October 3, 2008 -- Advocacy Report - September 2008

The Advocacy Department has accomplished the following goals in FY08:

1. Performed lobbying work in Albany, New York two (2) times, and Washington, DC two (2) times

a. Lobbying trip to Albany with the Community Service Society of New York’s Reentry Roundtable to address the needs and issues faced by the formerly incarcerated as they re-enter society.

b. Lobbying trip to Albany with the New York City Association of Homeless and Street Involved Youth Organizations to advocate for changes in the Department of Motor Vehicles’ policy to make it more feasible for our young people to obtain New York State identification.

c. The two (2) trips to Washington involved lobbying to the New York Congressional delegation regarding an appropriations bill to provide earmarked funds for our Crisis Center and Regional Training Center.

2. Met and/or had contact with nineteen (19) New York elected officials at the city, state, and federal levels

a. At the city level we met with Council Members Lewis A. Fidler (Brooklyn), Miguel Martinez (Manhattan), Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, Jr., and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.

b. At the state level we met with Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman (Queens), Assemblywomen Crystal D. Peoples (Buffalo) and Audrey I. Pheffer (Queens). We also met with State Senators Thomas K. Duane (Manhattan), Jose M. Serrano (Bronx), Malcolm A. Smith (Queens), and Diane J. Savino (Staten Island).

c. At the federal level we met with the offices of Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as Representatives Jerrold Nadler (Manhattan), Edolphus Towns (Brooklyn), Jose E. Serrano (Bronx), and Gregory Meeks (Queens). We also met with a representative from Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s office.

d. Our Advocacy work also gave us the opportunity to meet with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, David J. Swarts.

e. Coordinators at the Brooklyn and Staten Island Community Resource Centers have also been in constant contact with the offices of Council Members Albert Vann (Brooklyn) and Michael McMahon (Staten Island), Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and Staten Island Assemblyman Matthew Titone.

3. Collaborated and partnered in various advocacy efforts with several external organizations and associations including the Community Service Society of New York, Homeless Services United Inc, New York City Association of Homeless and Street Involved Youth Organizations, Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services, the Department of Youth and Community Development, the NYC Continuum of Care Coalition, the Urban Justice Center, the Legal Aid Society, and the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies.

4. Attended nine (9) conferences dealing with issues that affect the youth we are working with

a. NYC Youth Board - Tools for High Quality Programs for Disconnected Youth; Tools for Reengaging Vulnerable Youth

b. NYC Youth Board - Youth Employment, Empowering Teens; Building an Advocacy Agenda for Disconnected Youth

c. Citizen’s Committee for Children – Youth Aging Out of Foster Care and ACS’s Plan to Improve Outcomes for Youth in Foster Care

d. NYC Association of Homeless and Street Involved Youth Organizations – Mental Health Roundtable

e. Office of Children and Family Services – Improving Outcomes for Children and Families

f. St. John’s University – No Place to Live: The Housing Crisis Facing Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

g. Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies – New Directions for Disconnected Youth

h. Community Service Society – Disconnected Youth Panel: Snapshot of Public Funding to Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment

i. DRS Annual Symposium: Consensus Building & Institutionalizing Effective Policy & Practice

5. Testified at six (6) oversight hearings held by the City Council, and two (2) held by the New York State Legislature regarding issues that affect our youth

a. The DREAM Act

b. Access to Mental Health Services for Runaway and Homeless Youth

c. Runaway and Homeless Youth: An Overview of the Results of the 2007 City Council Funded Census

d. The Relationship Between DYCD and DHS Youth Shelters

e. Examining DYCD’s and ACS' Efforts to Prevent Youth Aging out of Foster Care from Becoming Homeless

f. Preventing Youth Homelessness: Examining The Link Between Runaway And Homeless Youth And Their Experiences With The Juvenile Justice System

g. The Needs of Youth Aging Out of Foster Care

h. The New York State Economic Security Cabinet

6. Provided four (4) trainings for staff and developed materials to assist them on issues that frequently arise:

a. Foster Care – Aging Out / Discharge Issues

b. Runaway & Homeless Youth Regulations

c. Preventing Harassment in the Workplace

d. Advocacy & the Role You Play

e. Developed instructions and sample letters/forms for staff to be able to assist our youth in obtaining Birth Certificates and NYS ID.

f. Developed a 1 page overview of PATH Family shelter intake system with a “Know Your Rights” section to assist the Mother/Child Unit in dealing with PATH.

g. Provided an overview to Crisis Center Director for staff on what to do if the police come with a warrant for arrest of youth.

