The Summer/Fall 2010 Edition of Beyond Emancipation’s Resources for Youth In Transition is available now. This booklet provides information on where Alameda County youth can get help with a variety of issues. Download your copy here.

Related posts:

1. New Resource Guide for Serving LGBTQ Youth in Out-of-Home Care
2. Waiver Investments to support Transition Age Youth
3. HEY’s Emancipation Resource Binder

For the past five years, I have worked closely with Washington policymakers to further the protection of and attention given to foster children in the U.S. and around the world. Children Uniting Nations is one of the premier nonprofit organizations working with at-risk and foster youth.

Pioneered in Los Angeles, Children Uniting Nations has become the model program for the rest of the country. CUN provides advocacy and funding and produces large-scale recruitment events. Children Uniting Nations is dedicated to providing children in the foster care system with highly trained mentors who are compassionate, steadfast and have an unconditional desire to give of themselves in order to make a positive difference in the lives of the nation’s most vulnerable children.

Our mission is to provide legislators and political leaders with critical science-based research to support effective federal policies and to create awareness within Congress, the administration, foundations, academic institutions, major corporations, and the media on the key issues related to improving social mobility for at-risk youth and their families. We also educate and inform the public on the opportunities and challenges of pursuing systemic policy change in the education, health and well-being of our children.

There are about 550,000 children in foster care today in America, and 100,000 of them are waiting to find a home with a permanent, loving family. Mentoring programs can make a significant difference in the lives of children in foster care. Studies show that children who are mentored are 45 percent less likely to use illicit drugs, 59 percent more likely to succeed in school and 73 percent more likely to attain higher life-achievement goals.

However, many programs that support mentorship are simply not sufficient and almost nonexistent at the state level. Mentor programs that serve foster children are unique and require additional considerations, including specialized training and support necessary to provide for consistent, long-term relationships for children in care. Mentor programs are cost-effective approaches to decreasing the occurrence of many social ills, such as teen pregnancy, substance abuse, incarceration and violence.

Both Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) have been great mentors of mine on the journey to establishing an agenda for change in the U.S. Initially it was Landrieu and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who supported actions to make effective strides in the support of at-risk foster children by ensuring they too have the chance to pursue education and receive emotional stability through dedicated mentor relationships. Both women have pursued an aggressive agenda aimed at meeting the needs of children in foster care by connecting them with responsible, caring mentors and by reforming the foster care financing system.

It was Landrieu who introduced the Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2009, legislation that provides student loan forgiveness for individuals who volunteer to serve as role models for a child in care. The bill has also authorized $15 million to establish statewide foster care mentoring programs and $4 million to begin a national public awareness campaign and mentor recruitment program. This legislation builds on a Landrieu amendment to the Serve America Act, which added programs for mentoring foster youth to the list of national service programs eligible for assistance. Landrieu also authored an amendment that was adopted as part of 2010 budget legislation that would allow for reforming the foster care financing system to shift resources to promote safe, stable and permanent homes for foster children.

Sometimes, unfortunately, placing a child with a loving family can take up to five or 10 years. That is why in the meantime, strong mentoring programs, like those being promoted by Children Uniting Nations, are so essential. I have seen firsthand the benefits of connecting foster youths with caring, nurturing adults who can provide academic assistance or just a relationship-building opportunity. The Congressional Coalition on Adoption, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that serves as a resource on adoption issues, runs an internship program for former foster youth. These remarkable young people come to Washington, D.C., to intern with members of the House and Senate. Not only do we get to know them individually as people, but these young adults get to tell their stories and become powerful advocates for mentorship programs — and to perhaps present many ideas to President Barack Obama, who is interested in a more service-oriented nation.

All of the 100 million children in America are our children. Most of these children have somebody in their life, a parent or another role model, who can help care for and nurture them. This is not always the case for children in foster care. These children are truly our children because as a government and as a society we are responsible for them. We must continue to work together to improve their lives. Connecting them with responsible mentors is one way to achieve that important goal.

Daphna Ziman is founder and chairman of Children Uniting Nations.

