Shriver Center: Advocacy News

New Study on Abstinence-Only Sex Education Released

2010-03-18T17:46:41Z

The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine released a new study in February on the efficacy of different types of sex education for middle school students, and found an abstinence-only curriculum to be the most effective in delaying the onset of sexual activity. The study, “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months,” is the first ever to show an abstinence-only program to be effective and has sent ripples through both sides of the ongoing sex education debate.

Most notable about this study is the kind of abstinence-only program used. Instead of being crafted to meet Bush-era federal funding guidelines, which required programs to be intentionally disparaging of all forms of contraception and any premarital sex and forbade them from teaching about safe sex, this abstinence-only program is not moralistic, does not portray sex or contraception in a negative light, and promotes abstinence “until a later time in life” instead of until marriage.

The study measured the efficacy of different types of interventions in delaying the onset of sexual activity and increasing the use of condoms. The abstinence-only program was one of five intervention programs, the others being a safer sex-only program, two different comprehensive sex education programs, and a general health-promotion program, which served as a control group. Four programs were each eight hours in length and delivered over two sessions; one of the comprehensive programs was twelve hours and three sessions long.

Follow-up interviews with participants in the five programs revealed that two years after the intervention programs,

all programs saw a marked increase in sexual activity;
among students who had not had sex before the intervention, 33.5 percent in the abstinence-only group were likely to have had sex after two years, compared to 48.5 percent for the other four groups, with no significant difference among these groups;
participants in both comprehensive groups were significantly less likely to have multiple partners than participants in the control group; and
all groups saw an increase in condom use, with no significant differences in condom use across the five groups.

These findings are promising for advocacy groups – such as National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy - which seek to advance age-appropriate, evidence-based sex education, but the prevailing limitations of abstinence-only education raise serious questions as well, as outlined by SIECUS in its review of the study. Of particular concern is that, among the participants in the study, with an average age of 12 years old, 23.4 percent - including 20.3 percent in the abstinence-only intervention group – were already having sex. Nationally only 6 percent of teens report having sex before age 13, and the average age of first sex across the country is 17. Withholding critical information about contraception and safe sex from teens who are already sexually active only puts them at further risk.

Cautious about the implications of their findings, the authors of the study state that “the results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious … or that other approaches should be abandoned.” They recognize that the very targeted nature of the prevention program, created specifically for sixth- and seventh-grade African Americans in an urban setting, limits the generalizability of the results. Whether this program would work for older teens, or teens of other races in other areas of the country, is “unclear.” A follow-up editorial in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine further cautions that “no public policy should be based on the results of one study.”

Federal funding for abstinence-only sex education began under the Clinton administration and gained notoriety under Pres. George W. Bush, during whose second term teen pregnancy rates rose for the first time in over fifteen years. President Obama’s proposed 2010 fiscal year budget shifted funding priorities, and the budget that passed eliminated abstinence-only funding, rededicating $110 million to evidence-based sex education programs, of which there are many. The proposed budget for the 2011 fiscal year increases that amount to $129 million. While the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine study contributes in some ways to an understanding of “what works” in sex education, its findings about early teen sex and condom use confirm that there is still a long way to go.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 11
March 19, 2010

New Research on Pregnancy and Reproductive Coercion and Pregnancy and Poverty

2010-02-08T20:32:37Z

Startlingly high rates of forced pregnancy by abusive male partners of women seeking care at family planning clinics in Northern California were reported last month in a groundbreaking new study published online (see “Pregnancy Coercion, Intimate Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy” at the website of the journal Contraception). Of the 1,300 women between the ages of 16 and 29 in the survey,

19 percent reported experiencing pregnancy coercion;
15 percent reported birth-control sabotage;
41 percent reported at least one unintended pregnancy; and
53 percent reported having suffered physical or sexual intimate partner violence.

Most significant, over one-third (35 percent) of the women who experienced partner violence also reported some form of reproductive coercion. For these women, the risk of unintended pregnancy was double.

Previous studies examined the correlation between domestic violence and unintended pregnancy, but reproductive coercion has been largely underrecognized as an issue in itself. This study targeted particular behaviors to assess pregnancy coercion and birth-control sabotage, asking questions such as: Did the survey respondent ever have a dating partner threaten to leave if she did not get pregnant, force or pressure her to become pregnant, damage a condom on purpose, or hide her birth-control devices from her? Did she ever hide her use of birth control from her partner?