7. Made contact with six (6) Law Schools and partnered with two (2) Law Schools to provide advocacy services to our youth (Crisis Center: Older Female Unit and Older Male Unit):

a. Fordham University School of Law, Criminal Defense

Clinic
i. Law Students provided weekly “Know Your Rights” workshops on the Criminal Justice System from being stopped by the police to post conviction consequences

ii. MSW students provided a discussion group as a follow up to the “Know Your Rights” workshops to address anger management issues and other related issues.

b. City University of New York Law School, Immigration & Refugee Rights Clinic

i. Law Students provided a workshop at the Queens Community Resource Center on Immigration issues.

ii. Main Street Legal Services (law student clinic) provided legal services to individual youth on immigration matters.

8. Provided direct advocacy services to over two hundred (200) youth on issues of immigration, housing (PATH/DHS issues, landlord/tenant, etc), replacement of identification documents, domestic violence, orders of protection, warrants, criminal matters, child support, custody, paternity, SSI, etc.

9. Provided legal services to Covenant House by way of reviewing various contracts and dealing with other parties on issues arising from contracts (leases, funding contracts, HUD Restrictive Covenant), and responding to and appearing in court concerning Subpoena of client records in approximately fifteen (15) cases.

June 11, 2008 -- Juvenile Justice Testimony 2008 - NYC Council

Testimony of Elizabeth Garcia, Director of Advocacy
before The Juvenile Justice Committee and the Youth Services Committee on the Subject of:

Oversight – Preventing Youth Homelessness: Examining The Link Between Runaway And Homeless Youth And Their Experiences With The Juvenile Justice System

(June 11, 2008)

I would like to thank the Juvenile Justice Committee and the Youth Services Committee for providing the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Elizabeth Garcia. I am Director of Advocacy for Covenant House New York. Covenant House New York is the nation’s largest, privately funded, non-profit adolescent care agency serving homeless, runaway and at-risk youth. Last year, Covenant House New York served over 7,000 young people, primarily between the ages of 16 and 21, in our residential and community-based programs, and through our street outreach efforts.

During the past year, twenty-two (22%) percent of the youth sheltered at Covenant House New York had a history of involvement with the Juvenile Justice and/or Criminal Justice systems. Males outnumbered females by a ratio of four to one. Of those youth who had involvement in the Juvenile Justice or Criminal Justice systems:

• 75% had mental health issues;
• 75% had substance abuse issues;
• 60% had not obtained a High School Diploma or GED; and
• 75% were unemployed.

Likewise, the recent Homeless Youth Survey conducted by the Empire State Coalition showed that 15% of homeless youth have been in juvenile detention facilities and 27% have been in jail or prison. These numbers reflect what we already know, that detention can disrupt and even destroy the tenuous connections that youth have with school, community services, and even their families, resulting in negative outcomes for educational attainment and employment, and ultimately leading to homelessness and further detachment from family and community.

Youth who have been incarcerated face many obstacles that could be overcome with proper pre-release planning and follow-up services. For example, it is not uncommon for an adolescent to be released from detention or incarceration to homelessness. The Rikers Island Discharge Enhancement (RIDE) program that currently connects sentenced inmates leaving Rikers to community-based services should be expanded to address the needs of adolescents. Many youth who have been incarcerated can not return home to family and are barred from living in public housing. Age-appropriate, supportive housing similar to that provided by the Frequent Users Service Enhancement (FUSE) program needs to be made available so that these youth are not forced to live on the streets where they are more “vulnerable to re-offending and/or re-arrest.”

