U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–840 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 111–1149 

STATE OF THE AMERICAN CHILD: WHAT’S 

WORKING FOR CONNECTICUT’S CHILDREN 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING THE STATE OF AMERICAN CHILDREN, FOCUSING ON 

WHAT’S WORKING FOR CONNECTICUT’S CHILDREN 

JULY 26, 2010 (New Haven, CT) 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

CARTE P. GOODWIN, West Virginia 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

DANIEL SMITH, Staff Director 

PAMELA SMITH, Deputy Staff Director 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa (ex officio) 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex officio) 

TAMAR MAGARIKHARO, Staff Director 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

MONDAY, JULY 26, 2010 

Page 

Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., Chairman, Subcommittee on Children and Families, opening statement ........................................................................................ 1 

Zigler, Edward, Ph.D., Director Emeritus, Edward Zigler Center in Child 

Development and Social Policy, Yale University, New Haven, CT .................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Horan, James B., Executive Director, Connecticut Association for Human 

Services, Hartford, CT ......................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Lowell, Darcy, M.D., Executive Director, Child First CT, Bridgeport Hospital, 

Bridgeport, CT ...................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Keck, Douglas B., D.M.D., M.S.H.ED., Connecticut State Leader, AAPD Head 

Start Dental Home Initiative, Madison, CT ...................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Dolliver, Abby I., Superintendent, Norwich Public Schools, Norwich, CT .......... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Papa, Tammy, Director, Bridgeport Lighthouse, Bridgeport, CT ........................ 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Day, KellyAnn, Executive Director, New Haven Home Recovery, Manchester, 

CT .......................................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Edwards, Doug, Founder and Programs Director, Real Dads Forever, Manchester, CT ............................................................................................................ 41 

Honigfeld, Lisa, Ph.D., Vice President for Health Initiatives, Child Health 

and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc., Farmington, CT ................... 43 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Debra P. Hauser, Ph.D., M.S.W. ..................................................................... 64 

William B. Wickwire, Attorney ....................................................................... 69 

(III) 

(1) 

STATE OF THE AMERICAN CHILD: WHAT’S 

WORKING FOR CONNECTICUT’S CHILDREN 

MONDAY, JULY 26, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

New Haven, CT. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in the 

Donald J. Cohen Auditorium, Yale Child Study Center, 230 South 

Frontage Road, Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Dodd. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DODD

Senator DODD. The committee will come to order. I guess I have 

a gavel. That is what the gavel is here for. 

Let me welcome all of you here this morning. I see a lot of familiar faces and friendly faces out in the audience. I thank you all for 

being here this morning to be a part of this series of conversations 

we are having as the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I have 

either chaired or been the ranking member of, for over the last 25 

or 30 years. 

We have done a lot of work together with many of you in the 

room on children’s issues and family issues. And as I am wrapping 

up the next 6 or 7 months of my seat in the U.S. Senate, I thought 

it would be worthwhile to conduct a series of hearings on the status 

of the American child and to look at where we are today, what we 

have accomplished, and where we need to go. 

We have had hearings already, led off by Alma Powell, General 

Colin Powell’s wife, who has been very involved in children’s issues 

for a long time, along with others. We are here today to talk about 

some solutions, things that Connecticut has done well over the 

years, although we all recognize we have a lot of work to do. 

But I have always been very, very proud—a lot of the ideas that 

I have championed over the years as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families have come from this State, 

come from this very building. In fact, people like Ed Zigler, who 

have been just remarkable as a tutor and a guide for me over the 

years in dealing with children’s issues. I have been very, very 

grateful to many others of you here today as well. And so, I have 

utilized the experience in Connecticut to try and help develop some 

national standards and ideas as well. 
2 

We will have a hearing later this week, Thursday, back in Washington again, to start talking about national ideas and solutions as 

well, with representatives from the major Cabinet officers that are 

coming together. And it will be wrapping up as well with some 

ideas on the establishment of a permanent council on the status of 

children, much as we have done here in Connecticut, along with 

the ideas of establishing something along the lines of a report card 

on an annual basis so we have a regular basis by which we have 

a structure in place to make determinations as to how we are 

doing, sort of tracking this without having to go back over and 

over, over the years. 

I wanted to begin, I should have at the very outset here, to express my condolences—and all of you, I am sure, will join me in 

this—to remember the two firefighters in Bridgeport, by the way, 

who lost their lives over the weekend—Lieutenant Steven 

Velasquez and Michael Baik. They died while fighting a fire in 

Bridgeport on Saturday, and I know all of us want to express our 

condolences to their families and their brother and sister firefighters in Bridgeport and around the country. 

What they do every single day, a remarkable group of people are 

firefighters. So I know all of us, we share in those thoughts. 

Let me start with some opening remarks. I will introduce our 

panel, which is a very distinguished panel. I presume many of you 

in the audience know the people at this panel as well as I do and 

respect them immensely. But I wanted to share some opening comments and thoughts, and then we will begin this conversation 

about Connecticut and some solutions and ideas. 

I would like to welcome all of you here this morning to our second in a series of hearings on the state of the American child. The 

first hearing, as I mentioned, in this series was held in June in 

Washington, DC, and we were lucky enough to have as our witness 

Elaine Zimmerman, with the Connecticut Commission on Children. 

And I look forward to hearing from additional Connecticut experts 

not only today, but in the weeks coming. 

It is fitting that we have come together at the Yale Child Study 

Center, where so much good work has been done to investigate the 

problems that children face and to discover solutions to meet their 

needs. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank Dr. Fred Volkmar, 

the head of the Yale Child Study Center, for hosting us this morning, and for all of the tremendous work he is doing for children in 

this State and around the country. 

I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Alpern, Dean of the Yale 

School of Medicine, and President Rick Levin for their hospitality 

as well. 

I have had the privilege of working on many of the different 

issues on behalf of the people of Connecticut for the last 35 years. 

But as I have said before, the most rewarding work, without any 

question whatsoever, that I have been involved in has been issues 

affecting children and their families. 

And while it comes to helping each American child reach his or 

her potential, a lot falls on the shoulders obviously of parents, as 

I have come to learn as the father of a 5-year-old and an 8-year- 
3 

old over the last several years. I decided to have my own grandchildren is what—— 

[Laughter.] 

But as parents, we all recognize parents can’t do it alone, and 

the welfare of children in this country depends heavily on having 

education, healthcare, and economic policies that give families the 

resources and the support that they need. 

We have learned a lot about what children need to succeed during my time in the Congress, and I am proud of the progress we 

have made in many areas. We have helped a generation of young 

children prepare for school through the Head Start program. We 

have worked to provide quality childcare facilities and afterschool 

programs to ensure that learning can truly be a lifelong pursuit, 

not just something that happens during the school day. 

We have freed millions of parents from having to choose between 

the job they need and the sick children they want to care for 

through the Family and Medical Leave Act. And we have strengthened children’s healthcare by reducing the number of uninsured 

children through the CHIP and Medicaid programs, preventing tobacco companies from treating our children as customers-to-be, 

spreading awareness of food allergies, and reducing premature 

births. 

Most recently, as a result of a provision I worked closely on in 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, an estimated 

41 million American children and their families will receive preventive care, such as routine immunizations, regular pediatrician visits, and breast and colon cancer screenings at no cost. 

But the fact remains that too many children are left behind at 

the starting gate through no fault of their own and through no 

fault of their parents. And as the chairman of the Senate’s only 

body specifically focused on children and families, I have embarked 

on a series of hearings to examine where we are falling short and 

devise a strategy for improvement that can endure even after I 

have left the Congress. 

We have recently learned that, tragically, nearly one in five 

American children live in poverty and that by the year 2012, it will 

be one in four, the highest rate since the 1960s. Right here in Connecticut, one of the wealthiest States in our country, 1 in 10 children grows up in poverty. In the city of Hartford, nearly half of all 

children live below the poverty line. 

As we struggle to emerge from this devastating recession, the 

economic gap between the haves and have-nots is only growing. 

Even though Connecticut can rightly brag about its above-average 

performance on standardized tests, we have one of the country’s 

highest achievement gaps as well. The two gaps are, of course, related. One survey of kindergarten teachers found that three in four 

children who couldn’t go to preschool arrived at kindergarten lacking basic language, literacy skills, and basic fundamental math 

skills. 

And while we have made great strides in keeping our children 

healthy, Connecticut manifests many of the problems with low 

birth weight and childhood obesity that plague our Nation as a 

whole. And like many cities, our neighborhoods and homes put children at higher risk for asthma. 
4 

In many ways, Connecticut is a good example of the problems we 

face nationally. Even in a relatively well-off State, too many children face overwhelming, even insurmountable, disadvantages. 

And while we need to identify and talk about the problems, today 

I want to talk about solutions. I want to talk about what we need 

to do to build a framework for evaluating the efficacy of those solutions. Connecticut has lessons to teach the Nation in that regard 

as well. 

Today, we have convened a panel of experts from around our 

State on different aspects of child development. We are going to 

hear about programs helping families who have lost their homes to 

foreclosure to find stable and affordable housing. 

We will hear about an innovative program that works with highrisk children and families to help avoid the incidence of emotional 

disturbances, developmental problems, abuse, and neglect. 

And we will learn about collaborations between Connecticut dentists and Head Start programs, initiatives for fathers, and a program that provides children with safe and stable environments 

after school and over summers. We will hear from a school superintendent working to address the varied needs of a low-income population in her city. 

These programs have proven effective in our State. And if we can 

take the lessons that these leaders have learned and make them 

part of the national agenda and approach to children’s issues, then 

I think we can make a difference. 

This is just a selection, obviously. There are many brilliant and 

talented people who have done incredible work over many, many 

years, working for our children. I want to thank some of them who 

are here today. 

Here at Yale, we have Dr. Walter Gilliam and Dr. Steve 

Marans—have I pronounced that correctly?—creating and evaluating innovative programs to prevent behavior problems in very 

young children and address childhood trauma. Dr. Scott Rivkees, 

who is doing tremendous work for children’s health as the director 

of the Yale Child Health Research Center. 

Edith Karsky and the Connecticut Association for Community 

Action are on the front lines working to prevent childhood poverty. 

And Jeanne Milstein, my great friend, and the Office of the Child 

Advocate, providing oversight and accountability on behalf of our 

children as well. 

We are constantly learning new things about children and about 

what they need to reach their full potential. And we are constantly 

adjusting our policies to try and meet those needs. It is critical that 

we regularly and carefully examine the progress of children in 

America, so that we can assess our progress as policymakers as 

well. 

That is why, at the very first hearing in this series, I announced 

plans to introduce legislation to create a national council, a permanent council on children to do just that. This body would gather 

data, analyze trends, issue an annual report on the state of the 

American child, and make policy recommendations for improving 

child well-being. We need a national and permanent body at the 

Federal level whose top priority, whose only priority are children 
5 

and their families, improving their lives and looking at their needs 

in a comprehensive manner. 

It has been more than 20 years since the last comprehensive report on the status of children. That report made a significant contribution to the well-being of children and their families. 

In fact, I was going back and looking and just saw the child tax 

credits, the SCHIP program, forerunner of the CHIP program. 

There were many ideas that the Clinton administration took from 

those recommendations, 1989 and forward, that became the law of 

the land and made a difference in children’s lives. But it has been 

more than 20 years since we really had such a commission established and thus the idea to establish a permanent one. 

On Thursday of this week, we will be back—this hearing will be 

back in Washington for the next hearing in our series on the state 

of the American child, which will look at the impact of Federal policies on children. We will have witnesses from the Departments of 

Labor, Health, and Education, as well as an economist team from 

the White House. And I look forward to taking the lessons we may 

learn from the innovative Connecticut programs back down to 

Washington, to working with my colleagues to turn those good 

ideas, I hope, into action. 

So I thank all of you again for being with us here today. 

Now let me briefly introduce our panel, and then I am going to 

ask them in the order that I introduce you to share some thoughts 

and comments with us. Then we will begin the discussion on some 

of these ideas and thoughts you bring to the table. 

We have nine witnesses today, which is a lot of witnesses at a 

hearing. But I am very grateful to all of them. It is a big group, 

but everyone brings an important and unique perspective to the 

topic of today’s hearing. 

I will briefly introduce each of you, but given the time constraints, my comments will be rather brief. In introducing you, I 

don’t want to shortchange you in terms of your wonderful contributions over the years. I will include the full biographies in the Congressional Record. How is that? 

[Laughter.] 

After I complete the introductions, what I will ask you to do is 

if you can each take 3 to 5, or 6 minutes or so—I am not going to 

gavel anyone down—to share your thoughts. Your full comments, 

any supporting data, and many of you included data with your testimony, I will make a part of the permanent record as well for the 

hearing room. 

That way, we can get to the Q and A and the conversation with 

ourselves, and we may invite the audience as well to raise some 

questions and thoughts as we go forward. Not something we normally do with a congressional hearing, but this was sort of a different type of a setting anyway for us to be conducting this along 

the way. 

We will keep the record open for 10 days, 2 weeks. I will make 

it 2 weeks. My other colleagues on the committee may have some 

questions as well to submit to people, and I ask you to respond to 

them. 

Dr. Ed Zigler, my good friend, Director Emeritus, Edward Zigler 

Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale, has been 
6 

involved in early children issues for decades, as all of us in this 

room, I hope, are aware. And we all owe him a tremendous debt 

of gratitude for the incredible work that he has done on behalf of 

America’s children. 

Dr. Zigler’s work has improved the lives of innumerable families, 

and we are honored to have you once again, Ed, with us here today 

to talk about childhood development and preparing children for 

school and success in life and the solutions he has implemented, 

beginning with Head Start, Early Head Start, whole school reform, 

and many other efforts over the years. 

Jim Horan is the executive director of the Connecticut Association for Human Services in Hartford, CT. Jim is here to talk about 

child poverty and the solutions he has fought for as executive director of the Connecticut Association for Human Services to end child 

poverty, as well as to work as an Annie E. Casey KIDS COUNT 

grantee. 

Jim has led the effort to better connect low-income working families with the services. And I was pleased to join him last March at 

one of the free tax preparation clinics that the Association for 

Human Services conducted, enabling parents to claim the earned 

income and child tax credits. 

Dr. Darcy Lowell is the executive director of Child FIRST Connecticut of Bridgeport Hospital, which I had the privilege of visiting—where are you? There you are, over there. Visited not long 

ago. I spent an afternoon at the hospital, a great facility. 

She is here to talk about preventing mental illness, developmental learning problems among kids, as well as child abuse and 

neglect and the solutions she has proven effective with Child 

FIRST, a model program in Bridgeport that brings pediatricians, 

teachers, and other community leaders together. And we thank you 

for your work as well. 

Dr. Doug Keck is with the American Academy of Pediatric 

Dentistry’s Head Start Dental Home Initiative in Madison, CT. Dr. 

Keck is here to talk about the oral health among low-income children and the solutions he is part of by leading Connecticut’s Dental 

Home Initiative for children enrolled in Head Start. 

This innovative program aims to develop a Connecticut network 

of pediatric dentists to provide quality dental homes for Head 

Start, Early Head Start children and train teams of dentists in optimal oral healthcare practices. He also serves on the clinical teaching staff at the Yale-New Haven Hospital and the Yale School of 

Medicine. 

Abby Dolliver is the newly appointed superintendent of the Norwich Public Schools, Norwich, CT. And she is here to highlight the 

programs that meet the academic, physical, and social needs of the 

students in her district. I might point out Abby is, truth-in-advertising, the daughter of my long-term person around my office, Stanley Israelite. And in Connecticut—for those who know Stanley, and 

Abby is the superintendent of schools in Norwich today. 

I lived in Norwich for a number of years, as my parents did as 

well, in a town of around 40,000 people, and you have all of the 

complex issues of a major urban area. And Abby will talk about 

what it is to grapple as a superintendent of schools today with all 
7 

of the issues that are identified here and trying to see that they 

get the proper education of how important that school setting is. 

Before accepting the position of superintendent, Abby worked as 

a special education director, creating programs for students on the 

autism spectrum. Her understanding of the importance of developing the whole child stem from her work as a social worker for 

some 13 years prior to that as well. 

Tammy Papa is the director of the Bridgeport Lighthouse Program. I have worked for many years with this program. Talk about 

afterschool education and the solutions that she has discovered 

through the Lighthouse Program. She has been actively involved in 

planning and implementing afterschool programs for 17 years and 

has done a remarkable job. Her dedication to the issue was acknowledged in 2005 when she was awarded the Children’s Champion Award from the Connecticut After School Network. She also 

acts as an appointee member of the Connecticut After School Advisory Committee and co-chairs the Bridgeport After School Network. 

Kellyann Day is the executive director of the New Haven Home 

Recovery in New Haven, CT, here in the city. She is here to talk 

about child homelessness and the solutions she has worked on with 

New Haven Home Recovery. She has worked with homeless children and families for 20 years, giving her key insights into what 

works and what doesn’t. And again, when you read or hear her testimony today, the statistics are just daunting when it comes to the 

issue of what happens to children who are homeless. 

She has served on numerous boards throughout the State, including New Haven Early Childhood Council, the Connected Coalition to End Homelessness, New Haven Mayor’s Task Force on 

AIDS, South Central Behavioral Health Network, the city of New 

Haven’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness, and many others. 

Doug Edwards is the founder and program director of Real Dads 

Forever, Manchester, CT. This program teaches fathers the importance of home environment in child development and challenges 

them to examine their commitments to their families, themselves, 

and their personal success. He has consulted with Connecticut’s 

Department of Social Services, Department of Education, Department of Children and Families, the Department of Public Health, 

and many other organizations. And we thank him. 

Dr. Lisa Honigfeld—did I pronounce that correctly? 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Yes, you did. 

Senator Dodd [continuing]. Is the vice president for Health Initiatives for the Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, CHDI, in Farmington, CT. She oversees CHDI’s efforts to 

strengthen the quality and accessibility of primary and preventive 

healthcare for children and families. In addition to numerous positions in health services research and pediatric primary care, Dr. 

Honigfeld also has a faculty appointment at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine. 

Well, that was a lot to go through with all of you here. And as 

I said, that is the abbreviated version of their resumes. I spared 

you. 

[Laughter.] 

I mentioned earlier, just going back, and I kept a note on this. 

But just looking at some of the stuff that happened on that earlier 
8 

commission on children that started in 1987, didn’t get underway 

until 1989, was charged with assessing the status of children and 

families. And from that blueprint, the Clinton administration enacted policies including the earned income tax credit, the child tax 

credit, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and many 

others. Out of all that, came one blueprint. So it was very, very valuable that that worked some 20 years ago. 

Well, again, I thank all of you for being here. Ed, we will begin 

with you and your thoughts and comments. Then we will move 

down in the order that I have introduced people, and then we will 

start the conversation. 

Ed, thank you. You are going to have to pull this closer. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD ZIGLER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR EMERITUS, 

EDWARD ZIGLER CENTER IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL POLICY, YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN, CT 

Mr. ZIGLER. Thank you, Senator. 

On behalf of all my colleagues at Yale, allow me to welcome you 

to Yale. I want to take 10 seconds of personal privilege and speaking not to you, but rather to your constituents here in the audience. 

I know many of you, and as many of you know, I have worked 

in some capacity as a consultant to every administration since that 

of Lyndon Johnson. Over that 45-year period, I have witnessed a 

great number of Senators and members of the House, and I would 

just like to state for the record that in my own lifetime, I have 

never met a Congressperson who has been a more effective, active, 

and dedicated advocate for children and families than our own Senator Dodd, and I would like to congratulate him on that record. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ZIGLER. Now let me put on my professorial hat. I have been 

studying human development now for 55 years, and I have come 

to the conclusion that there are four major systems, all in interaction, so they are synergistic, four systems that are the primary 

determinants of the child’s growth and development. 

The first, and by far the most important, is the family. Then 

there is the health system, then the education system the child experiences, and finally, the childcare, where the majority of children 

spend the first 5 years of their life prior to school entry. 

The family today is experiencing so much stress that it has difficulty in performing its primary child-rearing responsibilities. 

Thanks to Federal legislation like SCHIP, the health system has 

improved for children but is still far from perfect. 

We have known that the education system in this country is far 

from excellent ever since the publication many years ago of ‘‘The 

Nation at Risk.’’ Our Nation’s non-childcare system actually harms 

millions of children, as I documented in my recent book, ‘‘The Tragedy of Childcare in America.’’ 

This morning, I would like to acquaint you with a whole school 

reform model that my colleague Matia Finn-Stevenson and I have 

now successfully put into place in this country. These new schools 

have been named Schools of the 21st Century. However, the 60 

schools in Connecticut, mounted originally through the efforts of 
9 

John Larson, and the statewide system of schools in Kentucky are 

called Family Resource Centers. 

The purpose of these schools was to positively impact each and 

every one of the four systems that we know largely determine the 

child’s development. Given my long involvement with our Nation’s 

groundbreaking Head Start program, unsurprisingly, the theoretical principles underlying the 21C school model are similar to 

those of Head Start. The schools adopt a whole child approach 

through which we attempt to positively impact the child’s cognitive 

development, social-emotional development, and the child’s mental 

and physical health. 

Thus, like Head Start, our schools provide comprehensive services that go far beyond the standard provision of academic-focused 

education alone. Like Head Start, parents are viewed as the most 

important determinant of their children’s growth, and parents are 

deeply and actively involved in each and every School of the 21st 

Century and Family Resource Center. This aspect of Schools of the 

21st Century is very similar to that of the very successful ChildParent Centers now to be found throughout the city of Chicago. 

A particularly innovative aspect of 21C schools is that the child 

is enrolled in the neighborhood school as close to the child’s conception as possible and no later than birth. Upon the birth of the 

child, the school sends a home visitor to the home, and these home 

visits continue for 3 years and employ the parents-as-teachers 

home visiting model, which has been implemented in every school 

in the State of Missouri. 

These home visits focus on the parents’ knowledge of human development, as well as in motivating parents to become as an effective first teacher of the child as possible. At the age of 3, the child 

physically begins attending school in a high-quality, 2-year preschool program rather than the 1-year preschool program that has 

become so commonplace in our Nation. 

The preschool day is as long as the work day of mothers and fathers, rather than the usual half-day program or school day program, which usually ends around 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. Thus, one of 

our schools in Bridgeport is actually called the ‘‘6 to 6’’ school. This 

allows children to receive both preschool and afterschool care. 

Thus, our preschools provide not only preschool education, but 

childcare as well. This before and afterschool care continues in the 

school until the child is approximately 12 years of age. Each school 

also mounts a health education component for parents and health 

services for children, which include improved nutrition practices. 

Many of the children in the schools’ catchment area are attending private childcare. Our schools are aware that these children 

will eventually come to the school at age 5. Thus, the schools provide outreach and training to these independent childcare centers, 

thus improving the childcare experience of these non-school enrolled children. 

Our schools also act as brokers for human services that already 

exist in the community. Thus, each school is also a resource and 

referral center in order to satisfy the other needs that the school’s 

families have. 

From age 3 to age 12, 21C parents have the childcare they need 

for their children. This should reduce the stress that parents expe-
10 

rience in dealing with the childcare problem, and our research 

shows that it does reduce stress in parents. 

Research clearly indicates that the more parents are involved in 

their children’s education, the better the child’s educational performance. Like Head Start, parent involvement is a basic pillar of 

the Schools of the 21st Century. This model has grown exponentially since its introduction some 20 years ago. 

It began originally in Independence, MO, with two schools. 

Thanks to John Larson, we began with three schools here in Connecticut, and we now have 60 in this State. Interestingly, when 

Governor Rell recently wanted to cut Family Resource Centers 

from the budget, parents of these schools rose up and demanded 

that the Family Resource Centers continue, and that is now the 

case. 

These schools can now be found in over 20 States. This model 

has now been embraced by over 1,300 schools, making it the largest whole school reform model in America. 

The primary catalyst for this program has been parents themselves. Once they become aware of a School of the 21st Century in 

the next district, they demand to have one in their own district. 

Kentucky has now gone statewide with this model, and Arkansas 

is also moving to a statewide program, having already put into 

place over 160 21C schools. 

I am both a pragmatist and empiricist and a strong believer in 

accountability. Thus, from its inception, we have included a strong 

evaluation component into the Schools of the 21st Century. 

