[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHILD PROTECTION OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 22, 1999
__________
Serial 106-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-978 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut, Chairman
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
MARK FOLEY, Florida WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana
DAVE CAMP, Michigan
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of April 15, 1999, announcing the hearing............... 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, Hon. Olivia A.
Golden, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families... 17
Library of Congress, Karen Spar, Congressional Research Service.. 33
______
American Public Human Services Association, William Waldman...... 38
Children's Defense Fund, MaryLee Allen........................... 50
Florida Department of Children and Families, Hon. Kathleen A.
Kearney........................................................ 68
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Jess
McDonald....................................................... 72
KidsHELP! Foundation, Kim Warburton.............................. 45
North American Council on Adoptable Children, Joe Kroll.......... 81
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Child Welfare League of America, Inc., statement................. 97
Hear My Voice, Protecting Our Nation's Children, Ann Arbor, MI,
Janet R. Snyder, statement..................................... 15
Men's Health Network, Cory J. Jensen, statement and attachment... 99
National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, Atlanta, GA,
statement...................................................... 99
Stark, Hon. Pete Fortney, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, statement and attachment.................. 103
Voice for Adoption, statement.................................... 106
CHILD PROTECTION OVERSIGHT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Johnson
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 1999
No. HR-4
Johnson Announces Hearing on
Child Protection Oversight
Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the implementation of a
Federal review system to hold States accountable for their child
protection systems and the impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) on the number of adoptions in the U.S. The
hearing will take place on Thursday, April 22, 1999, in room B-318 of
the Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include representatives from the Administration, the
Congressional Research Service, State policymakers, and advocacy
groups. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an
oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the
Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Under both the Interethnic Adoption Act of 1996 (Section 1808 of
P.L. 104-188) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-
89), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
responsible for reviewing State child protection systems and for
holding States accountable for how children are faring in these
systems. HHS had been responsible for overseeing child protection
programs under previous legislation as well, especially the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272). However, in
1989, Congress imposed a moratorium on the collection of penalties
levied on States for failing to comply with Federal law. Then in 1994,
Congress directed HHS to develop a child protection review system to
monitor State compliance with Federal foster care and adoption laws.
Congress further required that the new review system allow for
corrective action and impose penalties. Final regulations from HHS were
to take effect in 1996. In November of 1998, HHS published preliminary
regulations and invited public comment. Final regulations are still
pending.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was intended to increase
the number of adoptions out of foster care. Preliminary survey findings
confirm that the new adoption law is having its intended effect with
significantly more children adopted out of foster care in 1998 than in
1997. Several States have reported that the unprecedented rise in
adoptions can be attributed to the new adoption law as well as several
innovative State initiatives.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Johnson stated: ``The
Subcommittee has a strong interest in how HHS is monitoring State
compliance with Federal adoption reforms and other Federal child
protection laws. In addition, our Subcommittee wants to know what has
caused the recent increase in adoptions so we can do more of it.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on two main issues. First, the Subcommittee
wants to examine the status and adequacy of the Federal child
protection review system proposed by HHS last November. Of particular
importance are the performance measures adopted by the Administration,
the methods used to determine State performance, the measures used to
determine permanency, and the use of penalties for violations of
Federal requirements. Second, the Subcommittee wants to learn as much
as possible about the causes of the recent increase in adoption. In
addition, it is interested in learning about the details of how
specific States and localities have changed their policies to increase
adoption.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement
for the printed record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-
spaced copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch
diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format, with their name, address, and
hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Thursday, May
6, 1999, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and
Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements
wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested
public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this
purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B-317
Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the day before the
hearing.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed
record or any written comments in response to a request for written
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed,
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the
Committee.
1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette WordPerfect 5.1
format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10 pages
including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will
rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written
comments in response to a published request for comments by the
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet
will not be included in the printed record.
The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press,
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted
in other forms.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at ``http://www.house.gov/ways__means/''.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Good morning. The hearing
will come to order.
I can't help but comment, in light of Tuesday's tragic
events, that brain research in this country and developmental
research is leading us to an understanding of how children who
have no empathy and no control and no real grasp of
consequences are amongst us. And I hope that we will all begin
to read books like ``Ghosts From the Nursery'' and think
through what are the implications of modern science for our
children because very clearly science is demonstrating that
there are certain things that we are actually doing as
irresponsible adults that are creating human beings who are
incapable of empathy, who do not think in a way that brings
consequences to their concrete understanding, and who don't
have the normal controls that we assume in a human society and
that are essential to a civil society.
So I would just say I am reading those things and thinking
about those things. And we will be open to your thoughts on
what we do with the very clear evidence that many of our
children are growing up without the essentials necessary to
being part of a human community.
Today, we do have a host of wonderful witnesses who will
shed light on two important issues in regard to abused and
neglected children. Recently, under the very strong leadership
of this Subcommittee, of my colleague Clay Shaw from Florida,
this Subcommittee adopted a very progressive national policy
governing adoption that has resulted in a dramatic increase in
the number of children finding love and security with adoptive
parents.
Many people in this room worked on that 1997 adoption bill.
Among other important provisions, this law gave States a cash
incentive for increasing the number of adoptions out of foster
care. Perhaps of even greater long-term importance, the law
required States to make decisions on terminating parents rights
within 15 months of the time children enter foster care.
These and many other important provisions were designed to
reduce the time a child lived in foster care limbo by
increasing adoptions.
Now, 2 years later, reports from the North American Council
on Adoptable Children and the General Accounting Office report
truly dramatic and wonderful news: Adoptions have increased
between a whopping 52 percent and 101 percent. And without
objection, I would like to enter both of these studies into the
record.
In fact, in its study of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, and Texas, GAO found that, ``The emphasis on adoption in
the Adoption and Safe Families Act was among several factors
that State officials cited as contributing to an increase in
fiscal year 1998 foster care adoptions over the base numbers.''
This is something important. We passed a law on a
bipartisan basis requiring important changes in social policy
throughout our country and it has helped kids. We must do more
of this.
Two concerns have developed as a result of our success.
Because adoptions have increased so dramatically in numbers and
so rapidly, the amount of money we have in the law for
incentive payments is inadequate. This is a good problem to
have. I asked CBO to check it out, and they are now estimating
that we will be around $28 million short this year.
I think I speak for all Members of this Subcommittee in
saying that we will figure out how to get this money. States
have done a great job, and they should and will get the
payments they have earned.
The second concern I would raise is far more long-term. The
greater our success with adoption, the fewer children in foster
care, and the fewer dollars flowing to the States in spite of
the need of troubled families. That long-term concern has got
to be very real for all of us.
But now to the second issue we address today. It is the
child protection regulation issued last September by the
Clinton administration. Republican Members of the Ways and
Means Committee, including Mr. Camp, along with Senator DeWine
and Senator Craig, sent a detailed letter to the administration
stating that the draft regulation had both great strengths and
serious weaknesses.
Let me mention a few of the weaknesses. First, the proposed
review system does not state as clearly as it should the
specific measures for which States will be held accountable.
Thus it is unclear precisely how HHS will determine the
adequacy of State performance and at what point inadequacy will
result in the imposition of fines.
Second, neither the length of time a child remains in
foster care nor increases in the number of adoptions are
included in outcome measures. Let me repeat that: Neither the
length of time a child remains in foster care nor increases in
the number of adoptions are included in outcome measures. I
mean, it has been simply astounding to me as a national
policymaker who served on this Subcommittee for 6 years in the
eighties that we have not known and never been able to say how
many kids were in foster care.
There's one thing I do want to know. I want to be able to
know how many kids are in foster care. How long have they been
there. And how many kids were adopted. So these are two of the
most important measures of State performance and simply must be
included as outcomes.
Third, the child safety goal is to be measured by both
protecting children and by maintaining children in their own
homes. Safety and keeping families intact are separate goals
and cannot be considered together. There is a tension between
them. They are both important.
We are fortunate to have Dr. Golden to explain the
regulation in greater detail and to answer our questions. I
also would like to say I am terribly apologetic, but I must
leave the hearing for about 15 minutes and I will be back. But
after hearing the testimony by the administration on the
regulatory issues, I do hope that we will be able to resolve
that dialog satisfactorily.
[The opening statement and attachments follow:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Connecticut
Today we have a host of wonderful witnesses who will shed
light on two important issues concerning national policy for
abused and neglected children.
The first issue we want to examine is recent increases in
the number of adoptions. Many people in this room worked on the
splendid 1997 adoption bill--a bill, by the way, that was first
drafted by members of this Subcommittee. Among other important
provisions, this law gave states a cash incentive for
increasing the number of adoptions out of foster care. Perhaps
of even greater long-term importance, the law required states
to make decisions on terminating parent rights within 15 months
of the time children enter foster care. These, and many other
fine provisions, were designed to reduce foster care limbo by
increasing adoption.
Now, two years later, thanks to superb reports from the
North American Council on Adoptable Children and the General
Accounting Office, we find that adoptions have increased
dramatically--in the GAO study by between a whopping 52 percent
and 101 percent. [Without objection, I'd like to put copies of
both studies in the record.] In fact, in its study of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and Texas, GAO found
that--``The emphasis on adoption in the Adoption and Safe
Families Act was among several factors that state officials
cited as contributing to an increase in fiscal year 1998 foster
care adoptions over the base numbers.''
Now here's something new. We pass in law in Washington on a
bipartisan basis, important changes in social policy take place
throughout the country, and the status of children improves. We
should do more of this.
By the way, there is lots of concern that because adoptions
have increased so much, so fast, that the amount of money we
have in the law for incentive payments is inadequate. We have
asked CBO to check into this problem and they are now
estimating that we will be around $28 million short this year.
I think I speak for both myself and Mr. Cardin in saying that
we will figure out how to get this additional money. States
have done a great job--they should and will get the payments
they have earned.
The second issue we address today is the child protection
regulations issued last September by the Clinton
Administration. Republican members of the Ways and Means
Committee (including Mr. Camp), along with Senator DeWine and
Senator Craig, sent a detailed letter to the Administration
stating that the draft regulation had both great strengths and
serious weaknesses.
Let me mention a few of the weaknesses. First, the proposed
review system does not state as clearly as it should the
specific measures for which states will be held accountable.
Thus, it is unclear precisely how HHS will determine the
adequacy of state performance and at what point inadequacy will
result in the imposition of fines. Second, neither the length
of time a child remains in foster care nor increases in the
number of adoptions are included as outcome measures. These are
two of the most important measures of state performance and
simply must be included as outcomes. Third, the child safety
goal is to be measured by both protecting children and by
maintaining children in their own homes. Safety and keeping
families intact whenever possible are separate goals and cannot
be considered together. The conflation of these goals may
suggest that HHS is still overly invested in the philosophy of
family preservation. I know that some of our witnesses have
other concerns about the regulations. We are fortunate to have
Dr. Golden here to explain the regulation in greater detail and
to answer our questions. I trust that after hearing our cogent
arguments, the Administration will make appropriate changes in
the regulation.
U.S. General Accounting Office
Health, Education, and Human Services Division
Washington, DC 20548
April 20, 1999
B-282472
The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Foster Care: Increases in Adoption Rates
Dear Madam Chairman:
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) authorizes
incentive payments to states for increasing the number of foster child
adoptions in fiscal years 1998 through 2002. States may receive up to
$6,000 for each finalized adoption of a foster child over a state's
base number for a fiscal year. The Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is responsible for determining the base number of foster
child adoptions that a state must exceed in order to be eligible for
incentive payments. To determine each state's base numbers for fiscal
year 1998, HHS averaged that state's number of finalized foster care
adoptions for federal fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. Recently, the
North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) reported that, of
the 42 states that provided estimates for the survey, at least 36,000
foster children were adopted in fiscal year 1998, which represents an
increase of 7,859 over the base numbers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joe Kroll, ``1998 U.S. Adoptions From Foster Care Projected to
Exceed 36,000,'' Adoptalk (Winter 1999), pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter responds to your request that we determine the source
of information states used to derive both the fiscal year 1998 and the
base numbers of finalized foster care adoptions, and to identify
factors that contributed to the increases in foster care adoptions. You
were interested in the increases reported in finalized adoptions of
foster children in five states--Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
and Texas. These five states estimated increases in finalized foster
care adoptions for fiscal year 1998 of at least 50 percent over their
base numbers. In responding to your request, we conducted interviews
with state child welfare officials in March 1999.
STATE DATABASES WERE PRIMARY SOURCE OF NUMBERS REPORTED TO NACAC
Officials in four of the five states we reviewed told us
that they derived the fiscal year 1998 and base numbers of
finalized foster care adoptions reported by NACAC from their
state child welfare databases. These databases contain child-
specific records of a state's foster care population and are
the source of data submitted by these states to the federal
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS) is the primary source of federal administrative data
about foster care and adoption. It allows HHS to perform research on
and evaluate state foster care and adoption programs, and it assists
HHS in targeting technical assistance efforts, among other uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fifth state conducted a manual count of finalized
adoptions; although that state included the name of each foster
child in the tabulation of fiscal year 1998 adoptions, it did
not do so for the earlier base numbers. Thus, with the
exception of the base numbers for one state, all five states
could identify the individual children included in their
counts.
Table 1.--State Estimates of Finalized Foster Care Adoptions in Fiscal Year 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State Baseline Total 1998 estimated Number change Percentage
total change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut..................................... 207 314 107 51.7
Florida......................................... 987 1549 562 56.9
Illinois........................................ 2,200 4,423 2,223 101.0
Iowa............................................ 350 537 187 53.4
Texas........................................... 880 1,548 668 75.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Adoptalk (Winter 1999), p. 2.
ASFA CITED AS CONTRIBUTOR TO INCREASED ADOPTIONS
The emphasis on adoption in ASFA was among several factors
that state officials cited as contributing to an increase in
fiscal year 1998 foster care adoptions over the base numbers.
Other factors included administrative reform, such as assigning
additional staff to efforts to move children toward permanent
placement; increased recruitment efforts, such as state funding
for recruitment of adoptive parents for children with special
needs; and court-related changes, such as an increase in the
number of staff attorneys to help caseworkers prepare cases for
court reviews.
Table 2: Factors Cited by State Officials as Contributing to Increased
Foster Care Adoptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Factors states
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased emphasis on adoption in federal or state laws...... 3
Changes in internal processes or administrative reform....... 3
Increased emphasis on recruitment of adoptive parents........ 2
Streamlined court process or increased court-related 2
personnel...................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An official in one state told us that she expects the
number of adoptions to continue to increase. Officials in two
other states expected the number of adoptions in those state to
remain high but to not increase above the level estimated for
fiscal year 1998. Officials in the remaining two states did not
offer estimates of future adoption levels.
AGENCY COMMENTS
We requested that HHS review a draft of this letter. HHS
provided no substantive comments.
As we arranged with your office, unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier, we will make no further
distribution of this correspondence until April 22, 1999. At
that time, we will send copies to other relevant congressional
parties and to the Honorable Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.
If you have any questions about this information, please contact me
on (202) 512-7215. Major contributors to this correspondence were David
D. Bellis, Kerry Gail Dunn, and Ann T. Walker.
Sincerely yours,
Cynthia M. Fagnoni
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
(116031)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.006
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. So we will now call
forward our first witness----
Mr. Cardin. Madam Chair, if I----
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Oh, excuse me, I am sorry.
I yield to my colleague Ben Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. I will be very brief, Madam Chair. First, let
me ask consent to include my full statement in the record and
the letter from the citizen review board for children, which is
the Maryland Citizens Board for Review of Out-of-Home Placement
of Children, dated April 21 for the record.
Madam Chair, let me first comment as you did on the tragic
events that took place in Colorado, the stark reminder to all
of us that no neighborhood is safe and that protecting our
children is a concern of every neighborhood in our country. And
I applaud you for holding today's hearings on our programs to
protect our children.
There is no greater obligation for any Member of Congress,
particularly those of this Subcommittee, than ensuring the safe
care and protection of America's neglected, abused, and
abandoned children.
As you pointed out, we do have some positive news, and that
is the number of children in the foster care system that are
finding permanent, loving homes. The statistics are very, very
encouraging.
I want to congratulate Dr. Golden, who is the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families in the Clinton
administration, on placing a very high priority on our
children. And we are starting to see many of those results.
Also due in large part to the passage in 1997 by Congress
of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. That was passed on a
bipartisan basis, Madam Chair. I think it reminds all of us
that if we work together in a bipartisan way, we can get a lot
accomplished for our children in this country.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act maintains the
requirement that States attempt to reunify children with their
birth families when they have been removed from their homes.
However, the law made it clear that reunification was not
appropriate where it posed a clear danger to the child or meant
the child would be doomed to linger in foster care for a long
period of time.