Youth who have been incarcerated are also faced with the stigma of being an “ex-offender” which makes it difficult for them to return to school or obtain employment. Our experience, at Covenant House, with homeless youth has taught us that educational services and job-skills building services are critical to the long term success of “disconnected youth.” Pre-release planning must be done and must incorporate and help facilitate completion of high school education or GED and job-skills training and placement services. Additionally, we ask the City Council to encourage state legislators to protect job-seekers with youthful offender or violation convictions from employers who ask illegal questions about sealed convictions and to encourage state legislators to take action to prevent the Office of Court Administration from releasing information about violation convictions.

Youth with mental health issues are over-represented in the detention population and when released they are over-represented among the homeless population. Yet, there continues to be a severe shortage of age-appropriate, community-based or even inpatient mental health services for youth. The Collaborative Family Initiative, undertaken by the Department of Juvenile Justice in collaboration with the Prisoner Reentry Institute and the Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College, and community-based organizations, had disappointing early results with few participants and only 3 youth meeting all of their benchmarks by the 90 day milestone. Nevertheless there were hopeful signs (i.e. 17 of 21 participants were not arrested on new charges during the 90 day release period) that with some refinements and continued support this initiative could begin to fill some of the huge gap in community-based mental health services for this age group. We urge the Committees on Juvenile Justice and Youth Services, to continue to look for ways to address and support further initiatives that will address the lack of age-appropriate mental health resources available to youth 16-24 years of age.

Lastly, there continues to be an over-reliance on secure detention, with over 5000 youth maintained in secure facilities, for reasons that have little to do with community safety. We believe that with appropriate screening and risk assessment, proper pre-release planning and services, and aftercare services for high-risk and vulnerable youth, many more youth could be released to their families or supportive housing programs with services provided by community-based organizations. The more time spent in detention the more likely youth are to become further disconnected from the family and community and the more likely they are to become chronically homeless.

December 19, 2007 -- Foster Care Testimony 2007 - NY State Assembly

I would like to thank the New York State Assembly Standing Committee On Children And Families and The New York State Assembly Subcommittee On Foster Care for providing the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Nancy Downing. I am a Staff Attorney for Covenant House New York.

For nearly 35 years, Covenant House New York has been serving homeless, runaway and at-risk youth. We are the nation’s largest, privately funded, non-profit adolescent care agency serving this population. Last year, Covenant House New York served over 7,000 young people, primarily between the ages of 16 and 21, in our residential and community-based programs, and through our street outreach efforts. Our programs are designed to meet the specific needs of this age group. Our Crisis Center is open twenty-four hours a day, seven-days a week. Once the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met, our young people receive a comprehensive continuum of care including medical care, educational and employment assistance, legal services, transitional housing, substance abuse counseling, and mental health services.

Thirty percent of the youth sheltered at Covenant House New York, during the past year, had a history of foster care placement. Most of these young adults lacked a high school education or GED, were unemployed, and lacked adequate food, shelter, clothing and health care services. They were clearly unprepared for independent living. Most disturbing about this is that, despite legislation, regulations, and agency plans put in place over the past seven years, all of which were intended to help youth in foster care successfully transition to independent living, we continue to see a significant number of youth at our shelter who were inadequately prepared and unsuccessful in making this transition.

Many organizations that serve youth in and aging out of foster care will testify that increased efforts are needed to improve educational, employment, housing and health care outcomes. We agree. So, rather than echoing their observations and recommendations, we would like to focus this opportunity to testify on three situations that we see repeatedly that are impediments to successful independent living:

1. Youth signing themselves out of foster care without a clear understanding of what this means, without a clear understanding of the benefits they are entitled to or signing away, and without a safety net to fall back on when they are unsuccessful in living independently.

2. The failure of foster care agencies to ensure that youth have proper identification documents before they leave foster care including a certified copy of their birth certificate, their social security card, and a government issued photo ID.

3. The failure of foster care agencies to identify those youth in foster care who are immigrants and who may have status issues that need to be immediately addressed.
First, youth frequently sign themselves out of foster care when they turn eighteen. This is particularly common among young women who become pregnant and have a child while still in foster care. Some are encouraged to sign themselves out, others are anxious to leave a system that they view as merely having shuffled them between multiple placements while failing to provide them with the support they need. Regardless of the reason for the youth leaving foster care, what is clear when we speak with them is that they have little or no understanding of the benefits they may be leaving behind.