Related posts:

1. Children Uniting Nations Celebrates 11th Annual Day of the Child November 22; Rides From Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch at the Barker Hangar
2. Innovative foster teen program opens in Ventura County
3. SF Independent Living Skills Program’s Graduation Ceremony: A Bid Farewell to Resilient Former Foster Youth

The Board of Supervisors adjourned shortly before midnight last Monday– after passing the final budget with Mayor Newsom’s blessing, but also dropped two Charter Amendments and postponed a third for the following week. The Board Budget Committee had done a great job on July 1st passing a balanced budget that saved crucial services. But because they could not get the Mayor’s approval before sending the budget to the Full Board, there was no assurance Newsom would spend any of this money – making it an incomplete victory. This forced the Supervisors to cut a deal last night, and some will no doubt complain about its details. But the Board did what they had to do – under our current system – to protect funding priorities. Until we amend the City Charter to end the Mayor’s unilateral power to refuse to spend money, the process will keep being this one-sided and dysfunctional.

Normally, the Budget Committee cuts a deal with the Mayor around June 30th or July 1st – which preserves “add-back” money. In fact, most non-profit employees who get cut by the Mayor’s Office each year take their annual vacations in July – after spending an exhausting month fighting to restore their funding. The budget still has to pass the Full Board for final approval before the end of July, but that step is often just a formality.

But this year, Newsom would not come to an agreement with the Budget Committee. Only a $4 million gap existed in negotiations, but Newsom insisted that the Committee dump a series of Charter Amendments curbing the Mayor’s power. Frustrated, Budget Chair John Avalos finally passed a budget without the Mayor’s support – which saved crucial services. But we knew there was no guarantee the “add-backs” would be honored.

That’s because the City Charter gives the Board (as the legislative branch) the power to appropriate money, but only the Mayor (as the executive branch) the power to spend. It effectively gives Newsom a “back-door veto” of any funding the Supervisors feel should be funded – unless the Board gets the Mayor to promise he will honor their priorities.

After the Budget Committee passed the budget on July 1st, budget negotiations stalled. As Chris Roberts reported in the SF Appeal on July 15th, Avalos said Newsom had not spoken to him since July 1st – and he had only met with the Mayor’s Chief of Staff two or three times. From what I can tell, there were no budget negotiations until yesterday – when the Board recessed at 5:00 p.m., and re-convened 4½ hours later.

So what was the end product Monday night, after the Full Board passed the final budget?

First, here is the good news. All the $40 million in “add-backs” the Budget Committee had passed on July 1st were intact, along with a few more restorations that included: (a) $50,000 of the $100,000 HSA-funded program for Hoarders & Clutterers, (b) $500,000 of the Ethics Commission Public Finance fund, (c) $800,000 for psych beds at SF General Hospital, and (d) another $1 million in violence prevention programs.

In exchange, the Supervisors agreed to restore two of the Mayor’s Pet Projects they had previously cut out of the budget – $250,000 for the Kids2College Savings Program (or Baby Bonds II), and $260,000 to get a permanent home for Project Homeless Connect. In addition, the Mayor insisted on restoring the one Fire captain position the Budget Committee had cut.

The latter is an EMS Captain position that can be done by a civilian employee, and who the Firefighters Union had told Budget Committee members they could concede. Despite media coverage on bloat in the Fire Department, final talks with Mayor Newsom to pass a budget ended up restoring the only position that the Budget Committee had cut during deliberations.

But again, the Supervisors didn’t have much of a choice – not when failing to make a deal would mean the Mayor can ignore all the “add-backs,” and make unilateral cuts in the middle of the year. The price for Newsom’s Pet Projects was secure “add-backs.”

Similar to what happened last year, the Board got Newsom to agree to two things that should secure the “add-back” money. One was a requirement that – should cuts due to the state budget become necessary, the Mayor will re-submit a proposal for “mid-year cuts” to the Board for a formal “up-or-down” vote. Of course, such a measure ought to be required in the City Charter – so it doesn’t become a bargaining chip the Board has to demand each year.

The other was to put $44 million of the budget – an equivalent of how much there are in “add-backs” – on reserve, so that the Mayor could not spend that money until the Board releases this funds. Effectively, this puts the “add-back” money at the top of the funding priority list – because the other $44 million has to be spent later. The Supervisors passed a similar proposal by David Campos last year, and the effects of that strategy were quite successful.

Of course, the Supervisors also rejected two Charter Amendments – which would have split appointments to Commissions between the Mayor and Board. Ross Mirkarimi’s proposal for the Recreation & Park Commission failed by a 6-5 vote, and David Campos tabled his measure to change the composition of the Rent Board. A third, which would allow for split appointments to the MTA Commission, was postponed until next week.