The evidence of the value of these schools is contained in a series 

of positive findings associated with them. In addition to lower 

stress levels, we have found much less vandalism in our schools, 

and studies conducted both in Missouri and Arkansas showed students in 21C schools had superior performance across a broad 

array of academic abilities than did the comparison children. 

For example, in the Independence School District of fourth grade 

students, over 70 percent of them had proficient scores or better on 

literacy tests, whereas the national average in this entire country 

is only about 33 percent. 

In a recent unpublished study, we found that child abuse in the 

Independence district was reduced by two-thirds in comparison 

with another comparable school district in Missouri. Since child 

abuse is primarily a stress phenomenon, stress impinging on parents, this is not surprising since we discovered much earlier that 

21C schools reduce the stress level of parents. 

I conclude my testimony with a single recommendation. The Department of Education of this country should spend some of its 

school reform funds in bringing the 21C model to the attention of 

the Nation and provide grants to schools to provide the seed money 

necessary for startup activities. 

I will conclude my testimony where I began. I would like to express to Senator Dodd my own personal deep gratification at having the opportunity to work closely with him and see all of his accomplishments over several decades. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zigler follows:] 
11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD ZIGLER, PH.D. 

There are four major synergistic systems that are the primary determinants of the 

child’s development. The first and most important is the family. Then there is the 

health system, the education system the child experiences and finally child care 

where the majority of children spend the first 5 years of their life prior to school 

entry. The family today is experiencing so much stress that it has difficulty in performing its primary child rearing responsibilities. Thanks to Federal legislation the 

health system has improved for children but is still far from perfect. We have known 

that the education system is far from excellent ever since the publication of The Nation at Risk. Our Nation’s non-child care system actually harms millions of children 

as I documented in my recent book The Tragedy of Child Care in America. 

This morning I would like to acquaint you with a whole school reform model that 

my colleague Matia Finn-Stevenson and I have now successfully put into place in 

this country. These new schools have been named Schools of the 21st Century. However the 60 schools in CT (mounted originally through the efforts of John Larson) 

and the statewide system of schools in KY are called Family Resource Centers. The 

purpose of these schools was to positively impact each and every one of the four systems that we know largely determines the child’s development. 

Given my long involvement with our Nation’s groundbreaking Head Start program, unsurprisingly the theoretical principles underlying the 21C school model are 

similar to those of Head Start. The schools adopt a whole child approach in which 

we attempt to positively impact the child’s cognitive development, social emotional 

development and the child’s mental and physical health. Thus like Head Start our 

schools provide comprehensive services that go far beyond the standard provision 

of academic-focused education only. Like Head Start, parents are viewed as the 

most important determinant of their children’s growth and parents are deeply and 

actively involved in each and every School of the 21st Century. This aspect of 

Schools of the 21st Century is very similar to that of the very successful Child Parent Centers in the city of Chicago. 

A particularly innovative aspect of 21C schools is that the child is enrolled in the 

neighborhood school as close to the child’s conception as possible and no later than 

birth. Upon the birth of the child the school sends a home visitor to the home and 

these home visits continue for 3 years and employ the Parents As Teachers home 

visiting model which has been implemented in every school in the State of Missouri. 

These home visits focus on the parents’ knowledge of human development as well 

as motivating parents to become an effective first teacher of the child as possible. 

At the age of 3 the child physically begins attending school in a high quality, 2- 

year preschool program rather than the 1-year preschool program that has become 

so common place in our Nation. The preschool day is as long as the work day of 

mothers and fathers rather than the usual half-day program or school-day program 

which usually ends around 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. Thus one of our schools in Bridgeport 

is actually called the ‘‘6 to 6’’ school. This allows children to receive both preschool 

and afterschool care. Thus our preschools provide not only preschool education but 

child care as well. This before and afterschool care continues in the school until the 

child is approximately 12 years of age. Each school also mounts a health education 

component for parents and health services for children which include improved nutrition practices. Many of the children in the schools catchment area are attending 

private child care. Our schools are aware that these children will eventually come 

to the school at age 5. Thus the schools provide outreach and training to these independent child care centers thus improving the child care experience of these nonschool enrolled children. 

Our schools also act as brokers for human resources that already exist in the community. Thus each school is also a resource and referral center in order to satisfy 

the other needs that the school’s families have. From age 3 to age 12 the 21C parents have the child care they need for their children. This should reduce the stress 

that parents experience in dealing with the child care issue and our research shows 

that it does. Research clearly indicates that the more parents are involved in their 

children’s education the better the child’s educational performance. Like Head Start 

parent involvement is a basic pillar of Schools of the 21st Century. 

This model has grown expedientially since its introduction some 20 years ago. It 

began originally in Independence, MO with 2 schools. Thanks to John Larson we 

began with 3 schools here in CT and we now have 60. Interestingly when Governor 

Rell recently wanted to cut Family Resource Centers from the budget, parents rose 

up and demanded that the Family Resource Centers continue and that is now the 

case. These schools can now be found in over 20 States. This model has now been 

embraced by over 1,300 schools making it the largest whole school reform model in 

the Nation. The primary catalyst for this program has been parents themselves. 
12 

Once they become aware of the Schools of the 21st Century in the next district they 

demand to have one of their own. Kentucky has now gone statewide with this model 

and Arkansas is also moving to a statewide program, having already put into place 

over 160 21C schools. 

I am both a pragmatist and empiricist and a strong believer in accountability. 

Thus from its inception we have included a strong evaluation component into the 

Schools of the 21st Century. The evidence of the value of these schools is contained 

in a series of positive findings associated with these schools. In addition to lower 

stress levels, we have found much less vandalism in our schools and studies conducted both in MO and AK showed students in 21C schools had superior performance across a broad array of academic abilities than did the comparison children. 

For example in the Independence school district, 4th grade students over 70 percent 

had proficient scores or above whereas the national average is about 33 percent. In 

a recent unpublished study we found that child abuse in the Independence district 

was reduced by two-thirds in comparison with another comparable school district in 

MO. Since child abuse is primarily a stress phenomenon this is not surprising since 

we discovered much earlier that 21C schools reduce the stress level of parents. I 

conclude my testimony with a single recommendation. The Department of Education 

should spend some of its school reform funds in bringing the 21C model to the attention of the Nation and provide grants to schools to provide the seed money necessary 

for startup activities. 

Senator DODD. Thank you, Ed, very, very much. 

[Applause.] 

Jim Horan. Jim. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. HORAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN SERVICES, HARTFORD, CT 

Mr. HORAN. Good morning, Senator Dodd and distinguished 

guests. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the state of the 

American child. 

I am the executive director of the Connecticut Association for 

Human Services. This year, CAHS celebrates 100 years of advocacy 

to improve the lives of children and families in Connecticut, with 

a focus on policies and programs that create family economic success. I will summarize the written testimony that I have submitted. 

First, thank you, Senator Dodd, for championing big-picture 

issues like healthcare and financial reform and issues that directly 

affect kids, like Head Start and Childcare and Development Block 

Grants. We will really miss your leadership. 

Second, I want to emphasize the importance of timely, accurate 

data. As the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT grantee, 

we know how important this is and what is now lacking. Thank 

you for sponsoring legislation to expand the National Survey of 

Children’s Health and the Measuring American Poverty Act. 

The Casey Foundation releases the National KIDS COUNT Data 

Book tomorrow. It includes data up until 2008, and it shows that 

improvements in the condition of children that began in the late 

1990s stalled even before the current recession began. 

Three data points on the current state of children in Connecticut. 

Child poverty was rising before the recession, from 10.5 percent in 

2004 to 12.5 percent in 2008. That is despite Connecticut having 

the Nation’s first child poverty target. 

We know what to do to reduce poverty, including modeling that 

was done by the Urban Institute of top recommendations of the 

State’s Child Poverty and Prevention Council. But the Governor 

and the legislature never made the necessary investments to reduce poverty. 
13 

On education, only 40 percent of Connecticut fourth graders are 

reading proficient, according to NAEP scores. That is the secondbest in the Nation, but we need to raise proficiency for all kids. 

Connecticut is making modest progress in reducing the huge 

achievement gap between whites and kids of color, but it is not 

good enough. 

The news is better on health, where SCHIP—HUSKY in Connecticut—has reduced the percentage of uninsured kids to just 5.4 

percent, about half the level for adults. And this trend should continue with the passage of CHIP reauthorization; national health reform, which you led efforts on; and universal healthcare legislation 

in Connecticut. 

Given the recession and indicators that are moving in the wrong 

direction, what do we do now? At the Federal level, we urge you 

to help extend Federal earned income tax credit, SNAP, and 

FMAP; reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act; focus on job creation. 

These investments will pay off. 

In Connecticut, with a new Governor after November, we will try 

again to create a State earned income tax credit to reward lowwage work. On education, CAHS will soon release a report on reading success in the early grades, and we are working to expand the 

State’s successful School Readiness program and to create a true 

system of early care and education in Connecticut. 

We have created a New England consortium to reduce child and 

family poverty, working with our colleagues, and child advocates 

across the region to advocate for change at the Federal level. Since 

the recession began, CAHS has stepped up efforts to improve access to the Federal earned income tax credit, like the VITA site you 

visited in Bridgeport last year; food stamps, now called SNAP; and 

other benefits. 

We use an electronic screening tool called EarnBenefits Online 

and work with partners and communities across the State. Last 

year, we started the Connecticut Money School, the country’s second statewide financial education project with potential to become 

a national model. Information on all of these efforts is on our Web 

site, www.cahs.org. 

Good results can come about if we all work together and engage 

those most affected by poverty and poor-quality education. We need 

the political will to make the changes that data and evaluation 

demonstrate will work. 

You mentioned, Senator Dodd, that we are headed for the highest child poverty rate since the 1960s. Poverty rates at that time 

led to President Johnson creating the war on poverty. Poverty at 

that time in that year had decreased by 50 percent nationally. And 

even though the war on poverty is often considered a failure, in 

fact, many of the gains that we made at that time have been sustained. 

You mentioned the council in the late 1980s and the recommendations that the Clinton administration helped to implement. There was a 25 percent reduction in child poverty during the 

1990s. But those gains have not been sustained. We need a focused 

effort like the one you are talking about to help make good things 

happen, and we appreciate your leadership. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horan follows:] 
14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES P. HORAN

Good morning, Senator Dodd. I am Jim Horan, executive director of the Connecticut Association for Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

at the second hearing in this series on the State of the American Child. This year, 

CAHS celebrates 100 years of advocacy to improve the lives of children and families 

in Connecticut, with a focus on policies and programs that create family economic 

success. 

CAHS and other child advocates have long admired and appreciated your leadership in the Senate not only on financial and health reform, but on issues directly 

affecting children, including Head Start, Child Care and Development Block Grants, 

and Family and Medical Leave. 

You have been a champion on children’s issues throughout your distinguished tenure in the Senate, and these hearings help lay the groundwork for continued 

progress on issues critical to children, including the potential for a national Commission on Children, even after you leave the Senate. Connecticut’s Commission on 

Children has done such important work over the past 20 years. 

As the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT grantee in Connecticut, CAHS 

gathers and releases data on child and family well-being to inform policymakers and 

our own advocacy work at the State Capitol in Hartford and in Washington. Therefore, CAHS understands the importance of timely, accurate data. We thank you, 

Senator Dodd, for your current sponsorship of legislation to expand the National 

Survey of Children’s Health, and your lead sponsorship of the Measuring American 

Poverty (MAP) Act. We are very pleased that the Obama administration is working 

to address the latter issue with the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). 

The most recent available data is outdated. Right now, that means that we lack 

current data on the impact of the recession on children and families. Patrick T. 

McCarthy, president and CEO of the Casey Foundation, recently noted: 

‘‘the reality is that we can only go so far without needed improvements to our 

data collection systems. None of us has a good grasp on the conditions facing 

America’s children because State and Federal agencies collect data too infrequently, and often do not measure what really matters for kids.’’ 

The Casey Foundation will release the national Kids Count data book tomorrow. 

The most recent data available, from 2008, shows child poverty rising both nationally and in Connecticut. Overall improvements in child well-being that began in the 

late 1990s stalled in the years before the current recession began, both nationally 

and in our State. 

Of course, the statewide picture of Connecticut does not tell the full story. Often, 

Connecticut looks better than other States in national rankings on the well-being 

of children. But when data is disaggregated by community and by race, it is clear 

that kids in Connecticut of color and in our larger cities fare poorly. That is why 

it is important to increase the sample size of the American Community Survey 

(ACS), to provide more precise data for urban neighborhoods, as well as rural communities. 

I would briefly like to look at data trends in three areas, to show what is happening to children in Connecticut, including areas where government actions are 

helping, and where they were failing to do so, even before the recession began. 

• Poverty in Connecticut was rising before the deep economic downturn. The 

child poverty rate was basically flat from 2000 to 2004, and then rose from 10.5 percent to 12.5 percent in 2008. This is especially disappointing since following the passage in 2004 of a State target to reduce child poverty in half, by 2014. This legislation, the first in the Nation, created good recommendations but practically no investment from the Governor and legislature. The increase of 13,000 kids in poverty 

will rise with the recession, as many parents have lost their jobs. And as previously 

noted, the relatively low rate of child poverty statewide masks the disturbing rates 

of child poverty in many urban communities. Hartford’s child poverty rate of 46 percent in 2008 is among the highest of any city in the Nation, an increase from 41 

percent in the 2000 census. 

• In Education in 2009, Connecticut had the second highest level of fourth grade 

reading proficiency in the Nation, behind only Massachusetts, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Despite the high national ranking, only 40 percent of Connecticut fourth graders were proficient, compared to 32 

percent nationally, showing how poorly Connecticut and all States are doing. And 

again, the data is worse when disaggregated. NAEP data show 53 percent of White 

Connecticut fourth graders were proficient readers, compared to 22 percent of 

Blacks and 15 percent of Hispanics. A small piece of good news in these distressing 
15 

data is that the gap between Black and White students narrowed in recent years, 

due to gains by Black students between 2003 and 2009. 

• On Health, there is encouraging news that despite the decline in insurance provided by employers, the number of uninsured kids in Connecticut declined in recent 

years because of HUSKY, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. More 

kids were covered in 2009 than in 2003, and only 5.4 percent were uninsured, about 

half the rate of adults. The positive trends on children’s health should continue, 

with the reauthorization of CHIP last year, and the passage of national health reform that you helped to shepherd through Congress earlier this year, Senator Dodd. 

Connecticut’s passage of universal health care legislation in 2009 puts the State in 

a very good position for implementation of Federal health reform. 

While the news is positive on health care, a lot more needs to be done to reduce poverty and improve education for children in our Nation and State. 

These are critical factors for children that underlie many other indicators, and affect 

them throughout their lives. We know what needs to be done to create better outcomes for children and families. We just need the political will and leadership to 

make it happen, in Washington, in Hartford, and in our communities. 

With the indicators headed in the wrong direction, poverty is the toughest nut to 

crack. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, the stimulus) stopped 

the recession from deepening. It also expanded SNAP (formerly food stamps) and 

the EITC, expansions that should be made permanent. While ARRA prevented the 

loss of millions of jobs, it has not yet resulted in the creation of many new jobs to 

replace those lost. This is crucial for poverty reduction. Congress must have the 

courage to continue stimulus measures, including additional FMAP Medicaid funding for States to avoid a $265 million in the current Connecticut budget. And new 

stimulus funding is needed for schools, to prevent significant local teacher layoffs, 

like those we’re seeing in New Britain and towns across Connecticut. Pending reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, with more money for healthier school meals 

and after-school programs, will also help. 

On education, Race to the Top prompted State education reform legislation this 

past year. More needs to be done, especially to close the achievement gap between 

whites and kids of color. Action is needed not only to ensure that every child 

achieves his or her full potential, but also so that Connecticut and the United States 

can compete in the global economy with a highly-educated workforce. 

At CAHS, in partnership with our funders and other nonprofit organizations, we’re taking action to improve the well-being of kids, with some positive results. To reduce child poverty, CAHS led efforts in 2006 and 2007 to create 

a State Earned Income Tax Credit, modeled on the very successful Federal EITC. 

This was a top recommendation of the Connecticut Child Poverty and Prevention 

Council, but Gov. Rell vetoed it twice. In 2008, CAHS was launching a broad-based 

‘‘Opportunity and Prosperity Campaign.’’ As the economy tanked, that no longer 

seemed viable. CAHS shifted gears to expand our Federal EITC and SNAP (formerly food stamps) outreach. Earlier this year, we launched EarnBenefits Online, 

a screening program that can complete applications for up to 13 State and Federal 

benefits, including SNAP, HUSKY, and the EITC. We are working with 13 community partners in five cities, with support from six foundations, using a tool developed 

by Seedco, a New York-based nonprofit. 

Last year, CAHS started the Connecticut Money School, which offers financial 

education classes. This partnership with the United Way of Connecticut and nonprofits in our three largest cities is only the second statewide financial education 

project, and a potential national model. CAHS also started a multi-faceted family 

economic success program in Bridgeport with the support of the local United Way 

and banks. 

On education, our primary focus is to close the achievement gap while raising the 

performance of all students, from early childhood through post-secondary. With support from the Graustein Memorial Fund, CAHS is working with advocates including 

the Connecticut Early Childhood Alliance, Connecticut Voices for Children, and Connecticut Parent Power, to regain Connecticut’s former status as a national leader. 

New investments are needed, especially to expand the State’s successful School 

Readiness program to more children in low-income communities, and to create a 

true system of early childhood education. CAHS has a forthcoming report with recommendations on how to help all students become reading proficient by the end of 

third grade. This is a major focus of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which is 

partnering with philanthropies across the country, including the Graustein Memorial Fund in Connecticut. And last year, CAHS published a report on strengthening 

the role of Connecticut’s community colleges in educating adult workers—because 

kids need parents who earn wages that can support their families. 
16 

This work is not enough to reverse negative trends for kids in our State and country. Continued leadership at the Federal level is critical. Most recently, CAHS has 

teamed up with Connecticut Voices for Children and our Kids Count and Voices for 

America’s Children counterparts across the region to create the New England Consortium to reduce child and family poverty. We’re working together on data, 

policy solutions in our States, and an emerging Federal agenda. With our strong regional congressional delegation, we think this may be where we can make the greatest difference, and create a model for advocates nationally. You can check out our 

collective work at www.endpovertynewengland.org. We are moving beyond strengthening the safety net to creating real pathways to opportunity for children and their 

families. 

The State of the American Child in 2010 is fragile and unacceptable. But there 

are actions the Federal Government can take, as it has done in the past and is 

doing now on health care, to improve child well-being, especially with regard to poverty and education. And there is a role for all of us—in State and local government, 

nonprofits, education, as parents and community leaders. We need to engage everyone, especially those most effected by the negative consequences of poverty and poor 

quality education, to make the necessary changes. Maintaining the status quo has 

serious negative consequences for these children and for the economy. As Harry 

Holzer and his colleagues at Georgetown University and the Urban Institute has 

written, child poverty has lifelong impacts on workforce productivity, crime, health, 

and ultimately on our Gross Domestic Product. 

The challenges to improving child well-being seem daunting, especially in the 

midst of the Nation’s most serious economic downturn since the recession. But the 

economy will recover, and we need to ensure that everyone will share in it. Working 

together, with good data and a clear focus on improving the future for our children, 

we can adopt policies and make investments that ensure that our country’s brightest days are ahead of us. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Senator Dodd, and inviting CAHS to testify. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you on this important initiative. 

FPL is Federal Poverty Level. Data for 2000 are from the Decennial Census, Summary File 3, Table P87, Poverty Status in 1999 by Age. Data from 2002 are from 

the American Community Survey (ACS), Table P114, Poverty Status in the Past 12 

Months by Sex and Age. Data for 2004, 2006, 2008 are from ACS, Table B17001, 

Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months by Sex and Age. 
17 

Senator DODD. Thanks, Jim, very, very much. 

[Applause.] 

Dr. Lowell. 

STATEMENT OF DARCY LOWELL, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CHILD FIRST CT, BRIDGEPORT HOSPITAL, BRIDGEPORT, CT 

Dr. LOWELL. Good morning. 

Senator Dodd and esteemed colleagues, I am extremely honored 

to be here testifying today. Senator Dodd, I want to thank you for 

all of the hard work you have done on behalf of children and families. It has made an incredible difference, and we will sorely miss 

you. 

I am a developmental behavioral pediatrician. My name is Dr. 

Darcy Lowell. I am an associate clinical professor here at Yale 

School of Medicine and the executive director of Child FIRST Con-
18 

necticut. I have been working with young children and families for 

over 25 years in this State. 

I have been asked to focus my testimony on our work of Child 

FIRST, which is a new and innovative model and an approach to 

the extreme challenges that our children and families are facing 

today. 

Child FIRST specifically targets the most vulnerable young children and families, prenatally through age 5 years, and these are 

children who have early behavioral and developmental problems. 

And we target the highest-risk families who suffer from maternal 

depression, substance use, domestic violence, poverty, homelessness, among many other risks. Our goal is to prevent emotional 

and behavioral problems, developmental and learning disabilities, 

and abuse and neglect. 

We identify children at the earliest possible time, both through 

formal screening as well as through referrals from over 70 agencies 

in the greater Bridgeport area because of the strength of our collaborative process. Especially, when they come from pediatrics, 

from early care and education, from the schools, and from our Department of Children and Families. 

We then provide a home visiting intervention to the child and entire family with an expert clinical team. Our approach is based on 

the most current scientific research on brain development, which 

has made it very clear that extreme stresses in the environment 

are toxic to the architecture of the developing brain. They cause 

damage that result in not just short-term, but long-term impairment in mental health, in learning, cognition, and in physical 

health as well. This does not go away. 

Therefore, our intervention takes a two-pronged approach. No. 1, 

we connect families with comprehensive, well-coordinated, community-based services and supports, using all the rich kinds of services we have in our communities already. This system of care approach directly decreases the environmental stress and provides 

the growth-promoting experiences for young children. 

So we get parents, if they need it, substance abuse treatment. If 

they need to find new homes, if they need job training, that is the 

kind of thing we get the parents. And for children, we will get them 

involved, of course, in early care and education, so critical, but in 

special ed services or birth-to-3 services, as necessary. 

And then, No. 2, we provide parent-child therapeutic intervention 

to promote a nurturing, responsive parent-child relationship. The 

important thing is that this relationship has been documented to 

buffer or protect the developing brain from what Jack Shonkoff 

terms ‘‘toxic stress’’ and promotes strong social, emotional, and cognitive development. 

Furthermore, our team also works in early care and education 

and the schools. So we take a very comprehensive approach. Now, 

how do we know this works? We have been working on this model 

for over 10 years, and we have conducted a randomized control 

trial, which is the gold standard for scientific research. 

We have 12-month outcomes that have demonstrated that Child 

FIRST children had a very significant decrease in aggressive and 

defiant behaviors and improvement in language development. 

Mothers reported significantly less stress, depression, and anxiety. 
19 

There was a significant decrease in referral to DCF for child protective services, and the Child FIRST intervention families were 

able to access 91 percent of desired services, as opposed to 33 percent in our usual care controls. These outcomes will significantly 

contribute to closing our achievement gap. 

Based on the strength of this research, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has provided $3.2 million toward funding a public-private partnership with Connecticut State government and philanthropy to replicate the Child FIRST model. We are now in five cities across Connecticut, including some of our most challenged— 

Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury, and Norwalk. 

From a cost-benefit perspective, if we just compare the cost of Child FIRST services for a single family, which is $5,000 to $6,000, 

with the cost for psychiatric hospitalization for a single child for a 

year, which is well over $700,000, our return on investment is very 

clear. Child FIRST is a very promising, evidence-based model that 

can address ethnic, racial, and socionomic disparities with a goal 

of closing the achievement gap. 

We have the knowledge. We must now develop the will to restructure systems and target our resources so that our most vulnerable children and families can succeed. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lowell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARCY LOWELL, M.D. 

Senator Dodd and esteemed colleagues, I am extremely honored to be testifying 

today on efforts to improve the lives of the most vulnerable young children and their 

families in Connecticut. My name is Dr. Darcy Lowell. I am a developmental and 

behavioral pediatrician, executive director of Child FIRST CT, an Associate Clinical 

Professor of Pediatrics and the Child Study Center here at the Yale University 

School of Medicine, and Section Chief of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 

at Bridgeport Hospital. I have been working with high risk, very young children and 

their families for 25 years. 