Well, at this hearing, we want to hear how the States are
attempting to achieve that critical balance between restoring
families and protecting children and the permanency of the
relationship between the child and his or her parents. It is
also important that we hear from the witnesses today of changes
that may be needed in the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
For example, it appears the annual cap funding financial
incentives paid to the States, that increase adoptions out of
foster care, may need to be adjusted and raised if we are going
to continue to provide bonuses promised in the 1997
legislation.
We also want to hear from you at this hearing how we can
improve our child welfare system. For example, more must be
done for children who are aging out of foster care. And I am
very optimistic under Mrs. Johnson's leadership that this
Subcommittee and, indeed, this Full Committee will address this
issue. There are additional issues that we need to consider in
the child welfare system, including that courts have sufficient
resources to fulfill the requirements of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act.
And finally, we must address the clear link between child
abuse and substance abuse, which contributes to 7 out of 10
cases of child abuse and neglect.
So I do look forward to the panel of witnesses we have
today and to Dr. Golden as we work together in a bipartisan way
to try to ensure that the laws that we pass are adequate and do
whatever we can to make sure our children are safe.
[The opening statement and attachment follow:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland
Madame Chair, let me start by commending you for holding
today's hearing on our Nation's child protection system. There
can be no greater obligation for any Member of Congress,
particularly those of us on this Subcommittee, than ensuring
the safe care and protection of America's neglected, abused and
abandoned children.
Fortunately, we have some positive news to report about
children in our foster care system--more of them are finding
permanent, loving homes. In fact, it appears that adoptions of
foster care children rose 40% nationwide last year compared to
1995.
This is due in part to the Adoption and Safe Families Act
enacted at the end of 1997 with broad bipartisan support, and
it should once again remind all of us of what we can accomplish
for America's children when we work together. Of course, we
must continue to vigilantly oversee the implementation of that
law to ensure that the safety and well-being of children is
always the paramount concern when placement decisions are being
made.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act maintained the
requirement that States attempt to reunify children with their
birth families when they have been removed from their home.
However, the law made it very clear that reunification was not
appropriate when it posed a clear danger to the child, or if
meant that child was doomed to linger in foster care for a
prolonged period of time.
We want to hear how States are attempting to achieve that
critical balance between restoring families and providing
protection and permanency for children.
It is also important for us to hear whether our witnesses
believe any changes are needed to the Adoption and Safe
Families Act. For example, it appears the law's annual cap on
funding for the financial incentives paid to States that
increase adoptions out of foster care may need to be raised if
we are going to provide the bonuses promised in the 1997
legislation.
I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
other challenges this Subcommittee must confront to improve our
child welfare system. For example, we must do more to help
children in foster care who do not return home and who are not
adopted--in other words, children who age out of the system.
Under the leadership of Mrs. Johnson, I am confident this
Subcommittee will address that important issue shortly.
Additional issues to consider include whether the current child
welfare system, including the courts, have sufficient resources
to fulfill the requirements in the Adoption and Safe Families
Act. And finally, we must address the clear link between child
abuse and substance abuse, which contributes to 7 out of 10
cases of child abuse and neglect. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.004
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Ben,
and I would also like to recognize Mr. Camp of Michigan who was
part of the Subcommittee last year and played such an important
role in these regulatory issues.
Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I just have a
brief statement. I would like to call the Subcommittee's
attention to the testimony of Janet Snyder, for the record, of
Hear My Voice.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Janet R. Snyder, Executive Director, Hear My Voice,
Protecting Our Nation's Children, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Chairman Johnson and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee, this testimony is submitted to you on behalf of
Hear My Voice, ``Protecting Our Nation's Children,'' a
nonprofit, child advocacy organization with headquarters in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, and chapters in many parts of the country.
Hear My Voice (HMV) was established to promote the right of all
children to have safe, permanent families. Within this context,
HMV informs the public and decision-makers that children's
rights and needs are often unrecognized in our judicial and
social service systems, and that they may be harmed by this
lack of recognition.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on needed
changes for the proposed regulations on The Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997, (PL 105-89).
Hear My Voice began its sixth year of work on August 2,
1998. During the past five years, HMV has advocated for more
than 150 individual children in communities across the country,
and has given referrals and advice to thousands more. The
fundamental work of HMV is to bring support to the public
domain in order to broaden the definition of family, and to
change the perceptions of judges, social workers, legislators,
and other decision-makers who impact the lives of those who
look to them for protection. In helping to bring about these
changes, HMV affects the lives of children who are now at risk
as well as thousands of others who will follow.
We were very pleased with the passage of ASFA in November,
1997, and worked to support this passage. We were asked to
testify before the House Ways and Means Committee in April,
1997 in support of ASFA. It was gratifying to see that after
almost 20 years, through this new law, child safety and
permanency became key points for child welfare work. We are
equally interested that the proposed regulations do indeed
accurately reflect Congressional intent, and that these
encouraging changes for children are supported.
Please consider the following points of response:
1. [Page 50073) Section 1356.21(b), paragraph 11 of page
addressing ``Reasonable Efforts,'' beginning: ``determination
that (1) Reasonable Efforts were made to prevent....'' It has
been very difficult to consistently define and understand the
term of ``Reasonable Efforts.'' Each State, agency or
caseworker may hold its own understanding of what is meant by
this and interpretations may often be to the detriment of the
child. Any time this term is used, some sort of guideline
emphasizing the safety of the child must be addressed.
2. [Page 50074] Section 1356.21(b)(4) paragraph 4:
``Judicial Determination....'' (when reunification is not the
permanency goal): The age of the child involved and the
permanent goal should be of paramount concern in assessing how
often the case goes to court for determination. The guideline
for every three or six months should be that the priority cases
are children whose goal is adoption, and/or any child who is
not currently living in a permanent placement. These needs
should be considered by the court during the review of
individual cases.
3. [Page 50076], paragraph 13 of page, Section 1356.21 (i),
paragraph 7 of section, ``Requirements for Filing a Petition to
Terminate....,'' paragraph beginning, ``In Subparagraph
(i)(1)(i)(C), we propose that...:'' It is critical that all
time spent in the foster care system is addressed when
calculating the issue of 15 out of 22 months. A child's sense
of time, permanency and belonging should not be disrupted when
possible manipulation of time elements, based upon
strategically timed hearings and determinations, may be
utilized in order to prolong any termination of parental
rights.
4. [Page 50086), paragraph 6 of page, paragraph 3 of
section, Section 1355.20, Definitions (a), paragraph 3,
beginning ``Date the child enters foster care means:''
Calculating the date the child enters foster care in this way
could actually prolong the time of permanency planning
hearings, in much the same way as done previously. It is within
Congressional intent that the foster care entry date be kept to
the time-line, or up to 15 months after the date the child was
physically removed from the home.
5. [Page 50074], paragraph 8 of page, Section
1356.21(b)(5), paragraph 3 of section, ``Circumstances in
Which...,'' beginning, ``In circumstances in which the criminal
proceedings....'' It is extremely important that ASFA give
States direction in the definition of aggravated circumstances
that do not require reasonable efforts for reunification. It is
not within Congressional intent to return children to extreme
situations simply due to the fact that the particular
circumstance is not listed in federal law. It is not right for
a child to be harmed or killed because decision makers were
unclear as to what acts are too heinous to deny reunification.
The goal of ASFA is to streamline the adoption process for
children in the foster care system, to support children who can
be reunified with a biological family and to assure safety for
all these children. While reunification with a biological
family is of great importance, there are times when it is just
not feasible. As Congress has recognized, in some situations
children can not safely go back to a biological home for any
number of reasons. ASFA attempts to prevent these children from
languishing in the foster care system by freeing them for
adoption in a timely fashion, while attending to their safety.
We need strong federal law to guide the States in their
efforts of keeping children safe as per the Congressional
intent with which ASFA was written. As existing presently, many
of the proposed regulations do not address a penalty structure
should States not follow the law. What, then, is the motivation
for addressing children's needs in any fashion other than that
used over the past, almost, 20 years?
We need strong methods by which to educate decision makers
on ASFA and the implications for their work with children.
Through our work with specific cases we have found a great lack
of awareness about ASFA, even to the point of its existence, in
many States from numerous people working closely with children.
We urge you to address the proposed regulations by
upholding Congressional intent in the writing and passage of
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Our nation's
children deserve the safety and permanence at the foundation of
this new law.
Thank you for your consideration.
Janet R. Snyder
Executive Director
Hear My Voice, Protecting Our Nation's Children
Mr. Camp. I met with Janet last week, and I know she
regrets not being able to be here today, and I strongly believe
that we would not be talking about foster care and adoption
without the efforts of Janet and her organization. I think the
Adoption and Safe Families Act was a team effort because of
child advocacy groups like Hear My Voice and their key role in
pushing for this legislation, which promoted children's right
to safe and permanent families.
They didn't let up, and they also gave me a lot of personal
encouragement to keep going forward. So I would also encourage
the Department of Health and Human Services to pay careful
attention to her recommendations and her testimony as you
continue to implement the legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you. And now, I'd
like to bring forward Hon. Olivia Golden, Assistant Secretary
for Children and Families, of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLIVIA A. GOLDEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Ms. Golden. Thank you.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss Federal oversight of the child welfare system. I want
to thank all of you for your leadership. This work is
enormously important, and I appreciate your leadership and your
commitment.
These last 5 years have seen extraordinary changes in the
laws and procedures affecting child welfare and significant
investment in resources designed to strengthen systems and
improve outcomes for hundreds of thousands of children and
families. I'd like to mention some of the most important
accomplishments. First, as already cited, thanks to
congressional leadership, the administration's Adoption 2002
Initiative, the passage of new Federal legislation, and
innovative activity supported by States and foundations, we
have made great progress in finding adoptive families for
children waiting in foster care. Between 1996 and 1997, the
number of children adopted grew from 28,000 to 31,000, and it
appears the increase in 1998 was even greater.
Second, in response to the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
33 States have already passed legislation to promote better
outcomes for children.
Third, we have made significant investments in new child
welfare information systems and tremendous strides in the
reporting of data. For instance, all States are now submitting
adoption and foster care data, compared to the 33 to 37 States
that previously submitted data in any given reporting period.
Yet, we still have a long way to go. I would like to
briefly summarize the key actions that the Congress and the
administration have taken to strengthen the national framework
and national oversight of child welfare, and the most important
next steps that we must take on behalf of children.
The success we have seen in adoption reflects the work that
we have done together to strengthen the national framework for
child welfare. Over the last several years, the administration
and Congress, working together in a bipartisan manner, have
passed critically important child welfare legislation,
including the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Multiethnic
Placement Act, and Inter-ethnic Placement provisions.
These laws have made children's safety the primary
consideration, emphasized the need for timely decisionmaking on
behalf of children in foster care, torn down barriers to
adoption, and placed increased emphasis on accountability and
the achievement of positive outcomes for children and families.
In response to these legislative changes, we have held
States accountable for promptly bringing their laws and
policies into compliance, and we have provided technical
assistance to help them do so.
A key part of our strategy for improving child welfare has
been a focus on developing the capacity to measure results and
to hold all partners in the system accountable for improved
performance. The progress made in adoptions demonstrates the
effectiveness of this strategy.
I would like to mention two additional areas where we are
moving forward in focusing on results in child welfare. First,
as required in the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the
department has developed, in consultation with the field, an
initial list of results measures that can be used to gauge
State performance in ensuring child safety and permanence. The
list has been published for comment in the Federal Register,
and we are now reviewing input received.
Second, in response to legislation adopted by Congress in
1994, we have published a proposed regulation for a new
outcomes-based child welfare monitoring system. We realized
from the beginning that this statutory requirement offered an
important opportunity to redesign the monitoring system to
focus on results rather than process and to dramatically
improve the way the child welfare system works for children.
At the same time, we realize that this ambitious goal would
require major changes in the previous system and that no one
person or organization had the answers for how to do it.
Therefore, following passage of the law, we undertook extensive
consultation and conducted 24 pilot tests.
These pilot reviews served to hold States accountable in
new ways as they uncovered both systemic problems and strengths
that the old approach to monitoring had not identified. They
also suggested a number of lessons about monitoring that are
reflected in our proposed regulation.
For example, structuring a review around the outcomes we
want for children and families, safety, permanence, and well-
being, help to reorient all parties involved in the review
process to focus on the improvements needed to assure those
outcomes.
We are now carefully reviewing and analyzing the extensive
and thoughtful comments we received and working to complete the
final rule.
At the same time that the Federal Government has a critical
role in accountability for results, it is also essential for us
to invest in building the capacity of States to provide quality
services.
My long statement presents much more detailed information
in this area, including our support of 10 national resource
centers, the initiation of a national longitudinal study of
child welfare, and the approval of child welfare demonstration
projects in 18 States.
In conclusion, we are at a critical juncture in child
welfare. We have together strengthened the legal framework for
children, increased attention to outcomes, and begun to address
the capacity needs of courts and agencies.
Now is the time to continue the momentum of change. This is
a critical time for States to take the next step to move reform
from the policy arena to changes in frontline practice of every
child welfare worker and to build strategies that go far beyond
the child welfare agency to involve every community.
At the Federal level, we must remain an active participant
in helping States achieve these improvements by exercising
leadership, providing resources and assistance, and holding
States accountable for positive results.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today, and I would be delighted to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Olivia A. Golden, Assistant Secretary, Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss federal oversight of the child welfare system: the
network of state, local, and private organizations that seeks
to ensure safety, permanence, and well-being for our nation's
most vulnerable children, those children who have experienced
or are at risk of child abuse and neglect. This work is
enormously important and I want to thank the Committee for your
leadership and commitment. I am also pleased to have the
opportunity to report to you on our success in increasing the
number of children adopted from the foster care system.
These last five years have seen extraordinary changes in
the laws and procedures affecting child welfare and significant
investment in resources designed to strengthen systems and
improve outcomes for hundreds of thousands of children and
families. In fact, a significant achievement of the last five
years is that today all parties involved in child welfare--from
the federal government to state government to private
providers--are looking at outcomes and working to determine how
to improve them. The changes that we and the states have made
have the potential to make significant improvements in the
results achieved from these services. Among the most important
accomplishments:
Thanks to the Administration's Adoption 2002
initiative, federal legislation, and innovative activities
supported by states and private foundations, we have made great
progress in finding adoptive families for children waiting in
foster care. Between 1996 and 1997, the number of children
adopted grew from 28,000 to 31,000 and it appears the increase
in 1998 was even greater.
In response to the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
33 states have passed legislation to promote better outcomes
for children, including provisions that strengthen the focus on
safety by clarifying circumstances when it is neither necessary
nor appropriate to reunify children with their parents.
We have made significant investments in new
automated systems that can generate the data and information
needed by states and the federal government to track results
and manage cases effectively.
Yet we still have a long way to go. Because of the
continuing problems of child abuse and substance abuse and
other factors, the number of children in foster care continues
to grow and too many children remain in care for too long; the
median length of stay nationally is 21 months. And
approximately 18 percent of children have been in care for 5
years or more. There are simply too many children who drift in
foster care wondering to whom they belong.
In my testimony, I would like to provide an overview of the
child welfare system today, highlight the key actions that the
Congress and the Administration have taken to strengthen the
national framework and national oversight of child welfare, and
summarize the results we have seen so far. I would also like to
identify the most important next steps that we must take on
behalf of children.
Children and the Child Welfare System
Each year, child protective services (CPS) agencies
investigate reports involving almost 3 million children, nearly
a million of whom are found to be victims of substantiated or
indicated abuse and neglect. These figures have begun to
decline slightly over the past several years, following two
decades of steady increases in the number of children reported
to CPS. While the majority of children coming to the attention
of CPS remain with their families, about 15 to 20 percent of
the victims of abuse and neglect must be removed from their
homes and placed in foster care for some period of time in
order to ensure their safety. Approximately 520,000 children
were in foster care as of the end of March 1998, an increase of
28 percent over the estimated 406,000 children in care at the
end of 1990.
Every day, front line workers, administrators and judges
across the country are called on to make incredibly difficult
decisions about the lives of these children and their families.
How can they best ensure a child's safety? Can a family facing
multiple problems be strengthened to provide appropriate care
and nurturing of its children? Can a child's need for a
permanent place to call home best be achieved by working with
the family of origin, or should an adoptive family be sought?