A Family Violence Prevention Fund staff member, Rebecca Levenson, coauthored the study. The Family Violence Prevention Fund has developed Know More, Say More, an initiative to promote dialogue and raise awareness about pregnancy coercion and birth-control sabotage. The women whose stories are shared on this site—stories of abusers who use pregnancy to exert control over their partners’ bodies and trap them in abusive relationships—are the voices behind the numbers in the reproductive coercion study. They tell not only of unintended pregnancy, violence, and forced sex but also of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and other sexually transmitted diseases, miscarriages, and forced abortion.

This study underscores the need for immediate action, including implementing comprehensive screenings in clinical settings and identifying strategies—such as “invisible” forms of birth control and emergency contraception—to minimize risk.

This study comes on the heels of another study just published on poverty and vulnerability during pregnancy. From the January issue of Maternal and Child Health Journal, this study, “Poverty, Near-Poverty, and Hardship Around the Time of Pregnancy,” measures the types and quantities of hardships of women who are pregnant, comparing results across income levels. The different hardships assessed in the survey are divorce/separation, domestic violence (physical only), homelessness, financial difficulties, involuntary job loss, incarceration, food insecurity, and lack of social support just before and during pregnancy. The study assesses also other sociodemographic characteristics in addition to income level—race/ethnicity, education level, age at delivery, marital status at delivery, insurance, and parity.

Although 43 percent of all women across income levels experienced at least one hardship during or just before their pregnancy, results of this study revealed very strong correlations between income level and hardship prevalence: for each category of hardship, prevalence increased as income decreased. This study further found that

4 percent of childbearing women overall and 7–9 percent of low-income childbearing women were homeless at some time just before or during their pregnancy;
nearly one-third of low-income women were food-insecure during their pregnancy; and
low income was more the rule than the exception for the over 160,000 pregnant women surveyed, with 30 percent living in poverty and 20 percent considered “near poor.”

Previous research repeatedly confirmed the adverse consequences of these hardships on the health of pregnant women, their infants, and any of their older children. The high prevalence of these hardships, particularly among low-income women, has alarming implications for society beyond the immediate population of women affected, and this “should be of particular concern because of the likely long-term impact of maternal and infant experiences on our nation’s overall health.”

These two new studies highlight the urgent need for social and health policies that support and protect both pregnant women and domestic violence survivors.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 10
February 8, 2010

An Agenda For Change: An Illinois Perspective on Creating a Better Future for America’s Women and Girls

2010-01-19T17:14:28Z

The Women’s Law and Policy Project of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law is pleased to announce the publication of An Agenda for Change: An Illinois Perspective on Creating a Better Future for America’s Women and Girls. A product of collaborative efforts with women and girls’ advocates in Illinois and inspired by our work in communities across the state, Agenda for Change offers specific recommendations for the federal government to improve the well-being of our nation’s women and girls, their families, and their communities.

Throughout American history the federal government has played a critical role in advancing the human rights of women and girls, achieving progress in their economic security, physical and mental well-being, and reproductive health. Yet women and girls continue to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of poverty in the United States; women and girls constitute over 55 percent of both our nation’s 39.8 million people who live below the poverty line and the 17.1 million who live in extreme poverty. Key to eliminating poverty in our society is investing in the well-being of women and girls.

Agenda for Change addresses several key areas of policy development with specific recommendations for implementation by the federal government. Quality education and skill development, gainful employment, comprehensive health care, economic security, freedom from violence, and adequate and affordable housing should be guaranteed by federal policies and programs. Policy objectives must also take into account the discrimination and disparities that some women encounter based on immigration status, geographic location, criminal record, physical or mental ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and age. Developing comprehensive antidiscrimination policies and creating a humane safety net are at the heart of all of the recommendations. Integrated approaches that bridge these areas in a way that recognizes the fundamental human rights of all individuals are critical to promoting the well-being of women and girls.