At the age of eighteen, youth in foster care are faced with the heavy burden of deciding whether or not to remain in foster care, since continued foster care services, trial discharge and supervision until the age of twenty-one are contingent on consent of the child once he/she reaches age eighteen. This is perhaps the single most important decision they will make in their lives, and it is often made without full information, without complete understanding, and without adequate preparation for the consequences of their decision. Once they have “voluntarily” discharged themselves from foster care, they are not given an opportunity to reconsider their decision no matter how ill-advised or inappropriate it may have been. We must ensure that these youth have a safety-net that will allow them to re-access services and housing, at least, until they are twenty-one. We must ensure that independent living education includes developing good decision-making skills and adequate preparation for living independently. And, we must ensure that youth exiting the foster care system have a solid relationship with a trusted, appropriate adult mentor to help them make challenging life decisions. We currently do not see this occurring with most of the youth who have been in foster care and who are now accessing services at Covenant House because they could not make it on their own.

Second, youth often leave foster care without adequate proof of identity. They either do not have a certified copy of their birth certificate or their social security card or both. Additionally, current New York State, Department of Motor Vehicle requirements for proof of identity to obtain a driver’s license or non-driver photo ID make it nearly impossible for youth, ages eighteen to twenty-one, to obtain a driver’s license or non-photo ID since they would need to appear before a DMV representative with their birth certificate and social security card and with their parent or legal guardian.

Earlier this week, I received a call from our Queens office about a young man, eighteen years old, who has been in foster care since age ten. He came to Covenant House seeking assistance in finding employment. The only form of identification he has is his social security card. He does not have a copy of his birth certificate or any photo ID. The foster care agency handling his case, likewise, does not have a copy of his birth certificate and advised that they would not be able to assist him in obtaining a copy of his birth certificate. In order to get his birth certificate he has to provide a government issued photo ID (which of course he can’t get without his birth certificate) or 5 documents showing his name and address, such as utility bills, a lease agreement, paystubs, etc. It will be a challenge to get his birth certificate. Once he has his birth certificate, which will take at least a month, since he doesn’t have a credit card, he will then be faced with the challenge of obtaining a government issued photo ID. Until he has adequate identification, it will be nearly impossible for him to get a job, open a bank account or live independently.

Foster care agencies and/or independent living programs must be required to assist youth, prior to leaving foster care, in obtaining proper identification (including a government issued, photo ID) without which independent living will simply not be possible. Additionally, current New York State, Department of Motor Vehicle requirements concerning proof of identity for youth under age twenty-one must be changed to make exceptions for foster care youth for whom it is impractical to require a parent or legal guardian to appear with them at the DMV office to secure a driver’s license or non-driver photo ID.

Lastly, better efforts must be made for early identification of youth in foster care who are immigrants with status issues that could benefit from Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Preparation for independent living should include knowledge of ones immigration status and identification of options for adjusting one’s status. Special Immigrant Juvenile Status is available to undocumented children who are under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court (or Family Court) and who will not be reunified with their parents due to abuse, neglect or abandon. Youth are only eligible for SIJS until they turn 21. Under current immigration policy, young people must file their application for lawful permanent residence before they turn 21 AND that application must be adjudicated before they turn 21. Young people who have been placed in foster care who miss their opportunity to obtain legal status under SIJS will likely never be eligible for any other form of lawful immigration status. Thus, delays in being informed of their immigration status, delays in being informed of SIJS, and delays in helping them access the legal services they need in pursuing this option can be catastrophic for youth who have already suffered many difficult circumstances in their young lives.

Youth aging out of foster care will have a much greater chance of transitioning to a successful, self-sufficient life as an adult if we can provide them with life skills that include lessons in good decision making, independent living resources that include obtaining proper identification documents and early identification of immigration status, the necessary skills and services in the areas of education, employment, housing and medical care, and by providing a true safety-net for those times when they don’t get everything right the first time.

Thank you again for providing this opportunity to testify.