The child welfare system is complex--involving many
organizations, institutions, and individuals. Public child
welfare agencies, other public human services agencies,
juvenile courts, private service providers and, of course,
families themselves, all share responsibility for ensuring
children's safety, permanence and well-being. Historically,
child welfare services began largely as a function of private
agencies and later developed as a responsibility of state and
local governments. Ultimately, it is state government that has
primary responsibility for carrying out child welfare programs
and for protecting children in their care and custody. And, it
should be noted states retain significant latitude in the
design and delivery of child welfare services to help fulfill
this responsibility in a manner that best meets the needs of
their jurisdiction. Consequently, there is significant
variation across states in practice and policy, including
distinctions in the definitions of abuse and neglect and the
standards for intervening in family life.
The federal role in child welfare is a relatively recent
historical development. Today, the federal government's role
includes creating and implementing a common policy framework in
which child welfare services are to be carried out; sharing in
the financing of child welfare services; and, holding states
accountable both for using federal dollars in an appropriate
manner and for achieving the results these programs are
intended to accomplish. The federal role also includes helping
to establish goals and priorities that provide direction to
states; promoting innovation in service delivery; funding
research and evaluation that help us to understand the dynamics
of the child welfare system and the practices that can lead to
better results; and, providing technical assistance to help
states and localities strengthen their programs.
Increases in Adoption
In at least one area of child welfare, the adoption of
children from the foster care system, we already have begun to
see positive changes resulting from the reforms in federal and
state laws and the increased federal attention being paid to
child welfare issues. In November 1996, the Administration
launched the ``Adoption 2002'' initiative, the centerpiece of
which called for doubling the number of children who are
adopted from the foster care system by the year 2002.
This ambitious and specific goal, along with a set of
strategies to reach the goal, have served to elevate the
importance of adoptions, hold states accountable for their
actions, and reward progress in increasing the number of
adoptions.
The Congress, in responding to the President's initiative,
made key legislative reforms and by authorizing and
appropriating funds for the adoption incentive program,
provided vital leadership to encourage greater state activity.
The results have been impressive. In fiscal year 1997, there
were approximately 31,000 children adopted from the foster care
system, up from about 28,000 the year before. Preliminary
analyses of data for fiscal year 1998 suggest that there was an
even greater increase in adoptions last year. And, the fact
that there is now national attention being paid to the number
of adoptions has prompted the states to improve their
collection and reporting of information on children being
adopted from foster care. These improved reporting systems
allow states to identify and solve problems sooner and help us
all better track states' progress.
Strengthening the National Framework for Child Welfare
The success in adoption reflects a part of the work we have
done together to strengthen the national framework for child
welfare. Over the last several years, the Administration and
Congress, working together in a bipartisan manner, have passed
critically important child welfare reform legislation,
including the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Multiethnic
Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Placement provisions
of 1996. Together, these laws:
make it clear that ensuring children's safety and
well-being is the first consideration of the child welfare
system;
require timely decision-making on behalf of all
children in foster care;
tear down barriers to adoption, whether based on
racial discrimination, geographic boundaries or simply outmoded
assumptions about which children are adoptable;
provide additional resources for services and
encourage greater collaboration to create a network of supports
for families at risk or in crisis; and
place increased emphasis on accountability and the
achievement of positive outcomes for children and families.
In response to these changes in federal law, we have held
states accountable for promptly bringing their laws and
policies into compliance. After the passage of the Multiethnic
Placement Act, for instance, we found that 29 states and the
District of Columbia had laws or policies that allowed race-
based discrimination in foster care and adoption placements and
we worked with them to eliminate discriminatory policies.
Similarly, to ensure that states would promptly change laws as
required by the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA), we provided technical assistance for state legislatures
through the National Conference of State Legislatures and
others at the same time that we made clear to states the
funding consequences of failure or delay in passing appropriate
legislation. As of April 1, 1999, 33 states have passed the
appropriate legislation to come into compliance with ASFA and
another 7 states have passed legislation that is now being
reviewed by ACF to determine if it does comply. Two states have
passed laws that do not fully conform to ASFA and we will work
with them to correct these problems. The remaining states
either have not begun a legislative session since passage of
ASFA or have legislation that has been introduced but not yet
passed. We will continue to hold states accountable to ensure
that all come into compliance with ASFA's reforms.
Focus on Results
A key part of our strategy for improving child welfare
since early in this Administration has been a focus on
developing the capacity to measure outcomes and hold all
partners in the system accountable for improved performance.
The progress we have made in adoptions demonstrates the
effectiveness of this strategy. Tracking adoption outcomes,
setting goals for the future, making those goals visible, and
providing fiscal incentives tied to results have been key
elements of this successful strategy. Another key element,
described more fully below, has been the improvement of state
capacity to measure adoptions as well as other outcomes, which
has required a sustained effort to improve dramatically the
quality of state information systems. To push the results
agenda beyond adoption and hold all partners in the child
welfare system accountable for the key goals of safety,
permanence, and well-being, we must build on the knowledge we
have attained through the adoption strategy and three key
accomplishments:
As required in the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
the Department has developed, in consultation with the field,
an initial list of results measures that can be used to gauge
State performance in ensuring child safety and permanence. The
list has been published for comment in the Federal Register,
and we are now reviewing input received from almost two-thirds
of the states, at least 12 organizations, a number of
researchers, several members of Congress, and other interested
individuals.
The Department has conducted 24 pilot tests of an
outcomes-based monitoring system and has published proposed
regulations that draw substantially on the lessons from those
pilots. We currently are reviewing public comments on the
regulations and intend to publish a final rule before the end
of this year.
As a result of federal financial assistance,
technical support, and clear accountability that includes
phased-in penalties, states are now collecting and able to
report much more timely and accurate data on foster care and
adoptions. Reporting on child abuse and neglect also has
improved considerably, as a result of both financial and
technical assistance.
Each of these elements which focus on results is described
more fully below.
ASFA Requirement for National Child Welfare Outcome Measures
To develop a list of measures that would reflect the best
available knowledge in the field, the Department engaged in
extensive consultation, including focus group discussions at
major child abuse and child welfare conferences. We also formed
a consultation work group comprised of state and local
administrators, state elected officials, advocates,
researchers, and others, who met twice and participated in
several conference calls to help select and refine measures and
discuss their appropriate use. Since publication of the initial
list in the Federal Register in February, we have been
reviewing the extensive comments that we received and analyzing
the availability of data to support suggestions that were made.
We plan to finalize the list of measures soon and will then
submit the first annual report based on these measures later
this year.
Child Welfare Monitoring
As you know, another area where we have been working to
increase the focus on outcomes is in our proposed revision of
the child welfare monitoring process. In fact, one reason we
have been able to make good progress in response to the ASFA
requirements for outcome measures is that, as part of our work
to revise child welfare monitoring, we already had articulated
the basic goals of the child welfare system: child safety,
permanence, and child and family well-being. These three goals
are now well accepted by the child welfare field and are being
used by many states in their own work with child outcome
measures.
We had begun work to revise our process for conducting both
programmatic reviews and title IV-E foster care eligibility
reviews in 1994, when Congress adopted legislation requiring a
new approach. The law required the Department, in consultation
with state agencies, to promulgate regulations for review of
state child and family services programs in order to determine
whether programs are in substantial conformity with applicable
state plan requirements and federal regulations. Among other
requirements, the statute said that the regulations should
afford the states an opportunity to develop and implement a
corrective action plan, receive technical assistance, and
rescind the withholding of funds if a state's failure to
conform is ended by successful completion of a corrective
action plan.
We realized from the beginning that this statutory
requirement offered an important opportunity to redesign the
monitoring system to focus on outcomes rather than process and
to dramatically improve the way the child welfare system works
for children. At the same time, we realized that taking on such
an ambitious goal would require major changes in the previous
system and that no one person or organization had the answers
for how to do it. Therefore, following passage of the new law,
we held numerous focus groups to gain public input into the
revision of the procedures used for both programmatic and
financial reviews. In addition, we determined that we would
have to go out and conduct pilot reviews in order to design and
field-test an effective and practical way of assessing state
performance with an outcome focus. This entire process did
result in a delay in issuing regulations for longer than any of
us would have wanted, but provided invaluable insight into the
major redesign of the monitoring system.
Before publishing proposed regulations, we conducted a
total of 24 pilot reviews--12 Child and Family Services Reviews
and 12 title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews. These pilot
reviews suggested a number of lessons about approaches to
monitoring, and they also served to hold states accountable in
new ways as they uncovered both systemic problems and strengths
that the old approach to monitoring had not identified.
Among the key lessons from the pilots that drove the design
of our proposed monitoring system:
A review team comprised of both federal and state
staff fostered working partnerships that more effectively
assisted states in identifying strategies for corrective action
and technical assistance.
In the program reviews, where we went beyond state
officials and included local caseworkers, recipients of
services, foster parents, and other stakeholders in the
process, we found that this strategy broadened the perspective
of the review.
An emphasis on program improvement planning in the
eligibility reviews led to specific recommendations for
improving the accuracy of title IV-E eligibility
determinations, foster care licensing, and the quality of
services provided to children.
Structuring a review process around the outcomes
we want for children and families--safety, permanence and well-
being--helped to reorient all parties involved in the review
process to focus on the improvements needed to assure those
outcomes.
By contrast, focusing solely on procedural steps
and on the case records that document compliance with those
steps is insufficient for improving performance in child
welfare services. As reviewers looked at the case folders that
had been designed to meet previous requirements, they found
that these folders often reflected a focus only on documenting
procedural steps. As one reviewer noted, ``We got what we asked
for.'' The case folders often did not reflect a focus on the
key goals of safety, permanence, or well-being of children.
The work we did and the lessons we learned through the
pilot review process informed the development of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) relating to both title IV-E foster
care eligibility reviews and Child and Family Services State
Plan Reviews. In our NPRM, published on September 18, 1998, we
outlined the new procedures that we are proposing for both
types of reviews. In response to the Federal Register notice,
we received 176 letters primarily from state and local child
welfare agencies, national and local advocacy groups for
children, educational institutions, and individual social
workers. We also appreciated receiving the thoughtful comments
of several members of Congress. We have been carefully
reviewing and analyzing comments and working to complete the
final rule.
Child Welfare Information Systems
The third critical building block of a results-based
strategy for improving child welfare performance is improvement
in child welfare information systems. The last several years
have seen dramatic progress, as a result both of state
commitment and federal financial assistance, technical support,
and clear accountability.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
authorized enhanced Federal financial participation at the 75
percent rate for statewide automated child welfare information
systems (SACWIS). This enhanced level of funding was initially
authorized for three years, through September 30, 1996, but was
later extended to September 30, 1997. Federal funds continue to
be available at the 50 percent match rate. To date, 19 States
have SACWIS systems that are fully operational.
On the same day that guidance was issued to the
States on applying for SACWIS funds, the Department also
released the final regulations for the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). The AFCARS collects
automated case-level information on all children in foster care
for whom the state child welfare agency has responsibility for
placement, care or supervision. It also collects information on
children whose adoptions from the foster care system have been
finalized. AFCARS data are reported semi-annually.
We are now seeing substantial improvements in the
completeness and quality of the AFCARS data after an initial
developmental period. To encourage the submission of timely and
accurate data, our regulations outlined a penalty structure for
data submissions that are missing data or that fail certain
quality checks. No penalties applied during the first three
years (or six reporting periods) of data collection. However,
beginning with the submission of data for the period of October
1, 1997--March 31, 1998, states are liable for penalties, if
they fail to correct the problem within six months.
Consequently, we are seeing significant improvements in the
data. All states and the District of Columbia are now
submitting data, whereas in the past only 33-37 States
submitted data for any given reporting period.
In the area of child abuse and neglect, we are
also making progress in the reporting of data through the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). Almost
all states have submitted aggregate data for eight consecutive
years (1990-1997) on the numbers and characteristics of
children reported to child protective services, providing the
most complete trend data ever collected on child abuse and
neglect. In response to amendments made in the 1996
reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act, the number of data elements on which states report
annually also has been expanded. In addition to progress in the
submission of aggregate data, we are seeing increasing numbers
of states submit automated case-level data that enables us to
undertake more complex analyses.
The investments of financial and technical assistance
resources we are making in information systems and data
collection are critical for at least two reasons. First, new
information systems will provide State child welfare agencies--
from administrators down to caseworkers--with access to
expanded and more timely information that will better enable
them to serve children and families. Second, the systems will
be capable of collecting and reporting the data that States and
we need to be able to track outcomes.
Supporting Successful Performance: Technical Assistance, Training,
Research, and Demonstration
At the same time that the federal government has a critical
role in accountability for results, we also believe it is
essential for us to invest in training and technical assistance
to build the capacity of states to implement legislative
reforms and provide quality services. For instance, the
Children's Bureau in ACF provides over $6 million annually for
10 resource centers whose role is to build the capacity of
state, local, tribal and other publicly administered or
publicly supported child welfare agencies. These resource
centers are organized around subject areas (e.g. Special Needs
Adoptions, Child Maltreatment, Permanency Planning,
Organizational Development, Legal Issues, etc.) and can provide
specialized assistance in each of these areas tailored to state
needs. The resource centers also develop written materials for
broad distribution, such as the guide on the implementation of
the Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption
provisions developed by the National Resource Center on Legal
and Court Issues, which is operated by the American Bar
Association's Center on Children and the Law. Through training
grants, we also have seeded partnerships across the country
between schools of social work and public child welfare
agencies to improve the training of front line workers and
managers.
Another important area of federal activity is the support
of research and innovation. I would like to highlight two
different areas of activity that will increase our
understanding of the child welfare system and promote knowledge
about innovative practices in service delivery and financing.
Thanks to the authorization of funds for a longitudinal
study of child welfare included in the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, we have
awarded a contract to the Research Triangle Institute to
conduct a National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being.
This study will provide nationally representative, longitudinal
information on the functioning, service needs and service
utilization, and outcomes for children and families who are
referred to the child welfare system within a one-year period.
We expect that the first report from this study, describing the
characteristics of the children and families in the sample will
be available by the end of 2000.
A second area of activity that we expect to generate
important new information is the title IV-E child welfare
waiver demonstrations, which this committee was instrumental in
creating. Through the end of FY 98, 18 states--the maximum
number allowed by the statute--have received approval for
demonstration projects, and we currently are awaiting state
responses to the announcement seeking applicants for FY 99
demonstrations. The demonstration projects involve waivers of
certain provisions of title IV-E and related regulations, and
each one includes a rigorous evaluation. The demonstrations
cover a wide range of topics, from broad systems reform
strategies to specific projects that focus on addressing
substance abuse, increasing the number of adoptions, and
testing strategies for assisted guardianship.
Future Directions
We are at a critical juncture in child welfare. We have
strengthened the legal framework for children. We have
increased attention to outcomes. We have begun to address the
capacity needs of both courts and agencies. We have started to
build more collaborative arrangements with other human service
agencies whose services are critical if we are to meet the
needs of children and families in the child welfare system. We
have also begun to tap the broader resources of communities to
support families before they go into crisis and to help find
new families for children in foster care who cannot return home
safely.
Of course, there is a great deal remaining to be
accomplished. Far too often, despite the dedication and
creativity of state and local policy-makers and the
extraordinary commitment of front-line child welfare workers,
state child welfare systems are overwhelmed by high caseloads,
burn-out and high turnover among workers; lack of training and
experience among both workers and supervisors; lack of
communication across agencies and between state agencies and
the community; unclear or shifting missions; and, information
systems that --despite the recent improvements catalogued
above--far too often feel like a burden rather than a support
to staff. Under these circumstances, changes in policy can take
a very long time to translate into true improvements in
services for children. And under these circumstances,
children's well-being--and, too often, even children's live--
are at risk.
Now is the time to continue the momentum of change and
seize the opportunities that federal and state policy have
created--opportunities that build on the dramatic improvements
in adoption, the shift to a focus on results, the stronger
information systems, and the national investment in technical
assistance, research, and demonstration. This is a critical
time for the states to take the next steps to move reform from
the policy arena to changes in the frontline practice of every
child welfare worker, and to build strategies that go far
beyond the child welfare agency to involve every community. At
the Federal level, we must remain an active participant in
helping states achieve these improvements, by exercising
leadership, by providing resources and assistance, and by
holding the states accountable for achieving positive results.
As part of this leadership, we must finalize regulations for
monitoring and fully implement the results-based approach to
federal oversight.
There also is at least one additional area that warrants
increased national attention through passage of federal
legislation--the issue of children aging out of the foster care
system. Just last month, this Subcommittee held a hearing on
the issue of how to help youth emancipated from foster care
become self-sufficient, productive and healthy adults. As you
know this is an issue which the President identified as a
priority in his FY 2000 budget, and on which we have submitted
proposed legislation. We are very much looking forward to
working with you to enact a bipartisan bill this year. In doing
so, I believe we will make a difference in the lives of the
estimated 20,000 young people who are emancipated from foster
care each year, just as we have helped to make a difference in
the lives of thousands of children who now are living in
adoptive families, rather than remaining in the limbo of foster
care.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much. You
know, it is interesting to me that we have had almost a decade
now, since we suspended the penalty process, and with it,
certain aspects of Federal oversight. We also have not
promulgated regulations that were supposed to be promulgated in
1995. And, you know, when you look at, in a sense, the relative
lack of regulatory mechanisms and oversight mechanisms in a
number of areas in the last 10 years, and now a really new
approach that you are taking, do you see--what would you say is
the effect of those regulations?