The Women’s Law and Policy Project continues its own efforts for change here in Illinois. Featured on the front page of the January 10, 2010, issue of the Chicago Tribune is an article about one of these efforts, the Ensuring Success in School Initiative. The initiative promotes the education rights of elementary-and-secondary-school-age parents and expectant parents, and student survivors of domestic and sexual violence, with comprehensive laws and policies to keep them in school, keep them safe, and help them succeed. Wendy Pollack, director of the Women’s Law and Policy Project and member of the statewide Ensuring Success in School Task Force, is a key advocate of these laws and policies and is quoted in the article. Read the full article in the Tribune and learn more about the Shriver Center’s efforts to protect and empower young women and girls here.

The insight from our shared advocacy efforts, such as the Ensuring Success in School Initiative, is the backbone of Agenda for Change. We hope that Agenda for Change will inform federal-level policy to ensure that all of our nation’s women and girls are guaranteed justice, economic advancement, and a brighter future.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 9
January 19, 2010

Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act Amendments

2009-12-14T22:21:52Z

The Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA), enacted in 2003 and amended this year effective August 24, promotes employment security, economic stability, and safety for employees coping with domestic or sexual violence.

VESSA permits eligible employees to take unpaid, job-guaranteed leave from employment to deal with domestic violence, sexual violence, dating violence, or stalking. An employee or a member of the employee’s family or household may be the violence survivor. The employee may take a leave to seek medical attention, legal assistance, and remedies such as an order of protection or civil no-contact order, counseling, safety planning, relocation, or for other specified purposes.

VESSA prohibits covered employers from discrimination regarding the conditions or privileges of employment based on an employee’s status as a survivor of domestic or sexual violence or as an employee with a family or household member who is a survivor of domestic or sexual violence, or based on any request for leave or other accommodations allowed under the law.

Prior Law and Amended Law Compared

Eligible Employees. VESSA covers full-time and part-time employees who are survivors of domestic or sexual violence or who have a family or household member who is a survivor of domestic or sexual violence.

Under the prior law, eligible employees work for the state or any agency of the state; any unit of local government or school district; or a private employer of at least 50 employees. Under the amended law, the threshold number of employees in private industry is reduced from 50 to 15 or more employees.

Under prior law, the definition of “family or household member” for whom an employee may take a leave and is protected by the nondiscrimination provisions includes a spouse, parent, son, daughter, and persons jointly residing in the same household. Under the amended law, the definition of “family or household member” is expanded to include individuals related by blood or by present or prior marriage, and individuals who share a relationship through a son or daughter.

Unpaid Leave. Under the prior law, an employee who works for a covered employer may take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave during any 12-month period. The employee may take a leave intermittently or on a reduced work schedule.
Under the amended law, an employee who works for a private employer with 50 or more employees remains eligible for up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave. An employee who works for a private employer with between 15 and 49 employees is eligible for up to 8 workweeks of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave during any 12-month period. The employee may take a leave intermittently or on a reduced work schedule.

Nondiscrimination. VESSA prohibits an employer from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against any individual because

the individual is or is perceived to be a victim of domestic or sexual violence; or
the individual attended, participated in, prepared for, or requested leave for a criminal or civil court proceeding related to an incident of domestic or sexual violence of which the individual or a family or household member was the victim; or
the individual requested a reasonable accommodation (e.g., transfers; reassignments; modified work schedules; leave; change of telephone number; change of seat assignment; installation of a lock; or implementation of safety procedures); or
the workplace is disrupted or threatened by the action of the perpetrator of the domestic or sexual violence.

Under the amended law, employees who work for a private employer of 15 or more employees are now covered by the nondiscrimination protections.

Other Changes

The amended law also

tracks the definition of “domestic violence” with the language in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986;
clarifies who is a domestic violence perpetrator by adding to the VESSA definition of “domestic violence” a citation to the definition of “family and household member” in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986;
updates the definition of “electronic communications”;
adds references to “civil no-contact order” to update the law since there was no civil no-contact order in 2003;
clarifies that an employee does not have to substitute accrued paid or unpaid leave for leave provided under VESSA;
clarifies that a reasonable accommodation must be made in a timely fashion;
adds language to require an employer to help an employee document violence that takes place on the job, such as harassing phone calls; and
adds language that says an employer that did not post the required VESSA notice (similar to posting required notices regarding minimum wage, employment discrimination, and sexual harassment) may not rely on the VESSA provision that requires employees to give to the employer a document stating that the employee or a family or household member of the employee’s is a domestic or sexual violence survivor and the reason for the leave (the document may be the employee’s sworn statement).