December 19, 2007 -- HomelessYouth Count Testimony 2007 - City Council

I would like to thank the New York City Council and the members of the Youth Services Committee for providing me with the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Elizabeth Garcia. I am the Director of Advocacy for Covenant House New York.

For nearly 35 years, Covenant House New York has been serving homeless, runaway and at-risk youth. We are the nation’s largest, privately funded, non-profit adolescent care agency serving this population. Last year, Covenant House New York served over 7,000 young people, primarily between the ages of 16 and 21, in our residential and community -based programs, and through our street outreach efforts. Our programs are designed to meet the specific needs of this age group. Our Crisis Center is open twenty-four hours a day, seven-days a week. Once the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met, our young people receive a comprehensive continuum of care including medical care, educational and employment assistance, legal services, transitional housing, substance abuse counseling, and mental health services.

Covenant House New York actively participated in all stages of the 2007 Homeless Youth Census spear headed by the Empire State Coalition of Youth and Family Services and the New York City Association of Homeless and Street Involved Youth Organizations. We were part of the strategic planning meetings, volunteered and certified a number of our staff members as interviewers, surveyed close to 300 of our clients (one of the top survey submitting agencies of the Census), and submitted all follow up information needed to round up the final report. We did this because we strongly believed that a formal count of homeless youth in New York City was long over due, with current estimates being too wide ranging in number. In order for policy makers and social service providers to adequately assess the current services and systems in place to assist this population, and to best prepare for future program development and funding allocation, an accurate census of this population must be established.

While the 2007 Homeless Youth Census that we took a part of for six weeks this summer was an honest, valiant, and well intentioned endeavor, I believe there are many lessons we learned that we can hopefully utilize to engineer a more thorough and inclusive census in the future. For example, in order for a future census to be more successful, and more accurate, a greater number of resources must be in place before the project can be taken on. A census of this magnitude and caliber requires a greater financial backing, an increase in man power, more time allotted to design and implementation, a stronger collaboration between private and public agencies, and a research team that is solely focused and dedicated to the project.

Because of the limited resources available for this census this time around, the project evolved into a mostly volunteer spear headed endeavor. As a result, while we were able to survey as many youth as our volunteer interviewers could handle, we did not by any means have the ability to survey the number of youth originally intended. Even a large organization like ours, who has greater manpower abilities than some of our smaller counterparts participating in the count, was only able to survey approximately fifty percent of the youth we served during that six week period. This despite the fact that we surveyed youth coming through our Intake Department, living in our Crisis and Transitional Living programs, and whom we encountered during our Street Outreach.

Another barrier this census encountered was the lack of support and participation we received from the Department of Homeless Services. Their refusal to be a part of this important census meant that countless numbers of youth in their system, who are not connected to any of the service providers participating in the census, were not accounted for. Likewise, because of a lack of manpower, many of the youth living on the streets, or couch surfing, who are disconnected from many of the social service agencies working with this population, were also not included in this census.

Moving forward, I believe that it is important that we take the final results from this census and understand what it is telling us about the population we surveyed. But even more pertinent is the need for us to scrutinize this census and the process that was undertaken, and learn what we can do better the next time around. I strongly believe that we need to repeat this count in the near future, taking into account everything we learned, perfecting the process, acquiring greater resources, and getting closer to a more accurate number. Only then will we be better equipped to take care of this vulnerable and much deserving population.

Thank you.

December 7, 2007 -- Mental Health Testimony 2007 - City Council

TESTIMONY OF CAILIN MCGREEVY, DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH
AT THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH

(NOVEMBER 27, 2007)

Good morning. My name is Cailin McGreevy, and I am the Director for the Mental Health Day Program at Covenant House New York. For over thirty years, Covenant House has been providing crisis care, social services, and transitional living for the homeless, runaway, and at–risk youth of New York City. The majority of the youth we serve are between the ages sixteen and twenty-one. Our programs are designed to meet the needs of this specific age group. Once their basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter are met, our young people receive a comprehensive continuum of care including medical care, educational and employment assistance, legal services, transitional housing, substance abuse counseling, and mental health services. However, it is clear that even with the services offered by city agencies and non-profit agencies, like Covenant House, additional steps need to be taken for our city’s youth.