Many of Connecticut’s young children and families are suffering. With the recession, greater numbers are not only experiencing poverty, but the number and complexity of accompanying environmental risks appear to be rising rapidly. We need 

to be alarmed. Those children who make up the largest proportion of the achievement gap in our State are precisely those whose home environments have multiple, 

recurrent, and unrelenting challenges. The most current neuroscientific research 

has made it clear that stresses in the environment, like maternal depression, substance use, domestic violence, homelessness, and child abuse and neglect, are toxic 

to the architecture of the developing brain, causing damage that results in lifelong 

impairment in mental health, learning, and physical health. It is therefore imperative that we intervene as early as possible with comprehensive, intensive approaches based on scientific knowledge and proven outcomes. 

CHILD FIRST MODEL

Throughout the country, policymakers and providers have been struggling to find 

models to address the needs of our highest risk, most vulnerable, and most costly 

children and families. Today, I am going to speak briefly about a model intervention 

system developed in Greater Bridgeport, CT, called Child FIRST. This stands for 

Child and Family Interagency, Resource, Support, and Training. Child FIRST specifically targets the most vulnerable young children, prenatally through age 5 years, 

and their families to prevent emotional and behavioral problems, developmental and 

learning disabilities, and abuse and neglect. By identifying these children at the 

earliest possible time and providing comprehensive, intensive, home-based intervention, we hope to address the racial and ethnic disparities in health and education 

and help close the achievement gap. 

Child FIRST developed from the ground up, based on community need, first beginning approximately 12 years ago. Children with developmental and emotional 

problems were ‘‘falling through the cracks.’’ Families wanted to do their best, but 
20 

had overwhelming challenges and were not getting the services or supports they 

needed. Providers delivered quality services, but they were narrow and categorical, 

without resources to attend to—or even recognize—the intensity and breadth of family problems. It was clear, however, that one could not address the needs of the child 

without attending to the challenges and stresses experienced by the whole family. 

Only then could parents be available to nurture and support the development of 

their children. 

Child FIRST is a new model for an early childhood intervention system. It has 

two essential components, which are based on what we know about the developing 

brain: 

(1) Comprehensive, integrated services and supports are wrapped-around the 

child and family. This ‘‘system of care’’ approach directly decreases the environmental stress (e.g., through housing assistance, domestic violence intervention, substance abuse treatment) and provides growth promoting experiences for the child 

(e.g., through early care and education, early intervention for developmental delays); 

(2) Direct intervention with the child and parents to promote a nurturing, responsive, parent-child relationship. This relationship has been documented to buffer or 

protect the developing brain from ‘‘toxic stress,’’ at the same time that it leads to 

strong social-emotional and cognitive development. 

Children in need of Child FIRST intervention may be identified directly by caregivers or by any child or adult community provider (e.g., Department of Children 

and Families, early care and education, pediatrics, domestic violence shelter, adult 

mental health provider) serving either children or their parents. Families are usually referred because a child has emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems 

or because the family is struggling with serious challenges that interfere with the 

ability of the parent or caregiver to nurture and support the child’s development. 

These challenges include maternal depression and anxiety, substance abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, homelessness, unemployment, illiteracy, cognitive limitations, food insecurity, health problems, single and teen parenting, incarceration, among many others. About 95 percent of these families have evidence of 

poverty (e.g., TANF, HUSKY, SNAP), and approximately 90 percent are of ethnic 

minority. In addition, Child FIRST in Bridgeport has established more formal 

screening in the Bridgeport Hospital Pediatric Primary Care Center and in Head 

Start. 

Identified children and families are referred to the Child FIRST home-based intervention, which consists of weekly home visits by a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual team 

of a licensed, Master’s level developmental and mental health clinician and a Bachelor’s level care coordinator/case manager. Our families are often extremely wary 

and mistrusting of the social service system. Our approach is different. We believe 

that parents want the best for their children. Our initial goal is to engage our parents and build trust and mutual respect. Without building that relationship, no 

work can be done. A comprehensive, assessment of the strengths, priorities, culture, 

and needs of the family leads to a collaborative, family-driven plan of care, which 

includes services and supports for all members of the family. Our care coordinator 

provides hands-on assistance to help families connect with services and problem 

solve with them if there are barriers to access. These services are extremely broad, 

including early care and education, early intervention, special education, pediatric 

providers, nutrition, dental providers, adult medical specialists, substance abuse 

providers, adult mental health providers, domestic violence providers, parenting 

groups, home visiting, family resource centers, housing, shelters, HUSKY, WIC, 

SNAP, SSI, food pantries, clothing, job training, literacy providers, etc. 

Most of our children and families need parent guidance and parent-child psychotherapy. This is to build the protective buffer of the secure, nurturing parent-child 

relationship, which is so often missing. This is not surprising, as so many of our 

parents were abused, neglected, or suffered from violence or extreme stress in their 

own lives. It is through the expert interventions of our clinical staff that we are able 

to begin to repair these early relationships, leading to healthy social-emotional development, strong language and cognitive development, and physical well-being. In 

addition, we work in the early care and education classrooms to help the teachers 

understand the child’s behavior and develop strategies to promote healthy socialemotional development not only for the identified child, but frequently extending to 

other children in the classroom as well. The Child FIRST home-based intervention 

usually lasts between 4 and 12 months, but it is entirely driven by the unique needs 

of the child and family. 

Collaboration among community agencies (both State and local) is a key component of our Child FIRST system of care model. Our goal is to help community providers understand and recognize the broad challenges of the children and families 
21 

that they serve, and for them to seek help from Child FIRST if the needs of the 

families are beyond their unique expertise. At the same time, Child FIRST uses the 

strengths of the many community resources as the source of services for the children 

and families. Through collaboration, we can ensure that a seamless array of comprehensive, well-integrated services and supports is provided to the family. An Early 

Childhood Community Council provides community oversight for the model. 

CHILD FIRST RANDOMIZED TRIAL

Child FIRST has conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of our model, funded as part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration’s Starting Early Starting Smart—Prototype. Families who 

participated had multiple challenges, which included receiving public assistance (93 

percent), unemployment (64 percent), lack of high school diploma or GED (53 percent), unmarried (67 percent), maternal depression (54 percent), family substance 

abuse history (44 percent), and history of homelessness (25 percent). 

Data was analyzed by an independent team of doctoral level, university-affiliated 

psychologists. Results of the comparison of outcomes between the Child FIRST 

Intervention and the Usual Care Controls demonstrated the strong positive impact 

of the Child FIRST Intervention at 12 months. In Child FIRST children, there was 

a very significant decrease in aggressive and defiant behaviors (Odds ratio = 4.8), 

and improvement in language development (Odds ratio = 4.2). Mothers reported significantly less stress and fewer depressive symptoms, anxiety, and other mental 

health problems. There was a very significant decrease in referral to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for child protective services, as reported by 

mothers (Odds ratio = 4.1), which was further documented by DCF records at 3 

years (Odds ratio = 2.1). Intervention families were able to access 91 percent of desired services as opposed to 33 percent in Usual Care. 

The results of this research were accepted for publication in Child Development 

in a special issue: ‘‘Raising Healthy Children: Translating Child Development Research into Practice.’’ 

CHILD FIRST REPLICATION

As a result of the strength and consistency of these outcomes, the Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation provided $3.195 million toward funding a public-private partnership with Connecticut State leadership (including the Early Childhood Education 

Cabinet and the Department of Children and Families) and 12 other Connecticut 

philanthropies to replicate the Child FIRST model. An intensive training through 

a Learning Collaborative and on-site supervision is ensuring fidelity to the model. 

Five Connecticut cities, including Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Waterbury, and 

New London County, now have Child FIRST models, with the intention of further 

replication in each DCF area office throughout Connecticut. 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

A cost-benefit analysis is currently being conducted, but there appears to be clear 

and immediate cost savings in special education, protective services and foster care, 

and parental productivity. Future savings in mental health services and juvenile 

justice are likely to be enormous. The Child FIRST intervention costs an average 

of about $5,000 for a family of four. When compared to conservative estimates of 

$96,000 per year for a level two group home for a child with serious emotional disturbance, over $450,000 per child per year for the State juvenile training school, and 

over $700,000 per child per year for psychiatric hospitalization, the tremendous return on investment is very clear. 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy implications are very extensive. A few of those most pressing include: 

(1) Medicaid and EPSDT (Early Periodic Screening and Diagnosis and Treatment): Child FIRST is the only early childhood home-based intervention in CT to 

receive Medicaid reimbursement for diagnosed children. However, we cannot and 

should not wait until a child has a diagnosable disorder before offering treatment. 

The opportunity to identify and prevent later disability is enormous. One has only 

to look at the known consequences of maternal depression or violence exposure— 

including serious emotional disturbance, academic failure, and abuse and neglect— 

to know that it is essential to treat before the symptoms are severe. EPSDT is part 

of Medicaid law specifically enacted to provide children with medically necessary 

treatment in order to identify, prevent, and intervene before serious problems develop. Full utilization of EPSDT, consistent with the intent of the law, could provide 
22 

significant Federal funding for Child FIRST implementation. In addition, EPSDT 

could fund screening for emotional and behavioral problems, mental health consultation services in early care and education, and services for maternal depression 

within the home. 

(2) CAPTA (The Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act): CAPTA requires that infants and toddlers who are victims of substantiated child maltreatment be referred 

by child protective services (DCF) to early intervention services funded under Part 

C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The children in DCF 

are our highest risk young children. Surprisingly, while the numbers of substantiated children have not increased in CT during the recession, the severity of the 

needs of the children and families appear to have increased. CAPTA gives us an opportunity to ensure that this very vulnerable, already identified population receives 

the developmental assessments and intervention that are needed. If these children 

have emotional, behavioral, or relationship challenges, they can then be referred to 

Child FIRST with its unique expertise. It is imperative that States fully enact this 

law so that our highest risk children can be served. 

(3) Early Childhood System of Care: While there are many excellent early childhood services in CT, they are fragmented and categorical. Many have no evidencebase. We need to build a comprehensive system, developed from interlocking, well 

integrated services and programs within and across State agencies and at the local 

and regional level. This would create an infrastructure that could provide direct, individualized, and seamless assistance to all families. 

Child FIRST is a new and innovative, home-based model that addresses the most 

vulnerable children and families at the earliest possible time. It combines comprehensive, integrated, family-driven, community-based services with parent-child 

intervention to facilitate the nurturing relationship. The strength of the neuroscientific literature and the Child FIRST randomized trial establishes Child FIRST 

as a very promising model that can address ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic disparities with the goal of closing the achievement gap. We have the knowledge. We 

must now develop the will to restructure systems and target resources so that our 

vulnerable children and families can succeed. 

Thank you very much! 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

[Applause.] 

Doctor, thank you. 

Dr. Keck. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. KECK, D.M.D., M.S.H.Ed., CONNECTICUT STATE LEADER, AAPD HEAD START DENTAL 

HOME INITIATIVE, MADISON, CT 

Mr. KECK. I have a pretty loud voice. So thank you, Senator 

Dodd and the Subcommittee on Children and Families. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify at this hearing 

to describe an exciting project that is helping to improve children’s 

oral health in the State of Connecticut. I am a practicing pediatric 

dentist in New Haven and Madison, and I teach part-time at the 

Pediatric Dentistry Residency Program at Yale-New Haven Hospital. 

I am testifying today in my role as the Connecticut State leader 

of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry Head Start Dental 

Home Initiative. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry believes that every child deserves a healthy start in life and that good 

oral health is integral to the healthy development of all children. 

This may come as a surprise, but dental caries is the most common chronic disease of childhood, much greater than asthma, and 

low-income children are three to five times more likely to have untreated tooth decay compared to children of more affluent families. 

National statistics indicate that 28 percent of all preschoolers between the ages of 2 and 5 suffer from tooth decay. However, in 

Head Start programs, decay rates often range from 30 to 40 per-
23 

1Founded in 1947, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) is a not-forprofit membership association representing the specialty of pediatric dentistry. The AAPD’s 

Continued 

cent in 3-year-olds and 50 to 60 percent for 4-year-olds. Head Start 

has reported that access to oral health services is the No. 1 health 

issue affecting Head Start programs nationwide. 

In October 2007, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 

signed a 5-year contract with the U.S. Office of Head Start that 

hopes to improve the access to care for the over 1 million children 

that are enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs annually throughout the United States. Through this partnership, we 

are developing a network of pediatric and general dentists to provide dental homes to children in Head Start across the Nation. A 

dental home means that each child’s oral healthcare is provided in 

a comprehensive and ongoing way by a dentist. 

Here in Connecticut, approximately 9,000 children are enrolled 

in Head Start programs each year. Through the efforts of our regional oral health consultants and State leaders, which is my role 

in Connecticut, we are capitalizing on the willingness of dentists to 

improve access to quality dental care for underserved children. In 

Connecticut, I have recruited over 40 dentists to partner with Head 

Start programs across the State directly. 

Since most Head Start children are eligible for Medicaid, it is important that Medicaid dental programs are adequately funded and 

properly administered. Over the past 21⁄2 years, the number of providers that treat Medicaid recipients in our State has increased 

from 300 providers to approximately 1,100. I would be remiss not 

to mention that the key driver in these Medicaid dental program 

improvements was the 2008 increase in payment for Medicaid services to market-based rates as a result of settlement of litigation 

against the State. 

An example of how my State leader role helps move the initiative 

forward is that I work closely with the New Haven Board of Education Head Start grantee and its delegate, LULAC. I have met 

with the superintendent of schools of New Haven, the grantee, and 

its delegate in order to finalize a program for Yale’s pediatric dentistry residency program that will provide dental homes to all the 

New Haven Head Start students that need one. 

This project is slated to reach nearly 1,000 students and their 

families, while providing a tremendous learning experience for our 

dentistry residents at Yale-New Haven Hospital. 

Once again, I would like to thank Senator Dodd for allowing me 

the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any 

questions about the program. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keck follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. KECK, D.M.D., M.S.H.ED. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify at this hearing to describe an exciting project that is helping improve children’s oral health in the State of Connecticut. I am a practicing pediatric dentist in New Haven and also teach part-time 

at the pediatric dentistry residency program at Yale/New Haven Hospital. I am testifying today in my role as the Connecticut State leader for the American Academy 

of Pediatric Dentistry-Head Start Dental Home Initiative. 

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 1 believes that every child deserves 

a healthy start in life and that good oral health is integral to the healthy, physical, 
24 

7,700 members are primary oral health care providers who offer comprehensive specialty treatment for millions of infants, children, adolescents, and individuals with special health care 

needs. The AAPD also represents general dentists who treat a significant number of children 

in their practices. As advocates for children’s oral health, the AAPD develops and promotes evidence-based policies and guidelines, fosters research, contributes to scholarly work concerning 

pediatric oral health, and educates health care providers, policymakers, and the public on ways 

to improve children’s oral health. For further information, please visit the AAPD Web site at 

www.aapd.org. 

social-emotional and intellectual development of all children. Unfortunately, many 

children in America suffer from poor oral health and lack access to quality oral 

health care. In the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2000 Report on Oral Health in America, 

it was noted that not only is dental caries the most common chronic disease of childhood, but that low-income children are 3–5 times more likely to have untreated 

tooth decay compared to children of more affluent families. National statistics indicate that 28 percent of all preschoolers between the ages of 2 and 5 suffer from 

tooth decay. However, in Head Start programs, decay rates often range from 30 percent–40 percent for 3-year-olds, and 50 percent–60 percent for 4-year-olds. These 

decay rates are common for children of low-income families. In fact, Head Start directors, program specialists, staff and parents have reported that access to oral 

health services is the No. 1 health issue affecting Head Start programs nationwide! 

In October 2007 the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) signed a 

5-year contract with the U.S. Office of Head Start (OHS) to confront the oral health 

challenges that Head Start children and Head Start programs have faced for over 

30 years. This contract represents a partnership with OHS to improve access to care 

for the over 1 million children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs annually throughout the United States. 

This partnership represents years of hard work by both the dental community and 

Head Start centers across the country to improve the oral health of children who 

have struggled for far too long to obtain care that many Americans take for granted. 

Through this partnership, we are developing a network of pediatric and general dentists to provide dental homes to Head Start children. A dental home means that 

each child’s oral health care is provided in a comprehensive, ongoing, accessible, coordinated, family-centered way by a dentist. This partnership also empowers parents, caregivers and Head Start staff by providing the latest evidence-based information on how they can help prevent tooth decay and establish a foundation for a 

lifetime of oral health. 

Early Head Start and Head Start are comprehensive child development programs 

which serve children from birth to age 3 (plus pregnant women) and 3 to 5, respectively, and their families. In addition to providing educational services, Head Start 

grantees also provide parent education and case management services. Services are 

provided for parents and caregivers to enable them to provide safe and nurturing 

environments for their children that support each child’s physical, social-emotional 

and intellectual development, and emphasize opportunities for parent involvement. 

Head Start recognizes that every child must be healthy and well-nourished to 

learn and develop to his or her full potential. Preventive health services are central 

to Head Start’s comprehensive array of services. Head Start also understands that 

oral health is vital to overall health and well-being. In recognition of the fact that 

poor oral health can interfere with a child’s ability to learn and develop, the Office 

of Head Start has made oral health a priority. Over time, OHS has provided funding 

to support a variety of oral health initiatives and programs to address barriers to 

oral health care for Head Start children. The current partnership with the AAPD 

holds great promise to overcome the greatest unmet health care need for Head Start 

programs across the country, because this initiative is all about linking dentists to 

Head Start programs. See the attached fact sheet for more information about the national scope of the initiative. 

Here in Connecticut, approximately 9,000 children are enrolled in Head Start 

programs each year. Through the efforts of our Regional Oral Health Consultants 

and State Leaders—which is my role in Connecticut—we are capitalizing on the 

willingness of dentists to improve access to quality dental care for underserved children. In Connecticut, I have recruited over 40 dentists to partner with Head Start 

programs across the State, increasing both access and utilization of dental services 

for families who have traditionally struggled to obtain dental services. 

Since most Head Start children are eligible for Medicaid, it is important that 

Medicaid dental programs be adequately funded and properly administered. Over 

the past 21⁄2 years, the number of providers that treat Medicaid recipients in our 

State has increased from 300 to approximately 1,100. This is due to the efforts of 

the Connecticut State Dental Association, the Department of Public Health, the De-
25 

partment of Social Services, the Connecticut Dental Health Partnership (ASO), 

and—with a little help from me. As State Leader for the AAPD-Head Start Dental 

Home Initiative, I work closely with the Connecticut Department of Public Health, 

WIC and various Boards of Education to enhance public awareness of the importance of oral health for our State’s most vulnerable children. But I would be remiss 

not to mention that the key driver in these Medicaid dental program improvements 

was the 2008 increase to market-based rates as a result of settlement of litigation 

against the State. 

Let me provide one example of how my State Leader role helps move the initiative 

forward. I work closely with the New Haven Board of Education Head Start grantee 

and its delegate LULAC, as a member of their Health Advisory Team. I will be 

meeting next week with the Superintendent of Schools of New Haven, the executive 

directors of the grantee and its delegate, as well as the Health Managers of both 

programs, to finalize a new program for Yale’s pediatric dentistry residency program 

to provide dental homes to all the New Haven Head Start students that need one. 

This project is slated to reach nearly a thousand students and their families. In addition, it will provide a tremendous learning experience for our pediatric, as well 

as general dentistry residents, at Yale-New Haven Hospital. 

The AAPD, through this initiative, is also empowering parents and Head Start 

Staff through the development of educational materials. These materials, which include videos, will provide them with solid, evidence-based information about early 

childhood caries and how they can protect their children from this disease. 

I want to thank Senator Dodd for allowing me the opportunity to testify, and look 

forward to answering any questions about this exciting initiative. 

ATTACHMENT.—AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY

HEAD START DENTAL HOME INITIATIVE

Creating partnerships between the dental community and Head Start to provide 

dental homes for Head Start children across the United States. 

Every child deserves a healthy start on life, but when it comes to oral health 

many children face significant challenges. Young children in low-income families 

tend to have higher rates of tooth decay and have greater difficulty accessing ongoing basic dental care. Key points that highlight the severity of the problem include: 

• Tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease—five times more 

common than asthma—and the #1 unmet health care need among Head Start children. 

• Twenty-eight percent of all preschoolers between the ages of 2 and 5 suffer from 

tooth decay, but decay rates often range from 30 percent–40 percent of 3-year-olds 

and 50 percent–60 percent of 4-year-olds in Head Start programs. 

• Dental care for children in Head Start generally is covered by Medicaid, however dentists’ dissatisfaction with Medicaid programs often results in low levels of 

dentist participation and limited access to comprehensive dental care for Head Start 

children. 

Challenges that Head Start programs face in securing access to quality dental 

care include those related to the availability of dental services as well as community, family and cultural factors: 

• Reluctance by many general dentists to provide services for preschool-age children; 

• Dentists’ lack of familiarity with HS/EHS program goals, objectives and resources; 

• Transportation, language and cultural barriers; and 

• Educating parents about oral health and motivating them to follow up with 

treatment their children need. 

AAPD and Head Start are partnering at the national, regional, State and local 

levels to develop a national network of dentists to link Head Start children with 

dental homes. A dental home means that each child’s oral health care is delivered 

in a comprehensive, ongoing, accessible, coordinated, family-centered way by a dentist. 

A national network of pediatric dentists and general dentists is being created 

to: provide quality dental homes for Head Start (HS) and Early Head Start (EHS) 

children; train teams of dentists and HS personnel in optimal oral health care practices; and assist HS programs in obtaining comprehensive services to meet the full 

range of HS children’s oral health needs. Regional consultants are assisting State 

leadership teams in development of collaborative networks throughout each State. 

Local networks engage local dentists and HS personnel as well as other commu-
26 

nity leaders to identify strategies to overcome barriers to accessing dental homes. This partnership also provides parents, caregivers and HS staff with the latest evidence-based information on how they can help prevent tooth decay and establish a 

foundation for a lifetime of oral health. 

The 5-year plan relies on five key components: 

• Providing project leadership, administration and organizational support; • Providing oral health expertise and technical assistance; • Developing networks of dentists to provide access to dental homes; • Training dentists to enhance their capability to meet the oral health needs of 

young children and their understanding of HS/EHS programs; and • Enhancing HS/EHS oral health staff training and parent education programs. 

For additional information contact: Jan Silverman, AAPD Head Start Dental 

Home Initiative Project Manager at jsilverman@aapd.org or visit http:// 

www.aapd.org/headstart/. 

SUCCESS STORIES

Formalizing Relationships 

North Dakota State Leader Brent Holman on facilitating discussions between Head Start Centers and IHS clinics: I was amazed that just by scheduling a meeting with IHS Dental staff and HS staff, they very quickly start discussing common problems and solutions for the benefit of better care for their HS 

kids. We mostly listened and guided them in developing strategies to solve their 

problems. Although they communicated previously, this was an opportunity to talk 

about issues that were only informally discussed after a problem with a particular 

case. It was inspiring to see their commitment to their mission despite the many 

challenges. 

Parent Empowerment 

Connecticut State Leader Doug Keck on talking with parents: At the 

Health Advisory Committee, parent representatives of the local Head Start were 

amazed from a consumer standpoint that there are differences between dentists and 

how it is important to seek better oral health care than what they are accustomed 

to. 

Recruiting Providers 

North Dakota State Leader Brent Holman: Surveys have been sent out to ND 

dentists to determine their willingness to see HS kids and/or serve on HS Advisory 

Committees. The early returns have been amazing with most dentists expressing 

their eagerness to serve in any capacity. We also helped an HS program ‘‘rerecruit’’ a dentist that decided to quit seeing HS kids, in an area that had few other 

dentist options. 

Telamon Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, TN: Dr. Pitts Hinson, TN State 

leader has been working closely with the Head Start State Collaboration Director 

and individual Head Start grantees to identify dental homes for Head Start children 

throughout Tennessee who did not previously have access. According to J. Davis, 

State Director, Telamon Corporation, 

‘‘The initiative is working throughout the State—not just here. The whole 

idea of dentists talking to each other is phenomenal—we’re seeing it work. This 

has changed everything. All five Telamon programs traditionally have had a 

hard time finding dentists. For the first time in over 20 years, all five centers 

have partnerships with dentists.’’ 