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 8
December 14, 2009

LGBT Rights: New Federal Initiatives to Combat Discrimination

2009-11-30T18:24:17Z

After more than a decade of advocacy by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender rights groups, the definition of federal hate crimes was broadened to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity when President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act late last month. With the enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability have been added to the classes of minorities already protected by the first passage of hate crimes legislation; that 1968 legislation covered race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. This major victory for the LGBT rights movement promises to build momentum for the advancement of more just federal policies for the LGBT community. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have taken recent steps that will build on this progress by working to eliminate discrimination against the LGBT community and increase community-based organizations’ capacities to provide services for this population.

Last month HUD announced a series of proposals to ensure that its housing programs are inclusive of the LGBT community. HUD plans to issue a proposed rule, which will be open to public comment before becoming regulation, to ensure that no qualified individual or family be denied housing choice based on sexual orientation or gender identity by:

clarifying that the term “family” as used to describe eligible beneficiaries of the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs includes otherwise eligible LGBT individuals and couples;

requiring grantees and those who participate in HUD’s programs to comply with local and state nondiscrimination laws that cover sexual orientation or gender identity; and

specifying that any Federal Housing Administration–insured mortgage loan must be based on the creditworthiness of a borrower and not on unrelated factors or characteristics such as sexual orientation or gender identity.

HUD also will commission the first-ever national study of housing discrimination against members of the LGBT community. In the past, HUD undertook research on the impact of housing discrimination on the basis of race and color, with the most recent study conducted in 2000. This new initiative to confront housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is crucial since, according to experts, in many local jurisdictions LGBT individuals and families, having little or no legal recourse, remain silent after incidents of housing discrimination.

In announcing plans to create the nation’s first national resource center for LGBT elders, HHS is taking steps to address the unique needs of this historically stigmatized population. The new resource center will dispense information, technical assistance, and resources to both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging service providers at the state and community levels to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The center also will educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long-term care. The Administration on Aging will award a single resource center grant at approximately $250,000 per year, pending availability of funds, to an eligible public-private nonprofit organization with experience working on LGBT issues at the national level.

In order to create a more equitable society for the LGBT community, all federal agencies must do more to protect LGBT individuals’ civil rights by establishing comprehensive antidiscrimination laws and directing public funding to resources that support the LGBT population.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 7
November 30, 2009

The Need for Gender Equity in Health Care Coverage

2009-10-22T18:17:40Z

Our nation’s health care system poses unique difficulties for women in accessing affordable and high-quality health care. Since women are more likely than men to need health care services throughout their lives and have lower incomes and fewer resources than men, women are disproportionately burdened by economic barriers to obtaining health care: a 2007 study found that more than three of five adult women under 65 reported a problem paying medical bills or a cost-related problem getting needed health care or both, compared with about half of men. Last week’s Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing, “What Women Want: Equal Benefits for Equal Premiums,” exposed health insurance companies’ discriminatory practices that harm women—gender rating, coverage exclusions of health care services that only women need, and denial of coverage due to “preexisting” conditions that particularly apply to women.

Gender rating—charging same-aged women and men different premiums for identical health coverage—jeopardizes women’s health by producing arbitrary premiums within the individual and group health insurance markets. A recent National Women’s Law Center study illustrates how insurance companies unjustly penalize women simply because of their sex: in the capital cities of states that permit gender rating in the individual health insurance market (39 states including Illinois), over 60 percent of best-selling plans charge a 40-year-old nonsmoking woman a rate between 1 percent and 63 percent higher than what they charge a 40-year-old male who reports recent tobacco usage. Insurance companies charge 25-year-old women up to 84 percent more than men of the same age for individual health plans that exclude maternity coverage, the same study found.

In the group market where employers obtain coverage for their employees, insurers in states that permit gender rating calculate health policy premiums based on the number of women employed by a business. While laws prohibiting sex discrimination in the workplace prevent employers from charging male and female employees different coverage rates, no law bars an insurance company from charging groups different rates based on the sex of the group members. This means that businesses with a predominately female workforce—such as child care where 95 percent of employees are female and home health care where 90 percent of workers are female—end up paying more for their health insurance policies. When businesses are faced with unaffordable premiums, employers pass on more of their health insurance expenses to employees through higher out-of-pocket cost sharing or employers stop offering coverage to workers altogether.

