Joe Paterno’s (Ghost), Alive, in Primetime?
24 minutes ago – Joe Paterno, right, with Jerry Sandusky in August 1999. “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and …
abcnews.go.com › US
July 11, 2012. PHOTO: Head coach Joe Paterno of the Penn State Nittny Lions prepares to play the. Head coach Joe Paterno of the Penn State Nittny Lions …
Community Troy and Abed Mug Wake up with a cup of joe in this hilarious mug! Get it today! Buy »» · 2012 Olympics NBC Dual Flags Pin Start your 2012 …
abcnews.go.com/VideoDec 23, 2011
Believers flock to a small Baton Rouge neighborhood to see the statue of Mother Mary. VIDEO: Report by …
Mar 4, 2012 – Prime time: Chinese television’s Interviews Before Execution has become a hit … However, she admits to being haunted by those she has interviewed. …… Joe Paterno ‘would face criminal charges if he were still alive‘: Report …
Nov 11, 2011 – Week In The News: Joe Paterno, Italy On The Brink, Cain’s Sex Scandal …. door with its nearly dead over radiated ghost gasping out its last message. …. Delaying keeps the issue alive and the environmentalists will just assume …… ready for primetime; Huntsman was effective in stating his minority position …
Nov 10, 2011 – Joe Paterno Stepping Down as Sex Abuse Scandal Rocks Penn State … Their Own Roof; – Haunted Collector (02×02)Haunted Inn/long Live The Kings … Dish Disaster; – Through the Wormhole (03×03)Is the Universe Alive?
Rape culture is very real, and very much alive. … I cannot understand the agony of publicly revealing your story for prime time news pundits to pick apart. … of that haunted and disturbed him more than the years he spent fighting in Vietnam. … Joe Paterno let child rape happen, and instead of riots and outrage against him, …
Aug 1, 2011 – On Joe Paterno, The Penn State Way, And Looking Ahead: A … the Mooninites, and the Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future …… and primetime opponent give the coaches the oppertunity to have a …… When I went to Sicily a few years ago, my grandfather’s freaking AUNT was still alive at 98.
www.audiokarma.org › … › Sports & Outdoor Adventure100+ posts - 53 authors - Nov 8, 2011
[Archive] Penn State Coach Joe Paterno to retire? … How would you like to be the next Penn State football coach, with the ghost of Joe Paterno everywhere? ….. I sincerely hope Joe Paterno is elected to the Hall of Fame while he is still alive. …… The “latest updates” by the networks during prime time on the …
Joe is gone. The ghost, is alive.
July 12, 2012 – By KEN BELSON – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Abuse Inquiry Faults Paterno and Others at Penn State”
A critical break in the investigation of Jerry Sandusky came via a posting …that Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator for Joe Paterno’s …November 16, 2011 – By JO BECKER – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Inquiry Grew Into Concerns of a Cover-Up“
The death of Joe Paterno could weaken the state’s prosecution of two former …with the child sexual abuse case involving Jerry Sandusky.January 23, 2012 – By MARK VIERA – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Testimony From Paterno Is No Longer Admissible”
The assistant coach Mike McQueary testified that he witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, and that he explicitly told Joe Paterno …December 16, 2011 – By PETER DURANTINE – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Penn State Aide Tells Court What He Saw”
Amid a sexual abuse scandal, Joe Paterno, the football coach, was …by the arrest last Saturday of the former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky.November 9, 2011 – By MARK VIERA – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Paterno Ousted With President By Penn State”
3 days ago … “Joe Paterno did not cover up for Jerry Sandusky,” the family’s statement said. “ Joe Paterno did not know that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile.July 10, 2012 – By KEN BELSON – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Paterno Family Questions Inquiry of Penn State’s Role in Scandal”
Jerry Sandusky left the Centre County Courthouse after being …Joe Paterno, the university’s famed head coach who had been alerted to at …June 22, 2012 – By JOE DRAPE – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Sandusky Guilty Of Sexual Abuse Of 10 Young Boys”
