Skip Maine state header navigation
Our Vision for Maine: State agencies collaboratively support families and communities, keeping family and children at the heart of all decisions.
OverviewGovernor Angus King established the Children's Cabinet in 1995 to oversee and coordinate the delivery of services to children in Maine. The Children's Cabinet is composed of the Departments directly related to children and families: Corrections, Education, Human Services, Behavioral and Developmental Services, and Public Safety. Senior staff from the Department of Labor and the State Planning Office also provide staffing assistance to the Children’s Cabinet to ensure that the Cabinet has prompt access to labor and economic development data, as well as to information on youth issues considered by the Planning Office.
In our view, the creation of the Children's Cabinet is a milestone in Maine State Government on behalf of our children.
In his charge to the Children's Cabinet, the Governor emphasized the important leadership role of the Commissioners in collaborating and promoting the concept of a seamless service delivery system for children and families, and in promoting the need to pool funding to maximize limited resources. Following some initial planning meetings, the Children's Cabinet began operations with a two-day retreat in December, 1995, during which time the Commissioners articulated a common vision of a coordinated, community-based system of services for children and families and outlined a plan for operations. [4] .
The Children’s Cabinet has actively collaborated since 1995 to create and promote coordinated policies and service delivery systems that support children, families, and communities.
1) Continue with the current mode of operation for the Children’s Cabinet.
2) Identify a significant issue that the Children’s Cabinet Departments should address during the next session
3) Capture elements that constitute the enduring legacy of the Children’s Cabinet including:
a) Collaboration
i) Integrated Case Management (ICMS) Ask each Department to identify situations that would trigger ICMS in its case management systems.
ii) Ask universities and colleges to include collaboration in their students’ training curricula.
iii) Pursue a Leadership Training seminar.
b) Early Intervention and Prevention: Consider holding a summit on Early Intervention similar to the summit held on Collaboration in July 2001.
4) Children’s Cabinet staff will continue to meet weekly, but will also work with the existing groups working on ICMS, Maine Marks, and Early Intervention to sharpen our focus on these three issues.
1) A lingering culture within agencies which hampers a collaborative, cooperative spirit continuing to see the collaborative work of the Cabinet as a temporary “program”, rather than a new and permanent way of doing business;
2) Categorical funding streams that tend to impede a holistic approach to addressing the problems of children and families while suppressing collaborative creativity; and
3) Ensuring that the Children’s Cabinet includes consideration of economic development and family support issues by considering formal statutory inclusion of the Department of Labor as a member of the Children’s Cabinet.
4) Maintaining the work of the Children’s Cabinet with adequate staff and support services.
The creation of the Governor’s Children's Cabinet allowed, in turn, the creation of three mirror-image Regional Children’s Cabinets composed of senior staff from each of the 5 Cabinet departments. This is the first time that State government has had such an effective organizing principle with which to innovate and disseminate children’s policy and practice throughout the State.
The composition of each of the Regional Cabinet mirrors that of the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet; i.e. each contains representatives from the Departments of Corrections, Education; Human Services; Behavioral and Development Services; and Public Safety. Parents and other interest groups also sit on the Regional Cabinets.
Region I includes York and Cumberland Counties. Region II includes Kennebec, Somerset, Androscoggin, Southern Oxford, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo counties. Region III includes Penobscot, Piscataquis, Washington, Hancock, Aroostook Counties.
1) Expand the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS).
2) Continue to focus on the Youth Who Are Homeless initiative.
3) Continue to strengthen the Local Case Resolution Committees.
4) Support the opening and operation of the Mountain View Youth Development Center in Charleston and the Long Creek Youth Development Center in South Portland.
5) Sponsor cross-trainings of children & family resources.
6) Focus on transition initiatives, including:
a) hospital to school;
b) school expulsions to community;
c) youth to adult services; and
d) residential and correctional institutions to community
A continuing challenge will be to balance local needs with State level policy in carrying out the initiatives of the three Regional Cabinets.
Local Case Resolution Committees (LCRC) are
located throughout the State and are a resource for families to access when
they have a unique need that cannot be satisfied through any system already
in existence. Each committee hears cases submitted by family members, agency
representatives, teachers, etc., and makes a decision on a case-by-case basis.
The LCRC members represent many different agencies and can refer the family
to available resources. In a few cases, the LCRC can provide limited funds
to provide services needed to avoid an out-of-home placement for a child.
Prior to accessing LCRC funds, the family must exhaust all other resources
available to them.
LCRCs are allocated a small pool of funds available, to assist in meeting structural gaps and needs in the system of care for children and families, from funds which are pooled for these purposes from each of the five Children’s Cabinet Departments.