Besides controlling costs, health care reform should guarantee comprehensive benefits including preventive services, treatment for chronic conditions, reproductive services, and end-of-life care. With a majority of individual market health insurance policies lacking comprehensive maternity coverage, women are often forced to purchase optional maternity coverage at rates that can be prohibitively high. Women also have problems accessing comprehensive health services due to individual market insurers classifying pregnancy or having had a Cesarean section as a “preexisting” condition that is ground enough to deny a woman’s application for coverage or even require her to get a sterilization to be eligible for coverage. Insurers are allowed to use a woman’s status as a survivor of domestic violence to deny her health insurance coverage in eight states and the District of Columbia.

All three reform proposals that are being considered in Congress (H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Affordable Health Choices Act, and the Senate Finance Chairman’s Mark) would impose new regulations that would prohibit premium rating based on gender and pre-existing conditions. In fact, the only characteristics that could affect an individual's premium would be age and tobacco use, both of which would be limited changes, family composition and geography. As the fight for health care reform enters the next stage within Congress, legislators must act to ensure gender equity in health insurance coverage and eliminate insurers’ discriminatory policies that unjustly prevent women from obtaining the health care they need.

The Shriver Center health advocacy team is collecting stories about people’s experiences, good and bad, with the American health care system to help inform the current debate on health care reform. If you have a story that you would like to share, click here. To view the Shriver Center’s video series “Real People Demand Health Reform,” featuring stories from the story collection project, click here.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 6
October 22, 2009

U.S. Poverty on the Rise: New Census Data Show Why We Need Social Safety Net and Health Care Reform More than Ever

2009-09-24T18:07:17Z

Between 2007 and 2008, 2.6 million more people fell below the poverty line as the poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent to 13.2 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s recently released annual report. Some 39.8 million people lived below the federal poverty level, which is $22,025 for a family of four, in 2008. The number of Americans without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008, and employment-based coverage continued to decline for the eighth year in a row. However, the 2008 data reveal only the tip of the recession iceberg. One clear indicator that the recession has made poverty more prevalent is the rising unemployment rate. While the full-year average national unemployment rate for 2008 was 5.8 percent, the unemployment rate this year to date has averaged 8.9 percent and registered at 9.7 percent in August (10 percent in Illinois).

In making up the majority (59 percent) of adults living in poverty in 2008, women continue disproportionately to face the burdens of material deprivation. Unmarried and elderly women have been especially hurt by the deepening recession. Three-quarters of adult women who lived in poverty were single—widowed, divorced, separated, or never married—despite being less than half (47 percent) of the adult women population. More than one in five women living in poverty were 60 and older. Compared to 2007, nearly half a million more women lacked health insurance coverage, bringing the total number of women without insurance in 2008 to nearly 17.6 million. A wide gender gap in poverty rates persists, even when factors such as work experience, education, or family structure are taken into account:

In 2008 the poverty rate for adult women ages 18 to 64 (13.2 percent) was 31 percent higher than the poverty rate for adult men ages 18 to 64 (10.1 percent).

Although education makes being poor less likely for both men and women, women were about 30 to 40 percent more likely to be poor than men at every education level.

Female-headed families with children had a poverty rate of 37.2 percent—over twice the 17.6 percent poverty rate for male-headed families with children, and nearly five times the 7.5 percent poverty rate for married-couple families with children.

The ratio of women’s and men’s median annual earnings in 2008 was 77.1 for full-time, year-round workers (73.9 in Illinois), down from 77.8 in 2007.

Children continue to be the age group most likely to be poor: while children constitute just 24.6 percent of the overall population, more than one-third (35.3 percent) of all people living in poverty in 2008 were children.

Nearly one in five children (18 and under) is living in poverty, with the total number rising from 13.3 million in 2007 to 14.1 million in 2008.

Poverty rates rose for white, non-Hispanic children (from 10.1 percent to 10.6 percent), Asian children (from 12.5 percent to 14.6 percent), and Hispanic children (from 28.6 percent to 30.6 percent). Black child poverty remained nearly unchanged (up from 34.5 percent to 34.7 percent), yet the poverty rate for black children remains more than three times higher than the rate for white children.

Economists predict that by 2010 the poverty rate for all children will increase to 26.6 percent.