Did they create an opportunity to experiment with new
systems? Are there things you have learned from our having
relieved the regulatory environment through, sort of, default
in the last 10 years?
Ms. Golden. Well, I think I would describe the 5 years
since Congress required that monitoring be in regulation as an
enormous opportunity for us because it really reflected the
consensus it was time to change the system substantially. This
was the first time that the monitoring process was to be
addressed through regulations, the previous monitoring system
had not been regulated.
I think that what we did was take the opportunity to try
out what an outcome-based system would look like; that's why we
conduct 24 pilots. We also didn't wait for the regulations to
create an environment of accountability. What we did was push
on accountability through a lot of different mechanisms,
through the pilot reviews themselves, where States learned what
they needed to do, and through enforcement with States based on
the statute. For example, after passage of the Adoption and
Safe Families Act, we didn't wait for regulations to tell
States that they needed to change their laws.
We gave them technical assistance and made sure they did
it. And we also created an environment of accountability around
data collection. So we didn't wait for the regulations. But I
believe that when they are final, they will give us a very
important additional tool. You also asked what we learned from
the pilots. I would like to talk about that because I think,
based on what I observed on one pilot review and what I have
heard from others, we have learned an enormous amount.
One of the things we learned is that when you do outcome-
based reviews, you really do focus everybody on what has to
change in order to make a difference for children. I think
there are many examples of that and having the regulations
final will give us an extra tool to make that happen.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I am very interested in
this aspect because really the substance and the guidance for
welfare reform came from States doing things that they had
never done that were out from under the law, using their own
resources, particularly. And the regulations that were--the
laws that were adopted in 1994 and the regulations that were
supposed to be in place by 1995--the fact that they weren't in
place I don't consider that necessarily a bad thing. But it is
true that is what we had anticipated.
But it did give the States a framework in which they
thought we wanted them to perform with also an opportunity for
them to think about how best to do that. And so I would like to
gain a better understanding of what kind of State experiments
and State efforts are reflected in your regulations because I
think we have to be sure that now that we have come back with
regulations, we don't stifle the variety of changes that we are
seeing happening. And I personally would like to see some
loosening up of the waiver process.
You know, with the Ed flex bill, basically you are seeing
this kind of movement into education. That's what I see
happening in children's services in my State. And so I want to
be sure that those initiatives are well-reflected by your
regulation.
Ms. Golden. Well, a couple of examples might address that.
I think you are raising two issues that are both really
important. One is about the monitoring structure and
regulations and one is about the contents of how States do
their programs.
On the monitoring side, Connecticut is actually, I think,
an example of how we learn from the pilot reviews and how the
State learned. We did a pilot review there. The State, and we
learned some things from that, including areas where they could
be stronger, such as training. They were doing administrative
case reviews but they weren't necessarily feeding what they
learned from it back into their practices fully.
And they have made some of those changes. They are one of
the States where we learned how, when you do the review
together, you really can push change and improvement.
On the demonstration side, I really appreciate your
leadership and the Subcommittee's leadership in making sure we
have that demonstration authority. Eighteen States now have
waiver authority from us, and the maximum allowed by the law
through the end of 1998. We are awaiting State responses for
1999.
And just some examples there. We have States working on
substance-abuse issues; we have States working on guardianship
strategies; we have States working on various kinds of systems
reform, how to get dollars to counties in different ways. We
have a number of States working on youth issues. And I know, in
light of the tragedy that both you and Mr. Cardin noted, I do
think that all the work that is being done in the youth area is
especially important.
So I would say that we have an array of very interesting
demonstrations going on, and we are looking forward to the
evaluation results.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Would you support
eliminating a numerical number on the number of waivers that
you can approve?
Ms. Golden. Well, I think what we have found helpful about
the limit on the number of demonstrations is that it has made
the States have to compete a little bit. It has created
somewhat of a pressure for effective demonstrations. If the
Subcommittee was interested in making some proposals to change
the number, we would certainly review them. But at this point,
I think we feel as though the existing authority has been a
pretty effective one and has enabled us to get some really good
demonstration projects.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I am going to recognize
Mr. Cardin and yield the chair to Mr. English.
Thank you.
Mr. Cardin. Dr. Golden, welcome. It is always a pleasure to
have you before our Subcommittee.
Obviously, the fact that the number of foster children
being adopted is at record numbers is good news. And all of us
are very pleased to see this trend. Let me just comment on the
Washington Post article and ask for your comment on it, where
the article points out that experts caution, however, that the
surge in placements could have dangerous side effects. With
pressures building for increased adoptions, this may lead to
more cases of ill-prepared families taking on emotionally
troubled children.
And then the article goes on to suggest that there is no
information as to the age of the children or the minority
status of the children currently being adopted and that we may
have good numbers because of the easier children and it is
going to be more difficult getting the older children and
minority children and those with disabilities adopted.
Your comments on both points; that is, whether we are at
risk because of the surge in adoptions, whether the families
are prepared. Second, whether we are just dealing with the
easier, the younger foster children?
Ms. Golden. Well, I'd to share a couple of thoughts. The
first is that what we all clearly want is permanent, loving
adoptive homes that succeed for those children. So we all share
a goal here, which is about enabling children to move quickly
to adoption, not to linger in foster care.
In terms of the issue of whether families are prepared, I
think the key issue is making sure that at the Federal level we
are holding States accountable, and then at the State level
that they are building partnerships and investments to make
sure that families are prepared. The Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program authorized by the Adoption and Safe Families
Act offers some dollars. And in addition, a couple of the
demonstrations that we have approved involve States that are
focusing, to some degree, on postadoption services.
So I really see this as an area that we all have to be
committed to working on.
Mr. Cardin. That actually brought me to another question,
and that is, what have we learned from the demonstration
programs. And that's good to hear. You feel comfortable that--
obviously there is always risk--but you feel comfortable that
there is adequate authority and attention by the States to this
particular issue?
Ms. Golden. I guess the way I would say it is that I don't
think we are done yet, but I think it is the right thing for us
to be focusing on. In some ways, as I think you said earlier,
there are some good problems to have. As we succeed in moving
children more quickly through the system, we have to focus on
making sure that we are supporting families so they can succeed
with those children.
And I do think that we are going to learn a lot more about
how to do that and that we have some of the core authority to
do that.
Mr. Cardin. Good. And I would encourage you to place
priority on the followup.
With respect to the $20 million cap on the bonuses that we
pay for foster children being adopted, with the large number of
adoptions, is there a concern that we might be reaching this
cap? Is there a need for us to look at changing that cap?
Ms. Golden. Well, let me tell you where we are now on that,
and then I think that is one on which we will be coming back to
you as our information gets more firm.
Right now, we are still reviewing the final 1998
information. We don't quite have the final numbers either on
the total number of adoptions or on the breakout of the number
with or without special needs. So we are working on that. You
are right to note that we are delighted by what we see in the
State performance so far and that it really does look as though
there has been very substantial improvements beyond what was
expected.
And it is also right that if that holds up as the numbers
become final, then the amount that is there now wouldn't be
enough to do the total bonuses. The provision that is in the
statute right now would have a pro rata reduction of the amount
of the bonus if the increase is greater than anticipated. So
right now we are reviewing all that information. It is not
quite final yet.
Mr. Cardin. Is it possible you will be coming in and asking
for an adjustment?
Ms. Golden. Right now, where we are is that we are looking
at the information and we will get back to you.
Mr. Cardin. We should try to get that done as quickly as
possible.
One of the requirements in the law is that States with
certain exceptions, must institute a termination of parental
rights if the child has been in foster care for 15 out of the
22 months. My question: Are any of the pilot programs dealing
with that? Do the States have adequate resources in order to
really follow up with that requirement? What is the status of
compliance with that part of the Federal law?
Ms. Golden. Well, the first important thing about
compliance is that we were really clear with States that they
needed to change their own State laws and policies to comply
with the ASFA statute. And 33 States have done that. Seven
States have passed legislation that we are still reviewing to
see if it is fully in compliance. Two States we are still
working with. And the rest are awaiting legislative sessions.
What we have been doing in terms of support for States as
they do that is to provide technical assistance. We have had
the National Conference of State Legislatures as a technical
assistance source both working with the States up front and
also tracking what some of their choices are.
So that is a status report on where that is.
Mr. Cardin. Is there any indication that there may not be
enough resources in order to deal with this requirement? Or
does it look like it is adequate?
Ms. Golden. I have not yet heard about that being an issue.
What I have heard is that States are moving forward. So I think
we will keep an eye out for that.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. English [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Golden. It is a pleasure to see you again, and certainly was
good to work with you on this legislation. And I have a great
deal of respect for you. I especially appreciate your testimony
about the increase in adoptions since 1996, 1997, and even the
greater increase in 1998. And I think some of that is a result
of the legislation we worked on with the administration, and I
think that is very good news.
I am interested in talking to you about a letter that the
Chairman, then-Chairman of the Subcommittee and I sent you
along with Senators Craig and DeWine in December of last year
really dealing with this whole area of regulation. And I have
some concerns that it is unclear to me how HHS will determine
the adequacy of State performance under this legislation.
I don't see any objective benchmarks in this, and I wonder
if you could just comment briefly on that. I have a couple of
other points, and I realize my time is limited. So I have some
other points I want to make as well.
Ms. Golden. Sure. Well, I'd like to say a couple of things
briefly. The first is that our goal in the regulations, and I
think it is our shared goal and one that you have really
exercised leadership on, is that what we want is a monitoring
system that will improve State performance, that will be better
for children. And I think you are highlighting the fact that
clarity about expectations is an important part of that.
You are raising the specific issue of how to go about
creating that clarity in the regs. That is an issue which we
got a lot of comment on, and we are now reviewing those
comments. Because of where we are in the regulatory process,
I'm not in a position to talk about specific proposals because
we are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act when we
review comments. But where we are is that the issue of what's
the best way to be clear about expectations is an issue that is
serious and is one a lot of people commented on. We are now
reviewing and thinking about those comments.
Mr. Camp. I think the idea of some objective benchmark
would be very, very helpful. The other point. In determining a
permanency, and in understanding the permanency, and I realize
my letter wasn't written to you, but we haven't gotten an
answer back yet. And if we could get an answer in writing at
some point, it would be very helpful.
Ms. Golden. Let me just say, what we usually do during the
regulatory process is we simply acknowledge comments. They are
all available publicly. And then we review all the comments. So
we wouldn't typically do a point-by-point answer.
Mr. Camp. An acknowledgement would be nice.
Ms. Golden. OK. I apologize. I am very sorry if we haven't
done that.
Mr. Camp. The letter wasn't written to you. So I am not
trying to put you on the spot.
The other area is the item of permanency. And I think there
are two important items that have been left out. And that is
the length of time a child is in foster care. Obviously that is
one of the main things that drove this whole effort, was the
length of time a child spends in foster care as a factor of
this whole permanency issue. And second of all, the idea of
adoption being the best measure of permanency. And those two
items were left out. And I wondered if you could just comment
just briefly on that.
Ms. Golden. Well again, let me give you the general
framework of how that fits into the regulation. As you know,
since we worked on the legislation together, we completely
share the commitment both to reducing the amount of time
children spend in foster care, not letting them remain in
limbo, and to making sure that children who can't go home have
permanent adoptive homes.
The specific question of what measures should be where in
the regulations is again an issue that we got considerable
comment on. We received your comments, which were helpful. We
received other comments about what measures to use and how to
use them and where to use them in the review framework. So
where we are right now is that we are looking at all of those
comments as we move into the final rule.
Mr. Camp. Another area of concern is the approach to
aggravated circumstances. And, you know, obviously we made a
conscious decision not to expand on a specific, enumerated list
of what constituted aggravated circumstances. It was a definite
attempt to give the States flexibility so that when reasonable
efforts of reunification were not required--and I think that it
is very important that we make it certain that the State know,
this is not a list of limitation. It is a list of illustration.
And I want to make sure we deal with that.
And then I guess I just have two last questions. When we
expect the final regs to be published and made final? And then
second, I guess 33 States have legislated in this area. Has
there been any analysis of the quality of that legislation?
For example, I think New York has this reasonable efforts
override, but then they require a 12-month waiting period,
which is not in conformance with our legislation. So I think we
need an analysis of various States' efforts in this matter.
Ms. Golden. On the first point, on the timing. I don't have
a date for you. Where we are right now, we received about 170
letters, of which your thoughtful letter was one, and many of
those letters included many issues. We are now reviewing those,
and we want to move as fast as we can, consistent with the need
to give serious reflection to the issues raised. So we are
really pushing on it, but I don't have a date for you.
In terms of the question of analysis, we are, through NCSL
and through our regional offices, collecting the information on
the State laws. As I said to Mr. Cardin, 33 States have laws
that are in compliance; seven have laws that we are still
reviewing. So there are seven that have just passed and we are
still reviewing to see if they are in compliance. Two have
passed laws about which we have concerns and we are working
with those States. As you recall, the statute staggers the time
that they have to pass laws depending on their legislative
sessions. So the remaining few States are either still in
sessions or awaiting them. And we can certainly share with you
the particulars of which are the States that are finished and
which aren't.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much.
Ms. Golden. Sure.
Mr. English. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky. I have no questions.
Mr. English. In that case, in your testimony, Dr. Golden,
you specifically refer to the fact that the Adoption and Safe
Families Act ``makes it clear that ensuring children's safety
and well-being is the first consideration of the child welfare
system.'' And that is certainly a marvelous sentiment, yet as
you heard in the Chair's opening statement and in the letter
that Mr. Camp referenced, the regulations appear to be somewhat
confused on this issue. And here I am referring to the child
safety indicator that will measure ``the children are first and
foremost protected from abuse and neglect and maintained safely
in their homes whenever possible.''
I am curious, why did HHS combine these goals?
Ms. Golden. Well, let me start by noting that we do clearly
share the goal that a child's safety is paramount, and we
haven't waited for the regulations to make that clear to the
States. We have been clear in our guidance, and in our
technical assistance. As the States pass legislation, for
example, we are making sure that they pass the provisions
around TPR, termination of parental rights, and around the
aggravated circumstances issues.
The specific issue you note in the regulations, which is
exactly how should we structure the indicators, is one that we
got a lot of comment on. So again, as I said to Mr. Camp, we
are at the point where we are reviewing all the comments on how
we structure the regulations, how we structure the indicators,
and in what way it makes sense to do that in the final rule.
So I won't be specific about giving you an answer about
next steps, but we received an array of comments on that issue
and we are reflecting on them now.
Mr. English. Fair enough. Dr. Golden, I have one last
question. This predates my presence in Congress. But we have
testimony that the 1994 legislation required HHS to promulgate
regulations establishing a new system by 1995 to take effect in
1996, and yet we are still wrestling with the final
regulations. Is that a fair summary?
Ms. Golden. Yes. I think that when Congress passed the
statute in 1994, telling us to redesign the monitoring system,
and to put the requirements in regulation for the first time, I
think there was a consensus that we had a big opportunity to
try to do something completely different, or at least
substantially different, that would really change results of
the system. And it has taken longer than I wanted it to, or any
of us wanted it to.
But I think the reason it has taken longer is that no one
knew how to do an outcomes-based system at the beginning. We
did a lot of consultation. We actually, and this was really
interesting, we looked at other kinds of approaches. For
instance, how do they do accreditation in the health world and
other worlds? We used that information, and then we did 24
pilots to make sure we knew how to do it right. So we haven't
waited for the regulations to get actions from the States.
And that is why we are right now at the point of reviewing
the draft regulation.
Mr. English. And I appreciate that insight. Let me say, I
have no further questions----
Mr. Cardin. Would the gentleman yield just for 1 second on
that point and the point that Mr. Camp raised?
Mr. English. Certainly.
Mr. Cardin. And Dr. Golden, I appreciate your response. One
of the concerns expressed is that we are going, hopefully, more
to outcome and less to a lot of paperwork going back and forth.
It just might be useful for you to respond on the record. I
understand that is your goal. You want this to be less
bureaucratic and more outcome-based. And the final regulations,
in your anticipation, will move us in that direction?
