, legal or employment services.
4. Knowledge of adolescent development – It is essential that the adults working with the unaccompanied youth understand the science of adolescent development and apply this knowledge to any new programs and policies designed to help these youth.
5. Cognitive and social-emotional competence in youth – All youth need nurturing adult support, positive peer relationship and wholesome experiences to help them navigate the transitions of adolescents and to develop these cognitive and social-emotional competencies such as self-awareness, personal agency, gratitude and integrity.

So what have we offered these children? A medical checkup, a cot in an overcrowded shelter and a promise that we’re working on it. The average stay in the shelters is more than a month, during which time the youth receive services including family reunification to facilitate safe and timely release to family members or other sponsors within the US. While eighty-five percent of unaccompanied children are released to a family member or sponsor, the remaining fifteen percent (an estimated 9,000 children this year alone) are either transferred to the state foster care system or remain in custody with Office of Refugee Resettlement.

These children deserve better than an extended shelter stay while the immigration process plays out.  They need to be in a family setting, receiving individualized services to address their trauma history and provided consistent supportive relationships in a culturally respectful manner. It is only through these connections and support that they will become ready for a meaningful and rewarding adulthood, wherever they ultimately end up. 

Youth homelessness is not a new problem, though the struggles frequently faced by runaway and homeless youth are beginning to garner renewed attention. A major hurdle? The lack of good information on the size of the problem.

Estimates on how many young people experience homelessness vary widely (between 1 and 1.7 million runaway youth annually, according to a Congressional Research Service report) and depend on the measurement approach. In a recent report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated that on a single night in January 2013, there were almost 200,000 homeless children and youth, of which almost 47,000 were unaccompanied by an adult.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is the overarching federal program to support public and nonprofit agencies in the provision of services to these young people through three types of programs:

• Basic Center Programs are the typical short-stay shelters which provide services to runaway and homeless youth under age 18 (or in some states 21) for up to three weeks.
• Transitional Living Programs provide homeless youth ages 16-22 with long-term housing and independent living services for up to 21 months.
• Street Outreach Programs  provide street-based outreach and education to youth who have been or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse or exploitation.

Last updated in 2000, the regulations are under review in order to update program requirements and ensure compliance with the most recent amendments under the Reconnecting Homeless Youth Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-378). The largest proposed change to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program is the addition of performance measures and standards.

While the inclusion of outcome measures for program accountability is becoming increasingly common, some of the regulations and performance standards proposed for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program could prove difficult to implement. For instance, the proposed changes include a requirement that programs provide six months of aftercare for all participants. This may not be realistic for such a diverse and transient population who frequently stay in basic shelters for very short periods of time. A better requirement might be to provide an assessment to determine the need for individualized aftercare.

Likewise, the new performance measures propose to set the standard for transitions to safe and appropriate settings at 90 percent for both Basic Center and Transitional Living housing programs. Transitional living programs could find this standard particularly difficult. These long-term, highly involved transitional programs may only serve 8-10 youth in a calendar year and a 90 percent benchmark may be missed if even one youth did not have a successful transition.

Further complicating the issue is the proposed move to tie these performance measures to future funding decisions. In such a highly competitive service field - where resources are extremely difficult to come by and most agencies have long waiting lists - these requirements could shape practice by incentivizing programs to accept only those youth who will be successful (i.e. amenable to aftercare; likely to have a successful transition, etc.), leaving some of the most vulnerable youth with even fewer options. While accountability and outcome evaluation are important, these particular standards do not seem aligned with the goals of the program and need careful consideration to avoid any unintended, negative consequences for youth.

Complete text of the proposed rules surrounding the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act can be found here along with information on how to provide comments/feedback.  These proposed rules are open for public comment until June 13.

On May 15, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced a bill that calls for a consistent national standard for required reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect. Casey’s bill, the Speak Up to Protect Every Abused Kid Act (Speak Up Act),  mandates that all states require individuals with responsibility over children - such as medical professionals, teacher and coaches - to report suspected child abuse and neglect directly to state authorities. 

Initially developed and proposed in 2011 following Penn State’s Jerry Sandusky scandal, the bill addresses the state-to-state variance in “mandatory reporter” laws. Like with many child welfare laws, policy decisions regarding who has to report suspected child abuse and neglect are made at the state level. This flexibility allows policymakers to address the particular needs of children in their state and to adjust for local issues.