Pursuant to 5 MRSA Chapter 439 §19133, the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet is authorized to:
1) “provide services to children with multiple needs within the child's community by supporting case review and resolution at the local level using appropriate funds pooled from each department of the cabinet;”
2) “coordinate funding and budgets among the departments of the cabinet related to child and family services in order to carry out the [Cabinet’s] purpose, collaborate to share resources, remove barriers and support initiatives that prevent health and behavioral problems in children;”
3) “conduct long-range planning and policy development leading to a more effective public and private service delivery system;”
4) “coordinate the delivery of residential and community-based children's services among the departments;” and
5) “assess resource capacity and allocations.”
Accordingly, the Departments of the Children’s Cabinet may choose to contribute funds from their respective accounts to a cumulative fund each fiscal year, for the following purposes:
1) Enable a Child to Remain at Home - To fund a pivotal need essential to allowing a child to remain at home and avoid an imminent out-of-home placement for which no other source of funds is available, without which the child would require an out-of-home placement, and which is outside the usual scope of traditional and reasonable household expenses; and
2) Systems Improvements To fund systems improvements in accordance with the mission and work plan of the Children’s Cabinet and the Maine Marks performance indicators.
1) Support existing LCRCs.
2) Start a LCRC in Oxford County.
3) Develop an improved reporting system for the Regional Children’s Cabinets to use in reporting on LCRC activities.
Develop a feedback system in which LCRCs can report back about where systems are failing individual youth, and use this feedback to make system improvements.
The Council was created in statute when the Children’s Cabinet was codified
in State law. It consists of 13 members: the 5 Commissioners of the Children’s
Cabinet, 3 Senators appointed by the President of the Senate, 4 Representatives
appointed by the Speaker of the House, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Judicial Court. The members of the Council for 2001 are listed below, with
two changes in membership as noted:
Executive Members: Commissioners J. Duke Albanese-Education, Kevin W. Concannon-Human Services, Lynn Duby-Behavioral and Developmental Services, Michael Kelly-Public Safety, Martin Magnusson-Corrections
Legislative Members: Sen. Beth Edmonds [replacing Sen. Mike Michaud]; Sen. Susan Longley; Sen. Mary Small; Rep. Julie O'Brien; Rep. Lillian LaFontaine O'Brien; Rep. Roger Sherman; Rep. Elizabeth Watson
Judicial Member: Chief Justice Leigh Saufley [replacing former Chief Justice Daniel E. Wathen]
1) Taking a stand against underage drinking; and
2) Determining whether systems are responding to children and families early enough in order to avoid more serious problems later on.
1) Engage in "systems thinking," to address children's issues across all three branches;
2) Improve communication among all three branches of government participating on the Council, and learn more about how our colleagues in the other two branches (Judicial and Legislative) approach and frame these issues;
3) Work collaboratively on issues that involve all three branches;
4) Ensure a statewide perspective in the development of policy;
5) Focus on the family as a whole; and
6) Ensure that our work includes all children -- not just those involved with government.
The Integrated Case Management initiative provides Maine families and children with access to services to improve their health, safety, economic stability, self-sufficiency and quality of life that are planned, managed, and delivered in a holistic and integrated manner. Integrated Case Management (ICMS) coordinates services across departmental and community-based agencies. An interdisciplinary venture, ICM comprises the four disciplines of child welfare, domestic violence prevention, mental health, and substance abuse services, and includes both public and private sectors. The key features of the ICMS model are: the case involves the entire family; a comprehensive family plan is developed through a facilitated team approach, which includes family participation; and one person assumes the role of Lead Case Manager. Since the initiative began in 1996, ICM has accomplished the following:
1) In both the greater Bangor and the Bath/Brunswick communities, ICM has been incorporated as a working model, and its scope is being extended to additional communities.
2) In Region III a number of new cross-systems initiatives, in both the Downeast and Aroostook county areas, include ICM as the foundational building block.
3) During the past year, 2300 contact hours of training and organizational support were provided through a range of seminars and training events on topics such as ICM Practice, ICM Facilitation, ICM Skills, Working Across Systems, and Inter-departmental Practice.
4) In concert with local agencies, ICM identified and addressed systemic challenges to establishing a culture and practice for the integrated delivery of services across State departments.
1) Issuance of an Integrated Case Management Joint Policy Resolution from the Children’s Cabinet that directs the consistent and comprehensive integration of family-centered services delivery across the child-and family-serving Departments of State government.
2) Identification and expansion of current cross-systems work being done throughout the State in order to further strengthen and extend a seamless system of integrated delivery of services that includes an ICM component for those complex cases that engage multiple State and community agencies.