New York State Leaders, Dr. Amr Moursi & Dr. Courtney Chinn have recently 

created a NYC Pediatric Oral Health consortium for Head Start. This consortium has support from 14 of the 15 pediatric dental residency programs in the NYC 

area. The consortium will link participating dental residency programs with Head 

Start programs. 

Collaboration 

Maureen Short, RN, Assistant Head Start Director, UCAN Head Start on 

regional collaboration meetings sponsored by AAPD HS Dental Home Initiative State Support Grants: The Southern Oregon Regional Meeting was a wonderful opportunity to begin lasting relationships between Head Start, pediatric dentists and the dental health organizations. The relationship building will be the foundation for many future positive experiences, this is a huge success. . . . Maureen 

Short RN. 

Michael E. Jones, executive director, Oklahoma Association of Community Action Agencies on collaborating with the Pediatricians: Active and key 
27 

pediatrician involvement in the HS DHI State Leadership Team was accomplished 

this quarter. The representatives of the medical community have the capacity to influence physicians’ decisions to participate in cross-sector education and training opportunities to be made available through the HS DHI support grant. 

Senator DODD. Very excited about your project. 

[Applause.] 

Abby, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF ABBY I. DOLLIVER, SUPERINTENDENT, 

NORWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NORWICH, CT 

Ms. DOLLIVER. Thank you. I want to thank you, Senator, for inviting me and giving me this honor to testify on such a critical 

topic for our State and our country. 

I know that you know that I have watched you throughout your 

career, making decisions that have improved the lives of our children and their families, and I thank you for that. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

Ms. DOLLIVER. As a fairly new superintendent, I don’t see myself 

as the voice for all of my colleagues. However, I will speak to you 

about some of our programs and services. I can’t really do that 

without also addressing some of our needs. I am sure that our story 

mirrors that of many of our cities and towns in Connecticut. 

Norwich is an urban center now. We weren’t probably when you 

lived there before, but we are of about 38,000 citizens. Our median 

household income is about $48,000, based on 2009 data. 

Our district is 3,800 Pre-K to 8 students, with the majority of our 

high school students attending Norwich Free Academy, which is 

our designated high school. We do have our own Alternative High 

School and Clinical Day Treatment Programs, which are the types 

of programs that are helpful and important to the success of many 

of our high school students. Not all students benefit from a comprehensive high school experience. 

Our schools are very diverse. There are 29 languages spoken 

there. We house five bilingual centers within our schools. These 

centers are critical for the success of our students with English as 

a second language. Many of our students arrive in school without 

speaking any English. There are 465 students with English as a 

second language throughout our district. 

We are fortunate to be part of a program as a partner with 

UCLA in California called Project Excell. This program teaches our 

teachers strategies for our classrooms and dealing with students 

who do not speak English. We have also had several years of training for staff in a program called Courageous Conversations, which 

gave us the opportunity to have discussions about items related to 

race, our feelings about the differences, and how to manage them 

in a very diverse environment. 

Seventy-nine percent of our students qualify for free or reduced 

meals in school. This federally funded program is critical to our district, as we feed our students breakfast, lunch, and snacks. Without 

this, many would be hungry, and we know how adversely hunger 

affects our students’ abilities to focus in school. 

During last summer, 2009, we provided 11,185 breakfasts and 

21,654 lunches throughout our community, and I expect that this 

year’s numbers will be higher. Our students and their families 

need these programs. 
28 

Norwich has 845 students who meet the criteria for special education services. While we know that many of the mandates for special education have not been ever fully funded, we were able to provide specialized programs for students on the autism spectrum, and 

I know that there is much research going on currently about autism, and the numbers of students who qualify for these programs 

continues to grow. 

In addition, older students also are required to have programs 

now that transition them to be able to be successful and independent after high school. We are able to use some of our ARRA 

funding to support both of these important initiatives, as well as 

others. We do need to provide these programs in the future. 

We provide several integrated preschool opportunities. These are 

all possible through Title I, School Readiness, and IDEA funding. 

We also have Family Resource Centers in several of our schools. 

Even with limited space, we are committed to finding ways to keep 

these centers in our schools. They provide affordable before and 

afterschool care and supports for families. We all know how important early intervention is to future student success. 

Increasing parent involvement is one of our goals. We provide opportunities to partner with them to work together for student success. One example is the FAST Team, which is Families and 

Schools Together. This grant came through the Connecticut Parent 

Advocacy Center, and they helped us to focus on opening doors and 

bridging communication gaps with our parents. Each of our schools 

finds ways to engage parents who are very busy and hard-working. 

Since 2007, we have expanded afterschool opportunities to our K 

to 8 students with a 5-year 21st Century Learning Center grant 

award. We were able to serve over 450 students from afterschool 

until 5 p.m. This had a positive impact on students, with enriched 

academic and cultural opportunities, service learning projects, and 

recreational activities. During the summer months, we were able to 

provide service learning, enrichment, and structured recreational 

activities for students, bringing academic success from one year to 

the next, a very necessary bridge. 

After school tutorial programs through grant funding enriches 

students’ math and literacy skills. Learn and Serve America funds 

support community partnerships with students. Community pride 

and involvement is critical to student and community success. 

Three school-based health clinics offer students and families access to essential health and counseling services. This program has 

helped students with obtaining physicals and immunizations and 

ongoing healthcare. We have a wellness committee that oversees 

initiatives for healthy staff and students. We take advantage of a 

fresh fruit and vegetable grant so that we set the example for students on healthy eating and lifestyles. 

The Positive Behavior Support Program is being implemented in 

our schools to address school climate and culture. We have seen a 

significant decrease in disciplinary referrals as a result of this program. 

This is all part of our Scientifically Research Based Intervention 

Programs that provide tiered interventions to address both academic and emotional and behavioral needs of our students. Several 
29 

of our schools have developed Character Counts initiatives, which 

provide positive reinforcement for good citizenship. 

Those programs that I have mentioned are just a sampling of all 

that we do. I am proud to say that we are making progress. Even 

with a nearly flat-funded budget for the third year in a row and 

with having to close two schools this year coming up and laying off 

70 staff, we are making progress. 

We have not closed the achievement gap. We are one of the districts in need of improvement in Connecticut. Yet with all of these 

program opportunities and our committed staff, we open the doors 

to our students and their families with programs and services that 

address their academic, social, and health needs. Providing emotional and academic support is critical to student success, and we 

need this success as the foundation for our future. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dolliver follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABBY I. DOLLIVER

I want to thank you Senator Dodd, for providing me with the honor of testifying 

today on such a critical topic, Connecticut’s Children. I am proud to say that I have 

watched you throughout your career making decisions that have improved the lives 

of our children and their families, and I thank you for that. 

As a fairly new Superintendent, I don’t see myself as the voice for all of my colleagues; however I will speak to you about some of our programs and services. I 

can’t really do that without also addressing some of our needs. I’m sure that our 

story mirrors that of many of our cities and towns in Connecticut. 

Norwich is an Urban Center with about 38,000 citizens; our median household income is $48,000 a year based on 2009 data. Our district has 3,800 Pre-K to 8 students, with the majority of our high school students attending Norwich Free Academy, our designated high school. We do have our own Alternative High School and 

Clinical Day Treatment Program which are the types of programs that are helpful 

and important to the success of many high school students. Not everyone benefits 

from a comprehensive high school experience. 

Our schools are very diverse. There are 29 languages spoken there. We house five 

Bilingual Centers. These centers are critical for the success of our students with 

English as a second language. Many of our students arrive in school without speaking any English. There are 465 students with English as a second language 

throughout our district. We are fortunate to be part of a partner program with 

UCLA in California, Project Excell. This program teaches our teachers strategies for 

their classrooms for our students who do not speak English. We have also had several years of training for staff in a program called Courageous Conversations. This 

program discussed issues related to race, our feelings about these differences and 

how to manage them in a very diverse environment. 

Seventy-nine percent of our students qualify for free or reduced meals in school. 

This federally funded program is critical to our district as we feed our students 

breakfast, lunch and snacks. Without this, many students would be hungry and we 

know how adversely hunger affects students’ abilities to focus in school. During the 

summer of 2009 we provided 11,185 breakfasts and 21,654 lunches. I expect that 

this year’s numbers will be higher. Our students and families need these programs. 

Norwich has 845 students who meet the criteria for special education services. 

While we know that many of the mandates for Special Education have not been 

fully funded, we are able to provide specialized programs for students on the autism 

spectrum. I know that there is much research going on currently about autism and 

the numbers of students who qualify for these programs continues to grow. In addition, older students also are required to have programs that provide a transition for 

them to be able to be successful and independent after high school. We are able to 

use ARRA funds to support both of these important initiatives as well as others. 

We provide several integrated preschool opportunities. These are all possible 

through Title 1, School Readiness, and IDEA funding. We also have Family Resource Centers in several of our schools. Even with limited space we are committed 

to finding ways to keep these centers in our schools. They provide affordable before 

and afterschool care and supports for families. We all know how important early 

intervention is to future student success. 
30 

Increasing parent involvement is one of our goals. We provide opportunities to 

partner with them to work together for student success. One example is the FAST 

Team (Families and Schools Together). This grant through the Connecticut Parent 

Advocacy Center helped us to focus on opening doors and bridging communication 

gaps with our parents. Each of our schools finds ways to engage our very busy and 

hard-working parents. 

Since 2007 we have expanded afterschool opportunities for our K to 8 students 

with a 5-year 21st Century Community Learning Center grant award. We are able 

to serve over 450 students from the end of the school day until 5 p.m. This has had 

a positive impact on students, with enriched academic and cultural opportunities, 

service learning projects and recreational activities. During the summer months we 

are able to provide service learning, enrichment, and structured recreational activities for students, bringing academic success from one year to the next, a very necessary bridge. 

After school tutorial programs through grant funding enriches students’ math and 

literacy skills. Learn and Serve America funds support community partnerships 

with students. Community pride and involvement is critical to student and community success. 

Three school-based health clinics offer students and families access to essential 

health and counseling services. This program has helped students with obtaining 

physicals and immunizations. We have a Wellness Committee that oversees initiatives for healthy staff and students. We take advantage of fresh fruit and vegetable 

grants so that we set the example for students on healthy eating and lifestyles. 

The Positive Behavior Support Program is being implemented in our schools to 

address school climate and culture. We have seen significant decrease in disciplinary referrals as a result of this program. This is all part of our Scientifically Research Based Intervention Programs that provide tiered interventions to address 

both the academic and behavioral needs of our students. Several of our schools have 

developed character count initiatives which provide positive reinforcement for good 

citizenship. 

Those programs that I have mentioned are just a sampling of all that we do. I 

am proud to say we are making progress. Even with a nearly flat funded budget 

for the third year in a row and with having to close two schools and lay off 70 staff, 

we are making progress. We have not closed the achievement gap yet but with all 

of these program opportunities and our committed staff, we open the doors to our 

students and their families with programs and services that address their academic, 

social and health needs. Providing emotional and academic support is critical to student success and we need this success as the foundation for our future. 

Senator DODD. Very good, Abby. Thanks so much. 

[Applause.] 

Tammy. 

STATEMENT OF TAMMY PAPA, DIRECTOR, BRIDGEPORT 

LIGHTHOUSE, BRIDGEPORT, CT 

Ms. PAPA. Good morning. On behalf of our partner agencies and 

the children and families we serve, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to submit testimony today on what is working for 

Connecticut’s children. 

A very special thank you to you, Senator Dodd, for all that you 

have done for Bridgeport children. We truly appreciate it. 

The Lighthouse Program serves approximately 2,700 children a 

day in 24 public schools, and we know we are impacting the whole 

child when we hear from a teacher who tells us, 

‘‘My students were doing poorly in math, struggling with 

basic math concepts. Since participating in the Lighthouse 

mathematics program, the girls have come a long way and are 

now doing so well that they are helping other students.’’ 

Or when student Amanda Lopez writes, ‘‘The Lighthouse Program has helped me in so many ways, but most importantly, it 

helps me stay out of trouble after school.’’ 
31 

And yet another student, Cecily Morales, writes, ‘‘Lighthouse has 

given me opportunities for new things like ballroom dancing. For 

me, this has helped me be more confident.’’ 

Or when a parent from Edison School comments that, 

‘‘The Lighthouse Program treats each and every child like a 

member of its own family. I feel comfortable leaving my child 

there on a daily basis. It is a wonderful program, and I see a 

big change in my son’s behavior.’’ 

Through tutoring, partnerships with local universities, regular 

contact with daytime teachers, state-of-the-art curriculum in reading and math, as well as activities that focus on critical thinking 

skills, the Lighthouse Program is making strides to close the 

achievement gap. 

Our latest independent evaluation, conducted by Dr. Phil 

Zarlengo of MRM, former director of the Lab at Brown University, 

reports that, 

‘‘2009 findings for Lighthouse participants are significant for 

reading, writing, and math when compared to the rest of the 

district. The average CMT mathematics score of Lighthouse 

students exceeded the district score in grades 3 through 8, and 

the average reading and writing score exceeded the district 

score in grades 3, 5, 7, and 8.’’ 

We address the physical, social, and emotional well-being of 

Bridgeport children by offering them activities in a judgment-free 

zone in which pressure to perform is taken out of the equation. 

Through various partnerships for extracurricular activities, the 

Lighthouse Program is working with some of the district’s most 

challenged students, and daytime teachers are reporting positive 

changes in behavior. 

They indicate that, ‘‘72 percent of students had good to excellent 

relationships with peers, and 83 percent had good to excellent relationships with teachers.’’ Furthermore, ‘‘86 percent of Lighthouse 

participants are rarely or never referred to the office for disciplinary reasons, and 79 percent rarely or never require in-class discipline,’’ resulting in fewer disruptions and more time on task. 

Through these activities, the Lighthouse Program is also addressing the serious obesity rate among our young people. Joseph 

Mahoney, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Yale University during the time of the research—he has since moved—and at 

the time under the direction of Dr. Zigler, noted that ‘‘childhood 

obesity is a significant problem in this Nation and in the city of 

Bridgeport. When the children in this study were only 5 years old, 

nearly one quarter of them were clinically obese. However, over 

time, children participating in afterschool programs showed a less 

marked increase in their body mass index and lower rates of clinical obesity. 

‘‘In particular, by the second year of the study, 33 percent of 

children who did not participate in afterschool programs were 

obese, compared to only 21 percent of those who did.’’ 

His study further concluded that 

‘‘Children in Bridgeport’s afterschool program had higher expectations of success and more socially acceptable behavior 
32 

when compared to children in self care, parent care, or relative 

care.’’ 

And that, 

‘‘For those children exposed to high rates of crime and violence in their neighborhoods, participation in the afterschool 

program appeared to buffer them from exposure and significantly reduce the likelihood of developing academic and behavior problems in school.’’ 

In a city like Bridgeport, where 95 percent of public school students are considered economically disadvantaged, we need to do all 

we can to assure that children are productive during their out-ofschool time. We need to appeal for more funding that provides children, who tend to suffer greatly during tough economic times, with 

opportunities to participate in quality afterschool and summer programs because we now know that they work. 

We need to make sure that current sources of funding, like the 

21st Century Community Learning Centers program, remain intact 

and that the funds for such are not diverted. 

While we have been fortunate over the years to grow the city’s 

Lighthouse Program, we still have much to do to ensure that every 

child that wants or needs access has it. As program providers, we 

appreciate opportunities in which we can share our successes and 

humbly ask that we continue to safeguard the future of every 

American child by continuing to support high-quality afterschool 

and summer programs like Bridgeport’s Lighthouse Program that 

partners with the school district and our community-based organizations to help students learn, succeed in school, become collegeand career-ready, and thus productive members of society. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Papa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMMY PAPA

Good morning. My name is Tammy Papa and I am the director of the city of 

Bridgeport Lighthouse Before, AfterSchool and Summer Program. On behalf of our 

partner agencies and the children and families we serve, I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony today on what is working for Connecticut’s 

Children. A very special thank you to you Senator Dodd for all you have done in 

support of our program over the years. Without your leadership along with Senator 

Lieberman, former Congressman Christopher Shays, and Congressman Himes, we 

would not have been in a position to serve over 2,700 children per day for the past 

17 years. 

History: Partnership that began in 1993 between the city of Bridgeport, Board 

of Education, and numerous faith and community-based organizations, as well as 

institutions of higher education at a time when our young people were being shot 

and killed on our streets in broad daylight, afterschool, and within yards of our public schools. Then Mayor Joseph Ganim along with former Superintendent James 

Connelly called upon some of the larger non-profits and faith-based organizations 

within the city to work together on a solution to curb the violence. The city was 

coming out of bankruptcy and was only able to contribute a small amount. Other 

agencies did what they could as well. With approximately $100,000 in seed money, 

three schools in critical neighborhoods and a few community centers extended their 

hours. With the start of the new fiscal year in July 1993, an influx of Education 

Cost Share funding allowed the city through the Board of Education to expand programming into 17 summer and afterschool sites. The program was scaled back to 

11 sites the following year maintaining a budget of approximately $850,000 where 

it remained until receiving its first 21st CCLC grant in 1998 and an increase of 

$400,000 from the city. Former Mayor John Fabrizi and current Mayor Bill Finch 

have both maintained the city’s investment in afterschool which today totals 

$1,350,000 annually. From 11 afterschool sites, the program has grown to 24 sites 
33 

and the need to open two additional schools in the fall and spring of 2010 and 2011 

respectively is evident. The program receives Federal, State, local, private foundation, and parent fees. It’s 2010–11 budget totals $4,000,000. 

Currently Serving: 2,700 Bridgeport children daily in grades K–8 during the 

school year from 3 p.m.–6 p.m. and during the summer for 5 weeks from 9 a.m.– 

5 p.m. employing over 300 individuals. 

Percent of Public School Student Population Served: Approximately 12 percent for the 2009–10 school year. 

In addition to providing a safe place for children who might otherwise go home 

to an unsupervised setting, the Lighthouse Program also addresses the following 

issues: 

Achievement Gap—Through tutoring, partnerships with local universities, regular contact with daytime teachers, state-of-the-art curriculum in reading and math 

as well as activities that focus on critical thinking skills, the Lighthouse Program 

is making strides to close the achievement gap. Our latest independent evaluation 

conducted by Dr. Phil Zarlengo, former director of the Lab at Brown University reports that: 

‘‘2009 findings for Lighthouse participants are significant for Reading, Writing, and Math when compared to the rest of the district. Students in all but 

5th grade are performing at proficiency or above in reading and math. The average CMT Mathematics score of Lighthouse students exceeded the district score 

in grades 3–8 and the average Reading and Writing score of Lighthouse students exceeded the district score in grades 3,5,7, and 8.’’ 

This evidence is further backed by the research conducted over a 2-year period 

by Deborah Lowe Vandell, University of California, Irvine and her team titled, ‘‘The 

Study of Promising Practices,’’ which Bridgeport’s Lighthouse Program was part of. 

She found that ‘‘those elementary school students who regularly attended the highquality afterschool programs demonstrated significant gains.’’ We are hopeful that 

subsequent evaluations will show further growth and anticipate the completion of 

the 2010 report shortly. In the meantime, we continue to research new, innovative, 

and cost-effective approaches that engage children in activities that promote learning. 

• Physical, Social and Emotional Well-Being—By offering children activities 

in a judgment free zone in which pressure to perform is taken out of the equation, 

they adapt and rise to the occasion. Through partnerships with the Kennedy Center, 

the Lighthouse Program is working with some of the districts most challenged students during afterschool hours and daytime teachers are reporting positive changes 

in behavior. Activities that encourage team approaches like those offered through 

First Tee, USTA’s Quick Start, and Cal Ripken’s Healthy Choices, Healthy Students 

among a host of other activities like ballroom dancing, chess, organized basketball 

clinics, drama, etc. indicate Lighthouse children’s physical, social, and emotional 

needs are being met. Daytime teachers reported that ‘‘72 percent of students had 

good to excellent relationships with peers and 83 percent had good to excellent relationships with teachers.’’ Furthermore, ‘‘86 percent of Lighthouse participants are 

rarely or never referred to the office for disciplinary reasons and 79 percent rarely 

or never require in class discipline’’ resulting in fewer disruptions and more time 

on task. Through these varied activities, the Lighthouse Program is also addressing 

the serious obesity rate among our young people. Joseph Mahoney PhD. Associate 

Professor of Psychology at Yale University during the time of his research on the 

Lighthouse Program, noted that: 

‘‘Childhood obesity is a significant problem in this Nation and in the city of 

Bridgeport. The condition is known to predict a range of serious health problems. When the children in this study were only 5-years-old, nearly one-quarter 

of them were clinically obese. However, over time, children participating in 

afterschool programs showed a less marked increase in their body mass index 

and lower rates of clinical obesity. In particular, by the second year of the 

study, 33 percent of children who did not participate in afterschool programs 

were obese compared to only 21 percent of those who did participate in afterschool programs.’’ 

By providing Lighthouse children with healthy snacks, rotating them from activity to activity, and encouraging a minimum of 20 minutes of exercise per day, the 

program is making strides to curb this most serious epidemic. Dr. Mahoney’s study 

further concluded that: 

‘‘children in Bridgeport’s afterschool program had higher expectations of success and more socially acceptable behavior when compared to children in self 

care, parent care or relative care.’’ 
34 

This is especially critical because all the research shows that student expectations 

of his or her performance have a direct correlation to his or her rates of success. 

• Community Violence—Research shows that exposure to criminal activity over 

time can hinder one’s ability to focus in school and most often times creates problem 

behavior. With the rise of gang activity on our streets it is critical that we keep our 

children in supervised settings and away from danger until a parent or guardian 

can be there. We use this time productively to help build relationships between local 

law enforcement and students. Raising awareness about the negative impact of joining gangs and what to look for in their community is reducing their risk of becoming 

involved in illicit activities or being victimized. In his study of Lighthouse Program 

participants over 4 years, Dr. Mahoney concluded, 

‘‘for those children exposed to high rates of crime and violence in their neighborhoods, participation in the afterschool program appeared to buffer them from 

exposure and significantly reduce the likelihood of developing academic and behavior problems at school.’’ 

Since the Lighthouse Program is not exempt from the current recession, it has 

become even more critical that we constantly measure our success and look for new 

ways to engage not only our K–8 population, but also our high school youth who 

suffer greatly from a lack of employment opportunities. There can be no time, effort, 

or money wasted on unsuccessful activities as needs grow during tough economic 

times and tend to have a devastating effect on the young and elderly alike. Therefore, in addition to our annual independent evaluation which collects both quantitative and qualitative information, we are conducting additional site visits, asking 

site coordinators to conduct periodic self assessments, keeping in regular contact 

with principals, and asking for community feedback. In this manner, we are poised 

to attract additional funding opportunities that will enable us to bring current programs to scale and replicate services throughout the district. 

The Impact of AfterSchool on Bridgeport and the Region 

• Economic Development 

• Employs over 300 certified teachers, para-professionals, college students, 

youth, and adults. 

• Allows approximately 1,800 families to work full days. 

• Higher employee productivity levels. 

• Incentive for company relocations. 

• Higher Test Scores 

• Reading, Writing, and Math. 

• Lower Crime Rates and Less Exposure to Crime 

• Transition from Early Childhood Initiatives 

• Lower Obesity Rates 

• Reduced health care costs. 

• Improved Self Esteem. 

• Less Discipline Referrals 

• Higher Attendance Rates 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Kellyann. 

STATEMENT OF KELLYANN DAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW 

HAVEN HOME RECOVERY, MANCHESTER, CT 

Ms. DAY. Good morning, Senator Dodd, and distinguished guests. 

It is an honor to be here, and thank you for inviting me to speak. 

Contrary to the stereotype of men sleeping in doorways or pushing overloaded shopping carts, families now comprise 40 percent of 

the homeless population in the United States. The percentage is 

closer to 50 percent in the State of Connecticut. 

I have submitted many pages of information in my written testimony for your review, but I just want to emphasize one thing. Of 

the 130 children that we sheltered this past year, 35 percent were 

between the ages of 6 and 12, and 45 percent were under 6. 
35 

Of the 15 programs that New Haven Home Recovery operates, I 

would like to highlight two. The first is the Family School Connection, funded by the Connecticut Children’s Trust Fund. It operates 

out of the Fair Haven K–8 School, which has the highest number 

of homeless families in the city. 