Although mainly intended to stimulate the broad economy, the $787 billion American Recovery and Re-Investment Act (ARRA) has played an important role in supporting low-income Americans. The ARRA is preventing more than six million Americans, including two million children and half a million seniors, from falling below the poverty line and is making less severe the poverty of 33 million others. In Illinois the ARRA has protected 305,000 residents, including 109,000 children, from poverty. However, the ARRA is providing only temporary relief. The 2008 Census data, together with experts’ analysis of the current economy, add urgency to calls for creating a more humane safety net and overhauling our national health care system. In order to ensure that all people in poverty receive adequate assistance, policymakers must extend unemployment benefits, increase the earned income tax credit for childless adults, secure quality and affordable health care for all, and revise the federal poverty measure to reflect more realistic family budgets.

For detailed 2008 Census poverty data, visit the Census website here.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center, at 312.368.3303 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 5
September 24, 2009

Pediatricians Acknowledge Bullying and Dating Violence as Public Health Concerns

2009-09-03T16:03:08Z

That bullying is a common rite of passage for nearly all children and adolescents is no longer an acceptable justification of the violence, fighting, and harassment that occur on and off school grounds. This position is emphasized in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated policy statement on the role that pediatricians should play—as both clinicians and advocates—in relation to youth-violence prevention. The policy statement recommends ways for pediatricians to take up youth violence with patients, parents, and caregivers. The statement promotes the implementation of prevention strategies through advocacy, research, and education and outreach within the community.

In the past the academy’s policy statement focused on the prevalence of homicide and suicide among teenagers, the short- and long-term physical and emotional effects of violence on victims, perpetrators, and witnesses, and eliminating corporal punishment in the home. For the first time, the academy’s statement has a section on bullying and dating violence. The academy stresses that both are preventable and that prevention is key in combating youth violence. The academy acknowledges that youth bullying and dating violence must be viewed through the broad lens of youth violence as a societal problem linked to other forms of violence and psychosocial problems.

Bullying is a form of repeated aggression against persons perceived to be unable to defend themselves. Bullying generally takes the form of physical harm, verbal harassment or threats, and social exclusion or isolation. However, technological inventiveness and the abundance of hand-held devices have made it easier to engage in cyberbullying, or the use of cellphones and the Internet to harass and intimidate another person. Bullying has long-term effects not only on victims but also on perpetrators and witnesses. Such effects include physical injury, depression and suicidal ideation, and the development of serious assault behaviors.

Due to the serious health concerns that result from youth violence, the academy recognizes the pediatrician’s unique position to engage youth, parents, and caregivers on the facts about youth violence and the resources available to them. These are some of the academy’s recommendations for pediatricians:

Engage in appropriate and timely treatment or referral for violence-related problems identified during patient visits, or engage in both treatment and referral.

Tell parents to talk to their children about bullying, to teach their children how to resolve conflict, and to promote respectful relationships in dating.

Anticipate guidance about adolescent cognitive and social development, relationship dynamics, and the risks of teen-dating violence.

Learn about community resources for children and adolescents and maintain an accurate database of community-based counseling and treatment resources.

Advocate bullying awareness by teachers, educational administrators, parents, and children, and advocate the adoption of evidence-based prevention programs.

The academy recommends that pediatricians become familiar with Connected Kids: Safe, Strong, Secure, the academy’s primary care violence-prevention protocol on youth-violence prevention in the framework of routine child health care. In the same vein, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently launched phase II of a major multiyear awareness campaign entitled “Take a Stand, Lend a Hand: Stop Bullying Now.” For more information about bullying, including webisodes and other interactive material, visit: http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/.

Students who are involved in all aspects of bullying and dating violence face enormous barriers to completing their education and need better policies and protocols and increased resources to ensure that they stay in school and stay safe while in school. In order to develop best practices and policies for Illinois public school districts, the Ensuring Success in School Task Force, established by the Illinois General Assembly, has documented the experiences (some of which include bullying) of elementary and secondary school students who are parents, expectant parents, or survivors of domestic or sexual violence. The task force will issue a report on its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly in December.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 4
September 3, 2009

Legislative Update: Public Benefits and Employment

2009-08-12T19:58:56Z

The following nine bills related to employment and public benefits passed both houses of the Illinois General Assembly before the end of the regular legislative session. Gov. Pat Quinn is in the process of deciding whether he will sign these bills or veto them.