I have been asked to come here today to speak about the limited access in mental health services for the specific group of kids we service: young adults, between the ages of 18-21, with diagnosable mental health/mental retardation disorders and/or substance abuse issues.

What we are seeing at Covenant House’s Crisis Center is a steady increase in youth requiring such services: this is evidenced by staff testimonials and by the amount of referrals the Mental Health Day Program is receiving from in-patient mental health programs citywide. The main correlate to the early onset of these psychiatric issues for the youth we serve, and the one Covenant House works to remedy, is environmental stressors placed on our young adults. Mentally ill clients seeking services at Covenant House often report family histories where poverty, poor access to healthcare, substance abuse, physical abuse/neglect, and mental illness are more often the rule than the exception. This chronic instability both precipitates serious psychiatric disorders and inhibits positive emotional growth. Ultimately, these childhood experiences have a profound effect upon our young people as they try to prepare themselves for the adult world.

There are limited housing options for this population. I would like to use a couple of examples to demonstrate my point: Michael is a twenty-year-old, African-American male who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He was forced to leave his mother’s apartment six months ago, and was living on the streets until he was committed to an in-patient psychiatric unit. A direct referral was made from the hospital to the Crisis Center. Michael has been residing at our Crisis Center’s Older Male Unit for almost two months, and is a participant of the Mental Health Day Program. Michael meets regularly with the staff psychiatrist and takes medication for his symptoms. Despite his good intentions, Michael’s disorder has prevented him from attaining employment. The staff has helped Michael apply for disability benefits and supportive housing. However, Michael is ambivalent about his housing options: he is aware that a placement may not open up for a while, six months in some cases; he is also aware that his future roommates could be on average twenty to thirty years his senior. Staff has the same concerns and worries that the lack of peer-support and age-appropriate activities, offered at the supportive housing program, might set him up for failure.

Isabelle is a nineteen-year-old runaway, who has been residing at Crisis Center Older Females Unit for over thirty days. Upon intake, Isabelle reported symptoms of depression and anxiety, including sad mood, nervousness, loss of appetite, and decreased sleep. Floor staff referred her to the mental health unit for an assessment. Isabelle also reported being the victim of past sexual abuse, and was diagnosed with having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Isabelle stated that she often feels overwhelmed, and finds it difficult to attain and maintain employment. However, her diagnosis does not qualify her for supportive housing. Case managers have made referrals to two independent transitional living programs, but her application was denied because she is not ready for independent living. Her uncertainty over her future has increased her symptoms.

I hope these examples have been helpful. Since it’s inception in 1996, the Mental Health Day Program at Covenant House has provided treatment to over 2,500 mentally ill young adults. Only nineteen percent of this number has received supportive housing placements. The remaining eighty-one percent struggle to make it in the city shelter system or return to the streets. These numbers do not reflect the large number of youth who, despite having mental health issues, do not qualify for placement in the Mental Health Day Program.

Those lucky enough to receive supportive housing placements contend with a separate set of counter-therapeutic problems. The average age of a person in Mental Health/Mental Retardation supportive housing is forty-five. Therefore, it is more than likely that someone we refer to supportive housing will be matched with roommates who are twenty-five to thirty years their senior; and if you do not think this makes an impact on that youth’s experience, picture your college age child living in the dorms with a fifty-year old roommate. Peer support does have an affect on treatment efficacy.

Treatment models that utilize age-specific developmental services shows promise in helping our young adults cope with their disorders. These models specifically focus on the issues affecting this age group, such as the need for structure and support, identity formation, sexual development, and formulating life goals. This does not appear to be the current focus of the city’s supportive housing programs.

The wait time for entrance into a supportive housing program could be as long as six-months. In many cases, our clients are rejected because they exhibit poor insight into their diagnosis or have not had their diagnosis long enough to be considered for placement in supportive housing. It is fair to say that most agencies, if they had to choose, would rather take a fifty-year-old woman for a placement than a nineteen-year-old young adult.

In conclusion, I hope that my testimony has highlighted the crisis that we are currently facing and can be of help to those who formulate public policy on this issue.