The FSC is an intensive home visiting program that provides 

parent education and student advocacy. Children who are at risk 

of neglect because of excessive tardiness, truancy, or academic and 

behavioral challenges are referred to the program. Young children 

who are frequently tardy, absent, and disconnected from school are 

likely to be living in circumstances where family issues are interfering with their participation and opportunity to learn and 

achieve. 

The outcomes of our program this year, to name a few, a significant drop in DCF referrals were made by the school, an increase 

in parental involvement was documented, and a 15 percent increase in grades for the students who were enrolled in the program 

was shown. 

On a cold morning in March during the CMTs, the FSC staff received a phone call from the school requesting assistance. When 

staff arrived, they found a third grade boy was selling his Christmas toys to classmates to help his dad pay for rent and food. 

A backpack full of food, a Stop and Shop gift card, toiletry items, 

warm clothing were all provided to the child that day to bring 

home. Subsequently, the family was informed about the program 

and enrolled. As of today, dad is employed, engaged with the 

school, and accessing community resources. The child is excelling 

socially and academically. 

This is a highly successful program, and we have many families 

on the wait list. 

The second program is the Homeless Prevention and Rapid ReHousing Program, funded by HUD. The program provides financial 

assistance to people lining up for shelter beds or for those that are 

in the shelter. 

For example, Jack and Diane were evicted from their home of 5 

years. Jack is a self-employed contractor. Diane is a stay-at-home 

mother of six. Upon eviction, the family moved into a local homeless shelter, but one of their children’s asthma became so severe 

that they needed to move to a motel. 

After two apartments fell through, the family finally found a 

house to rent. Unfortunately, the timing was off. They had reached 

their limit on their credit card at the motel and were being put out 

on the street. Their only choice was to sleep in their car. HPRP 

prevented this from happening by providing funding for the motel 

for a few days and ultimately relocating them to the home. 

Lastly, Juan and Julia, both college graduates, moved to New 

Haven from Puerto Rico in order to seek medical care for their son. 

Their 1-year-old was ill and had recently undergone open heart 

surgery at Yale-New Haven Hospital. In addition, the boy was recovering from liver disease and other infections. 

The family was living at the Ronald McDonald House during the 

baby’s hospitalization but had no place to live upon discharge. A 

stay at a shelter would have compromised the boy’s fragile health. 
36 

They considered going back to Puerto Rico, but funding was limited, and they needed to remain close to necessary medical care. 

HPRP was able to assist them in finding housing, paying for security deposit and rental assistance. The family is stably housed, 

and Juan and Julia are currently looking for work. 

Thank you for allowing me to tell you about these families, and 

thank you for all the work that you have done. 

I know I did submit lots of facts and figures in my written testimony. 

Senator DODD. They were great. 

Ms. DAY. And I would be happy to talk about those after. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Day follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELLYANN DAY

Good morning Senator Dodd and distinguished guests, it’s an honor to be here. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak and thank you for great work on family and 

children’s issues. 

Contrary to the stereotype of men sleeping in doorways or pushing overloaded 

shopping carts stuffed with their worldly belongings, families now comprise 40 percent of the homeless population in the United States. The percentage is closer to 

50 percent in the State of Connecticut. 

Just 30 years ago, child and family homelessness did not exist as it does today. 

The numbers of homeless families in the United States are increasing at a rapid 

rate. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness’ Web site, 

‘‘Approximately 3.5 million individuals experience homelessness each year— 

about 600,000 families and 1.5 million children. An additional 3.8 million adults 

and children are residing in doubled-up, overcrowded, or otherwise precarious 

housing situations.’’ 

CT Faces a significant and growing challenge of family homelessness, with a 

steadily increasing number of homeless families with children. We saw a 13 percent 

increase in homeless families from 2007 vs. 2008 and a 33 percent increase between 

2008 and 2009! 

Available shelter and housing for homeless families is decreasing. There is a rising demand for shelter and housing at a time when State and local government are 

unable to support the operations of shelters and are cutting budgets. The development of affordable and supportive housing has slowed significantly. Public housing 

authority lists are long and rarely open for new names. 

In 2007, the nationwide average shelter stay for a homeless family was 5 months. 

With the economy worsening in 2008 and 2009, the length of stay has been increasing. At NHHR we have seen a 17-percent increase in the number of days a family 

is living at the shelter. 

In a nationwide survey, 87 percent of homeless families cited a lack of affordable 

housing as the primary cause of their homelessness. Although most homeless families are headed by a single parent, families in 36 of the 50 States must work at 

least two full-time jobs in order to afford Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit. 

• Overcoming homelessness is almost impossible without steady employment. 

• Over two-thirds of homeless parents are unemployed. 

• Fifty-three percent of homeless mothers do not have a high school diploma. 

In 17 of 50 States, households must earn over $16/hour to afford the Fair Market 

Rent for a two-bedroom unit. According to the National Center on Family Homelessness’ Stat Report Card, the minimum wage in CT is $8.25. The average wage for 

renters is $16.53, but the hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment 

is $21.11. That means someone working full-time at minimum wage earns only 39 

percent of what is needed to afford the average two-bedroom apartment. 

Homeless children have less of a chance of succeeding in school. This year 35 percent of the 130 children sheltered in NHHR shelters were between 6 and 12 years 

old and attending school. 

• Homeless children are more likely than housed children to be held back a 

grade. 

• Homeless children have higher rates of school mobility and grade retention than 

low-income housed children. 

• Frequent school transfers are the most significant barrier to the academic success of homeless students. 
37 

Homeless families are more vulnerable to serious health issues. While homeless, 

children experience high rates of acute and chronic health problems. The constant 

barrage of stressful and traumatic experiences also has profound effects on their development and ability to learn. 

Children experiencing homelessness are: 

• Four times more likely to show delayed development. • Twice as likely to have learning disabilities as non-homeless children. • Sick four times more often than other children. • Have four times as many respiratory infections. • Have twice as many ear infections. • Five times more gastrointestinal problems. • Four times more likely to have asthma. • Go hungry at twice the rate of other children. • Have high rates of obesity due to nutritional deficiencies. • Have three times the rate of emotional and behavioral problems compared to 

non-homeless children. 

Violence plays a major role in the lives of homeless children. 

• By age 12, 83 percent had been exposed to at least one serious violent event. • Almost 25 percent have witnessed acts of violence within their families. • Homeless parents and their children are more likely to have experienced violence. • Domestic violence is the second most frequently stated cause of homelessness 

for families. • One out of three homeless teens have witnessed a stabbing, shooting, rape, or 

murder in their communities. 

Among youth aging out of foster care, those who subsequently experience homelessness are more likely to be uninsured and have worse health care access than 

those who maintain housing. 

Over 50 percent of all homeless mothers have a lifelong mental health problem. 

Homeless adults in family shelters, when compared to the general adult population, have three times the rate of tuberculosis and eight times more HIV diagnoses. Homeless parents and their children are more likely to be separated from each 

other. Homelessness is the most important predictor of the separation of mothers 

from their children. 

• Thirty-four percent of school-aged homeless children have lived apart from their 

families. • Thirty-seven percent of children involved with child welfare services have mothers who have been homeless at least once. • Sixty-two percent of children placed in foster care come from formerly homeless 

families. 

The deck is clearly stacked against homeless and the unstably housed. How do 

we focus on education when we don’t have a stable place to sleep? Forty-five percent 

of the homeless children sheltered at NHHR shelters were under 6 years old. We 

have new born babies at the shelter, often! 

Of the 15 programs that NHHR operates I’d like to highlight two. 

The first is the Family School Connection (FSC) program, funded by the CT Children’s Trust Fund. It operates out of the Fair Haven K–8 School, which has the 

highest number of homeless families in the city. FSC is an intensive home visiting 

program that provides parent education and student advocacy. Children who are ‘‘at 

risk’’ of neglect because of excessive tardiness or truancy and/or academic or behavior challenges are referred to the program. 

Young children who are frequently tardy, absent, and disconnected from school 

are likely to be living in circumstances where family issues are interfering with 

their participation and opportunity to learn and achieve. 

Outcomes: 

• Significant drop in DCF referrals by the School (comparable to last year). 

• An increase in parental involvement. 

• Fifteen percent increase in grades for students enrolled in the program. 

On a cold morning in March, during the CMT’s the FSC staff received a call from 

the school requesting assistance. When staff arrived, they found that a 3d grade boy 

was selling his Christmas toys to classmates to help his Dad pay for rent and food. 

A back pack full of food, a Stop and Shop gift card, toiletry items and warm clothing 

were provided to the child to bring home that day. Subsequently the family was informed about the program and enrolled. As of today, Dad is employed, engaged with 

the school and accessing community resources. The child is excelling socially and 
38 

academically. This is a highly successful program and we have many families on the 

wait list. 

The Family School Connection program conducts universal screening of all its 

families. The program is prevention-based, and therefore, screens clients to make 

sure the State Department of Children and Families (DCF) is not involved with the 

family. The program also screens children for social and emotional development and 

refers those at risk for help. 

The vision of Family School Connection is that every child will be raised within 

a nurturing environment that will ensure positive growth and development. 

The mission of the Family School Connection (FSC) program is to work in partnership with parents of children ages 5 to 12 years old who are frequently tardy, 

absent or disconnected from school in order to strengthen the parent-child relationship, home-school relationship and the parent’s role in their child’s schooling. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

• Young children who are frequently tardy, absent, and disconnected from school 

are likely to be living in circumstances where family issues are interfering with the 

child’s participation and opportunity to learn and achieve. 

• Developing a trusting and productive relationship between the program staff 

and the family is the foundation for strengthening a vulnerable family. 

• Consistent and reliable contacts are the most effective way of establishing a 

supportive and helpful relationship between the program staff and the family. 

The goals of the Family School Connection program are to: 

• Enhance nurturing parenting practices. 

• Reduce stress related to parenting. 

• Increase parental involvement in the child’s education. 

The program works to achieve these goals by meeting the following objectives: 

• Increase primary caregiver’s parenting skills, attitudes, and behavior. 

• Increase primary caregiver’s ability to use community resources. 

• Increase communication between primary caregivers and school personnel. 

• Increase primary caregiver’s involvement in the child’s education and presence 

in the school. 

A growing body of intervention evaluations demonstrates that family involvement 

can be strengthened with positive results for children and their school success. To 

achieve these results, it is necessary to match the child’s developmental needs, the 

parent’s attitudes and practices, and the school’s expectations and support of family 

involvement. Three family involvement processes for creating this match emerge 

from the evidence base: 

• Parenting consists of the attitudes, values, and practices of parents in raising 

young children. 

• Home-School Relationships are the formal and informal connections between 

the family and educational setting. 

• Responsibility for Learning Outcomes is the aspect of parenting that places 

emphasis on activities in the home and community that promote learning skills in 

the young child. 

The Family School Connection Program encompasses these processes in the design and structure of the program through three components aimed at reducing the 

risk of child abuse and neglect and increasing positive results for children and their 

school success. 

HOME VISITATION

Home visiting based on the concept of ‘‘family-centered’’ practice is the foundation 

of the Family School Connection program. This practice is designed to engage families as partners and is essential to the success of the program. Research has found 

that parents enrolled in the home visiting component experienced less stress, developed healthier interactions with their children, and became more involved in their 

children’s academic lives during the time they participated. The program results 

also suggest that this home visiting is a promising way to decrease child abuse and 

neglect in families with school-aged children. 

Program participants are offered weekly home visits for as long as the family feels 

the visits are beneficial or until the child ages out of the program. At any time the 

frequency of the visits can be changed based on the family’s needs and preferences. 

The first objective of the home visitor is to establish a relationship with the family. 

Often this is accomplished by addressing immediate and concrete needs identified 

by the family such as employment, child care, transportation, basic necessities, and 
39 

other issues that might be making it difficult for the parent to attend to the child’s 

need to be in school. 

The second objective is to establish a plan for assisting the family. The home visitor works with the family to create and implement a Family Action Plan that draws 

on the family’s strengths, community resources, and the skills of the home visitor 

to: 

• strengthen parent-child relationships; 

• create linkages for the family to community resources; 

• support the parent in meeting their family’s basic needs; 

• support the parent in attaining their own aspirations and needs; and 

• support the overall social-emotional needs of the parent and child. 

The Clinical Supervisor works with the home visitor to assess the family’s needs 

and support the home visitor and parent in the creation and implementation of the 

family action plan. The Clinical Supervisor can also provide clinical intervention for 

the family if the need arises. 

HOME-SCHOOL TEAM

The program supports families by helping both the parent and child make a positive connection with the child’s school. Program staff help the family connect with 

a host of school and community services. Program staff also work with school personnel to help the school better understand and support the needs of the family. 

Parent school involvement is an essential piece of the program and is encouraged 

by program staff at every opportunity. 

FAMILY LEARNING

Traditionally, school officials have found it challenging to get parents involved, especially in areas that have a large non-English speaking, immigrant population. 

This has been due, in large part, to language and cultural barriers experienced by 

non-English speaking parents. In order to accommodate this population, parent engagement strategies are modeled after those used by Brein McMahon High School 

in Norwalk, CT, where there is also a large immigrant population. Communication 

is also crucial to getting parents involved. Parents may not get involved because 

they lack direct and helpful information. Information needs to be provided consistently and in different formats to ensure the information is delivered in a clear and 

supportive style. Resources should be provided to parents who want to learn more 

about their children’s education and activities. The FSC staff aid school staff trying 

to increase involvement by implementing these strategies. 

Program staff work with families help them understand and take responsibility 

for their children’s learning outcomes. This is the aspect of parenting that places 

emphasis on activities in the home and community that promote learning skills for 

children. Responsibility for learning outcomes in the elementary school years falls 

into four main areas: supporting literacy, helping with homework, managing children’s education, and maintaining high expectations. 

Program staff work in partnership with the school, community organizations, and 

arts and cultural institutions to engage families in family learning opportunities. 

Family learning opportunities can range in scope and service but are all intended 

to extend to help the parent understand and under-take their role as the child’s first 

and most important teacher. The home visitor works with the family to enroll them 

in a family literacy program, before and afterschool programs, tutoring services or 

parent workshops on topics that support and extend a child’s learning to the home 

and community. 

Highlights this year: 

• Between October 2009 to May 2010, 316 books were read by FSC enrolled students. 

• The FSC program was able to purchase school uniforms for children within the 

FSC program. FSC has become an active investor of Fair Haven School’s ‘‘uniform 

is unity’’ policy. 

• FSC families participated in New Haven Home Recovery’s holiday program, 

Adopt-a-Family, were 32 FSC families were adopted and given Christmas gifts this 

holiday season. 

• The FSC program co-sponsors the RIF program with The Fairhaven School to 

promote reading as well as connect families with the school. FSC staff and families 

participate in this school-wide presentation. 

• The FSC program participated in the Fair Haven School Advisory Program 

(Grades 7–8). The advisory program is an arrangement whereby one adult and a 

small group of students have an opportunity to interact on a scheduled basis in 
40 

order to provide a caring environment for guidance and support, everyday administrative details, recognition and activities to promote citizenship. The purposes of advisory are to ensure that each student is known well at school by at least one adult 

who is that student’s advocate (the advisor), to guarantee that every student belongs 

to a peer group, to help every student find ways to be successful, and promote coordination between home and school. 

• The FSC program had six target children graduate from the Fairhaven K–8 and 

all are registered to attend high school in the fall. In addition, as a result of FSC 

involvement, parents reported school successes with their children. 

• All FSC families participated in the Homework Contract campaign. This assists 

families with becoming involved in their children’s academics and build on parentchild-school relationships. 

• During the fiscal year ending, June 30, 2009, FSC families participated in a series of family field trips with transportation and admission sponsored by NHHR. 

The field trips include: Duckpin bowling, Movie night Lake Compounce, Roller 

Magic Rink, Beauty and the Beast at the Chevrolet Theatre, Lighthouse Park, Norwalk Aquarium and Beardsley Zoo. 

FSC annual data: 

• 107 Families have been referred. 

• 53 Families were enrolled. 

• 85 Children participated. 

• 211 People total. 

The Second Program is the The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing program, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides funding and services to families and individuals. NHHR serves families who are at imminent risk of homelessness, or who are literally homeless. Examples of assistance 

that may be provided include: 

Financial Assistance 

• Rental assistance, including back rent. 

• Security and utility deposits. 

• Assistance with utility payments, including utility arrearages. 

• Moving cost assistance (not furnishings). 

General Assistance 

• Referrals to other agencies/shelters when appropriate. 

• Legal services to assist appropriate person’s to stay in their housing (not assistance with mortgages). 

Populations To Be Served 

Programs will target people who would be homeless ‘‘but for this assistance.’’ 

• Rapid Re-Housing: Includes people who are literally homeless (ex: living in a 

shelter, a motel, a car, etc.) who require more permanent housing. 

• Prevention with Re-location: Includes people who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless (ex: notice to quit, in the process of an eviction, institutional discharge, 

housing has been condemned, etc.), who are unable to repair their current housing 

situation and will need to relocate. 

• Prevention In Place: This includes people who are at risk of becoming homeless 

(ex: behind on rent, temporary loss of income, etc.), but who intend to stay in their 

current housing situation. 

The following is the program breakdown of those served through HPRP: 

HPRP 

Households Total in 

Household 

Admitted .................................................................................................................................................. 15 56 

Discharged .............................................................................................................................................. 40 41 

In progress .............................................................................................................................................. 183 569 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 238 766 

Denied ..................................................................................................................................................... 138 438 

For example, Jack and Diane were evicted from their home of 5 years. Jack is 

a self employed contractor. Diane is a stay at home mother of six children. Upon 

eviction, the family moved into a local homeless shelter, but one of their children’s 
41 

asthma became so severe they were forced to move to a motel. After two apartments 

fell through, the family finally found a house to rent. Unfortunately the timing was 

off and they had reached their limit on the credit card at the motel and were being 

put out on the street. Their only choice was to sleep in their car. HPRP prevented 

this from happening by providing funding for the motel and ultimately relocating 

them into a home. 

Mike and Gina were being evicted on the day they came to NHHR for help. Gina 

is pregnant and was recently laid off from her job. The couple has three young boys 

and Gina’s elderly, disabled mother living with them. Dad was working and Gina 

had found an apartment to rent but they did not have the security deposit. The CT 

Department of Social Services has closed the security deposit guarantee program. 

NHHR’s HPRP program was able to pay the security deposit and part of the first 

month’s rent into order to avoid this family moving into a shelter. 

Lastly, Juan and Julia, both college graduates, moved to NH from Puerto Rico in 

order to seek medication care for their son. Their 1-year-old was ill and had recently 

undergone open heart surgery at Yale New Haven Hospital. In addition the boy was 

recovering from liver disease and other infections. The family was living in the Ronald McDonald House during the baby’s hospitalization, but had no place to live upon 

discharged. A stay at a shelter, would have comprised the boy’s fragile health. They 

considered going back to Puerto Rico, but funding was limited and they needed to 

remain close to necessary medical care. HPRP was able to assist them in finding 

housing, paying for security deposit and rental assistance. The family is stably 

housed and Juan and Julia are currently looking for work. 

These two program are examples of excellent programs that need to and should 

continue. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this testimony. 

Senator DODD. No, they were great. I would just say I wish others would look at the testimony, but just the statistics on housing, 

on healthcare, on education, I am just alarmed. I went the other 

night to—Nancy Pelosi’s, Speaker Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra 

made a movie which HBO supported, and we went to it at the 

Press Club. I introduced it the other night. 

And it is about children, homeless children living in motels outside of the gates of Disneyland in California and just what their 

lives are like and what they go through. But the statistics, the 

numbers are just breathtaking and growing. 

Ms. DAY. From 2007 to 2008 here in Connecticut, family homelessness increased by 13 percent. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Ms. DAY. Between 2008 and 2009, it was 33 percent. 

Senator DODD. Yes. There is about a 20 percent increase in kids 

in school who are homeless, and one quarter—only one quarter of 

homeless children graduate from high school nationally. 

Mr. Edwards. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG EDWARDS, FOUNDER AND PROGRAMS 

DIRECTOR, REAL DADS FOREVER, MANCHESTER, CT 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Senator Dodd. It is a pleasure to 

spend some time with you and with the rest of the members of the 

panel. 

Approximately 40 to 60 percent of children in Connecticut go to 

bed without a dad at home at night. Father absence is connected 

to high out-of-wedlock birth rates, the inability of some men to 

form an emotional connection to their children, and high levels of 

separation and divorce among parents, which has been exacerbated 

by high unemployment and the recession. 

Research shows us that children who are securely attached to 

their fathers have better outcomes socially, emotionally, and aca-
42 

demically. Fathers, the proverbial ‘‘bread winners,’’ get their selfworth largely from performance, and in the absence of work, psychosocial dynamics wreak havoc with their relationships, even with 

their children. 

The recession has triggered an increased emphasis on job preparation, education, training, job retention, and the development of 

relationships with employment resources. In addition, programs 

have found ways to support fathers trying to navigate their relationships with their children in the present difficult environment. 

Connecticut formed the Fatherhood Initiative as a result of legislation in order to ‘‘promote the positive involvement and interaction 

of fathers with their children.’’ There are presently six sites in the 

State that have passed a rigorous certification process in 2006 and 

are currently in the process of recertification. Five more sites have 

applied for new certification. Connecticut is the only State in the 

country that has a certification process for fatherhood programs. 

Representative John S. Martinez, who passed away in 2002, was 

the deputy majority leader serving New Haven’s 95th Assembly 

District. He was especially instrumental in sponsoring the Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut legislation, which was passed by the 

legislature in 1999. In his honor, on July 9, 2003, Public Act 03– 

258 was signed into law and is now—the Fatherhood Initiative is 

now called ‘‘The John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut.’’ 

The six fatherhood sites provide comprehensive fatherhood program services to low-income, noncustodial fathers, including preparation for the legal, financial, and emotional responsibilities; the 

establishment of paternity at childbirth; fostering their emotional 

connection to and financial support of their children; workforce 

skills development; and father support services. 

There are 30 to 40 other fatherhood programs in Connecticut in 

Head Start schools, prisons, churches, and communities that provide one or more of the services mentioned. 

In addition to providing some of these services, my program, Real 

Dads Forever, supported by the Connecticut Department of Public 

Health, developed a curriculum called Prenatal Early Attachment 

for dads supporting mom and the baby during the pregnancy and 

after birth. We are about to begin our second cohort, a collaboration with Fair Haven Community Health Center, right here in New 

Haven, and Centering Healthcare Institute’s Centering Pregnancy 

in Cheshire, a group prenatal national model, which is being evaluated by UCONN. 

We have experienced very promising short-term results—increased caring and emotional attachment to mom; more consistent, 

timely prenatal visits by both mom and dad; greater understanding 

of prenatal development; a commitment to breastfeeding by mom 

with dad’s support; an emotional attachment by dad to his unborn 

child; and a dramatic increase in communication between dad and 

mom, mostly initiated by dad. 

Research shows us that if these elements are in place early on, 

moms are healthier, babies are more likely to be full-term. There 

is a better chance co-parenting will be successful for the long-term. 

Our evaluation team is designing protocol to follow up these families over time to substantiate the research. 
43 

There is a wealth of research that underscores the value of early 

prenatal father involvement, but a dearth of comprehensive programming that specifically targets fathers during the prenatal period. Fathers are especially vulnerable, open to learning, and welcome the group experience along with mom. 

My work with fathers, over 5,000 of them since 1996, in small 

groups over several sessions has taught me that adults sometimes 

still have a yearning for that father-child relationship embedded in 

their subconscious since childhood. This—what I call ‘‘yearning, 

churning, and burning’’—impacts their social/emotional development, education, and relationship navigation for decades. 

This observation of residual emotional disease led me to want to 

begin to find ways to address father absence issues from a standpoint of prevention rather than intervention, making it essential 

that we start as early as possible. 

DPH has succeeded in forming a collaboration of agencies, including the Public Health Foundation of Connecticut, the Hartford 

Health Department, in the 5-year HHS Federal grant to Connecticut DPH to expand access to healthcare in Hartford for women 

nearing childbirth to ensure newborns get a healthy start. Real 

Dads Forever, with its Prenatal Early Attachment Program, is one 

of the community partners. 