Ms. Golden. Absolutely. Our goal is that the final
regulations will carry out a monitoring process that is about
outcomes and, really, about results for children, about safety,
about permanence for children. And that what we learned from
the pilots was that what you need to do is get people focused
on those results and then you can get changes in the
performance of the system.
That's our goal.
Mr. Cardin. And less burdensome to the States with
paperwork?
Ms. Golden. I think it will be less burdensome with
paperwork. I think the aim is that the burden that is there is
really about changing the system and making it succeed. The
strategy is to conduct the reviews with the States and to
identify corrective actions, the changes that have to happen to
achieve better results, so that we can embark on those right
away and get genuine change.
Mr. English. Thank you, Dr. Golden, as always for your
testimony.
Mr. Camp. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment.
Mr. English. Certainly, Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. It is in response to a question that Mr. Cardin
asked and regarding the incentive moneys that were in the
original legislation. We do have a CBO estimate that there will
be more money needed there. And our estimate is $28 million.
And I would like to work with you on a bipartisan basis to try
to find the money to continue that part of the bill because I
do think we will need to have an effort there. And if we could
work together on that, I think that would be something----
Mr. Cardin. If the gentleman would yield, the Chairman
would yield.
Mr. English. Certainly.
Mr. Cardin. Absolutely, and the reason why I mention it is
that our information is similar that we are going to exceed the
cap, and we will hopefully have--the administration will be
getting us material soon. And I think we are going to need to
do that.
Mr. Camp. But it is something we are aware of and need to,
obviously, continue some effort there. So thank you.
Mr. English. Thank you, Dr. Golden, and thank you again for
your testimony.
Ms. Golden. Thank you.
Mr. English. The Chair recognizes the next panel
participating today, consisting of Karen Spar, from the
Congressional Research Service; William Waldman, executive
director of the American Public Human Services Association;
Kimberly Warburton, chairman of the board of the KidsHELP!
Foundation, and Mary Lee Allen, director of Child Welfare and
Mental Health for the Children's Defense Fund.
STATEMENT OF KAREN SPAR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. Spar. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Karen Spar, and I am with the
Congressional Research Service. Thank you for inviting me to
testify before you this morning.
I have been asked to address two specific issues in my
testimony. First, to outline the history of the Federal Child
Welfare Review System leading up to the recent proposal of the
administration, and second, to briefly discuss the role played
by advocacy litigation in providing public oversight of child
welfare programs.
I would like to preface my comments by noting that when
analysts from the Congressional Research Service testify before
Congress, it is typically to discuss some particular research
that we have conducted. In this case, I have not conducted a
formal CRS study of child welfare research systems or
litigation; rather, I have been asked to testify today in my
capacity as a nonpartisan observer of Federal child welfare
policy and to give the Subcommittee background information that
might be useful as it conducts oversight in this area.
On September 18 of last year, the Department of Health and
Human Services published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register. When final, this regulation will establish in the
review system for Federal review of State compliance with
requirements under title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security
Act.
These requirements comprise the bulk of Federal policy
regarding child welfare.
The history of this review system goes back almost 20
years, to passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of 1980. That legislation established titles IV-B and IV-E
in their current form and specified for the first time certain
Federal protections for children in State foster care systems.
At that time, many of these protections were included in
section 427 of the Social Security Act and were voluntary
incentives for States to meet in order to receive their full
allotment of child welfare grant funds. Among these
protections, States were required to conduct an inventory of
all children in foster care, to provide each foster child with
a written case plan, and to review each foster child's case
according to prescribed timetable in order to achieve a
permanent placement for that child.
The 1980 law also established eligibility requirements to
determine which children could qualify for federally subsidized
foster care payments under title IV-E. Those requirements also
contain child protection provisions. For example, Federal
reimbursement was allowed only for children for whom reasonable
efforts were made to enable them to remain with their family or
to return to their family.
In the early eighties, HHS developed and operated review
systems for monitoring State compliance with the section 427
protections and with the Federal foster care eligibility
requirements under title IV-E.
However, beginning in 1989, Congress suspended the
collection of penalties associated with those reviews, and in
1994 Congress directed HHS to develop a new system all
together. Advocates, agency officials, and Members of Congress
grew dissatisfied with the early review systems for various
reasons, both procedural and programmatic.
Procedural concerns included a lack of formal regulations
frequently resulting in confusion about the standards the
States were expected to meet. Reviews were conducted
retrospectively, sometimes for fiscal years long past so that
current practices were not examined.
Of greatest concern, however, was the perception that the
reviews did not result in improved services for children and
families. Both section 427 and title IV-E eligibility reviews
focused on paper compliance with legal requirements. For
example, section 427 reviews primarily identified whether
certain mandatory procedures were conducted according to the
prescribed timetable but did not evaluate the quality of those
procedures or the outcomes for children. Moreover, States were
sometimes held accountable for circumstances beyond their
control such as the schedule of the courts.
Likewise, foster care eligibility reviews focused on
whether the court had properly documented it finding that the
State had made reasonable efforts to avoid foster care
placement for an individual child. But if a judge failed to
document this finding correctly, the State could fail its
review regardless of the services actually provided to that
child and family.
The reviews were criticized for focusing on isolated
components of the State's child welfare system rather than the
system as a whole. When problems were identified, penalties
were imposed, but little technical assistance was provided. On
the other hand, the reviews were also criticized for failing to
identify problems. The fact that some States passed these
reviews while at the same time they were being successfully
sued in court raised additional questions about the
effectiveness of the review system.
In 1989, Congress imposed the first in a series of
moratoriums prohibiting HHS from collecting penalties resulting
from these reviews. And finally, in 1994, Congress mandated the
development of a new system altogether to review State
conformity with Federal requirements under title IV-B and IV-E.
A 1994 law directed HHS to develop a system that would
incorporate the concepts of technical assistance and corrective
action. HHS was directed to specify in regulations the Federal
requirements that would be subject to review and the criteria
that would be used to determine if a State was substantially
meeting those requirements.
The law directed HHS to specify a method for determining
financial penalties in cases of substantial nonconformity.
However, Congress also mandated that before such penalties
could be imposed, States must be given an opportunity to
implement a corrective action plan and required that HHS
provide technical assistance.
I would like to just briefly mention the role of advocacy
litigation in providing public oversight of State and local
child welfare systems. As I mentioned, one of the concerns
about the effectiveness of the old review system was the fact
that some States were given a clean bill of health by HHS while
at the same time they were found in court to have violated
Federal and State child welfare laws.
Since the early eighties, lawsuits have been filed against
States and localities in at least 24 States that I have been
able to identify based on a quick review of summaries prepared
by organizations representing the plaintiffs. Some of these
cases and their outcomes have been narrow. Many, however, have
been class actions alleging a wide variety of violations of
Federal and State child welfare laws as well as Constitutional
violations and have sought comprehensive reform.
The kinds of policy and practice changes that have resulted
from child welfare litigation, either directly or indirectly,
have affected the full range of child welfare services. In some
cases, the courts have been very specific in their orders such
as in establishing caseload standards, where social workers are
establishing timetables for, excuse me, permanency planning. In
other cases, court orders or settlement agreements have
outlined broader goals such as improved service delivery to
foster children or timely planning without specifying the
actual steps to be taken by the State or locality.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Karen Spar, Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress
Good morning, Madame Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today. I've been asked to address two specific issues in my
testimony. First, I've been asked to outline the history of
federal child welfare review systems, leading up to the recent
proposal of the Administration. And, second, I've been asked to
briefly discuss the role played by advocacy litigation in
providing public oversight of child welfare programs.
I'd like to preface my comments by noting that, when
analysts from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) are
asked to testify before Congress, it is typically to discuss
some particular analysis or research that we have conducted.
However, in this case, I have not conducted a formal CRS study
of child welfare review systems or litigation. Rather, I've
been asked to testify this morning in my capacity as a
nonpartisan observer of federal child welfare policy, and to
give the Subcommittee background information that might be
useful as it conducts oversight in this area.
Origins of Current Review Proposal
On September 18 of last year, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register. When final, this regulation will
establish a new system for federal review of state compliance
with requirements under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social
Security Act. These requirements comprise the bulk of federal
policy regarding child welfare services, foster care, and
adoption assistance.
The history of this review system goes back almost 20
years, to passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act of 1980. That legislation established Titles IV-B and IV-E
in their current form, and specified for the first time certain
federal protections for children in state foster care systems.
At that time, many of these protections were included in
Section 427 of the Social Security Act and were voluntary
incentives for states to meet, in order to receive their full
allotment of child welfare grant funds. Among these
protections, states were required:
to conduct an inventory of all children in foster
care;
to provide each foster child with a written case
plan; and
to review each foster child's case according to a
prescribed timetable, in order to achieve a permanent placement
for that child.
The 1980 law also established the current eligibility
requirements to determine which children could qualify for
federally subsidized foster care payments. These eligibility
requirements address the income level of the family from which
the child has been removed and the licensing status of the
foster care provider where the child has been placed. The
requirements also contain provisions that were intended to work
together with other parts of the law to protect children in
foster care. For example, the 1980 law limited federal
reimbursement only for children for whom ``reasonable efforts''
were made, to enable them to remain with their family or to
return to their family. This provision was meant to reinforce
another section of Title IV-E that requires states to make such
reasonable efforts for all children in foster care, regardless
of whether they are eligible for federally subsidized foster
care payments.
In the early 1980s, HHS developed and operated review
systems for monitoring state compliance with the Section 427
protections, and with the federal foster care eligibility
requirements under Title IV-E. However, beginning in 1989,
Congress suspended the collection of penalties resulting from
these reviews, and in 1994, Congress directed HHS to develop a
new review system altogether. This new system would be
established under the regulation that HHS has now proposed.
Problems with Old Review System
Child welfare advocates, state and federal officials, and
Members of Congress grew dissatisfied with the earlier review
systems for various reasons, both procedural and programmatic.
These concerns were expressed during hearings before this and
other congressional committees during the late 1980s and early
1990s, and were identified by the HHS Inspector General in a
1994 report. These concerns also were summarized in the
preamble to the Administration's September 18th proposal for a
new child welfare review system.
Procedural concerns with the earlier review system included
a lack of formal regulations, frequently resulting in confusion
about the standards that states were expected to meet. Reviews
were conducted retrospectively, sometimes for fiscal years that
had long past, so that current practices were not examined.
Exacerbating this problem was the late release of final reports
by HHS, so their findings and recommendations were sometimes
irrelevant by the time they were issued. State officials had
limited ongoing contact with federal regional office staff, so
that formal reviews were seen as adversarial and punitive,
rather than collaborative and potentially helpful. The reviews
were often seen as time-consuming, labor-intensive, and
burdensome for the states.
Of greater concern, however, was the perception that the
reviews did not result in improved services for children and
families. Both Section 427 and Title IV-E eligibility reviews
focused on paper compliance with legal requirements. For
example, Section 427 reviews primarily identified whether
certain mandatory procedures were conducted according to the
prescribed timetable, but did not evaluate the quality of the
procedures or the outcomes for children. Moreover, states were
sometimes held accountable for circumstances beyond their
control, such as the schedule of the courts. Likewise, Title
IV-E eligibility reviews focused on whether the court had
properly documented its finding that the state had made
reasonable efforts to avoid foster care placement for an
individual child. But, if a judge failed to document this
finding correctly, a state could fail its review regardless of
its actual services to that child and family.
Reviews were criticized for focusing on isolated components
of a state's child welfare system, rather than the system as a
whole. When problems were identified, penalties were imposed
but little technical assistance was provided. The review system
contained no mechanism for helping states to improve the
quality of their programs. On the other hand, these reviews
were also criticized for failing to identify problems in state
child welfare programs. The fact that some states passed these
federal reviews, while at the same time they were being
successfully sued in court, raised additional questions about
the effectiveness of the federal review system.
Congressional Response
In 1989, Congress imposed the first in a series of
moratoriums, prohibiting HHS from collecting penalties
associated with these reviews. Finally, in 1994, Congress
enacted two significant provisions as part of the Social
Security Amendments of that year. First, Congress restructured
Title IV-B, so that the foster child protections previously
contained in Section 427 were no longer voluntary incentives,
but rather mandatory components of the state Title IV-B plan.
Second, Congress mandated the development of a new system to
review state conformity with federal requirements, including
state plan requirements, under Titles IV-B and IV-E.
The 1994 legislation directed HHS to develop a review
system that would incorporate the concepts of technical
assistance and corrective action. Specifically, HHS was
directed to specify the federal requirements that would be
subject to review and the criteria that would be used to
determine if a state was substantially meeting those
requirements. The law further directed HHS to specify a method
for determining the amount of financial penalties that would be
imposed in cases of substantial nonconformity. However,
Congress also mandated that before such penalties could be
imposed, states must be given an opportunity to implement a
corrective action plan, and required that HHS provide the
states with necessary technical assistance.
The 1994 legislation directed HHS to promulgate
regulations, establishing this new review system, by July 1,
1995, to take effect on April 1, 1996. HHS has now proposed
these regulations, in the Federal Register of September 18,
1998.
The Role of Advocacy Litigation
As I mentioned earlier, one of the concerns raised about
the effectiveness of the old federal review system was the fact
that some states were given a clean bill of health by HHS,
while at the same time they were found in court to have
violated federal or state child welfare laws. Since the early
1980s, lawsuits have been filed against states or localities in
at least 24 states that I have been able to identify, based on
a quick review of summaries prepared by two organizations that
represented the plaintiffs in many of these cases. These
organizations are Children's Rights, Inc., in New York
(formerly a component of the American Civil Liberties Union)
and the National Center for Youth Law in San Francisco.
Some of these cases, and their outcomes, have been narrow
in focus. However, many of these cases have been class actions
alleging a wide variety of violations of federal and state
child welfare laws, as well as constitutional violations, and
have sought comprehensive child welfare reform. It is important
to note that many of the child welfare reforms that have been
attributed to litigation were not always directly mandated by
the courts or specified in settlement agreements or consent
decrees. Rather, some of these reforms were initiated by
governors, agency administrators, or state legislatures
simultaneously with litigation, or after litigation focused
attention on certain problems. In some cases, the litigation
helped to produce the necessary data to document these
problems.
The kinds of policy and practice changes that have resulted
from child welfare litigation, either directly or indirectly,
have affected the full range of child welfare services,
including child protection, preventive and rehabilitative
services for children and families, foster care, and adoption.
In some cases, courts have been very specific, such as in
establishing caseload standards for social workers or
establishing permanency planning timetables. In other cases,
court orders or settlement agreements have outlined broader
policy goals, such as improved service delivery to foster
children or timely permanency planning, without specifying the
actual steps to be taken by the state or locality.
In general, some of the outcomes that were frequently
sought in child welfare lawsuits include: more timely and
thorough child abuse and neglect investigations; caseload
standards for social workers and supervisors engaged in
protective and preventive services; creation of new
administrative units and other initiatives to provide better
and more targeted services to children and families; standards
to ensure that certain services are provided to children in
foster care, such as health screenings; improvement and
automation of management information systems; visitation
standards for foster children with biological families when
reunification is the permanency goal; targeted efforts to
reduce stays in foster care and to reduce backlogs of children
awaiting adoption; and enhanced training for caseworkers and
other employees.
Madame Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
Mr. English. Thank you, Ms. Spar. Mr. Waldman, welcome.
Your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WALDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Waldman. Thank you. Congressman English and Members of
the Subcommittee, I am Bill Waldman. I am the executive
director of APHSA, the American Public Human Services
Association. I want to start by thanking you very much for the
invitation. The organization that I direct, represents all the
States and the localities that are engaged in human services,
significant among which are programs of public child welfare.
The testimony I am going to provide today was gleaned from
many meetings and much work of our association members. I want
to say it is also supported by some of my own experience. Prior
to joining APHSA, 9 months ago, I concluded a 33-year career in
public human services, starting as a caseworker, ending up as a
commissioner of human services in New Jersey, working for
Governors of different political parties. I also served for 3
years as the State's child welfare director.
Balancing those two things, I want to start off with an
important point. I want to reiterate what several of you have
said about the significant progress that has been made. I want
to express our appreciation to Congress for the law that
contributed to a sea-change of thinking about how we practice
out in the States and localities, also to our Federal partners,
and I want to acknowledge very much the State performance in
this area. I think the States have made an extraordinary
effort. A few of my colleagues that are here today representing
the States of Illinois and Florida have made some outstanding
progress.
The second point I wanted to make is that the regulations,
on balance, are, in fact, very positive. There are issues we
have with them, and I am going to summarize those very quickly
for you, but I think they are a step in the right direction
because they focus on outcomes and accountability, which are
key.
In going through the areas, rather than read the testimony,
what I'd like to do is summarize the four principles that I
think are vital to adhere to in the Federal-State relationship,
and in the nature of these kinds of regulations.