As of November 2013, a report by the Child Welfare Information Gateway found that 48 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands already have some professional categories whose members are designated as mandatory reporters. In approximately 18 states and Puerto Rico - including New Jersey and Wyoming, the only two states not specifying by profession – any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. In every state, regardless of mandate, anyone who suspects abuse or neglect is permitted to report it. 

A major emphasis in the new bill is the mandate that all reports be made directly to state authorities. The Speak Up Act will close a loophole regarding “institutional reporting.” These are instances in which the mandated reporter is a staff member or volunteer at an institution, such as a school or hospital. Often in these cases, like with the Sandusky scandal, internal policies require the person who suspects abuse to notify the head of the institution who then reports it to the appropriate authorities. As of fall 2013, only 14 state laws make clear that regardless of internal policies the mandatory reporter is not relieved of his or her responsibility to report suspected child abuse or neglect to the local child protective service agency. The proposed mandate would extend this requirement to all states

The legislation would also tie states’ funding through the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to successful implementation. In order to receive funds, the state would have to pass and enforce a law requiring adults with a professional responsibility to children to report instance of known or suspected child abuse or neglect.

In addition, the Speak Up Act will:

• Provide support for state-level educational campaigns and training about what constitutes child abuse and neglect, and promote greater responsibility
• Promote new approaches and techniques to improve reporting
• Evaluate states’ progress on mandatory reporting

The Speak Up Act currently has the support of more than 20 bipartisan child welfare advocate organizations and child welfare service providers from across the nation.

Children in foster care experience significant obstacles to succeeding in school, and those challenges often contribute to lower educational achievement. Constant changes in living placements often force children in care to move schools many times throughout their lives, which often leads to delayed re-enrollment, lost records, and non-transferable credits. These moves also lead to children in foster care facing a continuous breakdown in their support networks of friends, teachers, or trusted adults which would otherwise play a strong role in minimizing struggles.

A recent fact sheet from the National Working Group on Foster Care and Education reveals:

• The average reading level of 17-18 year olds in foster care stands at the 7^th grade;
• Only 50 percent of foster youth complete high school by the age of 18;
• Foster youth are two times more likely than other students to have an out-of-school suspension and three times more likely to be expelled; and,
• Despite the fact that 84 percent would like to attend college, only 20 percent attend, and only 2 to 9 percent attain a bachelor’s degree.

The research demonstrates that to improve outcomes for children in foster care, it is necessary to increase effective interventions – and it is important that these supports are provided early. Programs beginning in early childhood can be impactful; however, most children in care do not receive services to address issues to support early healthy development. As foster children grow up, other issues such as displacement, school attendance, and supportive networks can increase or hinder the ability of foster youth to succeed.

The achievement gap between foster youth compared to their peers is staggering. Policymakers should prioritize policies that can help foster youth have a positive school experience and provide opportunities for improved well-being.

For more information on the educational outcomes of youth in foster care, read the Fostering Success in Education: National Factsheet on the Educational Outcomes of Children in Foster Care here.

To learn more about concrete ways to support young people transitioning from foster care visit our related report on PolicyforResults and review our policy brief on the implications of the ACA on youth transitioning from foster care. 

Child care subsidies help make quality child care more affordable, support the healthy development of children, and help create better outcomes for vulnerable children and families. But only 26% of children under the age of 6 from low-income families who are federally eligible actually receive child care assistance. A recent report released by The Center for Law and Social Policy and the Urban Institute identifies barriers and possible policy solutions to help states increase participation in programs supported by the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). While CCDF is meant to assist low income families with work supports and child development goals, often times families are encountering barriers to receiving services due to the difficult eligibility and application processes.

The report identifies four main challenges for families seeking CCDF benefits:

• Complex and burdensome CCDF eligibility and verification documentation requirements that can make it challenging for low-income families to access and retain child care benefits.
• Families also face compounded burdens when trying to navigate the various program systems in place to obtain the multiple benefits for which they are eligible.
• Complex child care assistance policies and processes, and cross-system duplication, can create a significant administrative burden for struggling public agencies.
• Policy complexity can also inadvertently contribute to program integrity challenges.