This led Supervisor Chris Daly to accuse some of his colleagues of engaging in quid pro quo – as Newsom had insisted three weeks ago that these Charter Amendments be disposed. But there was never any guarantee that the voters would pass these “split-appointment” measures, which do not have the same track record of passing like they did in the Willie Brown era. When the alternative was unilateral mid-year budget cuts, the Board was stuck between a rock and a hard place – and I don’t fault the choice they made.
But the Supervisors passed a Charter Amendment yesterday that could curb the Mayor’s power, and at least bring a vestige of function to City Hall. While it would not block the his unilateral power to make budget cuts, Question Time would require Newsom (or any Mayor) to make a monthly appearance at the Board of Supervisors for policy discussions.

The voters passed Question Time as a non-binding resolution in 2006, but Newsom refused to attend. It was back on the ballot in 2007 as a mandatory Charter Amendment, and the Mayor then worked feverishly to defeat it with mass corporate money – and it failed narrowly.

“I can’t think of a better time than right now for the Mayor to come speak to us,” said John Avalos at the Board meeting. “He should come talk to us about the Budget.”

Not only can the Mayor refuse to spend appropriated money – giving him an effective trump card in the budget process – but he’s under no obligation to meet the Supervisors at a public Board meeting, opting instead to cut deals with them behind closed doors. And despite the Supervisors spending hours yesterday hoping for a resolution to this year’s budget – as people like me kept pestering them in the hallway – we never saw the Mayor.

Question Time would not resolve all the dysfunction and imbalance that exists in our budget process, but as a Charter Amendment it would at least be a good start.

Related posts:

1. San Francisco Supes Give Final Approval to Budget
2. LOCAL BUDGET
3. San Francisco Supes Give Final Approval to Budget

I attended the first three-hour training on July 8^th .  The training began with an introduction to the program, as well as to trainers and the trainees.  My attendance at the first training was extremely useful to help me understand the goals and objectives of the trainings and to get to know the population that will be attending these trainings, a mix of peer workers, volunteers, supervisors, and community leaders—all linked to the San Francisco behavioral health workforce.  The purpose of these trainings is to help the attendees develop the skills to interact on the job so that they can become effective staff members.  We then split up into “breakout” groups to discuss meeting times.  My group’s placements were based on our links to working with youth and young adults aged 16-24.  

The next training, titled “Life, Therapy and the Employment of Working Together,”  will be on August 12^th, and our next “breakout” group meeting on July 27^th .  I am excited to attend the second meeting and to meet with my group, I will be sure to report back the new and interesting things I learn after the second training.

Related posts:

1. Great Training Series: Integration and Professional Development of Consumers
2. Foster Youth Alliance Seeks Conference Presenters (September 24)!
3. Bayview Connect 2010 is a Success!!

Between the disastrous budget years that helped push Gov. Gray Davis from office in 2003 and the disastrous budget years that have plagued the second term of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, there was one year — 2006 — when everything seemed rosy. The mortgage market was booming, the economy was humming, and the governor proposed a budget that continued to pay down Davis-era debt. Democrats in the Legislature instead tried to use some of that money for program expansions. As usual, they and the governor locked horns, but gently, given the comfortable level of revenue expected.

Then the April tax payments came in and shocked everyone. California was rolling in unanticipated money. Our tax system is heavily weighted toward income taxes on the wealthy, so when well-to-do investors have a good year on Wall Street or realize profits from lucrative investments, the state hits the jackpot along with them — and that’s what happened in 2006. Led by a group of Google backers who cashed in their chips, wealthy taxpayers gave the budget a surprise boost.

So what was the state to do with all that extra money? Democratic Assemblywoman Karen Bass of Los Angeles had a smart plan to spend $82 million of it on a long-needed overhaul of the foster care system that would keep more children with their relatives instead of sending them to group homes or into foster care.

Schwarzenegger and Republicans in the Legislature wanted a larger “rainy day” fund as a hedge against bad times, and a spending cap so the state would not embark on programs it couldn’t afford in future years. Democrats argued that money properly spent now would save the state millions in the future and was a necessary investment. Then-Speaker Fabian Nuñez, also a Los Angeles Democrat, also from a district affected by the broken foster care system, went to bat for Bass’ plan and included it in the budget that Schwarzenegger signed.

Meanwhile, Californians were happy with their government. Largely because of a decent economy and a fairly easy budget year, the Legislature’s approval ratings soared. Schwarzenegger was easily reelected.