When the jury learned after its verdict that Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son had joined his accusers, “that was total confirmation that we made the …June 23, 2012 – By JOE DRAPE and NATE TAYLOR – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Little Debate or Doubt About Sandusky’s Guilt, Juror Says”
The defense rested shortly before noon Wednesday in the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse trial without calling the former Penn State …
The jury verdict for the longtime Penn State football defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky completed the fall of a onetime local hero in a …
Jerry Sandusky’s lead lawyer, Joseph Amendola, repeatedly said other victims were lying before and during the trial, which ended Friday with …
Jerry Sandusky, left, and his wife Dottie, center, left the Centre County …With the jury in the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse case deep into its …
The trial of Jerry Sandusky, a former Penn State football coach, began Monday with the prosecution showing pictures of eight boys whom …
One of Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers, Karl Rominger, declined to respond or to say whether the prospect of facing Matt Sandusky’s accusation was …
Mike McQueary said that he witnessed a sexual assault of a boy in a locker room by Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State assistant football …
9 hours ago … The same month that the former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno testified before a grand jury about Jerry Sandusky, he began …July 14, 2012 – By JO BECKER – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out”
An Interview With Jerry Sandusky: The Times’s Jo Becker sat down with the …said Coach Joe Paterno never spoke to him about any suspected …December 3, 2011 – By JO BECKER – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Center of Penn State Scandal, Sandusky Tells His Own Story”
Joe Paterno’s tenure as coach of the Penn State football team will soon …by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant, of a young boy in the football …November 8, 2011 – By MARK VIERA and PETE THAMEL – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “Abuse Scandal Seen Leading To Paterno Exit at Penn State”
A biography of Joe Paterno, the Penn State football coach whose winning career abruptly ended in the scandal surrounding Jerry Sandusky, …April 29, 2012 – By NOAM COHEN – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “The Coach, The Biographer, And the Final Chapter”
Jerry Sandusky said that “nobody will be able to take away the memories we …Reaction to the death of Joe Paterno has come from retired and …January 22, 2012 – By THE NEW YORK TIMES – Sports
Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator once viewed as a …Mr. Sandusky was an assistant defensive coach to Joe Paterno, the coach …November 5, 2011 – By MARK VIERA – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “A Sex Abuse Scandal Rattles Penn State’s Football Program”
Joe Paterno appears to have played a greater role than previously known in Penn State’s handling of a 2001 report that Jerry Sandusky had …June 30, 2012 – By JO BECKER – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “E-Mails Suggest Paterno Role in Silence on Sandusky”
Jerry Sandusky, accompanied by his lawyer, Joseph Amendola, gave a …Both the college president and Coach Joe Paterno have said they …December 3, 2011 – Produced by Jo Becker, Rob Harris, Jon Huang and Justin Sablich/The New York Times – Sports / College Football – Multimedia – Print Headline: “Sandusky in His Own Words”
Alan Klein/Associated Press. Jerry Sandusky working at a coaches clinic at Penn State in 1999. He was a Joe Paterno assistant for over 30 …November 7, 2011 – By MARK VIERA – Sports / College Football – Article – Print Headline: “A Sterling Reputation Lies in Tatters”
Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno Exit Amid Scandal …of family tradition to declare that he loved Joe Paterno more than Notre Dame. So I’ve …in the football building by Jerry Sandusky, Paterno’s former defensive guru, …November 8, 2011 – By MAUREEN DOWD – Opinion – Article – Print Headline: “Personal Foul at Penn State”
Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out
By JO BECKER
Published: July 14, 2012
In January 2011, Joe Paterno learned prosecutors were investigating his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually assaulting young boys. Soon, Mr. Paterno had testified before a grand jury, and the rough outlines of what would become a giant scandal had been published in a local newspaper.