Upon further evaluation, this program will be replicated after 

proper training and certification of facilitators. As part of our evaluation, we will also focus on the return on investment of this program. At its heart, it is prevention. And we know, especially in this 

challenging economic environment, prevention is a more fiscally 

sound investment than intervention. 

I have also been involved as facilitator and trainer with the Parent Leadership Training Institute, Parents Supporting Educational 

Excellence, both as part of the Commission on Children. They are 

two very successful programs, preparing parents to advocate for 

and lead their children and to partner with schools for school improvement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my work, concerns, 

hopes, and dreams for the present and future children of Connecticut. 

And thank you, Senator Dodd, for your many years of service to 

our State. In my opinion, there is no finer way to end your Senate 

career than having our children close to your heart. 

Senator DODD. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Terrific job, Mr. Edwards. Thanks very much. 

Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF LISA HONIGFELD, Ph.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

HEALTH INITIATIVES, CHILD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT 

INSTITUTE OF CONNECTICUT, INC., FARMINGTON, CT 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Senator Dodd, thank you for the honor to testify 

before you this morning. 

As you noted, I am the vice president for Health Initiatives at 

the Child Health and Development Institute, or CHDI. CHDI is a 

not-for-profit organization that is dedicated to improving the health 

and mental health systems for children here in Connecticut. 
44 

As part of my responsibilities at CHDI, I have the privilege of 

participating in the implementation and the dissemination of a successful Connecticut-grown system for identifying young children at 

risk for developmental delay and connecting them to intervention 

services, many of which you have heard about this morning, which 

will allow them to receive services at the youngest age possible, 

which is when we know that interventions are most effective. 

Help Me Grow, originally developed as a pilot program in Hartford by Dr. Paul Dworkin, physician-in-chief of the Connecticut 

Children’s Medical Center, brings together funding and resources 

from four State agencies that address children’s developmental 

needs. These include the Department of Public Health, the Department of Developmental Services, the Children’s Trust Fund at the 

Department of Social Services, and the Department of Education. 

Through a single point of entry, families are linked to a variety 

of health and community services. Highly trained care coordination 

staff at United Way’s 2-on-1 Child Development Infoline field calls, 

perform intake, and connect children and families to a variety of 

programs, thereby facilitating access to valuable community-based 

services that promote healthy development. 

Several of these services are funded through Federal dollars, including Part B preschool special education services, Part C early 

intervention services, and services for children and youth with special healthcare needs that are funded through the Maternal and 

Child Health Bureau’s Title V block grant dollars. 

Child Development Infoline also integrates hundreds of community programs, some of which we have heard about this morning, 

that are part of the Help Me Grow inventory of services. By centralizing access to all of these programs under a single point of 

entry, at-risk children who are ineligible for the federally funded, 

State-mandated programs can receive, through Help Me Grow, 

linkage to geographically and culturally appropriate programs and 

services. 

Help Me Grow’s statewide triage program is supported by regional child development liaisons who locate services and maintain 

regional resource inventories and facilitate access for children and 

families. In addition, Child Development Infoline educates pediatric 

and family medicine providers about early identification of children 

at risk for developmental delay and their connection to interventions through Help Me Grow and Child Development Infoline. 

Help Me Grow Child Development Infoline is an exemplary 

model of blended funding supporting a multi-sector system that 

cuts across State agencies and includes community-based programs 

to ensure access to services for all children for whom there are concerns. More than 8,000 families have used this system over the 

past 4 years, and 80 percent of them have been successfully connected to services. 

When we consider that only 1 in 5 children nationally who are 

identified with the behavioral health concerns receive services, the 

success of Help Me Grow Child Development Infoline is evident. 

Help Me Grow and Child Development Infoline’s success has led to 

generous support, initially from the Commonwealth Fund and, 

most recently, the Kellogg Foundation, to Connecticut Children’s 

Medical Center for national replication of this model system. 
45 

Two sites—Polk County, IA, and Orange County, CA—have Help 

Me Grow in place. Five others—Colorado; western Oregon; Greenville County, SC; and the greater metro Louisville, KY area—are 

developing systems with technical assistance from the Connecticut 

Help Me Grow team. The Help Me Grow replication team will select 10 additional sites for replication over the next 3 years. 

All of these sites, their States, as well as the remaining 33 

States, would benefit tremendously from Federal support for Help 

Me Grow. More specifically, since Help Me Grow Child Development Infoline’s success depends on the blending of Federal, State, 

and local resources to effectively and efficiently address the needs 

of young children, we look to Federal support of States to develop 

and implement Help Me Grow systems throughout the country. 

The Connecticut Help Me Grow replication center stands ready 

to partner with your committee and Federal agencies in building 

the capacity in all of our States to ensure that children are connected to the services that can ensure their healthy development 

and can begin school healthy and ready to learn. As your committee considers how to support programs that will ensure children’s success, I urge you also to consider legislation that will enable States to develop systems like Help Me Grow for linking children to available community opportunities. 

Thank you, and if you believe that the Help Me Grow national 

replication team from Connecticut can provide you with additional 

information or assistance, please don’t hesitate to call on us. 

Senator DODD. That is great. What a great story. 

[Applause.] 

What tremendous stories here that are going on in our own 

State. And with all the identifying of the problems, and yet to hear 

these wonderful efforts that have been made throughout Connecticut certainly is a source of pride as well. So I commend all of 

you for your work, and I thank you immensely for it. 

I should mention, by the way, that I have some wonderful staff 

who do tremendous work here, and I want to mention Averi 

Pakulis. Averi is here as well. Averi, thank you for your work. 

And Tamar Haro is the chief of staff of the committee. And 

Tamar, thank you immensely for your work. 

And Ben Nathanson is here. Ben, are you here? Yes, you are. 

Ben is a new member of the staff and does a great job. 

Margot Crandall-Hollick as well is at the table over there, and 

Megan Keenan, is Megan here? Back in the back of the room as 

well. I know Brian is here, and who am I missing—Meg Benner. 

So I thank all of them for being with us here. There are others 

from the staff as well, but these are principally the people who 

work on the staff of the Labor Committee. 

Well, today is the 25th anniversary, by the way, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. And so, there are some questions 

we should have, I guess, about the difference the ADA has made 

with children with disabilities. And maybe just to begin right 

where we left off, Lisa, with you, how has the ADA helped in all 

of this? 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Senator Dodd, the Americans with Disabilities 

Act and, more specifically, the act that allows very young children 

to be connected to intervention services has an enormous potential 
46 

to provide intervention at a time when, as Dr. Lowell told us, when 

the developing brain is most amenable to developing resiliency and 

other skills that will be important. 

And so, these services—the Americans with Disabilities Act, as 

well as IDEA—for connecting the very youngest children really call 

on us to ensure that children with or at risk actually for developmental delay are identified as soon as possible and connected to effective programs. 

Senator DODD. Well, Doctor, let me ask you as well on that because one of the issues that strikes me is how do we identify early 

on? Instead of waiting for the problem to emerge, obviously, we can 

all—I mean, you don’t need to have a Ph.D. to spot that. But what 

does require some sensitivity is identifying those problems as early 

as possible. 

Dr. LOWELL. Yes. I actually think that that is probably one of the 

most critical things we can do because the brain is really very malleable then and that we know that that is the time when the architecture of the brain is developed. And that what happens in those 

early experiences are going to determine what that architecture 

looks like, and it is going to be there forever. 

I mean, we can hope to make changes, and it is not that we can’t 

in the future. But really, it forms the foundation. So what do we 

do? I think that there are several things. One is that we have to 

have strong collaborations in communities. We have to have strong 

connections because, for instance, in Bridgeport, where this model 

developed, many of the children—actually, in the beginning, all of 

the children were referred from other community providers. 

And so, by educating them to understand the early signs of problems, both within the child developmental problems, but especially 

our early care and education sites were seeing social, emotional, 

and behavioral problems. And so, one, we have to be able to identify those. But I would say at least, if not more important, is to understand what the environments these children are growing up in 

and, as Dr. Zigler said, the stresses in the environments. 

Because we have a lot of knowledge now about toxic stress. We 

know about maternal depression and homelessness and substance 

abuse, domestic violence, and other risks that are going to create 

environments where the child’s brain is actually going to be damaged by the stress they experience. So by finding those families 

who are experiencing that stress early on, we can refer them to 

programs which can both address the stress and address the relationships. It is a two-pronged kind of comprehensive approach. 

The other thing we can do is have screening, much more formal 

screening that we have actually established in our pediatric primary care center. And I know actually the Child Health and Development Institute has done a lot of work in Connecticut around that 

as well, but also in our early care and education sites. And again, 

the screening has to be more than just for development. We have 

to look at emotional issues and problems, and we have to look at 

what are the challenges that our families are facing because that 

is where our identification can be so powerful. 

Senator DODD. I wrote, along with Lamar Alexander, the infant 

screening legislation, which was designed primarily to deal with 

some of the—I think were eight originally. There are a lot more 
47 

now, around 32 or 34. But these are more developmental issues 

that if you can pick them up early enough and they become recessive, that actually you can avoid some of the neurological 

issues—— 

Dr. LOWELL. Right, right. 

Senator Dodd [continuing]. That would develop into a lifelong 

threat. In fact, there was only one facility in all of New England, 

in Massachusetts, where you could do the screenings. Now we do 

it here, and the resources are provided elsewhere. 

But you are talking about something else, and I am wondering 

whether or not we have the capacity. I know it is ideal to do it. 

Do we have the capacity to identify these kind of developmental 

issues beyond the ones that we normally associate with neurological issues? 

Dr. LOWELL. Yes, I think that we do have the capacity. I think 

it takes education of providers to understand why it is important 

and how to identify those families at risk. And it takes will. It 

takes believing that if we can get there early and work very intensely with families that we really can make a dramatic difference 

and prevent not only problems for those parents, but really prevent 

problems, long-term problems for those children. 

And I think that when we look at it from a cost-benefit analysis, 

that we will save money even within the first year of doing that 

kind of intervention because special education itself, DCF referrals, 

foster care, all of this. When we get services for families, we avoid 

homelessness. We avoid later on incarceration and very serious 

problems with hospitalization for psychiatric disabilities. 

So we have to believe that, get there early, and prevent many of 

these disabilities. 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Can I just add one point? 

Senator DODD. Certainly. 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Darcy and I have worked together on this for a 

long time, and I can’t overemphasize the role of formal screening 

in all of this. We know from pretty rigorous studies that child 

health providers, when they determine a child has a developmental 

delay or is at risk for a developmental delay, they are 95 percent 

correct. 

However, if they used a formal screening tool, they would identify 67 percent of children at an earlier age than if they waited to 

just use their clinical judgment. So I know, Darcy, Child FIRST 

has done really an excellent job in screening, and I think that that 

speaks to its success, and I think that is why the interventions 

have been so successful. 

Senator DODD. Dr. Keck, do you have any comments on this at 

all? 

Mr. KECK. Actually, I do. I learned a whole lot about Head Start 

once I started this project, and Head Start facilities, actually 10 

percent of the students in each facility are required to have either 

developmental delays or disabilities or things of that nature. 

And the interesting thing to note is children with special 

healthcare needs is a very rough definition to actually get your 

hands around because asthma could be a special healthcare need. 

It doesn’t need to be physical disability, developmental disability. 
48 

There is a lot of things that go into the idea of children with special 

healthcare needs. 

But from the perspective of being a teacher at Yale, the facilities 

at Yale and the University of Connecticut I think do a very good 

job at least with oral health for children with special healthcare 

needs. Adults with special healthcare needs is a different issue altogether. But I think we are doing a good job in the State of taking 

care of children’s oral health. 

Senator DODD. I want to come back to that. Your testimony 

about the oral health of children, I want to come back to it in a 

minute. 

But, Ed, let me ask you, I was impressed. You got 20 States that 

are now involved with 21st Century schools, and you mentioned the 

number, 60 schools in this State, some 1,300 around the country 

that are involved. Why only 26? What has happened? What are the 

obstacles that States are having? 

And I was impressed that Kentucky and Arkansas have developed school-wide systems. I mean, I say this respectfully of Kentucky and Arkansas, but I don’t normally think of them as being 

so on the forefront of some of these issues. That will probably get 

me in a lot of trouble now—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator Dodd [continuing]. That headline blaring. But they did. 

They have gone ahead—to their great credit, they have gone ahead 

and done this. And why not other States? What have been the 

problems? 

Mr. ZIGLER. They keep growing. California has just come onboard. But the problem is there are so many things that could be 

done that is not that visible. That is why I would say it would need 

some kind of Federal push, either legislation or some dedicated 

stream of money. It is the startup money that is the only problem. 

Our discussion that we have just had rings a bell with me, too. 

I agree with my colleagues. Get in there, I mean, Nobel Laureate 

Heckman has now pointed out that you get your biggest payoff for 

any kind of a program the younger the child. 

I am sure that you have helped, but the Obama administration 

has been very forthcoming. For the very first time in all these 

years—home visiting has been around for at least 35 years that I 

have been cracking it. For the very first time, the Obama administration has come up with a stream of money to let home visiting 

take place. 

There is home visiting in every one of these schools, but one of 

the important aspects of home visiting pertains to your previous 

question. One of the most important pieces of work that the home 

visitors do is not just work with the parents, but screen the children to pick up these kinds of mental health, physical health problems as early as possible and act as a broker for the services these 

children need. 

Senator DODD. I have used it so many times. I have said it so 

many times over the past 30 years. But with Head Start, the requirement from the earliest days, when you go back to 1965, that 

your Head Start program insisted upon parental involvement with 

children. And I think we get about 80 percent involvement. These 

are the numbers I use. I don’t know if I am right or not. 
49 

But by the first grade, the parental involvement drops generally 

across the country to less than 20 percent. And so, the importance 

of it, obviously, is clear. What a difference it makes. But it does 

drop off, and anything that can be done to increase that parental 

involvement I think is just huge. 

Abby, I don’t know if you want to talk about that in the Norwich 

school systems. I know you talk about it. Let me say, too, I have 

always sensed—and I come from a family of teachers. My sister 

just retired after 41 years of teaching in Connecticut, and my father’s three sisters taught for 40 years apiece in the public high 

school system of the State. There is always some resistance, and 

I understand why parental involvement, interference, teachers trying to do their job. And all of a sudden, it is annoying parents that 

are showing up and pushing, nudging, doing everything else, and 

their kids. 

You always get this feeling that it is not a warm-fuzzy relationship, generally speaking, between parents and teachers. And I am 

curious as to how you can start to break that down. It seems to 

me while you can call for it, you could require it, but if it isn’t part 

of the seamless relationship that that teacher sees that child arrive, you don’t see just a child walk in the door. You see a family 

walk in the door. 

To what extent can our educational system—and teachers, rightfully, bemoan and say, ‘‘Wait a minute. You trained me to be a 

teacher. Now you want me to be a guidance counselor, a minister 

or a rabbi. You want me to be a policeman. All of these jobs you 

are asking me to do beyond trying to teach a child. So you are loading me up as well.’’ 

It seems to me this is pretty basic, what Mr. Edwards talked 

about, and the first rule of any of these relationships is that parental relationship, the role of fathers in this relationship. Every one 

of you have mentioned, I think, to one degree or another, the importance of that relationship. But we don’t seem to be doing a very 

good job of it. Now how do we do a better job? 

Ms. DOLLIVER. I mean, all that you talk about is what I see. Unfortunately, it is a lot of what I see. We work really hard to open 

doors to parents. But it is a culture that you have to change that 

I am here to teach. You give me your kids. They are mine. I will 

have them for this day, and then they go back to you. 

We are trying to do more and more programs to invite parents 

in, not just to fund raise or to have activities, but to be part of 

what is happening. For example, at one of our middle schools, they 

have a breakfast where they honor students quarterly. It doesn’t 

just mean you are the top of the class. Doesn’t just mean you are 

on the honor roll, if you have good conduct. 

We find reasons to award kids, and we invite parents in for 

breakfast to be part of that. So those kinds of things. So it is not 

just the call, oh, so and so is not behaving today, or they are failing. We are trying to do positive interventions with parents to open 

doors. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Ms. DOLLIVER. And really, you know, I have to model that for the 

staff that you have to talk to parents. You have to listen to them, 
50 

and you have to hear where they are at and who they are. And 

then it is their family who we are educating. 

Senator DODD. A lot of the times, the parents that you wanted 

to reach are the ones whom themselves had bad experiences necessarily in schools. And so, they are less than willing to walk into 

an environment that was hostile in many ways. Probably dropped 

out in many cases themselves. 

In the case of homeless kids and so forth, they do not have the 

warmest relationship necessarily. So getting that home visiting. I 

mean what Ed talked about, including your testimony—beginning 

with conception. I would like to know how you figure that one out. 

[Laughter.] 

I can see the trouble you would be in on that one. A Federal program here. I can see the tea party now talking about that. 

[Laughter.] 

What the Federal Government is up to here requiring you to report on those statistics. 

But the idea of getting involved early on, obviously, is important. 

And being at the home setting, which is the hardest thing to do because it is labor intensive. There is sometimes just a cultural question of walking in, what does it mean? How good is the information 

you are going to get, people showing up at a house, all the nervousness that can pose. 

I mean, all of the problems, and yet I have got to believe, having 

listened to a lot of people, including yourselves, there is nothing 

better than if someone is familiar with that home environment, to 

some extent. Anyone want to comment on that? 

Ms. DAY. I just wanted to comment. I think you are right. I think 

the engagement of the family is critical and in a positive way, as 

you were mentioning. Not just getting the calls when something is 

wrong. Not just making referrals to programs because the child did 

something wrong. 

I also agree that we have a program in our shelters where we 

advocate for students who are homeless in the New Haven Public 

Schools, and what we found out is that many of the parents were 

very fearful to tell the teachers that they were living in a homeless 

shelter. Well, who more importantly needs to know that that child 

is living in a homeless shelter than the teacher? 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Ms. DAY. But parents were afraid. They were afraid that people 

were going to assume they were bad parents because they were 

poor and homeless. People were afraid that they were going to get 

a DCF call because they were homeless. 

So I think that the connection between the school and the family 

is critical, and education of the parents and outreach to them in 

a positive way is very important. 

Senator DODD. Jim Horan, why don’t you talk—I was curious because you have talked about this as well in getting services and 

programs, parents involved, community involved. The recession obviously hasn’t helped with more people out of work. 

Mr. HORAN. Yes. That is one thing I was thinking about, listening to the other panelists right now. The recession really has hurt 

this a lot. You mentioned, as superintendent in Norwich, I think 
51 

70 layoffs. I think there are 122 in New Britain and more in New 

Haven and other cities all around the State. 

I think that that really does hurt because a lot of times school 

districts around the State are making cuts, and they have to cut 

wherever they can. I know in West Hartford, where I live, 2 years 

ago the magnet school resource officer was cut, and part of her role 

was integrating the role of foreign language speaking parents in 

the schools. And that was eliminated. 

Now I will say the PTO has really stepped up, and there are parents who are translating to bring in other parents to help them 

out. But that is difficult. And it is just as you said, too. A lot of 

the parents who are the ones we most want to get involved are the 

ones who have had poor experiences themselves when they were 

students. You know, they dropped out or had other issues in school. 

So we really need to try to change the culture in the schools, and 

I think that is the role starting from the superintendent down, and 

it also has to be kind of from the bottom up, with parents pushing 

and teachers who do feel comfortable pushing to make that happen. 

But it does become harder in a time of limited resources like we 

are facing now, as districts are laying off some of the folks who 

were involved in these roles. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. If I may just add? There recently has been funding by the Parent Trust Fund for parent leadership training here 

in Connecticut. And Parent Leadership Training Institute, which 

Elaine Zimmerman is involved with, and Parents Supporting Educational Excellence are both programs that prepare parents to have 

a relationship with schools. 

They are taught about how schools work. They are taught about 

how government works. They are taught about how to be strategic 

in the development of addressing problems that relate to their children and others and how to advocate for their kids. They are also 

taught how to read reports that come out from the schools about 

progress and the achievement gap. 

So that is a lot of preparation that is going into working with 

parents. I just recently heard from a principal who said that her 

teachers—the biggest fear of her teachers is a conversation with 

parents. So I think from what I hear, and I haven’t verified this, 

but in higher education, there doesn’t appear to be a lot of emphasis on teaching future teachers how to develop relationships with 

parents. 

Some teachers do it intuitively, and they do a wonderful job. But 

there are others that may need a little help, just like parents do. 

So if parents can be more prepared to kind of do that dance with 

schools, with teachers, children will certainly benefit from it. 

Senator DODD. That is an interesting comment. I would be curious to know whether or not any of our schools of education have 

any kind of emphasis at all, even slight emphasis on that role. I 

suspect they don’t. 

Mr. Edwards, you seem to indicate they don’t. I don’t think they 

would. Any further comment on this particular point? Yes? 

Dr. LOWELL. I just wanted to comment that you had indicated 

that parents who have had bad experiences themselves are going 

to be more afraid actually to engage with schools. But I mean, even 
52 

more so, they are very hesitant to engage with any kind of social 

service program. So the engagement process becomes so fundamental, the building of the relationship with the parent so that 

there is really trust there. 

So instead of seeing whoever this helper is as someone who is 

going to take my child away or will it be a negative consequence 

can see, for instance, our Child FIRST clinical team as these are 

people who are there for me. These are my partners. They are 

going to help me. They are going to make a difference. 

We have had parents so many times say, ‘‘You know what, no 

one ever cared what I thought before. No one ever listened to me.’’ 

And so, the whole move to have things that are parent empowering, that help a parent be the one to be the driver in terms of 

what kinds of services and supports are going to make a difference 

makes a huge difference. 

So the PLTI movement in terms of helping parents understand 

this, but every single relationship that we build with parents which 

helps to build them up, to empower them for their children, becomes really very essential in terms of the long-term outcomes, 

when we are no longer there for them. 

The other thing I would say just about the relationships in the 

schools is that we have to help teachers really have empathy for 

the conditions of some of the children. Instead of seeing children’s 

behavior as ‘‘bad behavior’’ and, therefore, it is the parents’ fault. 

Instead to really try to understand why is a child acting like that, 

to help them take a much more what we call reflective stance to 

think about what is going on inside the child and what is going on 

inside the parent. What are the challenges they are experiencing? 

So that, instead, they can feel like they can be a partner and 

help the parent. That is a real shift and so that they can be—we 

want them to be partners together instead of—— 

Senator DODD. That was one of the things they are doing. And 

again, as you are watching now, particularly in preschool and kindergarten and first grade is having a continuum in a lot of public 

schools where that teacher moves with the class. So in these early 

stages, you are getting—my 5-year-old is going to kindergarten 

next year in a public school in Washington, her preschool teacher 

will be her kindergarten teacher next year. 

Dr. LOWELL. Well—— 

Senator DODD. And that is great, so there is that sense of having 

that same person. She is very excited about having Ms. Burke next 

year. 

[Laughter.] 

In about a month, to go back in. So that continuum in that early 

stage where they really got to know, in that public school, Ms. 

Burke now knows those 21 children. She knows those families that 

live in our neighborhood, in a very diverse neighborhood in Washington. And so, it is really going to be—I can see that already having a positive impact on the children in that classroom and the parents. 

Ms. DOLLIVER. Well, that is called looping, and we don’t do it a 

lot, but we do it a little. Now we just have to cover classrooms with 

the shortage of numbers of classrooms that we have. However, we 

did it in our middle school with special education students, and it 
53 

was a big deal for the teachers to think, now I have to learn the 

curriculum of eighth grade if I was in seventh, or I have to learn 

the seventh grade if I was in sixth. 

But we have done it for 2 years, and it has had a positive impact. 

Senator DODD. It has had a positive impact, yes. 

Ms. DOLLIVER. They know the kids and their needs and their 

families, and they can continue the relationship. A lot of it, so 

much is about relationship. 

Senator DODD. You wanted to say something, Tammy? 

Ms. PAPA. Yes. Just real quickly, in terms of afterschool, because 

it is a less structured environment than the daytime happens to be, 

we have found that we can involve parents in a number of ways. 

And obviously, the most basic way is to involve them in at least 

one activity throughout the course of each semester, the fall and 

the spring, if you will, and ask them to participate with us. 

Most of them will do that, and they feel a little bit more comfortable coming in in a less structured environment. But we also 

require that the parents come into the school every single day to 

sign their child out. So they can’t beep the horn. The kids can’t run 

out. They have to come into the school. 