When the housing bubble burst, Schwarzenegger stepped up his demand for far-reaching budget reform to cap annual spending and mandate saving for the future. This page called it “budgetary Skynet,” a reference to the computer system that, in the “Terminator” movies, eliminated the human factor from defense decisions. “A better future for California will come when voters and elected officials begin to make tough choices,” we wrote, “not when they shrug their shoulders and relinquish their power to a budget machine.”

Bass then became speaker and had to preside over the dismantling of much of her good work on foster care. Soon to leave the Assembly for a seat in Congress (her election in November is all but certain in her heavily Democratic district), she hasn’t backed off her support for foster care reform. But she has come around on Schwarzenegger’s rainy-day fund.

“So much of what we did was undone” by the last several very bad budget years, Bass said recently. “I do think we need something to even out the budget from one year to another.”

The Times’ editorial page reluctantly joined Bass and other legislative leaders in backing Schwarzenegger’s May 2009 ballot measure that would have imposed an automated spending cap and a rainy-day fund. It failed to pass because it was packaged with tax increases that angry Californians were unprepared to accept.

Today, this page again asserts its support for the governor’s budget reform, this time putting aside our past reluctance. It’s unfortunate that automated budgeting is necessary. But it is necessary. The state must continue to invest in the social welfare of its people, but we must do it in accordance with California’s projected growth so that we do not repeatedly yank from the young, the elderly and the poor the very services that we provided only a year or two before.

There are, in theory, alternatives. A revamp of our tax system along the lines of the one produced by the Commission on the 21st Century Economy, for example, would be one way to smooth out the revenue peaks and valleys and make the state’s tax receipts more predictable from year to year by putting less emphasis on the income of corporations and the wealthy. But there is little widespread support for transferring the tax burden to middle-income earners. Allowing the Legislature to make budget decisions on a majority vote, instead of two-thirds, would force lawmakers and the majority party to stand behind their budgets. There’s a measure on the November ballot to do that, but there’s also a measure to expand the two-thirds requirement. Until California is ready to adopt widespread and rational governmental restructuring, it needs to change its budgeting practices.

There are downsides. The public can become impatient when the state is sitting on a large reserve. It happened in 1978, when then-Gov. Jerry Brown prudently socked away a huge reserve for expenses he saw coming in future years. Property owners were angry that their taxes were rising when the state had plenty of money, and the surplus became one of the factors that helped defund government with Proposition 13. In the 1990s, the state had enough money to roll back vehicle license fees. Gray Davis prudently raised them again, as the law contemplated, when the surplus disappeared — but that move helped get him recalled. Budget reform can put reserves for future years off limits for tax rebates as well as for spending.

This is Schwarzenegger’s last budget, and his last chance to push for a spending cap and a rainy-day fund. It’s the right time and the right goal. The Legislature should agree, and send budget reform to voters one more time.

Related posts:

1. In Sacramento, An Angry Exchange Over Child Welfare Budget Cuts
2. City Budget: Doom and Gloom
3. Reuters: “Schwarzenegger budget ax would fall heavily on poor”

A likely consequence of the San Francisco and California’s ever-growing pile of debt ($483 million and $19 billion respectively) to consider is the dampening effect that these insurmountable deficits could have on not just the services non-profits offer the Bay Area, but also on the capacity that our over-worked non-profits need to critically and candidly measure their work’s outcomes and community impact in a time of increasing need and decreasing budgets.

Because non-profits provide many social safety nets funded by City Hall, including substance abuse and mental health services that are being axed by the Mayor this year, it is extremely important that community-based programs have the capacity to self-improve, to find where clients may be  falling through the cracks,  and to prove the value of government and non-profit investment in the community.

Many people assume that we can do more good deeds if we just sustain and expand current services. But the fact is harsh: San Francisco vastly outspends other Californian cities as far as health and human services, yet we cannot seem to fundamentally solve many of our common social ills. There does not seem to be a lack of safety nets in San Francisco, but a lack of coordination and oversight between the multiple social institutions and networks vulnerable citizens must navigate–often on their own.

Of course the well-being of a sixteen-year old living without education, a family, or a home cannot be reduced to an institutional statistic, nor should his case worker  stress about her data reports more than her substantive practice. However, it is highly unlikely that there will be more or even sustained funding in the near future for the social services we now enjoy. Inter-agency coordination and evidence-based practice must replace duplication and inefficiency.  To adapt to the new reality, non-profits should set aside resources to determine what is really working for the Bay Area community and how to do more of it with less.