Matt Rourke/Associated Press
The former coach Joe Paterno, with his son Scott Paterno, left, being greeted by supporters at his home in November 2011. His firing led to an angry backlash against Penn State’s trustees.
Abuse Scandal Inquiry Damns Paterno and Penn State (July 13, 2012)
Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters (July 13, 2012)
In Report, Failures Throughout Penn State (July 13, 2012)
The Quad: At Paterno Statue, Support and Shock (July 12, 2012)
Penn State Investigation Adds to Freeh’s Extensive Résumé (July 13, 2012)
That same month, Mr. Paterno, the football coach at Penn State, began negotiating with his superiors to amend his contract, with the timing something of a surprise because the contract was not set to expire until the end of 2012, according to university documents and people with knowledge of the discussions. By August, Mr. Paterno and the university’s president, both of whom were by then embroiled in the Sandusky investigation, had reached an agreement.
Mr. Paterno was to be paid $3 million at the end of the 2011 season if he agreed it would be his last. Interest-free loans totaling $350,000 that the university had made to Mr. Paterno over the years would be forgiven as part of the retirement package. He would also have the use of the university’s private plane and a luxury box at Beaver Stadium for him and his family to use over the next 25 years.
The university’s full board of trustees was kept in the dark about the arrangement until November, when Mr. Sandusky was arrested and the contract arrangements, along with so much else at Penn State, were upended. Mr. Paterno was fired, two of the university’s top officials were indicted in connection with the scandal, and the trustees, who held Mr. Paterno’s financial fate in their hands, came under verbal assault from the coach’s angry supporters.
Board members who raised questions about whether the university ought to go forward with the payments were quickly shut down, according to two people with direct knowledge of the negotiations.
In the end, the board of trustees — bombarded with hate mail and threatened with a defamation lawsuit by Mr. Paterno’s family — gave the family virtually everything it wanted, with a package worth roughly $5.5 million. Documents show that the board even tossed in some extras that the family demanded, like the use of specialized hydrotherapy massage equipment for Mr. Paterno’s wife at the university’s Lasch Building, where Mr. Sandusky had molested a number of his victims.
The details of Mr. Paterno and his family’s fight for money seem to deepen one of the lasting truths of the Sandusky scandal: the significant power that Mr. Paterno exerted on the state institution, its officials, its alumni and its purse strings.
Since Mr. Paterno’s death in January, Mr. Paterno’s family, lawyers and publicists have mounted an aggressive campaign to protect his legacy. The family and its lawyers have hammered the university’s board of trustees, accusing members of attempting to deflect blame onto a dying Mr. Paterno. This week, they angrily disputed the conclusions of an independent investigation that asserted Mr. Paterno and other top university officials protected a serial predator in order to “avoid the consequences of bad publicity” for the university, its football program and its coach’s reputation.
On Friday, Wick Sollers, a lawyer for Mr. Paterno and his family, said that it was Penn State that last summer proposed the lucrative retirement package, and that many of the aspects of the proposal — use of the plane, the luxury box — had existed in prior contracts.
Information about the salary paid to Mr. Paterno, one of the longest serving and most successful college football coaches in history, had for many years been hard to come by. In recent years, though, it became fairly common knowledge that he earned about $1 million annually, not counting his television deals and his contracts with shoe and apparel companies.
But speculation about just how long he was going to remain the well-compensated coach of Penn State had been going on for a decade or more. Mr. Paterno survived an attempt to force him into retirement in 2004, and before the Sandusky revelations, his most recent deal ran through the end of 2012.
According to university records, Mr. Paterno first expressed a desire to revisit his contract in January 2011. It was very early in that month that he learned he had been subpoenaed to testify before the Sandusky grand jury.
But it was not until summer — after Mr. Paterno, the university president and two other senior officials at the university had all testified before the Sandusky grand jury — that the idea that Mr. Paterno might retire in exchange for a multimillion-dollar payout gained traction.