Public Benefits

House Bill 745 amends the Illinois Public Aid Code to create a “No Wrong Door” policy for public benefits applicants by allowing initial applications for food stamps and medical and/or TANF cash assistance to be submitted to any Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS) local office. Once applicants are determined eligible for assistance, they may choose which IDHS local office they would like their case to be housed and managed for reasons of convenience, including access to reliable transportation and their place of employment, child care location, or a related service need that they see on a regular basis. IDHS must comply with the request for transfer within five business days. H.B. 745 provides that, in food stamp cases in which an applicant or recipient reports earned income, employment will be presumed and the required face-to-face interviews for food stamps will be automatically waived, based on the presumption that scheduling an in-person meeting is a hardship on employed clients.

House Bill 818 amends the Public Aid Code to establish that the Medicaid eligibility of employed persons with disabilities also applies—subject to federal approval—to employed persons who have a medically improved disability and are eligible for Medicaid under the Social Security Act. Governor Quinn signed H.B. 818 into law, Public Act no. 96-0181, on August 10.

House Bill 2383 amends the Public Aid Code to improve low-income Illinoisans’ access to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program—a cash assistance program for families with dependent children and for pregnant women, whether or not they have other children. H.B. 2383 stresses that caseloads may increase during times of severe economic downturn and establishes that IDHS policy is to provide TANF to all qualified individuals who seek assistance and to conduct outreach efforts to educate the public about the program. Under H.B. 2383, all families living in “deep poverty” (below 50 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); $9,156 a year for a family of three) will be financially eligible for TANF. This legislation also allows working families to continue to receive limited cash assistance until their earnings lift them over the FPL. Applicants found eligible for TANF will receive benefits as of the date of application, and IDHS must provide the financial aid no more than 30 days after the date of application. H.B. 2383 also protects survivors of sexual assault and stalking by extending to them the same protections that domestic violence survivors have under TANF and the Crisis Assistance Program. Crisis Assistance is provided to TANF applicants and recipients who are experiencing financial hardship due to a natural disaster, homelessness, documented theft, or domestic violence.

On August 11, Governor Quinn, through an amendatory veto, changed the effective date of H.B. 2383 to July 1, 2010, or sooner if appropriations allow. During the fall veto session, a majority of each chamber will have to concur with this amendatory veto or the bill will die. Look for a future action alert on H.B. 2383 from the Shriver Center to hear how you can support these crucial TANF improvements.

Senate Bill 1544 amends the Department of Human Services Act and the State Finance Act to create the Hunger Relief Fund within the state treasury. The fund will make appropriations to IDHS, which will then make grants to food banks for the purchase of food and related supplies. S.B. 1544 also amends the Illinois Income Tax Act to create a tax checkoff for the Hunger Relief Fund on the standard individual state income tax form.

Employment

House Bill 3634 amends the Equal Pay Act of 2003 to establish that an employee or former employee may file with the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) a complaint alleging a violation of the Act by submitting a signed complaint form within one year from the date of the underpayment (defined as each time wages are underpaid). Employers subject to the Act (private employers with four or more employees in Illinois and all state and local government agencies and school districts) must preserve records that document the name, address, and occupation of each employee, as well as the wages paid to each employee for no less than five years instead of the current law’s requirement of three years. If the records relate to an ongoing investigation or enforcement action, they must be maintained until IDOL or a court order authorizes their destruction. Pursuant to orders from IDOL, employers must make reports from these records to IDOL. H.B. 3634 further provides that a legal action to collect a wage claim must be brought within five years from the date of the underpayment instead of the current law’s rule that a claim must be made within three years from the date the employee learned of the underpayment.

The General Assembly passed a number of bills that will create task forces related to employment. House Bill 655 creates the Employment and Economic Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities Task Force which will be charged with determining what changes are needed to remove barriers to competitive employment for persons with disabilities. House Joint Resolution 26 creates a task force to examine job development and workforce investment in Illinois. House Joint Resolution 40 establishes the Illinois Task Force on Workplace Bullying, which will analyze the prevalence and impact of workplace bullying within the private sector. House Resolution 343 urges the governor to create a Commission on the Status of Women which would address Illinois women’s position with regard to attaining economic independence, lifelong equality, health care, safety, and career development opportunities.