3) Convene meetings with the Regional Children’s Cabinets to develop ICM implementation plans for the next year, with particular attention paid to how to expand the utilization of ICM in Regions I and II, either through building upon their present systems for coordinating service delivery, or through supporting the creation of a comprehensive system of family-centered services delivery.
4) Convene meetings and provide cross-departmental training opportunities for senior managers in all Departments to identify both department-specific steps for increasing cross-systems family work, and inter-departmental actions that will allow children and families to receive ICM services when they are requested.
5) Expand opportunities for comprehensive ICM training for case managers to facilitate, and/or be a participant in, ICM team meetings, and for management staff to provide vision and support for their staff working across systems to implement ICM policies and procedures.
The ICM Assessment Report highlights some of the continuing challenges to moving forward with the integration of service delivery systems across multiple State departments and community agencies. Listed among those challenges are the following:
1) Consistent and continuous provision of uniform support for the implementation of ICM, particularly commitments from State agencies and their management, as well as commitments from regional Children’s Cabinets;
2) Inclusion of Integrated Case Management as an operational performance measure for appropriate staff and as a performance measure for services contracted by Departments for meeting the needs of children and their families;
3) Incorporation of comprehensive ICM training within existing departmental training systems;
4) Integration of ICM values and practice into other Children’s Cabinet and departmental initiatives in a coordinated format that promotes communication between the various initiatives and protocols of the Children’s Cabinet and its departments; particular attention should be directed to interdepartmental sharing of fiscal resources, such as funding for family case management, and the addressing of systemic funding barriers.
The purpose of Maine Marks is to report on indicators that track the child, family and community well-being outcomes established by the Children's Cabinet.
The Children’s Cabinet identified indicators for inclusion in Maine Marks for Children, Families and Communities to track progress on the stated outcomes of the Children’s Cabinet. The indicators are intended to measure the concept of “child well-being” from a balanced perspective. Simply put, these indicators should help to answer the question, “How are the children and youth in Maine?” In line with the Children’s Cabinet vision, the indicators provide a holistic view that transcends categorical program areas, and an opportunity for policymakers and taxpayers to answer the question, “How well are we doing in our efforts to keep Maine as one of the best states in the country to raise a child?” The Maine Marks Program has four broad goals, all set at the direction of the Governor's Children's Cabinet:
1) To develop, implement and report on a set of indicators to measure progress on the child and family well-being outcomes of the Children's Cabinet;
2) To develop and maintain a set of partnerships in support of the Maine Marks Program;
3) To provide education and training on the function and use of social indicators in policy-making and program management; and
4) To maintain and enhance the use of Maine Marks for the betterment of all Maine citizens
Building on this work, Maine, along with 13 other states, has been funded
by the Packard, Kauffman and Ford Foundations to participate in a multi-State
initiative to use child well-being indicators to build a change agenda in
States and local communities in order to improve school readiness and ensure
early school success. State leaders are creating indicators that can be tracked
over time at the state and local levels and can be used as benchmarks of what
all young children need in order to succeed. Maine's team has examined the
existing Maine Marks to determine which marks target school readiness indicators.
We have examined the current data sources, and have added additional sources
to provide a breadth of information for each indicator.
1) Expand the number of Maine Marks measures for which there is reliable time-series data.
2) Continue efforts to increase public awareness of the purpose and content of Maine Marks.
3) Consider various options for how the Maine Marks data can be released in the future. For example, should a full, hard copy version be issued annually? Could more reliance be placed on the web page, combined with a hard copy Executive Summary in some years?
4) Begin to provide Maine Marks data at the county level, beginning with the five counties served by the Region III Children’s Cabinet.
5) Consider ways to refine and extend the Maine Marks website to provide more comprehensive and useful information for decision-makers and other interested individuals or parties.
In the Multi-State Child Well-Being Indicator Project funded by the Packard, Kauffman and Ford Foundations, we will be obtaining the data for each indicator to set the baseline. The team will examine the data at six-month intervals for any the changes. At the comprehensive states meeting we will share our indicators and determine the core indicators for all States and the "core plus“ for each State.
1) Explore ways to make it easier for decision-makers and interested parties to use Maine Marks data for policy making, priority setting, and program development. For example, should the Maine Marks report be supplemented by topic-specific briefings, issue papers, or seminars?
2) Regularly revisit the indicators included in Maine Marks through an inter-organizational collaborative like that used to develop the measures. Consider modifying, adding, or dropping measures to make the tool more useful.
3) Continue to expand the Maine Marks website to make it a more useful and comprehensive resource for the public and for decision-makers.
4) Explore ways in which Maine Marks data can be produced at geographic levels smaller than counties.