Related posts:

1. HEY First Impressions
2. Bay Budget Blues
3. San Francisco Saturated with Services–Some Have to Go

Full day of meetings and advocacy for foster youth legislation.

When: Wednesday, August 4th at
Where: the State Capitol in Sacramento

Senate Appropriations Committee will be the biggest challenge yet for AB 12. Let’s give AB 12 the best shot possible by educating our elected officials about this important legislation. The John Burton Foundation will be holding a full day of meetings on Wednesday, August 4th.  If you have been waiting until crunch time to get involved, now is your time! To register for the day, click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Sara Rhodes at sara@johnburtonfoundation.org or at 415-693-1326.

[AB 12 is a state version of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which was signed into law in 2008, and opens up federal resources for states to extend foster care to specified individuals up to 21 years of age. Additionally, AB 12 will mandate California to seek federal finances for kinship guardianship assistance payments. For continued updates on AB12]

Related posts:

1. AB 12 Passes Senate Judiciary Committee!
2. AB 12 Passes Human Services Committee!
3. Support AB 12 California Fostering Connections to Success Act Today

Date: August 19th
Time: 7-8:30pm

The California Foster Youth Education and Career Network is offering a special webinar to be hosted by Tracy Fried, a national leader in improving educational outcomes for children in care, and Rose Baker, a foster parent with over 30 years of experience.

The webinar will provide practical information on:

• how to navigate the schools,
• the educational rights of foster children,
• how to enroll or check your child out of school, and
• what to do when your child’s educational needs are not being met

This is an opportunity for you to ask questions, hear from other foster parents, and get the answers to your concerns. You have several ways to participate in this forum. You can join by telephone and on your computer, or you can just participate by telephone.

To join by telephone only:

>Dial 888-886-3951, and enter the passcode (718173) when prompted.

If you plan on joining by telephone, please call or email Mia Stizzo (916-551-1431 or mia.stizzo@cfpic.org) and provide a mailing or e-mail address so she can send you any materials you may need to follow along.

To participate in the Webinar:

>First, dial your telephone conference line: (888) 886-3951 and enter the passcode (718173) when prompted.
> Go to www.cccconfer.org.
> Click the Participant Log In button under the Meet & Confer logo
> Scroll down and locate CA FY Ed and Career Network and click Go.
> Fill out the form and enter the password: 718173

Please contact Mia Stizzo (contact information above) if you have any questions. Enjoy!

Related posts:

1. The California Foster Youth Education And Career Network Invites You To Become A Member Of A Vibrant Learning Community By Joining Us In A Series Of Monthly Webinars
2. Foster Youth Education Initiative Releases Report on Improving Opportunities for Foster Youth
3. Reminder: March 16th Webinar Training Identity Theft and Vital Documents: Ensuring Foster Youth Access the Full Range of Financial Aid

The report outlines the common components of education advocacy systems and provides an overview of 11 different such systems across California. It also offers concrete recommendations for working to improve the educational and life outcomes of these children.

Download the report.

Related posts:

1. Attention Caregivers! Join the Evening Webinar, “Improving Education for Children and Youth in Foster Care: The Critical Role of the Caregiver”
2. Get the “insight,”a Useful Report to Track Outcomes for State’s Emancipated Youth
3. Report Shows an Increase in Child and Youth Homelessness

Date: Monday, August 2, 2010
Time: 11a.m.-3p.m. (registration from 10-10:45a.m.)
Location: San Jose State University

California Youth Connection’s invites you to their (CYC) Annual Summer Policy and Leadership Conference’s Policy Presentation…..

The event, which is facilitated and hosted by the CYC members, will address the following topics: transitional services, higher education, permanency and budget. In addition, the youth will be discussing Budget Priorities, Implementation Strategies and Policy Recommendations. Attendees will have the opportunity to listen to recommendations by the youth, spend time strategizing and developing action steps, and collaborate and speak individually with these amazing young adults.

RSVP Here.

Related posts:

1. California Coalition for Youth hosts Taking Action Conference 2010
2. Human Services Network to Spearhead “New Realities 4″ Non-Profit Public Policy Conference (July 9)
3. State Policy – California Child Welfare Council and The Foster Youth Issues Forum