The first principle I would postulate is that these kind of
regulations have to have accountability for outcomes balanced
with flexibility on how those outcomes are achieved. That is an
extraordinarily important principle that has been historically
lacking in this field. If you look, for example, at how the
whole system is financed, you will see a rigidity. In fact, the
Chair mentioned it in her opening comments about it being
directed predominantly to foster care.
We are working on some changes in that area. We hope that
you will be open; and we hope to present those to you at a
future time.
Oftentimes, when States talk about flexibility there is a
feeling or perception, I think, that we don't care about
accountability, we want to avoid that. I'm here to say that is
not true. We don't want flexibility as a smokescreen to be able
to redirect Federal funds for this purpose to other areas. I'm
not here to advocate for a block grant but I think we need to
do things to unleash the creativity and the innovation that I
believe is out there in my many colleagues that I have worked
with for many years in the States.
In my view, if we are to sustain and expand these important
gains, we have to look at this issue very, very seriously.
In that particular area or principle, I am concerned about
the degree to which the judicial determinations are required to
be documented. The regulations are very extensive, and I would
say rigid. And I will ask the department, and for your
consideration as well, to make those more flexible. That's a
difficult area for States.
The second principle is the idea that oversight should be
conducted in a framework and spirit of program improvement. We
are not saying that penalties aren't appropriate to be used.
But we think there is a process that needs to be involved and I
think is generally reflected here, that starts with
identification, remediation, corrective action, technical
assistance, and then penalties if there is no success in
achieving the desired result.
I think the rules generally adhere to that formula. There
is one around MEPA, the Multiethnic Placement Act, that doesn't
follow that, and we hope that that is adjusted as well. We
think there has been some real good technical assistance
provided by the department, but we think, given the challenges
ahead, that needs to be expanded and include peer-to-peer
assistance as well.
The third point I would make or principle, is that
regulations should be judged from a standpoint of general
clarity, fairness, and balance. As several of you have
expressed, I am concerned about the lack of specificity around
certain terms, particularly those associated with the children
and family services reviews.
What, for example, does ``substantial compliance'' really
mean? What are the elements that determine it from partial
compliance or noncompliance? Will the people who do the reviews
be trained so there is a consistent application of those across
the States. I was encouraged to hear what the assistant
secretary had to say, that more work has to be done with that.
There is an issue about the sample size for those reviews.
Only 80 cases are taken. I used to live through the old 427
reviews. Some of you may be familiar with them. And frankly
there is some element of luck of the draw in this. There was 1
year I was sure I would fail it, and we passed. And it could
have been the other way around, certainly.
The last issue I would mention is the need for congruence
and consistency in regulations. There are two outcome measures
that are being used here that I'm not sure relate to each
other, and they are both important. One is the results from the
children and family service review; the other is the report to
Congress on the aggregate performance of the States.
The way I understand it is that a State may pass one and
fail the other, or do very well on one and poorly on the other.
I think these items should be looked at as building blocks, not
separate stovepipes, as indications of performance. So I would
urge the department to look at that.
I would also look for a more comprehensive review and
rationalization of the penalty system. Again, not trying to
avoid penalties, but there are MEPA penalties, AFCAR's
penalties, and jurisdictional adoption penalties, and the list
goes on and on. And I think if we stepped back and looked at a
broader system that relates to a cohesive whole, we could be
more effective.
In closing, we recognize our responsibilities. We are doing
some work as an association. We are committed to promote
successful implementation. We are focusing on outcomes
ourselves. We support that work. We have a list very similar to
what the department has. We are working on important
collaborations with the substance-abuse community and with the
judicial community as well. We have a task force on
facilitating interstate adoptions.
I look forward to working with you to improve this. We are
committed to it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of William Waldman, Executive Director, American Public Human
Services Association
Chairman Johnson, Congressman Cardin, Members of the
Subcommittee, I am William Waldman, Executive Director of the
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA).
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify today about
federal oversight of child protection programs. As the national
organization representing state and local agencies responsible
for the operation and administration of public human service
programs, including child protection, foster care and adoption,
APHSA has a long-standing interest in developing policies and
practices that promote improved performance by states and in
the process that the federal government uses to monitor and
assess state performance in operating these programs.
Prior to joining APHSA nine months ago, I concluded a 33-
year career in the public human services in the state of New
Jersey. I began as a caseworker, and held numerous titles and
responsibilities including those of director of the state child
welfare agency--the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family
Services--as well as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department
of Human Services, a cabinet level position with responsibility
for broad array of human services. I served three governors--
Democrat and Republican. In the course my career, I have
implemented many federal and state child welfare initiatives
and value the state and federal partnership that is critical to
the success of many public human service programs.
On behalf of states, we are pleased that this hearing is
also examining state successes in increasing adoption. In the
year and a half since enactment of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA), states have enacted legislation to comply
with ASFA and are building on their own reform efforts
initiated in recent years, consistent with the goals of ASFA,
to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being for children
served by the public child welfare system. ASFA has clearly
contributed as a part of a sea change in public child welfare
practice. We have seen tremendous strides taking place in the
states resulting from ASFA and state reform initiatives and
innovations. For example, statistics have demonstrated
significant state successes in increasing the number of
adoptions of children from foster care--with increases in
nearly every state, in many cases rising by 50 percent or more
in less than two years. .Agencies are employing a number of
promising practices such as subsidized guardianship,
performance-based contracting, family group decision making,
cross-system collaborative efforts with substance abuse
agencies and juvenile courts--all of which are promoting more
safe, stable and timely permanent arrangements for children,
whether they be adoptions, reunifications or guardianships.
In order to ensure that this improvement and innovation is
sustained and expanded, we must remove barriers to optimal
performance. One of the most serious constraints for states is
a federal financing structure for child welfare that is
constrained by fiscal incentives that do not necessarily reward
the desired outcomes for children. . The current federal
financing system disproportionately funds the deepest and often
least desired end of the system--out of home care--that we are
all striving to minimize in terms of lengths of stay and
numbers of children, while funding directed at activities to
achieve permanency, safety, prevention and early intervention
are comparatively limited. Although we do not support a block
grant for child welfare funding, we do strongly urge that
additional flexibility in the use of Title IV-E dollars be
afforded to states so that they can invest these dollars in the
kinds of activities that are yielding success and test
innovative ideas to generate new programs that work.
Flexibility is also critical to enabling states to develop
comprehensive approaches and a broad array of tailored
interventions to address the complex and individual needs of
children and families rather than encouraging responses that
are driven by categorical programs that deal with only part of
the system.
In addition, we would also urge that Congress look at
federal policy on the Title IV-E waivers to ensure that the
promise of innovation and flexibility agreed to in ASFA is not
limited by overly prescriptive and rigid federal
implementation. Furthermore, we would also encourage increased
federal investment into child welfare programs to meet the
increased demands and capacity needs these systems are facing,
but increased spending must not come at the expense of other
human service programs that serve our nation's most vulnerable
children and families. APHSA has a workgroup that is crafting
recommendations on how to restructure federal child welfare
financing to support the outcomes for children and families we
are all seeking to achieve. We anticipate the completion of
these recommendations this summer and are very eager share them
with this subcommittee.
Before I speak directly to the regulations, I want to make
it very clear that states strongly believe that the public
child welfare system must focus on results and accountability.
Our appeal for flexibility is often characterized as a
rejection of accountability and as taking precedence over
serving children and families, and I would like to end that
mischaracterization here and now. Accountability, safety and
permanency for children, and flexibility are not mutually
exclusive, but rather are dependent on each other. We view
flexibility not as the end goal, but a key means to an end--
that is achieving positive results for the children and
families we serve.
The proposed regulations issued by HHS in September of 1998
establish two new review processes for monitoring state child
welfare activities. The first process, known as the child and
family service review, monitors states' conformity with their
Title IV-B and IV-E state plan, and replaces what was called
the Section 427 review. The other process, known as the Title
IV-E eligibility review, revises the review that determines
whether Title IV-E funds were legitimately spent on Title IV-E
children and providers and that all Title IV-E requirements
were met in cases where IV-E funding is being claimed.
Furthermore, the regulations address compliance with the Multi-
Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption
Provisions of 1996, and certain provisions of ASFA.
APHSA held a series of conference calls and meetings in
which state agency administrators discussed the proposed rules
probable effect on state child welfare programs. My testimony
today represents the broad consensus resulting from that
process.
Child and Family Services Reviews
APHSA, and the state and local agencies we represent, have
advocated for more than a decade for a review system that is
predicated on outcomes and encourages system improvement. HHS,
the Congress, and the field, including states and advocacy
organizations, have all agreed that the section 427 review
system elevated process issues over quality of services and was
a poor measure of state performance in operating child
protection systems and of results for children being served.
The suspension of these reviews in the early nineties and the
succession of moratoriums on penalties and disallowances was
instituted in response to this realization of their
inappropriateness and ineffectiveness. After much deliberation
in the field, studies by HHS, APHSA (then APWA) and others,
Congress in 1994 called on HHS to develop a new review system
that was outcome based, and provided for corrective action and
technical assistance. The goal was system improvement and
better outcomes for the children and families served.
Many states today are developing outcome-based systems to
assess their own performance and to ensure quality services and
positive outcomes for children and families. The commitment to
outcomes by states is also reflected in the collective work of
states undertaken by APHSA last year to develop a core set of
national outcome measures for HHS to assess state performance
as required by ASFA. We have shared our recommendations with
the subcommittee staff on both sides of the aisle.
In order for states to achieve positive outcomes for
children and families, child welfare agencies need the
flexibility to continue to design and implement innovative
programs, and to make individualized decisions and
interventions for children and families. For these reasons, the
federal rules applied to titles IV-B and IV-E must provide the
flexibility to engage families on a case-by-case basis and to
emphasize outcomes over process. The general thrust of the new
child and family services review recognizes this and we welcome
this landmark change in orientation. We commend HHS for its
thoughtful development of a new process for federal oversight
of child welfare programs and for engaging state agencies and
the field in this deliberative process. We also appreciate that
program improvement is the foundation of this review system and
the recognition that such improvement takes time and, often,
technical assistance. States have long felt that penalties,
without opportunity for corrective action and program
improvement, are not the way to advance critical program and
practice changes. States must be accountable and are committed
to being accountable. However, penalties only make sense if
they reinforce good practice and are directed toward achieving
the right outcome.
The states that underwent pilot reviews to test the new
system overwhelmingly valued the self-assessment approach,
noting that it was a helpful process and tool for examining
their system. That said, states have identified a number of
concerns with this proposed review system, even though valuable
lessons and modifications have occurred as a result of the
pilot reviews. Some of the questions raised are posed here.
Will the system equitably and accurately measure state
conformity? Will a small sample size accurately reflect the
totality of the system? How will terms be defined and measured
so that the review process will not be too subjective? How will
disagreements among team members regarding substantial
compliance be resolved? Will the federal officials recognize
and appreciate the uniqueness of specific state programs and
reform efforts? Will technical assistance be available and of
such quality and diversity to be tailored to the specific
program improvement needs of a particular state? How does this
system comport with the new annual report on state performance
required by ASFA?
We want to be clear that in raising these questions we are
not implying that we would want to return to a review system
similar to the old Section 427 review system. Yet, we are
cautious that even with the best intentions, the system may
not, in practice, accurately and equitably assess performance
on a system-wide level. Even with the lessons learned from the
pilot reviews, the new system is still too untested to conclude
at this time whether the process is workable, appropriate and a
good measure of conformity with the state plan. Overall, we
support the general approach to the reviews but urge HHS to
refine it in the final rule based on specific recommendations
that we enumerated in detail in the comments we submitted on
December 17, 1998, and to build in a process to monitor the
implementation and effectiveness of the system in order to make
necessary improvements over time.
One of our priority concerns relates to the proposed
standard for determining outcome achievement and substantial
conformity. While we fully support the overarching outcomes of
safety, permanency and well being, states are very concerned
about the proposed standard for substantial conformity. We have
considered carefully the proposed standard of 90 percent for
the first review and 95 percent for subsequent reviews and have
deliberated at length about the appropriate standard. State
agencies continue to aim for 100 percent compliance and outcome
achievement as the goal, but the question for the regulations
is not about the goals we aim for but rather the point at which
a penalty is imposed. As such, we believe that a standard of 95
percent is too high. Given the potential for human error and
the probability of a disproportionate number of
unrepresentative cases in such a small sample size of 30 to 50
cases, ninety-five percent is virtually the equivalent of
perfection. Setting the standard for conformity at a fair and
accurate level is crucial given that the availability of
critical federal resources is at risk. Therefore, we recommend
90 percent as the standard for substantial conformity for the
initial as well as subsequent reviews, but only if other
factors are operating concomitantly with this standard.
These other factors are as follows: First, the sample size
of cases must be representative of the state--otherwise the
information is anecdotal at best, and we question how the
judgment of conformity can be credibly made. Second, the review
must be conducted by federal reviewers who have demonstrated
knowledge and experience in child welfare. Third, the outcomes
criteria must be consistent with the annual report to Congress
on state performance. Lastly, significant discrepancies between
the aggregate data and the on-site review findings must also be
considered as a factor in determining the state to be in
substantial conformity, not just to determine that a state is
not in substantial conformity as is described in the preamble
of the regulations. The specific level of outcome achievement
we are recommending is contingent on these recommendations
regarding the statistical validity of the sample size, the
quality and experience of the federal review team and the
interrelationship with the outcome measures in the annual
report to Congress. These items are all inextricably linked to
a fair and effective review system. If the three factors
mentioned above are not addressed as a package with the
recommended standard for conformity, then the standard must be
lowered further. Furthermore, we urge HHS (1) to regularly
monitor the review system, (2) study and assess its impact on
practice and compliance, and (3) build into the regulations a
process for amending and changing it. Vulnerable children and
families and the public agencies that serve them deserve no
less.
States generally view the qualitative nature of the review
as positive. However, this type of approach raises concerns
about subjectivity in the review process. States have many
concerns about what the actual standard and criteria will be
for making the final decision for whether an individual case
has substantially achieved, partially achieved or not achieved
the outcome in question. States believe that they should be
made aware of exactly how ACF plans to assess them. There is
also concern about whether outside reviewers will understand
the basics of a state's system, its complexity and the nuances
in order to make accurate assessments. Again, we raise the
issue that training of reviewers and their demonstrated
knowledge of and experience with state child welfare
administration is critical to the fairness of the process.
We are also concerned about the lack of an explicit link
between the outcomes proposed in the child and family services
review and the outcomes proposed for the annual report to
Congress on State performance on outcome measures which was
required in Section 203 of ASFA. It is essential that these two
systems are relevant to each other and that the respective
outcome measures not only do not conflict but also are in
agreement. If states are working to achieve two different sets
of outcomes that may be in conflict with each other, it will
not advance good practice and improved programs. Furthermore,
serious questions would be raised by federal and state
legislators and the public if a state was in substantial
conformity in the children and family service review system and
ranked poorly in the annual report, or vice versa.
These comments are not intended to suggest that the
proposed system be discarded and replaced. We truly view the
proposed process as an evolutionary one and commend HHS for the
work it has done. We have urged HHS to be cognizant of our
concerns in approaching and conducting the reviews and to
continually monitor the process, revise the instruments and
make changes to both as necessary. We have requested to HHS an
ongoing dialogue between HHS and the states be maintained, both
individually and collectively. We would be pleased to engage in
a similar dialogue with this subcommittee as lessons are
learned from implementation of the new system.
Title IV-E Eligibility Reviews
We are concerned that the focus of the proposed regulations
on process and paperwork in the interpretation of specific
title IV-E requirements and the proposed IV-E eligibility
review process are inconsistent with an outcomes-based approach
to monitoring. Paperwork and process are important so as to
ensure certain protections for children, but are meaningless
and a misdirection of limited resources when they do not
comport with outcomes. Our concern specifically relates to the
excessively rigid and prescriptive requirements around
documentation of judicial determinations. In this respect, the
proposed regulations emphasize process and place requirements
on court activities that states cannot control. Under these
rules agencies could be penalized if these activities are not
completed by the courts in the time frames and to the
prescriptive specifications required by the regulations that
have no statutory bearing. In some respects these concerns are
not new, but the proposed regulations exacerbate what has
already been acknowledged as a problem by imposing even more
prescriptive timelines, processes and documentation on the
court and tying them to a state agency's ability to claim IV-E
for otherwise eligible children. Under state constitutions'
separation of powers, state administrators, governors and
legislators have no control over the judiciary. Neither ASFA
nor the regulations can make the courts accountable either. As
a result, HHS should provide the states with as much
flexibility as possible with respect to court activities such
as documentation. Denial of IV-E eligibility because of court
failures will only make it more difficult for states to realize
the goals of ASFA. Such reliance on process is inconsistent
with the agreed upon principle of the importance of outcomes
over process.