By August, a deal had effectively been reached, though it and the idea that Mr. Paterno might make 2011 his last season had not been announced at the time. Details of the agreement were known to a handful of board members but not shared with the full board, according to people with knowledge of the events.
On Nov. 5, 2011, Mr. Sandusky was arrested, and two Penn State administrators — men who were Mr. Paterno’s superiors — were indicted on charges of failing to report to the authorities a 2001 allegation that Mr. Sandusky had attacked a young boy in the football building’s showers.
Quickly, it became clear that Mr. Paterno, too, had failed to go to the authorities or even to confront Mr. Sandusky after he had been told in person of the episode. The prospect that Mr. Paterno, a revered figure, might be fired by the board of trustees was suddenly real.
Mr. Paterno quickly issued a statement saying, in effect, that the board need not act, that he would resign at the end of the season. Neither he nor the university revealed that he had effectively agreed to do so already, in return for an expensive financial package.
The board fired him anyway, a decision that caused rioting and led to an angry and often very personal backlash against the trustees, but it agreed to honor his contract. It was then that the full board came to find out what the university was obligated to pay Mr. Paterno.
Over the ensuing months, as revelations about the role Mr. Paterno and other university officials played in the scandal mounted, a schism developed among the board members, according to several people with knowledge of the events.
There were some who argued that it was unseemly to pay the remainder of the money and other perks owed to Mr. Paterno, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions. They wondered whether, given Mr. Paterno’s failings, it might be possible to nullify the contract, or at least renegotiate it and reduce the payout, the people said.
Others worried about the hostility they would face if they tried to strip Mr. Paterno, still beloved in many quarters of the campus, of money that he was contractually owed — a prospect that grew even more worrisome after he died on Jan. 22 this year. During a conference call, one board member worried aloud that failure to make good on what was owed to the Paterno estate could lead to another “reign of terror” by Mr. Paterno’s supporters, according to a person who was on the call.
With rumblings that the Paterno family was thinking of suing the board of trustees for defamation, the board dispatched its lawyer to negotiate the final payments. All the board wanted in return was a release protecting the university from such a lawsuit.
The Paternos refused. Mr. Sollers said in his statement that “the retention of their legal rights in a case of this magnitude and complexity is customary and appropriate.”
The board of trustees ultimately agreed to make good on the full package anyhow, and in April paid what was owed to the Paternos. Additional demands, like the desire by Mr. Paterno’s wife to make use of the athletic department’s hydrotherapy facilities, were met. The board did draw the line at the family’s request to use the university’s corporate jet, arguing that the contract limited that use to the coach himself. And it refused the family’s demand to retain use of the stadium box next to the university president’s, the one reserved for the head coach, offering the family the choice of two other suites on a different floor.
Still, Frank T. Guadagnino, a lawyer hired by the board in November to handle a variety of aspects of the scandal, suggested that the board felt it did not have much maneuvering room when it came to the discussions with the Paterno family.
“We were providing for payments due under the contract,” he said in an interview Friday. “So we weren’t really negotiating.”
He added that, given revelations in the independent report released this week that suggest that Mr. Paterno knew about allegations of child abuse involving Mr. Sandusky as far back as 1998, the question over whether the university could rightfully renege on paying the Paterno family what was owed under the August amendments was “complicated,” and one that “we haven’t looked at.”
At a board of trustees news conference Friday, Karen B. Peetz, the board’s chairwoman, made clear that the issue would not be revisited. “Contracts are contracts,” she said.
Tim Rohan contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on July 14, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Paterno Won Sweeter Deal Even as Scandal Played Out.
