Virginia's Comprehensive Services Act: Legislative and Policy Approaches to Serving At-Risk Children, Youth, and Families

• Published date: 01 December 2001
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X0103300306
• Date: 01 December 2001
• Author: M. Gail Ledford
• Subject Matter: Practitioner's Corner

State and Local Government Review
Vol. 33, No. 3 (Fall 2001): 208–16
PRACTITIONER’S CORNER
Virginia’s Comprehensive Services Act:
Legislative and Policy Approaches to Serving
At-Risk Children, Youth, and Families
M. Gail Ledford
SINCE THE 1980S, when the federal gov- has been written over the past two decades
ernment began to devolve more of the
about the need for greater coordination and
funding and responsibility for human
collaboration among human service agencies
services to the states, there has been a growing
to meet the complex needs of “at-risk” chil-
expectation for state and local governments
dren and those with severe and chronic emo-
to develop the strategies and resources for ad-
tional and behavioral disturbances (Koyanagi
dressing the needs of their populations and
1994; Knapp 1995).1 However, innovations
to deal effectively with the complex inter-
in the public-sector systems for meeting the
dependencies among the child-serving human
needs of these populations have not been well
service and educational systems (Agranoff
documented in the popular media or academic
and Pattakos 1989). Growth in program ex-
journals.
penditures, lack of efficiency, and duplica-
Across the country, legislators, public ad-
tion of efforts across public agencies—and
ministrators, advocates, parents, and other
the difficulties families encounter in their at-
stakeholders have joined together to bring
tempts to access quality treatment services
about changes in the ways that publicly funded
for their children—are problems that plague
services are provided to at-risk children and
public human service institutions (Koyanagi
their families. A number of initiatives have
1994). Moreover, there has been increased
moved toward greater coordination of ser-
demand for services, accountability, produc-
vices, but many have failed because they were
tivity, and flexibility (Cohen and Cohen 1999).
unable to accomplish the system-oriented
Although there are significant public pol-
goals they envisioned. These initiatives could
icy, administrative, and resource allocation
not create the necessary organizational struc-
implications, particularly for state and local
tures, develop cross-agency budgets, main-
governments, the public policy literature has
tain political support, and effectively plan for
not offered models that effectively address
worsening state and local fiscal conditions
these concerns. Much attention has been given
(U.S. General Accounting Office 1992).
in the public policy literature to other com-
Through a sweeping policy directive, Vir-
plex cross-system, financial, and outcomes
ginia created a system to address the difficult
issues in human services, such as those sur-
problems at-risk children and families expe-
rounding welfare reform. Moreover, much
rienced in identifying and accessing public-
208
State and Local Government Review

---

Virginia’s Comprehensive Services Act
sector human services from agencies that op-
Implications for Children and Their Families
erated independently and did not deliver com-
For some of the children whose problems are
prehensive services. By developing a collab-
less serious and restricted to a specific do-
orative, integrated system of care for this
main, a single-agency approach can be sat-
population, the state of Virginia’s Compre-
isfactory. However, for more seriously dis-
hensive Services Act (CSA) provides an ef-
turbed children who are more likely to have
fective illustration of a policy approach that
severe problems in multiple domains, ser-
creates the potential for positive change, flex-
vices and resources may not be well coordi-
ibility, and resilience.
nated to meet the child’s and the family’s needs
(Koyanagi 1994). Addressing the needs of a
A Fragmented Service-Delivery System
child with a serious emotional disorder could
potentially involve the departments and agen-
The public institutions charged with the re-
cies responsible for foster care, mental health,
sponsibility for meeting the needs of troubled
juvenile justice, and education. Families ap-
and at-risk children and youth have a well-
proach the agency best suited to meet their
established history, typically encompassing
child’s needs based on their own knowledge
foster care, mental health, juvenile justice,
of the various services offered by each. Typi-
and education. The division among these dis-
cally, families move from agency to agency,
ciplines has contributed to the institutional-
seeking advice from respective experts; they
ization of federal, state, and local agencies as
negotiate the maze of the various eligibility
separate, discrete entities, each with its own
criteria and expose themselves and their child
mission, mandates, values, policies, and prac-
to repetitive, expensive assessments, screen-
tices; educational and professional require-
ings, and service programs. Because of the
ments for staff; eligibility criteria; and fund-
discrete division among disciplines, recom-
ing mechanisms. There is great overlap among
mended interventions often fall short of the
these systems at all levels of government with
comprehensive approach necessary to address
regard to the populations they serve and the
the complexity of the child’s needs.
funding availability for programs and services
and little collaboration among the agencies
Implications for Agencies
that deliver them. The result is a fragmented
Under these conditions, child-serving agen-
service-delivery approach that is often diffi-
cies are constrained in several ways. First,
cult to access and limited in its ability to ad-
without the benefit of collaboration and co-
dress comprehensively the needs of children,
ordination across disciplines, a single-agency
youth, and their families—a situation further
perspective puts the responsibility for posi-
compounded by the additional challenges of
tive outcomes for the child and family with
increased costs and demand for services.
each agency. This approach precludes utili-
These demands and cost factors at the
zation of other agencies’ staff and fiscal re-
state and local level have, in turn, influenced
sources. Second, it makes a single agency
the way that states and localities implement
responsible for having a broad base of knowl-
federal mandates, which has implications for
edge and expertise, when that agency’s man-
individual children and their families. Fed-
dates and financial resources to support those
eral requirements mandate that funding must
mandates may be limited. Third, it requires
be made available to serve children who are
that each agency dedicate staff to work with
in foster care and those eligible for special
each child. A child and family interacting with
education services. Other at-risk children are
multiple agencies could involve three, four,
considered “nonmandated,” and funding for
or more professionals working independently
services is not required under federal law.
of one another. Fourth, each agency must
Fall 2001
209

---

Ledford
maintain and support the administrative func-
of care for children and youth (Cohen and
tions necessary to fund, deliver, and monitor
Cohen 1999).
services. Redundant processes within each
In 1989–90 the Department of Planning
agency excessively burden...