Penalties and Corrective Action Related to MEPA and the Interethnic
Adoption Provisions
State agencies understand that the process for assessing
MEPA penalties must be unique to a certain extent, but believe
that the statute affords HHS the flexibility to make the MEPA
enforcement process aimed at program improvement as well. We
are concerned that the process proposed in the regulations is a
retreat to the old way of doing business with the states where
there is no clear standard of compliance and no real attention
to program improvement. Unlike the process outlined for the
child and family services reviews, the proposed regulations
make no mention of HHS' obligation to inform states
specifically of the reasons for non-compliance, to work with
states to develop a corrective action plan, to develop a
specific timeline for HHS to approve corrective action plans,
or to inform states of what needs to be done to be in
compliance.
We strongly disagree with HHS' interpretation of the
statute as it relates to penalties for a violation with respect
to a person. The statute provides for the opportunity for
corrective action before penalties are assessed. However, the
proposed regulations impose immediate penalties and successive
reductions in funding, with corrective action only serving to
stop additional penalties from being assessed. We believe that
the regulation is inconsistent with congressional intent,
legislative history, and the conference report, and violates
the understanding in which the statutory language was
negotiated with our organization. We urge the subcommittee to
take action to ensure that this matter is resolved in the final
regulations so that corrective action is allowed before
penalties are imposed.
Cumulative Effect of Penalties
There are a substantial number of penalties imposed by the
federal government on state child welfare systems (i.e., MEPA,
AFCARS, interjurisdictional adoption, child and family service
review and IV-E eligibility reviews). Contrary to the views of
others who commented on the proposed regulations, we do not
view the new review systems established by these regulations as
overly lenient with respect to the penalties imposed. In fact,
we are concerned that the cumulative effect of these penalties
is immense and has the potential to undermine the historic
state-federal relationship around the state plan process. While
we do believe states must be accountable in how they use
federal funds to operate state programs, we contend that this
piecemeal approach to penalty assessment obscures the overall
impact on states. We urge the Congress and HHS to take a
serious look at the current piecemeal penalty approach and
consult with the states on a more rational approach to
assessing performance across programs, rather than continuing
to add on individual penalties by program. If program
improvement is a serious objective, we must recognize that
resources, along with the opportunity for corrective action and
positive incentives that are linked to outcome, are critical to
achieving success. We urge you to consider these issues as you
undertake proposals on the development of a performance-based
incentive system and other proposals related to the
restructuring of Title IV-E financing.
The individuals with the most at stake are the children and
families we serve. Accordingly, states need to be allowed to
focus their time and resources on serving these children and
families. While federal regulations are obviously necessary, we
want to ensure that they do not hinder states' programs and
their ability to achieve the very outcomes the federal law
seeks in the process.
We commend HHS for developing a framework for federal
review that truly focuses on outcomes and provides a meaningful
opportunity for program improvement. We view the proposed
review system as a significant improvement over the former
system. We are hopeful that the final regulations will address
the issues we identified and will support state efforts to
achieve our mutual goals of safety, permanency and well-being
for children.
In closing, I want to let you know that APHSA is working
hard as an organization to promote successful implementation of
ASFA and other comprehensive child welfare system reforms. In
addition to the work we are doing on outcomes and financing, we
have initiated national partnerships with two key entities that
are critical to the success of ASFA--one with the juvenile
courts through a collaboration initiative with the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and
another with state substance abuse agencies through a joint
workgroup with the National Association of State Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). We have also established a task
force to develop solutions to geographic barriers to interstate
adoption. APHSA, and its member states and localities are
deeply committed to achieving the goals of ASFA and positive
results for children and families, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Mr. English. Thank you, Mr. Waldman.
Ms. Warburton, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KIM WARBURTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, KIDSHELP!
FOUNDATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Warburton. Good morning, Chairman Johnson and
Subcommittee members. My name is Kim Warburton. My husband and
I entered the arena of child welfare when we adopted, at 4 days
old, a little boy who was taken from us by his biological
father when he was 4 years old.
We named him Danny. The world knew him as baby Richard.
When our son was taken from us, we dedicated the remainder of
our life's work to helping children, making sure that they were
put first.
KidsHELP! Foundation is a nonprofit human rights initiative
for children, dedicated to fostering child-centered systems and
seeking to promote early permanent placement of children in
stable families. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was
passed to shift the focus of welfare from reunification at all
costs to the child's health and safety. KidsHELP! urges
Congress to watch closely over the implementation of the 1997
act to ensure that it is carried out as you intended it to be.
KidsHELP! supports the stated goal of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997. A child's health and safety should be the
paramount concern. When Health and Human Services
Administration proposed its regulations on the statute, we
wrote to ACF, the Administration for Children and Families, and
submitted comments that we would like to have reviewed before
the regulations become final.
We seek to encourage to adopt regulations that place
children first by basing all decisions about a child on the
child's health and safety. KidsHELP! comments focus on two
central things. One, all decisions about a child should be
based on the safety and needs of the child. Two, every child
needs a safe and permanent home as early as possible.
These are also the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act. These child-centered goals should be the guiding
principles of every decision made about a child. Each decision
should be based on a child's need for safety and permanency
rather than adults' desires for reunification.
KidsHELP! disagrees with several of the outcomes which will
be used to judge the results achieved by State programs because
they are inconsistent with the act's fundamental goals, to
protect the safety and health of children first and foremost.
The first safety outcome provides that children are first
and foremost protected from abuse and neglect and are safely
maintained in their homes whenever possible. The second phrase
in this outcome, ``and are safely maintained in their homes
whenever possible,'' undermines the primary goal of ensuring
child safety. Maintaining children in their homes may directly
conflict with protecting children from abuse and neglect.
This outcome also sends a confusing message to agencies as
to whether they should protect children or maintain children in
their homes. Congress unequivocally resolved this debate in
passing the act by setting the primary goal to keep children
safe.
KidsHELP! suggests that the first safety outcome be,
children are first and foremost protected from abuse and
neglect, period. The second safety outcome is risk of harm to
children is minimized. The goal should be to eliminate harm,
not merely minimize it. State programs should be judged on
whether they are successful at protecting children, which means
eliminating harm to children.
We suggest deleting the second safety outcome because it is
redundant, if not inconsistent with the first safety outcome of
protecting children.
ACF proposes to use the outcomes as a measure to evaluate
whether State programs conform with Federal requirements. ACF
plans to use performance indicators to evaluate States'
results. Unfortunately, ACF's performance indicators are vague
and difficult to measure. The performance indicators should be
more quantifiable and focus on child safety, not reunification.
The numbers should be broken down and reported by categories.
States should report the age ranges for each category, which
would enable a profile of entries and reentries to be
established and analyzed to assist in the development of future
initiatives. States should compare current data with data from
the previous 5 years to evaluate the State's progress.
The proposed penalties are too low to encourage compliance.
KidsHELP! supports ACF's efforts to forge partnerships with
States to develop high-quality child welfare programs; however,
ACF should not use program improvements to the near elimination
of penalties.
The proposed penalties are too low and should be increased.
The best incentive for States to conform to Federal standards
is not only the threat of withholding Federal funds but the
practice of implementing those penalties when the State,
regardless of which branch of government or appropriate agency,
fails or refuses to comply with, apply, or implement those
Federal standards.
Furthermore, penalties should not be suspended while the
State is attempting to come into compliance because if States
continue to receive money, they have no incentive to improve.
ACF's rules violate the act by requiring States to terminate
parental rights of parents who commit certain felonies against
children.
There is a slight conflict which exists within the act
itself. Under section 675(5)(E), there is a mandatory
requirement of termination of parental rights, yet, on the
other hand, section 671(a)(15)(D) provides that States need not
make reasonable efforts to reunify the child when a parent has
committed felonies under the act. Once a court determines that
reasonable efforts to reunify are not necessary, the State must
hold a permanency hearing within 30 days.
Thus a conflict as to determination of parental rights
arises within the act as one section requires termination
proceedings when a parent commits a felony against a child
while another section, under those same felony circumstances,
gives the States the discretion to make reasonable efforts and
to proceed to permanency hearings.
I would like to thank you very much today for the
opportunity to speak and share our objectives and our
viewpoints regarding this particular aspect of ASFA and the
regulations that oversee it. We have provided you with a copy
of our long-term statement today, and most importantly, I would
like to thank you for your concern regarding children.
[The prepared statement follows. An attachment is being
retained in the Committee files.]
Statement of Kim Warburton, Chairman of the Board, KidsHELP!
Foundation, Chicago, Illinois
I. INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Johnson and committee members. My
name is Kim Warburton. My husband and I entered the arena of
child welfare when we adopted, at 4 days old, a little boy who
was taken from us by his biological father when he was 4 years
old. We named him Danny. The world knew him as ``Baby
Richard.'' When our son was taken from us, we dedicated our
life's work to helping children.
KidsHELP! is a non-profit, human rights initiative for
children, dedicated to fostering child-centered systems, and
seeking to promote early permanent placement of children in
stable families.
II. BACKGROUND
I would like to start with a brief background to the
Adoption and Safe Families Act and these rules. In 1980,
Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
to decrease the number of children in foster care. The statute
required states to make reasonable efforts to prevent the
removal of children from their homes. ``Reasonable efforts,''
however, was left undefined by Congress. Without guidance,
states made every possible effort and left no stone unturned in
reunifying families. States wrongly interpreted the statute to
require that they must give parents every possible chance and
service to get their children back. As a result of the 1980
statute, the number of children in foster care actually
increased. The statute was a failure.
There was no effective Congressional oversight of the 1980
statute. Perhaps if there had been, Health and Human Services
and the states would not have veered so far astray from the
statute's intent. To correct this problem, Congress passed the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 to shift the focus of
child welfare from reunification at all costs to child health
and safety. KidsHELP! urges congress to watch closely over the
implementation of the 1997 Act to ensure that it is carried out
as you intended.
KidsHELP! supports the stated goal of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997--a child's health and safety shall be the
paramount concern. When Health and Human Services'
Administration for Children and Families proposed its
regulations on this statute, we wrote to ACF and submitted
comments that we would like ACF to review before the
regulations become final. We have provided a copy of those
comments to you today. We seek to encourage ACF to adopt
regulations that place children first by basing all decisions
about a child on the child's health and safety.
III. COMMENTS
KidsHELP!'s comments focus on two central themes:
1. All decisions about a child should be based on the
safety and needs of the child
2. Every child needs a safe and permanent home as early as
possible
These are also the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act. These child-centered goals should be the guiding
principles of every decision made about a child. Every decision
should be based on a child's need for safety and permanency,
rather than an adult's desires for reunification. In the
comments kidsHELP! submitted in December, kidsHELP! pointed out
where ACF's proposed rules deviate from these goals.
A. OUTCOMES DO NOT PROTECT CHILDREN FIRST AND FOREMOST.
KidsHELP! disagrees with several of the outcomes which will
be used to judge the results achieved by state programs because
they are inconsistent with the Act's fundamental goal to
protect the safety and health of children first and foremost.
In its December comments, kidsHELP! suggested specific changes
to the outcomes. Here, I will point out just a couple of
examples of how the outcomes need to be more child-centered.
The first safety outcome provides that ``children are,
first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect, and are
safely maintained in their homes whenever possible.'' The
second phrase in this outcome'' and are safely maintained in
their homes whenever possible,'' undermines the primary goal of
ensuring child safety and rather is reminiscent of the former
focus on family reunification. Maintaining children in their
homes may directly conflict with protecting children from abuse
and neglect. This outcome sends a confusing message to agencies
as to whether they should protect children or maintain children
in their homes. Congress unequivocally resolved this debate in
passing the Act by setting the primary goal to keep children
safe. KidsHELP! suggests that the first safety outcome be
``children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and
neglect,'' period.
The second safety outcome is ``risk of harm to children is
minimized.'' The goal should be to eliminate harm not merely
minimize harm. State programs should be judged on whether they
are successful at protecting children which means eliminating
harm to children. KidsHELP! suggests deleting the second safety
outcome because it is redundant, if not inconsistent with, the
first safety outcome of protecting children.
B. OUTCOMES SHOULD BE MEASURED BY OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE
INDICATORS.
ACF proposes to use the outcomes as a measure to evaluate
whether state programs conform with federal requirements. ACF
plans to use performance indicators to evaluate state's
results. Unfortunately, ACF's performance indicators are vague
and difficult to measure. Furthermore, many of the performance
indicators improperly address reunification. In its December
comments, kidsHELP! made numerous suggestions on revising the
performance indicators to make the indicators more quantifiable
and to focus on child safety not reunification. For example,
the performance indicators for safety outcomes should be
indicators such as:
1. Number of cases where there is risk of harm to child
2. Number of cases of neglect
3. Number of cases of abandonment
4. Number of initial and repeat cases of physical or
emotional maltreatment
5. Number of child deaths due to physical or emotional
maltreatment
6. Number of child deaths following removal and return of
child to parents
7. Number of cases in which state did not initiate an
investigation within 24 hours of receiving a report
These numbers should be broken down and reported by
categories such as biological home, foster care, kinship care,
adoptive placements, and subsidized guardianships. States
should report the age ranges for each category and compare
current data with data from the previous five years to evaluate
the state's progress.
State and federal agency employees, as well as the public,
need more specific guidance on how to evaluate a state's
performance. Please see our December comments for more
suggestions on indicators for each of the outcomes.
C. PROPOSED PENALTIES ARE INSUFFICIENT INCENTIVES FOR STATES TO
MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS.
The proposed penalties are too low to encourage compliance.
KidsHELP! supports ACF's efforts to forge partnerships with
states to develop high quality child welfare programs. However,
ACF should not use program improvements to the near elimination
of penalties. The proposed penalties are too low and should be
increased. The best incentive for states to conform to federal
standards is not only the threat of withholding federal funds,
but the practice of implementing those penalties when the
state, regardless of which branch of government or appropriate
agency, fails or refuses to comply with, apply, or implement
those federal standards. Furthermore, penalties should not be
suspended while the state is attempting to come into
compliance, because if states continue to receive money, they
have no incentive to improve. KidsHELP! suggests that Congress
and ACF consider a graduated penalty approach whereby ACF
immediately withholds a percentage of federal funds and
increases that penalty each year until the state program
conforms with federal requirements.
D. PROPOSED RULES CONFLICT WITH REQUIREMENT TO TERMINATE
PARENTAL RIGHTS WHERE PARENT HAS COMMITTED A FELONY.
ACF's proposed rules violate the act by not requiring
states to terminate parental rights of parents who commit
certain felonies against children. My remaining comments on
this point are somewhat technical and require some familiarity
with specific sections of the statute. However, I ask for your
patience because it is an extremely important point that states
be required to terminate parental rights of parents who commit
felonies against their children. ACF argues in the preamble to
its proposed regulations that children should be returned to
parents who have been convicted of felonies against children!
This is an unconscionable result.
Section 675(5)(E) of the Act, requires states to terminate
parental rights when a court determines that a parent committed
certain felonies against a child. This is not a discretionary
provision; the state must initiate termination proceedings. On
the other hand, Section 671(a)(15)(D) provides that states need
not make reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child
when a parent has committed these same felonies. Once a court
determines that reasonable efforts to reunify are not
necessary, the state must hold a permanency hearing within 30
days. Thus, a conflict as to termination of parental rights
arises within the act as one section requires termination
proceedings when a parent commits a felony against a child,
while another section, under those same felony circumstances,
gives states the discretion not to make reasonable efforts and
to proceed to a permanency hearing within 30 days but does not
require the state to terminate parental rights.
Rather than resolving this conflict by choosing the
mandatory requirements of Section 675(5)(E), ACF chose the
discretionary language of Section 671(a)(15)(D). According to
ACF, after a parent is convicted, a court will determine if
reasonable efforts are required to reunify the parent and
child. If a court determines that reasonable efforts are not
required, the case will proceed to a permanency hearing within
30 days. If adoption becomes the permanency goal, the state
then has 30 days to terminate parental rights. The state would
not be required to terminate parental rights if adoption is not
the permanency goal. This interpretation completely ignores
Section 675(5)(E) which requires a termination proceeding.
Section 675(5)(E) does not give states the discretion to
terminate only when the permanency goal is adoption. When the
parent is convicted of a felony, the state should immediately
terminate parental rights without a permanency hearing.