The 2012 Statistical Abstract
The National Data Book
Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Juvenile Delinquency, Child Abuse
Find data about child welfare rates in your area
Learn more and how to stop it.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Public Affairs 2011 Annual Child Abuse Report
child abuse investigations
pennsylvania’s child welfare system is responsible
for a wide range of services to abused, neglected,
dependent, and delinquent children. funding
provided by the state and county agencies for
all these services exceeds $1.5 billion. more than
$48 million of that amount was spent by state
and county agencies to investigate reports of
suspected child and student abuse and related
the department uses state only money to
operate childline, a 24-hour hotline for reports
of suspected child abuse and the child abuse
background check unit that provides clearances
for persons seeking employment involving the
care and treatment of children. in 2011 childline
expenditures amounted to $4.66 million.
expenditures for act 33, the child protective
* fiscal notes:
services law, act 179, and the adam walsh
act units, which process child abuse history
clearances, were an additional $1.42 million.
expenditures for policy, fiscal and executive staff
in the department’s office of children youth
and families’ headquarters, totaled $498,000.
regional staff expenditures related to child abuse
reporting, investigations and related activities
were $ 1.71 million.
table 11 lists the total expenditures for county
agencies to conduct alleged child abuse and
student abuse investigations. these numbers
do not reflect total expenditures for all services
provided by the county agencies. in state
fiscal year 2010-2011, county expenditures for
suspected abuse investigations were $39.95
the $1.5 billion figure reflects no change in state and local funds over the 2010 report. also, this figure
only represents the state and local dollars spent on child welfare services in pennsylvania. adding
federal dollars to the expenditures the total child welfare budget is $1.8 billion.
the $43.34 million consists of $39.95 million for county child abuse investigations (chart 11 below)
plus $5.16 million for headquarters, childline and background check salaries, benefits, operating
and travel percentages plus $2.89 million for regional salaries, benefits, operation and travel for child
abuse investigative work.
table 11 – eXpenditures for cHild-abuse investiGations,
state fiscal year 2010-2011
county total expenditures county total expenditures
Adams 435,730 Lackawanna 294,364
Allegheny 2,791,830 Lancaster 734,260
Armstrong 269,424 Lawrence 190,769
Beaver 1,250,239 Lebanon 159,452
Bedford 65,006 Lehigh 3,258,218
Berks 1,665,594 Luzerne 1,086,329
Blair 254,186 Lycoming 131,813
Bradford 62,043 McKean 161,412
Bucks 3,209,956 Mercer 121,646
Butler 392,111 Mifflin 103,247
Cambria 945,514 Monroe 543,441
Cameron 26,547 Montgomery 698,728
Carbon 155,955 Montour 84,166
Centre 220,600 Northampton 1,460,894
Chester 929,307 Northumberland 390,643
Clarion 123,333 Perry 121,190
Clearfield 127,116 Philadelphia 5,534,209
Clinton 61,285 Pike 103,166
Columbia 42,613 Potter 44,429
Crawford 392,117 Schuylkill 404,337
Cumberland 616,290 Snyder 80,570
Dauphin 1,022,180 Somerset 304,800
Delaware 2,296,495 Sullivan 28,924
Elk 77,320 Susquehanna 253,916
Erie 2,167,403 Tioga 243,120
Fayette 370,404 Union 47,465
Forest 41,980 Venango 281,633
Franklin 70,746 Warren 151,834
Fulton 66,125 Washington 538,096
Greene 93,677 Wayne 253,383
Huntingdon 63,687 Westmoreland 500,205
Indiana 363,774 Wyoming 100,006
Jefferson 34,788 York 795,108
Juniata 42,062 total 39,953,210
The Citizen Review Annual Report was produced in collaboration with individual Citizen Review
Panels, The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Work Group, along with the Department of
Public Welfare’s Office of Children, Youth and Families, The Pennsylvania Child Welfare Training
Program and the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators Association.
Mission Statement for the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Work Group
To advance collaborative policies, best practices, public awareness and engagement to ensure that
children are protected from abuse and neglect.
The work group is comprised of consumers and professionals representing areas of health, child
welfare, law, human services and education.