5) Expand efforts to evaluate Maine Marks, looking especially for ways to make it more useful for its various audiences.
With respect to the Multi-State Child Well-Being Indicator Project funded by the Packard, Kauffman and Ford Foundations, we intend the foundation work to begin the cross-State effort. The fourteen States involved in the project believe that cohesive focused examination of data will raise the awareness of the importance of the early childhood period.
Children cannot achieve their full potential when they are hungry or fearful or abusing alcohol and other drugs or discouraged. Healthy school environments create an atmosphere for learning. By addressing the physical, mental, social, and emotional needs of young people, we can give them the opportunity to reach their true potential as learners. A Coordinated School Health Program (CSHP) consists of the implementation of eight components of school health for children and families. These eight components are: Comprehensive School Health Education; Physical Education and Physical Activity; School Counseling, Physical and Behavioral Health Services; Nutrition Services; School Climate; Physical Environment; and Health Promotion/Wellness. The vision for coordinating Maine’s Comprehensive School Health Programs is to be the best in the nation in nurturing our young people to grow into aspiring and healthy adults. The program’s mission is to ensure that agencies of State government join together with families, schools, and community members to build coordinated school health programs which promote and improve the health and education of all young people. Its goals are to create, advance, and sustain coordination of school health programs, across all State agencies, that guide and support communities in improving their capacity to serve and promote the health and learning of all young people.
Adolescent health is an area of significant concern and focus. According to the 2001 Maine Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 25% of Maine high school students used cigarettes in the last 30 days. This is a 14% decrease since 1997. This brings Maine students in line with the national average and shows our prevention efforts are working.
Physical activity and nutrition are areas of significant concern and focus. The percentage of students exercising for 20 minutes or more, 3 times a week dropped from 71% to 66%, and only 42% of Maine high school students receive physical education one or more times a week.
A number of specific initiatives fall under the coordination of school health programs, including the following:
1) Healthy Maine Partnerships: 54 School Administrative Units (SAU's) have school health coordinators funded through the Partnerships. A formative evaluation tool for all eight components of a CSHP is being piloted with administrators, staff, parents, and students to identify their current prevention program efforts and to help them begin planning and implementing their 5 year action plan with the community. Local school health advisory councils and system leadership teams are being put into place to lead, guide, and facilitate local prevention work with schools.
2) Healthy Learners’ Initiative: 8 schools have addressed social adjustment and bonding to schools for students in pre-K to 3rd grade
3) DOE prevention representation is being established on each of the RCCs.
4) Community/School resources: CSHP Guidelines, CSHP website, Media Campaign grant for Physical Activity and Nutrition initiatives with Maine SAUs/communities and Hannaford Bros.
5) Component area work i.e.; nutrition education, suicide prevention policy and procedure work, character education/conflict resolution, school construction initiatives, etc.
6) State’s Key Advisory Committee over 30 State non-governmental associations arecoming together to support the coordination of school health programs.
1) Our first step is to secure funding for Maine’s work to continue. Our 5- year agreement with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Adolescent School Health (CDC-DASH) ends in 2002. We will re-apply to CDC-DASH for their next 5- year allocation of funding and work to begin securing State agency funds to support this work.
2) Expand our work with local SAUs to coordinate their School Health Programs. This will include issuing a guidelines document to SAUs, providing them with a web based tool for program evaluation and holding statewide recognition for SAUs who have exemplary School Health Programs.
3) Continue to monitor and address those health risk behaviors that are impacting Maine youth and their families.
1) Better coordination in gathering health related data from SAU’s and interpreting it.
2) Increased partnerships and involvement of parents, communities, and youth with schools to provide quality health programs and services in support of children/adolescents as learners.
3) Address youth obesity: Persons who are overweight in adolescence are at high risk of numerous health problems including hypertension, coronary heart disease, gallbladder disease, non-B insulin dependent diabetes, and some cancers. In the United States, the percentage of children ages 6 through 17 who are overweight has increased more than twofold since the 1960’s, with the largest increase in the 1980’s. Combine this with the decreased time our children are getting exercise and this raises great concerns for the future health of Maine citizens and the nation.
4) The availability of mental health services continues to be an issue for children and families. Our schools are still a primary vehicle for providing mental health services to students.
[1] July 1999 report released by the Children’s Rights Council.
[2] Resolve 55. LD 2181. Resolve, to Help Homeless Young People Return to Home or Safe Living Situations.” Effective June 9, 1999.
[3] Chapter 778, LD 1623, An Act to Provide Services for Children in Need of Supervision. Effective May 10, 2000.
[4] For complete details on the development and work of the Children’s Cabinet, see the Cabinet’s 2001 Annual Report at the Children’s Cabinet website (see Appendix.)