The brief offers a number of strategies and state examples of ways in which the CCDF system can be made more efficient, while also maintaining the inherent flexibility of the program. The report asserts that the complexities of the eligibility and verification process requirements stems from state policy, not from federal policy, since at the federal level CCDF has relatively few requirements. The report goes on to detail a two part vision to help states simplify the CCDF eligibility requirements and process, and align the CCDF system with other safety net programs. The report highlights the fact that the Affordable Care Act has significantly changed service delivery and the health care system. So this kind of efficient, collaborative paradigm shift is really just in keeping with the changing times.

The report offers a number of assessment tools and strategies to help state policymakers create “family friendly policies” that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the CCDF system. These strategies include seeking solutions across policy areas, using program evaluation data to thoughtfully enhance and improve services, and examining the business and technological processes that affect the effectiveness of policy implementation. The report emphasizes increasing accessibility to the application for the families, and providing all necessary assistance to address barriers in the application process —which could be quite simple if applications were combined! And, as far as eligibility redetermination, it could be prudent for states to align redetermination dates. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this practice the report highlights the fact that the state of Michigan has synchronized eligibility periods and redetermination dates for SNAP, child care, and Medicaid/CHIP, with success. The report also states that the alignment process can be with parts of other systems, for example Maryland has aligned its verification process for CCDF with SNAP, since SNAP data is verified and accurate.

State efforts to re-examine CCDF is very timely given that Congress just increased funding for Child Care and Development Block Grant by $154 million, with $296 million to increase quality of care, and $109 million to improve quality of care for infants and toddlers. This provides a very opportune moment for state policy makers to implement some of the strategies discussed in the report and increase the efficiency and access of their programs. For more results-based state policy and funding strategies that support the healthy development of children, please click here.

The recently released Strong Start for America’s Children Act was introduced to improve and expand access to high-quality prekindergarten programs for all low-income children to ensure kindergarten readiness. Through a federal-state partnership, the legislation would fund preschool for 4-year old children from families earning at or below 200% of the federal poverty level and encourage states to provide support for families just above that income threshold. The bill would also provide resources, such as voluntary home visits by nurses and social workers, to at-risk families as well as new funding for high-quality learning programs for infants and toddlers.

High-quality early education is crucial in preparing young children for future success, unfortunately high-quality early education is cost-prohibitive for many low-income families, leaving many young children without that important foundational opportunity. Research has shown that investing in early education can lead to short- and long-term benefits, including better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, and lower levels of crime and delinquency. This legislation, by off-setting the cost associated with quality early learning opportunities, aims to provide low-income children with a more equitable start – with the hopes of reducing the achievement gap between low-income children and children from more affluent families.

Increasing access to high-quality, affordable preschool programs for young children is a step in the right direction toward advancing the outcomes of vulnerable children and families. Policies that work to invest in children and support families have significant positive returns on future generations. Policymakers should prioritize early education to enhance opportunities for all children and increase equity.

For more information on The Strong Start for America’s Children Act, click here.

To read about the importance of investing in early childhood education, click here.

To read about the role of quality preschools in closing the opportunity gap, click here and here.

For results-based policy resources to support young children – please read CSSP’s report on Supporting Early Healthy Development.

Target Corporation, the nation’s second largest retailer, recently announced its new “Ban the Box” policy. The ban the box initiative calls for the removal of employment barriers for people with criminal records, or returning citizens, by demanding that employers remove the question on job applications that asks if the applicant has a criminal record. Target joins over 50 cities and counties, and 10 states in implementing this “ban the box” policy.

Minnesota, where Target is based, recently expanded its 2009 “ban the box” legislation to include both public and private employers state wide. That legislation stipulates that Minnesota’s private employers cannot inquire into an applicant’s criminal history until after that applicant is invited to interview for a position, or before an offer of employment. Ban the box legislation is important because previously, these individuals may have been qualified for a job, but rejected just for answering in the affirmative to a question about their criminal history. This practice rejected a whole potential population from the work force, even though most returning citizens have been charged with nonviolent offenses. This practice also often denied applicants the ability to explain that their record was unrelated to the job, occurred in their youth or was inaccurate. In Minnesota now, private employers who do not comply with this policy will be penalized in the form of a fine.

This policy should have a positive impact on both the individuals with criminal records and returning citizens in Minnesota; 1 in 5 Minnesotans have a criminal record. Minnesota is also the state with the 8^th highest number of people incarcerated and/or currently on some type of court supervision in the country. Research shows that returning citizens that are unable to find employment are more likely to re-offend – leading to higher recidivism rates. There are also significant equity concerns related to ban the box policies. Research shows that African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Nationally, there are 650,000 returning citizens and 65 million Americans with criminal records returning to their communities and searching for employment every year; for them and their families these policy changes are monumental, and paramount to their success.