COmmOnWeAlTh OF PennSYlvAniA
Dear Citizens –
Thank you for taking the time to read the Pennsylvania Citizen Review Panels’ 2010 and 2011 Annual
Report. This report contains the activities and recommendations that were generated through the panels’
first two years of operation in Pennsylvania. This is the first report of its kind in Pennsylvania and it marks
what will become an important guide in celebrating the accomplishments of the child welfare system in
Pennsylvania, as well as focusing on the challenges and solutions to those challenges.
As you will find in the report, Citizen Review Panels were established in Pennsylvania as a result of the
Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (Public law 93-247) and Pennsylvania’s Act 146 of
2006. There are currently three panels functioning in Pennsylvania. These panels represent the South
Central, northwest and northeast Regions of the state. While the counties represented in each of the
panels do not encompass the entire Commonwealth, many of the panel recommendations address
Pennsylvania’s approach to recruiting individuals for these three panels was not limited to any one target
audience. While outreach was done to all of Pennsylvania’s public child welfare agencies and their service
providers, care was taken to invite parents who have had children involved in the child welfare system and
individuals from outside the typical child welfare parameters. This outreach was performed in a variety
of ways and was often time conducted at a regional level. it included press releases in local newspapers,
distribution of brochures at community events and displaying flyers in area businesses. The end result
of the recruitment efforts is that the panels represent a wide array of citizen volunteers who have come
together to collaboratively offer solutions to challenges in the child welfare system.
The panels are required to examine the policies, procedures and practices of Pennsylvania’s child welfare
system. The panels then, on a yearly basis, offer recommendations for change. Their recommendations
and the Commonwealth’s response to the panels’ recommendations are contained within this report.
The individual sections pertaining to each of the panels were written exclusively by the panels themselves.
After reading the individual sections, you will find thought-provoking recommendations and a sense of
dedication exemplified by the work completed by the panels. We appreciate the work of the Citizen Review
Panels and their commitment to system improvement. Their continuing review and recommendations
serve to enhance our outcomes. We look forward to our ongoing collaboration as we work together to
protect Pennsylvania’s children.
offiCe of The DePUTY SeCreTArY | P.o. box 2675, hArriSbUrG, PA 17105 | 717.787.2600 | www.dpw.state.pa.us
Table of Contents
Collaboration Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………….69
Deputy Secretary letter ………………………………………………………………………………… 70
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………………….71
Pennsylvania introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 72
Pennsylvania and the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act
A little history………………………………………………………………………………………….. 73
Pennsylvania legislation ………………………………………………………………………………74Development
and Support of Citizen Review Panels ………………………………..75-76
Appendix A – CRP Regional map …………………………………………………………….. 77
Appendix B – PA CRP Flyer ………………………………………………………………………. 78
Citizen Review Panel 2010-2011 overviews …………………………………………………… 79
northwest Citizen Review Panel 2010 Annual Report ……………………………………80
northwest Citizen Review Panel 2011 Annual Report ……………………………………. 87
northeast Citizen Review Panel 2010 Annual Repor……………………………………. 100
northeast Citizen Review Panel 2011 Annual Repor ……………………………………. 107
South Central Citizen Review Panel 2010 Annual Report ……………………………..112
South Central Citizen Review Panel 2010 Annual Report ……………………………..122
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania consists of 67 counties covering
44,817 square miles and is home to approximately
12.2 million residents. The city of Philadelphia
is the largest metropolitan area with the fivecounty
southeast region including Philadelphia,
encompassing 31 percent of the total statewide
population. Allegheny County is the second
largest metropolitan area and encompasses the
city of Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs.
The diversity across PA’s urban, suburban and
rural areas creates the need for both flexibility
and consideration of regional, county, cultural
and other differences in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems.