So it gives our teachers an opportunity to talk to them. Not run 

up to them and say, ‘‘My God, your child today.’’ But to approach 

them in a more positive manner, maybe about something great 

that their child has done and really focus on words of encouragement as opposed to disappointment as to what the child’s behavior 

might have been for that particular day. 

But we also, as part of the 21st century grant, they encourage 

you to do family activities. So, monthly, we do a regularly scheduled evening activity, where we provide dinner and the opportunity 

for parents to come into the school, and most of our principals will 

stay for that activity, which really helps build the relationships. 

And have the afterschool staff, along with some guest speakers, 

things that are critical to families, whether it is financial literacy, 

or whatever it might be. 

It may be an activity that they can do with their children, but 

we invite the entire family in, provide them with dinner and an opportunity to work together on that activity. And that has been pretty successful. In a school where maybe we serve about 100 children, we may get upwards of 70 families that come in for that particular event, and that happens one night during the month. 

And then, on the flip side of that, we do need to educate our 

teachers a little bit more. So we provide quite a bit of professional 

development on how to approach parents, how to make the schools 

more welcoming. I know the State Department of Education does 

quite a bit of professional development on this topic. 

So I think all those things combined will help bring parents into 

the school and make teachers a little bit more comfortable with approaching them. 

Senator DODD. Let me ask a naı ̈ve question in a sense, and it 

goes to what you are talking about as well, and that is I am always 

struck with the fact—and again, on the Lighthouse Program, which 

we have worked very closely with over the years, and I am a great 

supporter of it. But it takes some initiation on the part of parents 

to get in the program. 
54 

And a lot of these things we have talked about here require parental initiation. And yet the very people we are talking about that 

are the most in need are the ones where that is less likely to occur. 

We are not serving but a fraction of the population. What, at Head 

Start, what are we? One in four, Ed, to this day even? One in four 

of the eligible Head Start population in the United States being 

served by Head Start? 

Mr. ZIGLER. The eligible population is about 45 percent. 

Senator DODD. And we are serving? 

Mr. ZIGLER. Forty-five percent of the kids that are eligible after 

45 years of Head Start. 

Senator DODD. Yes. So, again, it takes someone to step up and 

to seek to be enrolled. And many times, it is the most vulnerable 

families that just don’t take the step. And so, it is always frustrating to me because the ones who, to their great credit, do try to 

get into those programs, want to be in that afterschool program, 

want to be in these things. And even though they are very poor, 

they deserve a great deal of credit for fighting on behalf of their 

children and their future. 

But so much of the most vulnerable kids and families just don’t 

even know how to navigate this at all, and that is a—— 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Can I make a comment to that? 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Ms. HONIGFELD. I think that is absolutely true, and that is why 

we really need to exploit the child health system because every 

family needs to take their child to the doctor or they are not going 

to go to Head Start. They are not going to go to school. They are 

not going to go to camp. They are not going to go to other childcare. 

And I think that is a system we really need to exploit in terms of 

doing a better job educating child health providers to encourage 

parents and actually to use systems like Help Me Grow to link parents to all the programs that are available for their engagement. 

Senator DODD. I am very impressed on how much of that has 

been replicated. 

Dr. LOWELL. Also, I couldn’t emphasize enough because the engagement process is very difficult, and it is very costly. I mean, I 

can’t tell you how many children in families who initially—who we 

find, who are interested, who are very high risk, but from the time 

that they are identified to the time we can actually engage them 

in services sometimes takes over a month of persistence, of calls, 

of letters, of dropping them notes at their door, if necessary, to before they are really willing to have us actually come in. 

And so, we are really about engaging the very highest risk children and families. And actually, our research, one of the things 

about the way we did our research, which was the randomized 

trial, we actually did randomize into a control group and an intervention group so that we could see where we disproportionately 

were losing the high-risk children. 

And what we found is if you are persistent and if you also take 

a nurturing stance that we are there to help you, but you have to 

be—I mean, it is not short-term. It is not three strikes and you are 

out. You have to really be there and be willing to keep at it. You 

can engage these families because they want the best for their kids. 
55 

And when they feel like you are there for them, they are willing 

to—and something about what Lisa said, just one family comes to 

mind so really prominently. We had a family who came in, a little 

31⁄2-year-old girl and a very proud mom. And physical exam was 

normal, but we had done screens. 

And the screen was positive only for maternal depression. Nothing else was positive. And we had a clinician who is embedded in 

our pediatric primary care center who said to this mom after her 

visit, before she left the pediatric clinic, you know, I was wondering, is there anything we can do to help you? Because I see that 

you said that sometimes you feel life is so hard you don’t even 

know if you can continue. 

And it was based on that, this mom looked at our clinician, who 

is just the most warm, wonderful person, and she had dark glasses 

on. She took them off, and she started to cry. And it was that connection that never would have been made. It ended up there was 

a domestic violence situation. They had an apartment. They had no 

beds. They had no table. Her child was being evicted from 

childcare. 

I mean, there was a multiple risk family. We never would have 

found them without that pediatric screening. But it took us 6 

weeks from the time she said ‘‘yes, come’’ before we actually got in 

the home. So it says persistence makes a difference. 

Senator DODD. It is labor-intensive. 

Ms. DAY. Well, and you also bring up a good point. I mean, there 

are 1.5 million families that are homeless or unstably housed, and 

those are the ones we know about. Many of them are in motels or 

doubled up, and we don’t know—— 

Senator DODD. There is 1.5 more that is—the number is stacked. 

Yes. 

Ms. DAY. Correct. And how can you pay attention to anything if 

you don’t have any food, clothing, or shelter? 

Dr. LOWELL. That is right. You can’t. 

Ms. DAY. You are not going to go to the doctor. You are not going 

to pay attention to whether your kid is behaving or not behaving. 

The stressors on the family and the parents are so high that that 

is what makes the engagement difficult, too. 

I mean, I think we really need to pay attention to our families’ 

basic needs in order to be able to provide what Dr. Zigler talked 

about, the family, health, education, and childcare. You can’t have 

any of that unless you have food, clothing, and shelter. 

Dr. LOWELL. Stabilization. You have to have that first. 

Senator DODD. Let me jump to Dr. Keck. I want to—because I 

was stunned by your statistics. Thirty percent of 3- to 5-year-olds 

in Head Start have tooth decay? 

Mr. KECK. I can testify to that because, as part of the program 

that we are developing, last year we started examining the Head 

Start children in the schools. It goes along with the whole idea that 

getting active participation from the parents can sometimes be very 

difficult. 

So we have gone out to the schools to conduct the initial examination. And we didn’t get through all 900, but with the 150, that 

statistic is true. This is a national statistic, but it holds true in the 

State of Connecticut. 
56 

The second thing that we have learned since starting the project, 

at least in the State of Connecticut, is for the program to work, we 

have done a good job about getting the children examinations. But 

the follow-through to future care, getting the cavities treated—and 

it is probably the same in pediatrics—and follow-through is a big 

issue. 

There is a person called the family service worker that is responsible, sadly to say, for about 35 to 40 families, students in the class 

that do go out and do the home visitation. And we are trying to 

make it a part. We have been educating the Head Start staff to 

particularly the family service workers, when they go out to the 

homes, to make oral health a part of the family health partnership 

agreement, as well as several different things. 

Usually you can only have so much of things on a list. I agree 

that home and food and all that is important, but we are trying to 

move oral health up on the list. 

Senator DODD. Well, I just want to tell you, I think it is so important. To me, oral health, and this is such a window on so many 

of the problems. And for years, it has been just so neglected. And 

to me, if you had to pick at just one area, the oral health thing is 

huge to me. 

Mr. KECK. In my private practice, we also see Medicaid patients, 

Head Start patients as well, and the amount of dental decay is certainly not decreasing. My partners and I go to the hospital once a 

week to do two or three cases a week. I know the residency program at Yale does probably 10 cases a week of underserved children who have multiple cavities in their mouth and are younger 

than the age of 3 because they can’t be treated realistically in a 

normal dental environment. 

Senator DODD. Well, and I noticed the community health centers. 

I was in New Britain. We have about 12 or 13 community health 

centers in the State, which are great, and one of the things we did 

in the healthcare bill is just expand tremendously the number of 

resources to expand community health services. And in New Britain, the facility there, they had the mobile dental clinic that goes 

to schools. 

Now this is not Head Start, this is—— 

Mr. KECK. Correct. 

Senator Dodd [continuing]. I presume kids in elementary or middle school or high schools, and that mobile dental chair to get 

around was part of the student health, which I am impressed with. 

I think it is impressive. But this is far beyond, what you are talking about. 

Mr. KECK. Well, the thing that we have also been trying to carry 

through not just from Head Start, but through the State as far as 

dentistry goes, with the increase in the number of providers, patients that are on HUSKY A, HUSKY B aren’t necessarily relegated to go to safety net facilities anymore. There are plenty of 

private providers. 

And we also have to educate parents because many of them fear 

going into a private practice environment other than a safety net 

or a clinic, as you are talking about. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. KECK. I think education, and that is a part of this—— 
57 

Senator DODD. You have 40 dentists in Connecticut. I am impressed you got that many. 

Mr. KECK. Well, it is actually—— 

Senator DODD. Connecticut magazine this month has the list of 

all the 100 best dentists in Connecticut. 

Mr. KECK. The list is actually greater than that. Those are 40 

that I have personally gotten to work directly with Head Start. But 

as I said, there are many, many dentists, both pediatric and general, that have chosen to help and treat young children. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Well, good. How you take that program nationally could be very important. 

Mr. KECK. The Head Start program, it is a 5-year contract, and 

at this point in time, there are approximately 35 States that it has 

rolled out. It has been over a 5-year period. Connecticut was one 

of the six States that started this initiative. So we are kind of well 

on our way, and many States, like California, Texas, are going to 

have more of an issue. Sheer size is part of it. 

Senator DODD. Let me ask, and this is something that Ed Zigler 

and I have talked about over the years and the difficulty of attracting and retaining good staff. Again, what we pay childcare workers 

has been a historic set of issues, afterschool staff. All the difficulty 

of how you keep people, how you—we have upped the matter over 

the years to bump the educational levels, but also the compensation for Head Start workers and the like so you don’t end up with 

that turnover that we have all the time. 

How do you retain your staff? How do you retain your staff at 

your Lighthouse Program? 

Ms. PAPA. We employ just about 300 people through our subcontracts with community agencies like the YMCA, ABCD, some of 

our colleges. Professional development to really help them do their 

jobs and listening to them as to what they need in terms of professional development. I think in any given year, we will do about 30 

different workshops for staff to come to. 

We do pay them well. Our certified teachers who work with us 

get between $28 and $32 an hour, and the coordinators that actually operate the program get anywhere from $32 to $36 an hour. 

But I can tell you through conversations with these individuals for 

going out to the individual sites, they don’t stay because of the 

money. They stay because they truly, truly enjoy what they do. 

And when we find somebody that is there because of the 

money—and everybody needs to make a little bit of extra money— 

we never begrudge anybody that. But when we find that that is the 

primary reason, then we work with that person to try and change 

that attitude toward his or her job. 

If they don’t, then they are probably really not cut out for the 

type of work we need them to do because, for us, the child does 

need to come first, and his or her needs need to come first. But 

having said that, it is just really keeping that open line of communication, working with principals and other daytime staff to really 

determine who within the school might be best suited for these positions. It is a long day for people. 

And we don’t just recruit from within the school. But certainly 

the connections that we can make within the school and getting 

some of the staff from within the school really help to build the 
58 

academic portion of our program and really help to link school day 

and afterschool. 

But even working with our agencies, it is really recruiting the 

right type of person to begin with. 

Senator DODD. Ed, you wanted to comment on that? We have 

wrestled with this for years. 

Mr. ZIGLER. Just be aware, Senator, that what you have just 

heard is a model that I wish we could replicate everywhere in the 

country. It is not standard. Most schools, their problem is how do 

you pay these afterschool workers? Never mind what you pay a 

teacher and that. Salary is a huge problem. 

Let me point out to you one of the biggest problems with the 21st 

century children’s learning centers. And perhaps you remember 

when I worked with Senator Specter, your colleague on the Children’s Caucus, to try to reverse President Bush’s attempt to cut the 

21st century learning centers? 

Senator DODD. Sure. 

Mr. ZIGLER. We were successful, thanks to Senator Specter. But 

that flow of money is the only flow of money there is to the schools 

to provide afterschool care. None of it is as good as this model we 

have just heard about. We are delighted to have you here. 

Ms. PAPA. Thank you. 

Mr. ZIGLER. But the fact is after 5 years of getting that money, 

they have to start weaning themselves away from it, and there is 

no fund of money. So once you go 5 years in that program, you are 

through. And so, getting money to pay people—this is true in Head 

Start, too. The reason we are only serving 45 percent of eligible 

kids after four decades is not because we can’t—parents don’t bring 

their kids, there isn’t any money in Head Start to serve more kids 

than that. 

So no one knows better than you that every one of these problems we are discussing is always a problem of money, money, 

money. And you know, your new effort, you are going to find what 

we already know. Compared to the rest of the world’s advanced, industrialized countries, kids in the—according to the World Health 

Organization, the United States is at the absolute bottom. Part of 

it is the high poverty rate, but the bottom. And it is always a matter of money and priorities. 

You spent your life trying to make children and families the priority they ought to be in this country. But after my own decadeslong effort, we have not succeeded. It is simply a matter of getting 

the Congress to provide the money for Head Start, for afterschool, 

dental care, wonderful programs, every program we have heard 

this morning. But where is the money to do these? And that is the 

basic issue. 

Senator DODD. Yes, and we are going to face, as we look at the 

arguments again, significant cost reductions in a lot of these areas 

as well. So the problems are going to surmount. And we have only 

really in the last, well, 45 years have been involved in much of this 

at all. Up until 1965, Title I, the Federal Government was not involved at all in education, except on a marginal basis. 

Dr. LOWELL. Addressing the money issue, we have some wonderful legislation that I think is really not used optimally, and I would 

specifically talk about EPSDT, which is Early Periodic Screening, 
59 

Diagnosis, and Treatment. Here we have talked a lot about getting 

children early and prevention, and that is a law which is specifically targeted for prevention. 

It says if you can find them early enough and if you can give 

them what they need, you can avoid serious problems. And they 

can be health problems. They can be mental health problems. But 

they really define ‘‘health’’ quite broadly in that legislation. 

And yet we have not been able to use it, both in Connecticut and 

elsewhere, effectively to meet the needs of children early, and yet 

that is why it was created. 

Senator DODD. Why haven’t we been able to? 

Dr. LOWELL. Well, I think one of the reasons is States can define 

what they consider medical necessity individually. We have defined 

medical necessity as diagnosis. But diagnosis means you already 

have a disorder. 

So, in a sense, we are not using the bill appropriately. If you look 

at the bill itself, it doesn’t talk about you need a diagnosis to treat. 

It talks about you need medical necessity to treat. 

For instance, look at children who—infants of depressed mothers 

as an example. An infant of a depressed mother is not going to be 

showing us symptoms until they get pretty severe, the child is in 

pretty severe straits. The mom, we know—if she is seriously depressed, we know the consequences for that child. 

So we should be able to get into that home, in the home, not ask 

mom to come to an agency because she won’t come. We know that. 

We have lots of data that says that is not the way to approach 

these moms. But we need to go in the home and treat the mother 

and treat the mother and child together. Make a huge difference. 

You could use EPSDT funds to do that, and yet we don’t. We 

don’t have the codes to be able to do that. I mean, even though the 

legislation says the State does not have to have this as part of their 

Medicaid policy, nonetheless, you do have to have a way to actually 

do the billing. And many States have resorted to lawsuits because 

of these issues. 

We haven’t in Connecticut. I hope we never will. But I think we 

do need some changes because it is a huge possibility for the Federal Government to be paying 50 cents on the dollar to help us 

with these. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Jim, do you want to comment on this? 

Mr. HORAN. Yes. I will echo Dr. Lowell’s support for prevention 

and getting in early and saving on the back end. But we have made 

some really bad decisions in public policy over time. Just talking 

with a colleague before we started here this morning. We imprison 

four times the number of people today in Connecticut than we did 

in 1980. 

We found the money to build those prisons and to pay for the 

correction system over time, and yet the issues of childcare workers 

and early care and education workers not being paid adequately or 

not reaching all kids that qualify for Head Start or other programs, 

that hasn’t changed. So a lot of it has to do with public will and 

the will of our elected leaders. 

We, all of us are responsible for helping to make that happen. 

We are really going to miss your leadership in the Senate because 
60 

you have been terrific on these issues over the decades, and there 

are not many other leaders like you. 

And so, it is really up to all of us and all of our colleagues and 

the people we know to get active and to get everyone empowered 

to do what they need to do and to get our leaders to do the right 

things. Because going back to the issue of corrections, Connecticut 

is one of only two States in the country that spends more on corrections than on higher education. I mean, how wrong-headed is that? 

And yet we have allowed that, as voters in Connecticut, to occur 

over the decades. And we have to reverse that and get the investments made in the right places if we want to see the results for 

kids. 

Senator DODD. And you are preaching to the choir. 

Ms. HONIGFELD. Just also before we really talk down on our 

State that much, I do want to say that there is tremendous duplication in terms of services provided and ensuring people’s access to 

services. And it really behooves us to start looking at the funding 

that we do have here in Connecticut and putting that together in 

the best ways to serve families and children. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Good point. 

Mr. Edwards, tell me a little bit, because I was so impressed 

with what you are doing, and it seems so basic in all of this, the 

role of fathers in all of this. And again, working on the presumption that men want to be good fathers, just as parents want to be 

good parents. And tapping into that very natural instinct. It is not 

an adverse instinct. 

Any other thoughts you have on how we can do a better job of 

that? And again, we are looking at maybe thinking of it again with 

Jim talking about the number of people incarcerated and, of course, 

the number of—obviously, the overwhelming majority being males, 

a lot of them fathers, obviously. Totally distanced from their children. 

So there are so many issues surrounding the role of fathers and 

their absence in the development of a child. What additional 

thoughts do you have for us? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I have done several groups with Head Start 

and fatherhood programs in Head Start schools, and there has 

been a wonderful reception on the part of the fathers—and of the 

mothers and of the teachers—to get fathers engaged early on, to let 

them realize how important they are in the lives of their children 

in terms of making the connection between father involvement and 

academic achievement for kids. 

So we do 10 weeks of 2.5 hours each with the dads, and we talk 

about all of those things. It gives them a desire to connect with 

their children. We want them to be really alert to the fact that, you 

know what, you are the architect of your child’s life. You are the 

construction manager. You are building something. You are the 

custodian of your child’s life. 

The scary part about being a parent, you can set them up for 

success, but you can also set them up for failure. So we want to 

get that message into them really early on, get them connected 

with the type of agencies that will provide the help. Get them to 

be really, really thoughtful about their unique and distinct way 
61 

that they are as dads is very different than mom, and what those 

qualities and values are as a dad. 

So that their relationship with their child will continue even if 

they are not in a love relationship with mom. So we want to plant 

the seeds of co-parenting really, really early. 

Senator DODD. Have you tried anything with—I am curious 

whether or not, for instance, where instead of having parents’ time, 

you just have father time. So there are only fathers invited? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. That is mainly what we do, mainly what we 

do. Most of the work with Head Start is only fathers. So, Head 

Start, I may do a program for 4 weeks, 6 weeks or 8 weeks, depending on the funding for the school. And the first week, we start 

off with mom and dad because we want mom to know what is going 

on with the program. 

The second week is dads, and they bring their kids. And we eat 

dinner for half an hour, and then we spent an hour and a half with 

dad. So there is just a group of dads in the room, and that continues on. 

The last week, we bring mom back, and there is a celebration 

and a dinner. And we line the dads up, and the kids hand them 

their certificates of completion for the program to celebrate. So the 

kids get the idea that my dad is a lifelong learner. He went to 

school, and he learned something. That is modeling. 

So that is what we like to see with that. And the dads, I hear 

stories from the moms about how not only has he changed in his 

relationship with the child, but he has also changed as a man in 

relation to mom. So it is just the more we can plant those seeds 

really, really early to make dads aware of their potential—— 

Senator DODD. Well, that is Ed’s point. That is Ed Zigler’s point. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, the better off we will be. 

Mr. ZIGLER. There at conception. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. He is still fighting for conception here. I will leave 

that to the next Senator from Connecticut. I won’t take on that 

issue. 

Mr. ZIGLER. Those first 9 months of life are such a wonderful 

time because the mother and the father are totally involved in this 

process and prenatal care and all the things that you have heard 

about. We think birth is early enough. It is not. It is conception on. 

Senator DODD. Yes, I agree. 

Mr. EDWARDS. One other thing is that we also talk to them about 

the first 1,000 days of that child’s life and how very important that 

is in terms of brain development, in terms of lowering the risk factors, in terms of creating a wonderful, warm, positive environment 

that is a rich language environment and they are getting the 

healthcare that they need. That, hopefully, will start to get them 

in tune to the fact that this is a long-term commitment that I just 

have to do. 

Senator DODD. Yes. I literally could spend all day with you. I 

can’t tell you how proud I am of what goes on in my own State, 

to hear these terrific things that are being done by people here. I 

know the hard work and the people who work with you and how 

much time they spend and the efforts they make. And your point, 
62 

Dr. Lowell, of just 6 weeks in that one family just to get her in the 

door and how that magical moment occurred. 

Dr. LOWELL. It made a big difference. 

Senator DODD. And how hard this is to achieve, but it is worth 

the effort. The future belongs 100 percent to them, and that is why 

Arlen Specter and I, almost 30 years ago, started the Children’s 

Caucus in the Senate. We had a caucus for every imaginable constituency in America that you could think of except the 1 in 4 

Americans who are under the age of 18. 

We started with that, and over the years, we had rump hearings. 

We couldn’t even get funding for hearings. I was telling a group of 

the interns the other day in the office, I remember Paula Hawkins, 

who was my new Senate colleague from Florida. She came to a 

hearing. She wanted to come and testify, and it sounds rather routine today. But 30 years ago, to have a woman U.S. Senator come 

and talk about how they were being sexually abused as a child was 

banner headlines across the country in terms of just unprecedented 

news. 

And what she did, though, just by that and how she opened up 

the door for a lot of other people to talk about what had been going 

on, obviously. I mean, just things like that. We had hearings with 

Bill Bradley on afterschool programs in New York at the time. And 

so, it has been tremendously rewarding, and there has been improvement. 

And obviously the challenges grow, and each generation poses 

new ones. But this has been tremendously helpful, and I literally 

could spend all day with you. I have so many questions to ask. But 

I am getting notes from my staff that I am already approaching 3 

hours of your time here this morning. 

So it is running out your patience. I know you have other work 

to do. But it has been tremendously helpful. And I am going to 

leave the record open because I have some additional questions we 

may submit to you in writing. 

The testimony was terrific. I just can’t tell you how compelling 

it was to go over it yesterday, reading all of your various suggestions and ideas and statistics. Particularly, I must tell you, on the 

homeless, it was just breath-taking. I was reading it to my wife 

this morning about 6:30 a.m. and with our 5-year-old sitting there, 

talking about predilection for separation between parents and children who are homeless. It was a very moving number to me, very 

sad to see that happen. 

I thank everyone who is in the room, and so many of you do so 

much every day. I promised you I would let you ask some questions, but I think we have run out of time. But if you have some 

additional questions, let us know and we will try and submit them 

to people here at the panel. And we will move on and then try to 

build some support for this permanent council. 

Again, I have talked to people at the Yale Child Study Center 

about the IDEA law, maybe with Save The Children on developing 

that report card so we can start looking each year at where we are 

headed and when we are stepping back a bit. 

That may help my colleagues and others, Ed. It may give them 

some sense of this instead of having to wait every 20 years to get 

some report how things are to know the trim lines because I have 
63 

got to believe again—I mean, this is—again, this ought to be an 

issue that transcends any ideology of politics. I can’t imagine a subject matter in which there ought to be a greater sense of common 

interest than figuring out how we do a better job with all the pressures on families that are tremendous today. 

And the stress that you point out, Ed, and everyone has mentioned here is just huge. And it isn’t just on the poorest of families. 