Ban the box policies help to keep corrections costs down for states by reducing recidivism and increasing public safety —while also promoting economic growth within states. For results-based policy strategies that remove employment barriers for returning citizens and more state examples of policies that support workers and low income families please visit policyforresults.org.

Today, Kids Count at the Annie E. Casey Foundation released a new policy report, The First Eight Years, that highlights the importance of making early investments in young children. Unfortunately, despite the fact that most brain development occurs in the early years of childhood, federal spending for children is lowest during this period of their growth. The new report from Kids Count states that investing in the first eight years of a child’s life is critical for children to succeed, both while they are in school and in their future. The Kids Count report highlights three primary goals with related policy recommendations.

 The report includes detailed analysis under each goal and policy recommendation. The goals in the report include:

(1) Support parents as they care for their children

• States should establish or continue to expand voluntary, evidence-based home-visiting and parent-training programs for children at risk of falling behind.
• States should Increase mental health services.
• States should boost economic stability by improving income supports such as SNAP, EITC, and child support and expand educational assistance and job-training programs for parents.
• States and the federal government should align eligibility and recertification dates, streamline benefits packages and offer one-stop locations for job training and other programs that serve low-income parents.

 (2) Improve access to quality early care

• States should adopt early learning and development standards that set clear expectations for child development.
• States should set child-care reimbursement rates at levels that allow providers to retain a skilled child-care workforce and maintain age-appropriate instructor-child ratios.
• States can expand and improve Head Start and Early Head Start that combine early education services for parents and access to other resources.
• States should provide voluntary, full-day, high-quality and developmentally appropriate prekindergarten programs that serve all children, beginning with investments that target low-income 3- and 4-year olds.
• States should provide supports needed for all children to reach important benchmarks, and continue to implement rigorous, state-developed college and career-ready education standards.
• States should ensure that children have access to affordable and comprehensive health care from a primary care provider who can manage and coordinate their care. 

(3) Ensure that care is comprehensive and coordinated for all children from birth through age 8  

• States should use consistent measures of child development that provide broad assessments of child well-being.
•  States should develop linked data systems, which include as many early care and education providers as possible that should help administrators ensure that children who need services receive them and identify additional resources that children need to flourish.
• States should increase coordination efforts to include better integration and transitions among early education, K-12, health care, and family support systems.

The findings of The Kids Count policy report demonstrate the need for high-quality early childhood programs, which include supports for families, that can have a powerful and lasting impact on young children—an impact that continues into adulthood. Policymakers can advance their efforts to support young children by looking toward evidence on best practices across early childhood fields, which can be used to make the case for policies supporting a comprehensive and integrated birth through age 8 system that ensures all children have a real chance to be successful and contribute.

Visit Kids Count at the Annie E. Casey Foundation for more details from this policy report.  For a complementary resource focused on Supporting Early Healthy Development please read CSSP’s Policy for Results report, scheduled for release on November 12, 2013.  Stay tuned!

Recent findings show that living in poverty, and the mental strains associated, can impede proper brain functioning. A series of experiments run by researchers at Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom concluded that living in poverty can tax the cognitive abilities of anyone experiencing it and that those cognitive abilities return when the burden of poverty disappears. In essence, the research found that poverty imposes such a substantial burden that people living under those circumstances have difficulty making important decisions.

Previously released studies showed a correlation between poverty and “counterproductive behavior.” For example, these studies found that the poor are less likely to have preventative health care, fail to adhere to drug regimens, are tardier, and less likely to keep appointments. These behaviors can deepen poverty; however, previous explanations have only focused on the impact of environmental conditions as an explanation—predatory lenders in poor communities may create high interest rate borrowing, and unreliable transportation can cause tardiness and absenteeism. Other studies have focused on what they deemed the “characteristics of the poor,” for example lower levels of formal education that can create misunderstandings about contract terms, and less parental attention that may influence the parenting style of the next generation.

The research recently conducted at Princeton, Harvard, and Warwick is dedicated to a different explanation of poverty, one which focuses on the mental processes required for living in impoverished conditions. Their findings suggest a strong relationship between poverty and mental functioning. The poor must deal with having an inconsistent stream of income, juggle expenses, and are often forced to make difficult compromises, and these everyday occurrences can be distracting. Constant worries about budgetary concerns diminish the cognitive resources available to make thoughtful choices and actions-restricting the ability of people living in poverty to provide full consideration to problems that arise. The findings show that the mental burden of poverty is equivalent to losing 13 IQ points, which is the same as losing an entire night of sleep and is comparable to the cognitive difference observed between chronic alcoholics and “normal” adults.