Structure of Child Welfare
Pennsylvania’s child welfare system is one
of 13 states that are state supervised, but
county-administered. The county administered
system means that child welfare and juvenile
justice services are organized, managed, and
delivered by 67 County Children and Youth
Agencies, with staff in these agencies hired as
county employees. each county elects their
county commissioners or executives who are
the governing authority. Pennsylvania has a
rich tradition of hundreds of private agencies
delivering the direct services and supports
needed by at-risk children, youth and their
families through contracts with counties. The
array of services delivered by private providers
includes prevention, in-home, foster family and
kinship care and congregate placement care,
permanency services including adoption and a
variety of related behavioral health and education
The Department of Public Welfare’s Office of
Children, Youth and Families is the state agency
that plans, directs, and coordinates statewide
children’s programs including social services
provided directly by the county children and
There are some intrinsic differences in operating
a state supervised and county-administered
system, which impacts statewide outcomes for
children and families. Within this structure,
Pennsylvania provides the statutory and policy
framework for delivery of child welfare services
and monitors local implementation. Given the
diversity that exists among the 67 counties, this
structure allows for the development of countyspecific
solutions to address the strengths and
needs of families and their communities. each
county, through planning efforts, must develop
strategies to improve outcomes.
This structure also presents challenges in
ensuring consistent application of policy,
regulation and program initiatives and has
impacted Pennsylvania’s performance on the
federal outcome measures. These federal
measures require county-specific analysis to
determine the factors which influence statewide
data. Because of the variance in county practice,
it is challenging to identify statewide solutions
that would have the most impact on improving
Pennsylvania and the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act – A little History
In 1974 Congress passed the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (P. L. 93-247).
The purpose of this act was to provide financial
assistance to states for a demonstration program
for the prevention, identification, and treatment
of child abuse and neglect. Read the text of the
Act here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
Major Provisions of Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act included:
• Provided assistance to states to develop
child abuse and neglect identification and
• Authorized limited government research into
child abuse prevention and treatment
• Created the National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect within the federal Department of
Health and Human Services to:
o Administer grant programs
o Identify issues and areas that require
additional focus through new research and
o Serve as the focal point for the collection
of information, improvement of programs,
dissemination of materials, and
information on best practices to states and
• Created the National Clearinghouse on Child
Abuse and Neglect Information
• Established grants that provide assistance
with training personnel and supporting
innovative programs aimed at preventing and
treating child abuse. .
In 1996, Congress amended the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act. One of the
items addressed in this amendment was that
the funding is contingent on the establishment
of Citizen Review Panels. Based on this
requirement, along with additional amendments
in 2003 related to the review panels,
Pennsylvania was no longer compliant with the
child abuse Act.
In 2006, the Department of Public Welfare’s
Office of Children Youth and Families convened
a workgroup to assist in the development
and implementation of a state plan to come
into compliance with the Act. The state plan
addressed a vast array of areas relating to
child protective services including, but limited
to, trainings for Guardian Ad Litems, public
disclosure of fatalities and near fatalities, and the
development of Citizen Review Panels.
Empowering local communities to serve child victims of abuse. … In 2010, an estimated 1560 children died from abuse and neglect in the United States. 2 … of child abuse from January through June 2011, some startling statistics include: …
Statistics on child abuse and neglect, consequences of child abuse and criminal behavior and … United States Government Accountability Office, 2011. Child …
Spring 2011 Newsletter. 2010 Annual Report … Every 6 hours a child dies in the United States due to abuse or neglect … The statistics tell the heartbreaking tale.
Sep 2, 2010 – 10 Responses to National Child Abuse Statistics. Avatar. sarah. May 12th, 2011 at 12:58 pm. This is horrendous there is no reason for children …
Federal Interagency Work Group on Child Abuse & Neglect … (Updated June 2011); Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) reports: …. Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
2011 legislative update………………………………………………………………………. 5 child abuse and student abuse statistical summary………………………. 7 reporting and …
Jun 27, 2012 – US Census Bureau : Juvenile Delinquency, Child Abuse.
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
National Child Abuse Statistics … $33 billion is the total of direct cost of child abuse and neglect in the United States on an annual … Accessed: March 22, 2011 …
Ads - Why these ads?
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.