Hard-working middle-income families are all of a sudden watching 

a dad at age 50, watch them lose a job and wondering where the 

next one comes from, and the kind of pressure that is associated 

with that, and the long-term effects. 

Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was appearing before me the other day in my other hat as the chairman 

of the Banking Committee, and he has written extensively on the 

long-term effects of recessions like this and beyond just the immediate loss of job, but what it does. The long-term implications, behavioral effects that it has on families and individuals, felt long 

after recessions are over with statistically. When work comes back 

and people are re-employed and the economy begins to improve, 

there are residual effects of these downturns economically that are 

felt for years and years and years afterwards. 

So beyond all the numbers we talk about, in terms of gross domestic product and unemployment numbers and foreclosures and 

all the other things, there are other things occurring out there that 

are far more difficult to calibrate on a daily or weekly or monthly 

and annual basis that we are going to live with for a long time. 

And we are experiencing them already. 

So these issues are going to be with us for a while, and we just 

need to do a better job of addressing them. And you have been a 

great help this morning, and I thank all of you. How about a round 

of applause for our witnesses? 

[Applause.] 

Thank you, Ed. 

And they brought this gavel up. So I will use it one more time. 

[Laughter.] 

The committee is adjourned. How is that? 

[Additional material follows.] 
64 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBRA P. HAUSER, PH.D., M.S.W. 

I cannot convey my depth of gratitude to Senator Dodd for his decades of enlightened leadership on behalf of children. His early support of children and their families, years before it became chic and before he had children of his own, exemplifies 

his compassion, wisdom, and courage. 

Thank you for allowing me the honor of participating in these historic hearings 

on the State of the American Child and inviting me to present written testimony. 

Facts 

• Since 1958, infant mortality has risen to 7 percent, doubling among minority 

groups. 

• In 2005, 2,642 Connecticut children were homeless and 34,428 people—including children—were turned away from homeless shelters for lack of room. 

• As of 2006, 17 percent of children were obese and 22 percent were food insecure. 

• In 2007, 85,530 or 10.6 percent of Connecticut’s children under 18 lived in poverty, costing $11,800 per child per year of poverty in lost future productivity. 

• On average, in the United States, only 20 percent of children who require mental health services receive them as the result of a profound shortage of youth therapists, prohibitive waiting lists in community clinics, ignorance or lack of awareness 

of symptoms (i.e., seeing troubled kids as bad rather than in need of help), and a 

long-standing social stigma related to mental illness. 

• Under our current criminal justice system, the number of prison cells needed 

in the United States can be predicted by calculating how many fourth grade boys 

cannot read. 

• Among juveniles in detention, 70 percent are mentally ill, 50 percent have been 

exposed to or are victims of trauma, and 90 percent cannot read above the sixth 

grade level. 

• The achievement gap puts minority youths 4 years behind non-minority students; yet even the best U.S. students are 2 years behind their international counterparts. 

• Formerly a world leader in high school graduation rates, today the U.S. ranks 

18th among the top 24 industrialized nations. 

• Closing the U.S. achievement gap would increase our GDP from 9 percent to 

16 percent and up to $1.8 trillion. 

INTRODUCTION

The problems besetting America’s children have significant negative consequences 

for our Nation’s overall potential and productivity. But solving those problems is 

complicated by significant State-by-State differences in how children are faring as 

well as a lack of a coherent national children’s policy. A national commission on 

children might begin laying the groundwork to provide that vision by coordinating, 

evaluating, and initiating effective public policy. 

I thoroughly support Senator Dodd’s proposal to initiate a U.S. Commission on 

Children and America’s Young People. Establishing such a national body focused on 

the policy issues facing American children and youths is an exceptional and muchneeded step. I hope and pray it will have real authority to fundamentally improve 

the lives of American children. I also hope this body can be more than a study commission or academic clearinghouse. I would like it to be given legal authority and 

fiscal responsibility over U.S. domestic policy related to children and youth. To ensure this, I suggest that the Director of this body become a cabinet secretary with 

direct access to the President. 

The U.S. Commission on Children and America’s Young People could establish 

standards of well-being for American children, coordinate Federal policy affecting 

young people, and oversee program evaluation and funding. 

The following remarks address the structure, scope, and authority of the proposed 

commission and outline possible directions of first-year initiatives for the committee’s consideration. 

STRUCTURE OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CHILDREN

I recommend that the commission have a national director, who would be a member of the President’s cabinet, and five or six regional deputy directors. Each State 

should have a State director responsible for recruiting qualified people with expertise in a range of areas—people who are also gifted, energetic, and committed to 
65 

children and their issues. State directors should be responsible for gathering and 

synthesizing information about issues facing children and their families within their 

States; they should also be responsible for doing in-State program evaluations. State 

directors should also review outcome data to inform future funding decisions. 

As America undergoes rapid economic changes, it is imperative that this national 

body has fluid bottom-up and top-down communication capacities. It is likewise essential that the commission’s leadership and board have access to the varied perspectives of parents, educators, physicians, psychologists, social workers, community 

workers, athletic coaches, child advocates, lawyers, religious leaders and others who 

have ongoing and direct contact with children and can knowledgeably develop 

benchmarks for children’s well-being, evaluate strengths and weaknesses in existing 

services, and offer suggestions for addressing unmet needs. 

The commission would be well-served to have a racially and culturally diverse 

board from a wide range of backgrounds—including businesspeople as well as community members knowledgeable about their regions’ problems—who can help establish a policy agenda. 

SCOPE OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CHILDREN

Science now acknowledges that brains in both females and males do not develop 

fully until the mid-twenties. Thus, to be effective, the age range addressed by the 

commission should be broad, perhaps from birth to age 25. The length of time it 

takes to reach adulthood in an advanced industrialized nation suggests that young 

people need to be supported by policies through college or young adulthood. The current legal cut-off age of support and services for youth at 18 now seems arbitrary 

and out of sync with reality. Investing in the well-being of America’s young people 

for an extended period would likely significantly increase their economic success. 

INDICATORS OF CHILDREN’S WELLBEING

Indicators of children’s well-being should include both physical and psychological 

milestones. These indicators should also include other relevant educational statistics: grade level reading; number of disciplinary actions per year; and hours devoted 

to sports, creative activities, or community involvement. Indicators should also address rates of youth violence and crime, teen pregnancy, and high school dropouts. 

Information from a number of wraparound indicators will provide a more useful, 

three dimensional assessment of how children are actually doing. It may be prudent 

to access milestones every 2 years in order to stay abreast of the state of children 

and make policy course corrections as needed. 

The following indicators are examples of ways to think about well-being from multiple perspectives. As a clinical psychologist, my view of children’s well-being in infancy is often demarcated by a baby’s ability to lift his or her head, learn to suckle, 

and form an attachment with the primary caregiver. In toddlerhood, normal behaviors may include brief interest in exploration away from the primary caregiver and 

the capacity to play. For elementary school children, some indicators of success 

could include accessing growing imagination and school competency. Identity exploration, an ability to think abstractly, and a preoccupation with friends could be considered markers for teenagers, while the knowledge of one’s career interest and romantic involvement may be the notable hallmarks of the early twenties. 

TECHNOLOGY AND MILESTONES

How Are the Children Doing Today? 

Investments should be made in developing the capacity to gather information and 

chart how America’s children are doing at a given time. Developmental markers, 

once determined, need to be entered into a centralized database. Data could be obtained from schools, mental health settings, hospitals and doctors’ offices, as well 

as the offices of DCF, juvenile justice and probation. Milestones without the technology to track and analyze the condition of America’s children will be meaningless. 

This need for data may also provide an impetus for the use of electronic medical 

records, which should simultaneously improve the delivery of overall health care— 

including mental health care—for all children and their families. 

With a databank infrastructure in place, the national commission could evaluate 

wellness and the needs of American children and provide a State-by-State report 

card at the end of each year, as well as an aggregate measure of U.S. progress or 

failure. This national grade could be periodically compared to other developed countries to estimate how American children are doing compared to their global counterparts on a number of indicators across time. 
66 

THE NEXUS OF EDUCATION, MENTAL HEALTH, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

At five to nine times the world average, the United States has the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. This reflects the upside-down nature of investments whereby America over-funds its prison programs and under-funds its 

education and mental health programs. This topsy-turvy approach to setting policies 

is exacerbated by the lack of a coherent frame of reference for addressing the needs 

of child and youth. We have no means of coordinating young people’s policy across 

agencies. And previously, we seem to lack the political will to keep all our children 

out of harm’s way. 

INVESTMENTS THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO MAKE IN OUR CHILDREN

1. Attend to the Basic Needs of Food and Shelter First—Eliminate hunger, 

food insecurity, and homelessness in America. Homelessness and hunger must no 

longer ravage the lives of American children. A child who is living with chronic instability, fear, and hunger will be unable to develop normally or learn appropriately. 

Invest in affordable housing. 

Invest in universal childcare. 

2. Expand Children’s Health Care to Include Dental Care—Dental care is 

essential to ongoing good health for children and adults. 

3. Expand Children’s Health Care to Include Mental Health Care—Improve 

access to effective mental health services, beginning in pre-school. Early detection 

and treatment of troubled students is much cheaper than the costs of incarceration, 

lost wages and taxes, and welfare. 

Develop a comprehensive public education campaign, akin to the anti-smoking 

campaign, to reduce the stigma connected with mental illness, emotional problems, 

learning disorders, and other problems of the human experience. 

End law-and-order education policies—zero tolerance, expedient suspensions, and 

drop-of-the-hat expulsions—by training school personnel to have greater psychological awareness and by providing administrators with abundant alternative solutions, such as access to mental health services in schools and in the community. 

Offer incentives (such as college loan forgiveness) for therapists to learn how to 

treat children appropriately in order to address the profound shortage of qualified 

professionals. 

Stop using jail as the answer to children’s social, emotional, educational, and economic problems. Stop warehousing poor, illiterate, and/or emotionally disturbed children in juvenile detention centers. Give them the help they need treating their problems and remedying their underlying causes. 

Dramatically expand mental health services by increasing access, offering incentives for college students to study child modalities, improving quality of treatment, 

and disseminating information about effective, evidence-based practices by means of 

publications and electronic media in clinics and therapist’s offices, and unifying requirements for continuing education for all clinicians treating children. 

4. Expand the Definition of Trauma, Acknowledge its Ubiquity, and Provide Early Treatment—In our increasingly violent world, trauma has been traditionally viewed as exposure to violence, as either a witness or a victim, that occurs 

in the home (domestic violence), in the community (school or gang violence), in the 

context of combat or torture, and in a natural disaster. The definition of trauma 

should now be expanded to include significant losses in childhood, and appropriate 

treatment should be made available. Trauma criteria should now include: the loss 

of a first-degree relative due to death, illness, divorce, military service or incarceration; threats to bodily integrity, such as with cancer, severe illness, accidental injury or violent crime; and the chronic deprivation of poverty, physical or sexual 

abuse, and homelessness. Trauma could also be defined as any unexpected event in 

which one feels overwhelmingly threatened and helpless, such as with a sudden job 

loss. 

There is a deeply concerning U.S. trend whereby there is at once greater tolerance 

of violence and greater violence in homes and communities. There are several wellknown, but chronically ignored studies on the desensitizing effects on children who 

play violent games or watch violent electronic media, such as television or online 

videos. There is little that is positive, redeeming or inspiring on mainstream media 

outlets. The popularity of aggressive, so-called reality TV shows illustrates the level 

of American interpersonal competition and tolerance, even taste for aggression. 

5. Support Effective and Lasting Education Reform—Develop and implement a voluntary, consensus-driven national curriculum to ensure consistent educational standards across State lines. 

Emphasize the importance of a strong system of support and resources that includes curriculum guidelines and professional teacher development. Be cautioned 
67 

against jumping directly from developing the standards to administering aligned assessments. 

Require U.S. students to meet international standards of learning and student 

performance. 

6. Give Juveniles Genuine & Age-Appropriate Justice—Treat problems 

early. Small children have small problems; big kids have big problems. 

Detention centers need to be rehabilitative—not punitive. Except for those who 

are very ill or dangerous, the practice of keeping young people in juvenile detention 

centers must be abolished. 

Provide readily available alternatives to detention when necessary, including residential treatment and respite for caregivers. 

Widely expand community services and recreational facilities and make them 

available from early childhood through young adulthood. 

Invest heavily in after-school programs and trade school training programs, especially for at-risk youth. 

CAUTIONARY NOTES ON CHILDREN

NEW MEDIA

Hillary Clinton noted that America was undergoing the largest experiment on 

children in history regarding their long hours of exposure to computers, video 

games, and cell phones—an exposure that leads to addiction for some. Despite the 

negative effects on weight associated with the sedentary nature of sitting in front 

of computer or TV screens for extended periods, the effects of over-stimulating images and interactions, often violent or gratuitously sexual in nature, and the immediate gratification of computer interaction (faster and faster) on short- and longterm physical and mental development in children are virtually unknown and largely unexplored. 

It would be in the best interest of children and young people to have a comprehensive and rigorous series of studies examine the possible effects of children’s exposure 

to and interaction with current, new, and emerging media formats and products. 

Leverage the power of new media for productive uses. 

As part of its policy innovation, the national commission should find ways to promote and prevent contagious behaviors through leveraging the viral nature of online 

media. 

TELEVISION AND MARKETING

Since World War II, advertisers have spent trillions of dollars to develop media 

campaigns to influence America’s purchasing decisions and shape our worldview. 

Companies and marketing agencies routinely develop products and manipulate audiences telling us what we need to be smart, affluent, or desirable. Consumptive 

marketing is pervasive in American culture and children are bombarded with marketing images of cultural ideals of beauty and success and relentless sales pitches 

for food and products no one needs. 

This leads to a ‘‘me, me, and me’’ culture of acquisition and interpersonal competition. Relentless persuasive messages both in online media and television must be 

examined and regulated. The national commission may find it prudent to begin to 

develop critical viewing or media awareness messages to help inoculate children 

from shallow marketing and sales messages. 

CRISIS OF YOUTH

Problems in Urban Settings 

Every day, I become more certain that there is growing despair and hopelessness 

in the hearts and minds of today’s urban, minority youth and it takes different 

forms in boys and girls. I have witnessed firsthand the hopelessness in children’s 

eyes living in poor urban settings often taking the form of marijuana or alcohol 

abuse, teen pregnancy, gang violence and youth murder. I have thought to myself 

as I drove by a dusty playground or dilapidated soccer field that we all like to think 

that if children can do well in school they can somehow leave their family and 

neighborhoods, learn new social graces and make new friends, apply and get into 

college and rise to the working or middle social classes. 

I am wholly unconvinced. 

Doing well in urban schools is difficult, compounded by the enormous pressures 

experienced in living in female headed, single parent households. Good teachers 

often won’t work in urban settings, and if they do they get easily burned out by the 

symptoms of despair—anger, illiteracy, and disruptive behavior in overcrowded 
68 

classrooms. Most children in urban centers, live in a female headed, single parent 

household, where mother is overwhelmed and depressed, lucky if she is working at 

a low-wage job. Without good parenting, high performing schools, access to extracurricular activities and social opportunities in safe neighborhoods the pathway out 

of poverty is forever blocked. I have personally seen again and again the hardship 

of single mothers raising sons, and daughters, without involvement of their fathers, 

living with little income, support or security; it would take nothing less than relentless political will, sustained and inspired leadership combined with coordinated public policy change to lift those children and their families out of poverty into the middle class. 

Once and for all end teenage pregnancy, early parenthood, and out-of-wedlock 

births. This should be a commission priority in year one. If Madison Avenue can 

convince everyone, and I mean everyone, that luxury items are a necessity and that 

McDonalds is healthy, with a similarly robust and unrelenting campaign we can end 

this contagious and destructive social pattern promoting poverty and harming children, both teen parents and their babies. 

In my childhood, I remember vividly the admonishments against littering (‘‘Don’t 

be a Litter Bug’’) and being taught the terrifying consequences of heroin use and 

addiction. There has not been a government-sponsored campaign to inoculate children from the stream of negative messages and images in recent memory and these 

protective and effective social marketing campaigns for young children need to be 

urgently resurrected. 

Problems in the Suburbs 

The recent gang rape of a young teenage girl by several young teenage boys in 

Madison, CT, an affluent suburb, represents another kind of crisis of youth. These 

heinous acts occurring under the influence of alcohol were captured on a cell phone 

and sent out to friends. These were children not living in financial poverty but living in a kind of moral poverty. Children of all ages and socioeconomic classes are 

exposed to a torrent of gratuitously sexual and aggressive messages and images in 

every media format. This desensitizing and dangerous exposure combined with the 

disinhibition associated with alcohol abuse leads to disaster, particularly for teenagers. Far too many parents continue to allow teenagers to have parties in their 

homes and tolerate drinking of alcohol by underage children. A national body on 

children can seize this opportunity in crisis to develop educational campaigns to better protect children against the flood of unhealthy messages and educate parents 

to be more aware of the importance of limit setting, parental supervision and legal 

responsibility. 

ETHICS AND CHILDREN

A constant bombardment with messages urging consumption of marketed goods 

helps distort children’s view of themselves, their families and their community. Before the recession, 70 percent of the GDP came from having Americans buy goods 

and services. This leads to a worldview concerned with acquisition of things and status symbols, leading to interpersonal competition rather than interpersonal cooperation. 

The U.S. Commission on Children and America’s Young People—or National Commission on Children and Youth in America—could initiate and sustain a public education campaign to educate youth, and the public at-large, to the virtues of an ethic 

of service to others. Championing the rewards of doing for others may help to make 

children’ lives more meaningful, provide much-needed support to vulnerable populations and begin to mitigate the onslaught of negative influences of media and marketing. 

SUMMARY

I thoroughly support Senator Dodd’s proposal to initiate a U.S. Commission on 

Children and America’s Young People. Establishing such a national body focused on 

the policy issues facing American children and youths will provide fundamental direction and positive change for American children historically not a domestic policy 

priority. In order for this new commission to work, it must have legal and financial 

authority in directing public policy affecting U.S. children. To ensure this, I suggest 

that the director of this body be designated as a cabinet member with direct access 

to the President. 

The problems weighing on America’s children have significant negative consequences for our Nation’s potential and productivity. With political will and strong 

leadership, the national commission on children will be able to make life altering 

improvements by laying the groundwork to provide a vision for U.S. children by co-
69 

ordinating, evaluating, and initiating effective public policy to dramatically improve 

their children’s lives. 

The U.S. Commission on Children and America’s Young People once established, 

can set standards and follow indicators of well-being for American children, coordinate Federal policy affecting young people, and oversee program evaluation and 

funding. 

Senator Dodd’s vision of a national body on children is a far-reaching, life saving 

initiative, one that will forever raise the spirit of children in need and help lift all 

children out of harm’s way. 

I am deeply grateful for Senator Dodd’s compassion, wisdom and courage on behalf of American children and would like to take this opportunity to thank him for 

his 35 years in the U.S. Senate positively impacting the lives of millions of children 

and families. We will miss him as our State champion and national hero but will 

continue to expect great things from this great leader and great man. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. WICKWIRE, ATTORNEY

This statement is being presented by me, Attorney William B. Wickwire, who was 

the Prosecutor for Juvenile Matters in New London County, State of Connecticut, 

for 30 years. I retired on July 1, 2009, and I am currently a sole practitioner primarily in New Haven County, State of Connecticut. My practice of law is focused 

on defending juveniles in the Connecticut Juvenile Justice System. 

I will now take a child, charged with one or more delinquency offenses through 

Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System, with comments along the way, as to how the 

Juvenile System works today, and how it could work better on behalf of our juvenile 

children. Before I do this, it is incumbent that I mention a recent change in Connecticut’s Jurisdictional Age for Juveniles. Connecticut increased the age to 17 years 

of age for the prosecution of all juveniles. Adulthood now begins at 18 years of age, 

instead of at 16 years of age, for two main reasons: 

1. Connecticut, as with 47 other States, now allows prosecution of juveniles beyond their 16th birthdays. 

2. Connecticut agrees with the scientific literature that a child’s brain is not fully 

mature at 16 years of age. 

Once a child is charged with a delinquency offense, the child is presented in juvenile court and given his/her rights and the nature of the charge(s) against the child. 

However, one key difference in Juvenile Court, as opposed to Adult Court, is that 

once a child enters the courthouse, the child is assigned a probation officer. The probation officer works with the child and parent(s) or guardian throughout the process. Therefore, a child can receive treatment and services early in the processing 

of the child’s case. This must be with the agreement of the child, the child’s parent(s) or guardian and the child’s attorney (if the child is so represented). In Adult 

Court, a probation officer is not assigned to a defendant until after his/her conviction. 

Juvenile Court is very treatment-oriented, with the best interest of the child as 

paramount. However, Connecticut does not have enough diagnostic and treatment 

facilities for juveniles. Connecticut has only one facility that provides a comprehensive report, after a 45-day in-patient commitment for drug issue(s). The report indicates potential treatment options for a child’s drug and/or alcohol problem(s). Connecticut has only one residential psychiatric hospital for the diagnosis of a child’s 

potential mental health issue(s). Unfortunately, many children languish in detention 

(lock-up) centers, because there are insufficient beds at the two in-state facilities. 

Especially as to children with mental health issue(s), the choice becomes the child’s 

remainder at the diagnostic hospital or return to detention (lock-up). A child’s remainder at the diagnostic hospital after the report has been completed is not in the 

best interest of the child. The child is not receiving therapeutic treatment. Furthermore, the hospital does not have a bed available for another child. 

After the child’s initial presentment in Juvenile Court, the case goes to a pre-trial. 

Most juvenile cases are settled at the pre-trial level. The case then goes to a probation officer for a thorough report with recommendations as to the best interest of 

the child. The settlement of a juvenile case could result in a recommendation of 

community service with no adjudication of delinquency. More serious offenses, usually sexual assault offenses, are tried in Juvenile Court. As to the most serious 

crimes, the children are transferred to the Adult Court for handling as adult criminals. If a child is adjudicated a delinquent after a trial, the probation officer prepares a thorough report with recommendations. 

If the recommendation(s) is probation, the terms and conditions are entered by 

the Court. Problems in Juvenile Court stem from a probation officer’s recommendation that the child be placed out of the home by DCF (The Department of Children 
70 

and Families). DCF does not have enough funding to place, in a timely manner, all 

of the children that require alternative placements. Therefore, the child languishes 

in detention (lock-up), until the funding is available for the child’s placement. 

Certain male juvenile delinquents are placed at the Connecticut Juvenile Training 

School in Middletown, CT. The cost of a year’s placement is prohibitive. Not only 

that, but the Training School was built and designed by the Roland Administration 

and was effectively an inappropriate placement facility for children. As stated in the 

New York Times article of June 25, 2004, page B5, ‘‘One of the biggest complaints 

about the facility is the cell-like rooms, which consist of a plastic bed and a shelf.’’ 

The cells are quite small and would be more appropriate for convicted adult defendants. As of today, July 29, 2010, the rooms are still small and cell-like. Governor 

Rell tried to create three (3) regional centers for adjudicated delinquents and hoped 

to close the Training School. Her efforts failed for financial reasons, and Connecticut 

male juveniles are still placed at the Training School. Improvements have been 

made at the Training School, as to the treatment of the children placed there. However, it is still an inappropriate placement for Connecticut’s children. Maybe the 

funding can be appropriated to open the three regional treatment centers. Connecticut still does not have an appropriate facility to place adjudicated delinquent 

girls that need secure long-term placements. 

With the influx of the 16-year-old children, and eventually, the 17-year-old children into Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System, I can only hope that the appropriate funds can be made available to service, effectively, all of Connecticut’s juvenile delinquent children. A delinquent child in Connecticut should have a good 

chance to become a happy and productive member of society. Hopefully, this occurs. 

At Senator Christopher Dodd’s Connecticut Hearing on Monday, July 26, 2010 as 

to the State of the Child, various preventative programs that aim to nurture and 

to protect Connecticut’s children, all indicated a lack of appropriate funding. Not 

only do we need sufficient funding of preventative programs for children, but we 

also need sufficient funding as to intervention programs, such as Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System. 

Speaking as a resident of the State of Connecticut and as a retired Juvenile Court 

prosecutor, I want the best for our children. 

At this time, I commend and thank Senator Christopher Dodd for his untiring and 

successful efforts on behalf of America’s children, who will benefit from his leadership and dedication. 

Respectfully submitted. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