To read the full text of these bills or see a list of their sponsors, go to the Illinois General Assembly’s website, www.ilga.gov, and search for the legislation by bill number.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Shriver Center,
at 312.263.3830 ext. 238 or wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 3
August 12, 2009

Illinois Legislative Update: Education

2009-07-29T15:24:03Z

Five bills related to education need only Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature to become law after both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed them before the end of the regular legislative session.

House Bill 740 amends the School Code to require the State Board of Education to establish a state grant program, pending appropriations, which will develop two-year pilot programs to assist in the creation of green career and technical education programs in public secondary schools. These programs will introduce students to green industries and open opportunities for them to advance along careers in solar technology, biofuels, organic and community food production, and energy and water system retrofitting.

House Bill 973 amends the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act to provide that the Comprehensive Health Education Program—which designates areas of curricula for all elementary and secondary schools in the state—may include instruction on teen-dating violence for grades 8 through 12.

House Bill 2448 amends the School Code to allow a school district, by resolution of its school board, to establish a remote educational program, which is defined as an educational program delivered to students in the home or other location outside of a school building and complying with specified criteria. In establishing a remote educational program, a school board’s adopted policy must include standards for determining that the program will best serve a student’s individual learning needs, including consideration of a student’s prior attendance, disciplinary record, and academic history. The remote educational program’s curriculum must align with state learning standards, and the program must offer instruction and educational experiences consistent with those given to students at the same grade level in the district. Remote educational program instructors are subject to the same qualification requirements established in the School Code’s teacher certification provisions and the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Each student participating in a remote educational program must have a written remote educational plan that includes, among other criteria, specific achievement goals, a description of assessments designated to measure student progress, the identification of a school district administrator who will oversee the program on behalf of the school district, and the identification of a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult who will directly supervise the program. School districts that adopt a policy for a remote educational program must submit a copy of the policy as well as data on student participation to the State Board of Education. Students participating in a remote educational program must be tested as part of all assessments administered by the school district. H.B. 2448 also provides that days of attendance by students in remote educational programs may be claimed by the school district as school work for General State Aid distribution purposes.

Senate Bill 1508 amends the Illinois School Student Records Act to provide that nothing contained in the Act may be used to impair or limit the confidentiality of information communicated in confidence to a school social worker, school counselor, school psychologist, or any interns who work under the direct supervision of a school social worker, school counselor, or school psychologist. The Act already stipulates that nothing in the Act may be construed to impair or limit the confidentiality of information communicated in confidence to a physician, psychologist, or other psychotherapist. S.B. 1508 further provides that school employees who act to protect communications as privileged or confidential pursuant to applicable state or federal laws or regulations will not be subjected to adverse employment action, the threat of adverse employment action, or any manner of discrimination.

Senate Bill 1796 establishes the Illinois Hope and Opportunity Pathways through Education (IHOPE) Program. IHOPE is to develop a comprehensive system to reenroll high school dropouts in programs that will enable them to earn their high school diploma. Subject to appropriations, the State Board of Education will award IHOPE grants to regional offices of education (ROEs) and school districts to assist in establishing reenrollment programs and services. Funding levels will be based upon the proportion of dropouts in a school district or ROE to the total number of dropouts in the state. In order to be eligible for grants, school districts and ROEs must submit to the State Board of Education an IHOPE plan that includes proposed partnerships with public community colleges and nonprofit community-based organizations. High school dropouts, up to and including age 21, may voluntarily reenroll in an IHOPE program which may include comprehensive year-round programming, evening school, summer school, community college courses, adult education, vocational training, work experience, online programs, self-concept-enhancing programs, and parenting courses. S.B. 1796 designates that, in order for IHOPE programs to be effective, administrators should implement high student-learning standards that integrate work experience and education and establish performance-based goals related to attendance, skill building, graduation, and transition to college and employment.

To read the full text of these bills or see a list of their sponsors, go to the Illinois General Assembly’s website, www.ilga.gov, and search for the legislation by bill number.

For more information, contact Wendy Pollack, director, Women’s Law and Policy Project, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; 312.368.2009; wendypollack@povertylaw.org.

Click here to view this issue of WomanView in PDF format.

Volume 13, Issue 2
July 29, 2009