As the report states, “Being poor means coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.” The importance of this research indicates that the problems associated with the poor are not actually within poor people themselves, but with anyone who finds themselves living in poverty. These findings have important policy implications—policymakers should create strategies and solutions that reduce and avoid cognitive taxes on the poor. Policies focused on alleviating poverty through raising the minimum wage as California recently did, help to address some of the institutional factors impacting poor families across the country. Other policies, which mitigate the effects of poverty, such as food assistance and health care are also ways to assist families trying to make ends meet.

In response to the recently released poverty data, it is important to keep in mind how many people are living within these conditions. Federal budget issues such as the maintained sequester cuts, totaled at a reduction of $986.3 billion in overall discretionary funding, are detrimental to the families that depend on these supports and services to survive.  This not only impacts parents and their children financially – but also cognitively.

September is National Recovery Month, a time to promote the societal benefits of prevention, treatment, and recovery for mental and substance use disorders, celebrate people in recovery, laud the contributions of treatment and service providers, and promote the message that recovery in all its forms is possible. Nowhere is this emphasis on recovery more profound and necessary than for families involved with the criminal justice system, because of the far-reaching impact that incarceration has on parents, their children and future generations. Nonviolent offenders with drug-related charges would be much better served by drug treatment rather than mandatory minimum sentences, which do little to rehabilitate individuals or to increase public safety.  In fact, incarceration can have the opposite effect.

In line with this view, last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Justice Department would cease pursing mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders.  Citing racial disparities, prison overcrowding as well as the related economic and social impacts, Holder questioned some assumptions about the criminal justice system's approach to the "war on drugs," saying that excessive incarceration has been an "ineffective and unsustainable" part of it.

In their article in the Future of Children, authors Christopher Wildeman and Bruce Western compiled multiple sources of research to describe the intergenerational effects of imprisonment on inequality. Research on adult men suggests that imprisonment diminishes their earnings, disrupts their romantic unions, and compromises their health. Likewise, the imprisonment of a partner, on average, compromises the well-being of those who are left behind. Parental incarceration has been linked to increased physical aggression in boys, and criminality and delinquency throughout the life course.

Many studies have considered the consequences of parental incarceration for children’s behavioral problems more broadly. Having a parent incarcerated causes children of all ages to express a mix of internalizing behaviors, such as being anxious, depressed, or withdrawn, and/or externalizing behaviors, such as acting out or having temper tantrums. The internalizing behaviors tend to occur in older children, but the externalizing behaviors hold across the life course.

Not only does parental incarceration affect children’s behavior, but it is associated with other social problems that can lead to severe marginalization in childhood and adolescence. Children of incarcerated parents are at elevated risk of homelessness, foster care placement, and infant mortality. Maternal incarceration may have even more substantial effects on foster care placement than paternal incarceration does, a risk especially high for African-American children.

In an effort to keep families together whenever possible and to further the action taken by Attorney General Holder, policymakers can support several policies that will decrease children’s exposure to having a parent incarcerated:

• Limit prison time so that nonviolent drug offenders are not needlessly exposed to the psychological damage of incarceration, are free to work and earn an income, and spend time with their families.
• Provide effective drug treatment for nonviolent drug offenders to support their recovery, enabling them to improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential.
• Identify and address substance use disorders early on. Research shows that for every $1.00 invested in prevention and early treatment programs, $2.00 to $10.00 could be saved in health costs, criminal and juvenile justice costs, educational costs, and lost productivity.

Providing drug treatment is a family strengthening policy that rehabilitates individuals, promotes the integrity of the family, and furthers  the justice system’s goal of public safety. For more policies related to reducing incarceration, including promoting workforce strategies for reintegrating ex-offenders, see Policyforresults.org. It is also important to consider alternatives to detention for juveniles.  Brain sciencehas shown that juveniles are resilient and are very likely to be successfully rehabilitated with appropriate interventions.   Many juveniles are also parents, and thus strategies to reduce juvenile detention will prevent the youngest generation from inheriting the stressors associated with the incarceration of their young parents.