Guardianships Make Sense for Government
In addition to being good for children and families, evidence suggests that supported guardianships can save state, tribal and federal money by closing the case and ending the ongoing casework and supervision that is required when children remain in foster care.7 Once established, legal guardianships also require less judicial oversight and time, which can contribute to lower costs for courts.8
States and tribes have recognized the need to support relative and guardian caregivers as an alternative to long-term foster care when reunification or adoption is not possible. Forty states and the District of Columbia have some form of guardianship program. Thirty-two states pay for the program with state-only funds;9 other states have federal Title IV-E waivers;10 and others use the state-match portion of federal funds available through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or the Social Services Block Grant.11
Guardianship programs vary widely in eligibility and amount of assistance provided. Typically, state-funded programs offer lower monthly rates to caregivers than the foster care stipend. When states fund their programs with state and local dollars, the resources are highly vulnerable to budgetary shortfalls.
Momentous change can come in tiny packages. Nanotechnologies have been hailed by many as the next industrial revolution, likely to affect everything from clothing and medical treatments to engineering. Although focused on the very small, nanotechnology—the ability to measure, manipulate and manufacture objects that are 1/100th to 1/100,000th the circumference of a human hair—offers immense promise. Whether used in cancer therapies, pollution-eating compounds or stain-resistant apparel, these atomic marvels are radically and rapidly changing the way we live. The National Science Foundation predicts that the global marketplace for goods and services using nanotechnologies will grow to $1 trillion by 2015 and employ 2 million workers.
More info
"The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday ordered farmers to limit the use of a type of antibiotics they give livestock because it could make people more resistant to a key antibiotic that can save lives, encouraging news for public health advocates who say such animal antibiotics are overused."
More info
"For decades, factory farms have used antibiotics even in healthy animals to promote faster growth and prevent diseases that could sicken livestock held in confined quarters. But a firestorm has erupted over a federal proposal recommending antibiotics only when animals are actually sick."
More info
Sharon Ladin, director of the Pew Health Group’s Antibiotics and Innovation Project, issued the following statement regarding the Generating Antibiotics Incentives Now (GAIN) Act (H.R. 2182)...
More info
"On April 15, scientists reported that the meat bought at supermarkets is often contaminated with Staphylococcus aureas bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics used to fight human disease."
More info