Even more alarming, ACF gives an example of how it would
resolve this conflict by returning a child to the home of a
parent who has already served prison time for committing a
felony against a child. ACF explains that if a court ordered
reunification as the permanency goal, this would be ``a
compelling reason for the state not to file a petition to
terminate parental rights.'' The Act, however, does not give
states any authority not to terminate parental rights in such a
case. Section 675(5)(E) does not contain any ``compelling
reason'' exception to terminating parental rights. Rather,
Section 675(5)(E) requires the state to terminate parental
rights in ACF's example.
ACF's proposed rules blatantly ignore the mandatory
requirements of the Act. KidsHELP! disagrees with ACF's
approach and encourages ACF to follow the mandatory language in
Section 675(5)(E).
IV. CONCLUSION
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for the time and opportunity
to share our views. But most importantly, thank you for your
concern for children.
V. OTHER POINTS
A. ACF MUST BETTER DEFINE ``SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY''
ACF proposes to use the outcomes to evaluate whether state
programs conform with federal standards. States must
``substantially conform'' with federal requirements to receive
full funding. ACF proposes that a state will be in
``substantial conformity'' with federal requirements if each
outcome discussed above is rated as ``substantially achieved''
in 95% of the cases examined. ACF plans to rate states as
``substantially achieved,'' ``partially achieved,'' or ``not
achieved'' but does not define any of these terms. All four
terms should be defined in the regulations. Failing to define
these terms, will lead to non-uniform evaluations from state to
state and does not give states sufficient guidance as to what
they need to do to receive federal funds and does not give the
public sufficient information as to the performance of their
state agencies.
B. TIMETABLES FOR REVIEWS NEED TO BE SHORTER.
The proposed rules provide timetables for reviewing state
conformity with federal program requirements. Several of the
timetables for child and family service reviews are too long.
Every day in the life of a child affected by these regulations
is important. Accordingly, states should act as swiftly as
possible to serve these children. Please see our December
comments for specifics timetables that need to be shortened.
C. TIMETABLES FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS NEED TO BE
SHORTER.
The proposed rules provide deadlines for states to file for
termination of parental rights in cases of abandonment or
abuse. Several of the deadlines are too long. Every day in the
life of a child affected by these regulations is important.
Accordingly, states should act as swiftly as possible to serve
these children. Specifically, states should initiate
termination at the same hearing when the court determines that
a child is abandoned and within 1 week of the court's
determination that a parent has committed a listed felony.
D. ACF MUST ENSURE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE DATA COLLECTION.
Much of the success of the proposed rules depends on the
data ACF collects through its national information collection
systems: the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System.
Although kidsHELP! supports standardized collection of data,
ACF must ensure that the information is accurate and complete.
KidsHELP! encourages ACF to oversee that states are properly
inputting their data.
E. ACF SHOULD NOT LIMIT TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS TO ONE CHANCE.
KidsHELP! disagrees with ACF's proposal that states need
only initiate termination proceedings once for a child who has
spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care. ACF states
that multiple termination petitions are not necessary because
children are provided sufficient protection to achieve
permanency through other sections of the statute. Neither the
statute nor the legislative history provide any support for
limiting termination proceedings to one time. ACF's approach
will not promote permanent placements for children but rather
will keep children in the system for longer periods.
Furthermore, permanency hearings and alternative placements are
not sufficient protections for children and cannot replace
termination of parental rights. Accordingly, kidsHELP!
recommends deleting this section.
F. ACF MUST BETTER DEFINE ``AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES''
The Act provides that states need not make reasonable
efforts if there is a judicial determination that a parent has
subjected his child to ``aggravated circumstances.'' Neither
the Act nor ACF define ``aggravated circumstances.'' Failing to
define ``aggravated circumstances'' allows states to minimize
what constitutes aggravated circumstances by using only the few
examples listed in the statute. Congress intended for states to
go beyond the statutory examples and intended for aggravated
circumstances to be a broad exception to the reasonable efforts
requirement. Accordingly, kidsHELP! suggests defining
``aggravated circumstances'' to include certain minimum crimes
but allowing states to further expand the list.
[An Attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut [presiding]. Thank you.
Ms. Allen, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARYLEE ALLEN, DIRECTOR, CHILD WELFARE AND MENTAL
HEALTH, CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
Ms. Allen. Chairman Johnson and other Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Mary Lee Allen, director of child welfare
and mental health at the Children's Defense Fund, and I am
delighted to have received your invitation to testify today at
your hearing on child protection oversight.
As you know, this is not a new concern for the Children's
Defense Fund. We have been working for more than two decades to
enhance the implementation and enforcement of Federal and State
laws designed to keep children safe in nurturing families and
communities. Given that history, I appear today with somewhat
mixed emotions. I have a bit of sadness that here we are, 20
years after significant child welfare reform efforts began,
still talking about how best to provide Federal oversight for
some of our most vulnerable children.
On the other hand, I know that important progress has been
made in reforms in communities and States across the country
and we will have opportunities to hear about that from the
second panel this morning.
I also commend the Subcommittee's interest in examining
ways that together we can all do a better job to ensure that
the protections and supports for children and families in
Federal law, including those in the recently enacted ASFA,
Adoption and Safe Families Act, can really make a difference
for children.
CDF believes that if we are serious about oversight for the
care of children, that we really need to take action in four
areas. One of those areas, the pending regulations that address
Federal oversight, already has been talked about extensively
this morning. Many of our comments on the proposed regulations
echo those that have been made already. Therefore, I would
like, in my very short time this morning, to focus on the three
other areas very quickly.
First, we believe that steps must be taken to increase the
capacity of public systems to promote child safety and
permanence. Given the mandates of ASFA, we believe that the
Subcommittee has a unique opportunity to help States ensure
that they can move the 100,000 children for whom the goal of
adoption has already been identified into permanent families.
It is so important that this be done right.
The challenges to even identify this group of children are
enormous. It means first identifying in a State's entire
caseload how many children have been in care for 15 out of the
22 most recent months; determining the most appropriate
permanent plans for those children; and then comparing what it
would take to actually move those children into permanent homes
with the existing capacity of the system.
The General Accounting Office projected that in California
and Illinois alone we are talking about 104,00 children who
have been in care for over that 15-month period specified in
ASFA. And in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, a recent report
indicated that 4,500 children have to be adopted over the next
year to meet that compliance standard. That is nine times more
than were adopted in Cleveland last year, which was a record
year in terms of the number of adoptions.
I think, though, that States and courts are taking ASFA
seriously. When they do take the steps required by ASFA, we
urge you to consider giving them the extra one-time assistance
they need to move these children into permanent adoptive
families.
The request for that sort of assistance will be different
in different States. However, increased, specially targeted
resources are necessary so that agency and court staff can
focus on these cases, but, at the same time, not neglect the
children coming into the system on a daily basis and children
with other permanency plans.
This step alone, we believe, would mean a lot, not only for
these children but also for the other hundreds of thousands of
children who, while remaining in the system, might have a
better chance of getting what they needed because of reduced
caseload.
The second area we think is particularly important involves
additional steps to improve the quality of data. Although it
has been a long time in coming, we are very pleased about the
steps that have been taken to improve the AFCARS system and
also the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. And
these efforts should continue. At their best, however, they are
limited. These data systems provide a snapshot, a one-point-in-
time look, at what is happening to children and families in the
system. They tell us nothing about the movement of those
children throughout the system.
Therefore, CDF recommends that the Subcommittee take steps
to help all States develop the data capacity, as Illinois has
done, to follow children in the system over time. For example,
States could be given incentives to become part of the Multi-
State Foster Care Data Archive now maintained by Chapin Hall.
There are 11 States now participating in that system,
representing about two-thirds of the children in foster care in
the country. Those data are extremely useful in better
understanding the movement of children in care, by age, by
special needs, and other characteristics. They also make it
possible to look at the trends and the patterns that exist from
State to State.
Third, and finally, we believe that a good system of
oversight must include opportunities for input from parents and
other citizens, and also judicial recourse to address
circumstances when children and families are denied the
services and protections they are to be afforded under Federal
law.
Early engagement of parents, when safe and appropriate, and
I emphasize when safe and appropriate, is essential to ensuring
the best interest of the child within the ASFA timeline. Other
citizen involvement in child welfare is also very significant,
and there is a growing body of experience to draw on. Twenty-
six States are using citizens in their review of foster care
cases. CASA, Court-Appointed Special Advocate, Programs are now
in place in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Child
death review teams, which in a number of States include
citizens, are also in place in 48 States--and that is up from
12 in 1990. And then this July, the new citizen review panels
mandated by Congress in 1996 in CAPTA, the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, are supposed to be in place in
all of the States as well. These panels are specifically
required to look at how States are discharging their child
protection responsibilities.
Finally, in any system for Federal oversight, it is
critically important that there be an opportunity for judicial
recourse for children and families who have been wronged by the
system to have an opportunity to challenge these wrongs in
Federal court. Karen Spar has already talked about the number
of lawsuits in place across the country. There are 30 States
now, and the District of Columbia, where child welfare lawsuits
are pending or have been completed. And Karen already
described, so I won't go into it, some of the issues being
addressed by that litigation.
CDF urges the Subcommittee, in relation to this last area,
to call upon parents and citizens involved in these review
activities, and attorneys involved in some of these class-
action lawsuits to hear more about what they are observing and
to listen to their recommendations.
The young people you heard from last month, Mrs. Johnson,
at the hearing on youths aging out of foster care, was a
testament to the value of this sort of input. The opportunity
to hear more from those directly involved in oversight
activities would be very useful.
We really appreciate the opportunity to present our
recommendations today, and we look forward to continuing to
work with you to ensure safety and permanence for children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of MaryLee Allen, Director, Child Welfare and Mental Health,
Children's Defense Fund
Good morning. I am MaryLee Allen, Director of Child Welfare
and Mental Health at the Children's Defense Fund. The
Children's Defense Fund (CDF) is a privately funded public
charity dedicated to providing a strong and effective voice for
all the children of America. As we seek to Leave No Child
Behind, CDF pays particular attention to the needs of poor and
minority children and children with disabilities. CDF has never
taken government funds.
I appreciate your invitation to testify today on behalf of
CDF at the Subcommittee's hearing on Child Protection
Oversight. I am pleased to offer CDF's recommendations for some
of the steps we believe are necessary to better ensure that
children and families actually receive the protections and
services for which they are eligible under federal child
welfare programs.
As you know, this is not a new concern for the Children's
Defense Fund. CDF has been working for more than two decades to
enhance the implementation and enforcement of federal and state
laws designed to protect children and families. Our 1979
report, Children Without Homes: An Examination of Public
Responsibility to Children in Out-of-Home Care, made a number
of recommendations that were incorporated into the 1980
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. Since then we have
sought, often in partnership with this Subcommittee, to add
protections to federal laws and improve enforcement mechanisms.
We have provided technical assistance to state and local
officials and advocates who are implementing the laws,
monitored their impact, sought to promote best practices, and,
in some cases, sought relief for classes of children who were
being denied the protections to which they had a right under
federal law.
With that history, I appear before you today with mixed
emotions. On the one hand, it is sad to reflect on the fact
that while federal child welfare reform began in earnest about
20 years ago, today we are still struggling to ensure
meaningful federal oversight for some of our nation's most
vulnerable children and families. Too many of the problems in
the child welfare system today are the same ones that CDF
chronicled in Children Without Homes. Yet, during these two
decades, a whole generation of children has been born and grown
to adulthood, too many of them with only the state as parent.
On the other hand, I recognize the important progress that
has been made in some communities and states, some of which you
will hear about from the second panel today. The important
steps that have been taken to increase public accountability
for what happens to children and families are encouraging. This
Subcommittee over the past decade has strengthened avenues for
overseeing the care children and families receive. There has
been continuing recognition of the importance of core
protections for children who have been abused or neglected.
States have been given the flexibility to experiment with
improved approaches to service delivery through the federal
Child Welfare Demonstration Program, that Chairman Johnson
played such an important role in developing during her earlier
tenure on the Subcommittee. Recent improvements in the
establishment of data systems and increased recognition of the
importance of a results-based accountability for states also
are causes for hope. The September 1998 publication by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the long
awaited guidance on the Child and Family Service Reviews and
the Title IV-E Program Eligibility Reviews, prompted by
Congress' 1993 legislation in this area, also represents
important progress.
We can work together to pass the best new laws, but without
adequate enforcement, they offer little to children and
families. Therefore, we commend you for holding this hearing
today to examine how we can all do a better job to ensure that
the protections and supports for children and families in
federal law, including those in the recently enacted Adoption
and Safe Families Act (ASFA), can really work to benefit
children.
In my time this morning, I would like to do two things.
First, review with you what CDF considers to be some of the
core components of a meaningful system of federal oversight for
child protection, and to suggest specific steps that the
Subcommittee and Congress could take in regard to each of them
to better promote safety and permanence for children. Second,
discuss in more detail some of CDF's specific recommendations
for improving the system of federal Child and Family Services
reviews proposed last September by HHS.
KEY COMPONENTS OF FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF CHILD PROTECTION
A federal review system that holds states accountable for
their care of children and the operation of their child welfare
systems is key to effective federal oversight. However, CDF
believes that as HHS works to establish a compliance or
conformity monitoring system that will fairly and equitably
judge state performance and its true impact on child safety,
permanence, and well-being, that significant attention is
needed on at least three other fronts at the same time. These
include the development of 1) increased system capacity within
child welfare and related agencies; 2) improved data; and 3)
expanded opportunities for enhanced public and judicial review
of system performance. In each, we also believe that there are
steps for the Subcommittee to take now to help ensure children
and families will benefit from the services and protections
offered them through federal law.
Increased system capacity to promote child safety and
permanence
Good monitoring systems alone will not protect children,
unless at the same time steps are taken to improve the capacity
of the public systems charged with the care of abused and
neglected children to meet their needs in the manner mandated
by federal law. Improved capacity to get the job done means
ensuring increased resources and training to provide children
what they need within the timeframes within which they need it
to achieve improved outcomes.
CDF believes that Congress has a unique opportunity right
now--as a result of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)--
to enhance the child welfare system's ability to better offer
children and families what they need.
ASFA reinforces the importance of safety and permanence for
children. CDF urges the Subcommittee to take steps immediately
to help ensure that states have the capacity to move the
100,000 children for whom adoption is already the goal into
permanent families. This means ensuring that states are doing
four things:
1. Promptly identifying and reviewing the cases of children
who were already in care for 15 out of the most recent 22
months on December 17, 1997, when ASFA was enacted;
2. Determining the best permanency plans for them, and the
steps necessary to achieve permanence, including termination of
parental rights and adoption;
3. Assessing what it will take to get the waiting children
into permanent homes consistent with those plans, what is
needed to address the backlog, and how this contrasts with the
current capacity of the courts and public and private agencies
in the state to accomplish that goal; and
4. Taking action to move these waiting children to
permanent homes.
The challenges are enormous. Consider, for example, that
the U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that in
Illinois and California alone there are more than 104,000
children who have been in care longer than the 15 out of 22
months. On a smaller scale, there is the city of Cleveland and
its surrounding county. A front-page story in the Cleveland
Plain Dealer at the end of last month announced that 4,500
children in Cuyahoga County must be placed in adoptive homes by
the end of next year, as a result of ASFA. This, officials
said, is nine times as many children as the county found homes
for last year--a record year for adoptions in the county.
Tasks one and two will have no benefit for children unless
the third is acted on as well so the fourth can happen. We
recommend that the Subcommittee hold several field hearings
before the fall on the implementation of ASFA in order to
identify what is needed to eliminate the backlog of children in
care who have been identified by states as needing termination
of parental rights and adoption. I encourage you to ask judges,
state and local administrators, front line workers, parents,
foster parents, adoptive parents, and other advocates for
children and families what it will take to do the job right for
children, and then to help them get it. It is important that it
be done right. Children must not be moved prematurely or
inappropriately to adoptive families or to families not
prepared for the challenges. Post adoption services will be
necessary to help adoptive families care appropriately for
children with special needs.
It is not sufficient to impose new permanency timelines and
then to focus attention only on how to hold states accountable
for complying with these timelines. Capacity development is
essential. This is especially true given that the ``Ways and
Means Green Book'' notes that virtually all of the funding
disallowances that had been made in the Title IV-E Program in
the past occurred as a result of states not holding timely
periodic reviews and permanency hearings (which at the time
were called dispositional hearings). Therefore, it will take
special efforts for states to meet even tighter timelines.
Several states already have coupled state reform mandates
with systematic efforts to increase the capacity of counties to
comply with the new mandates. For example, as Colorado was
implementing its Expedited Permanency Planning Program, it
asked counties what help they would need to move younger
children into permanent families within one year. Requests
included more substance abuse, mental health, and domestic
violence services, and increased staff. The state also offered
cross-system training and technical assistance. As Alabama
implemented a series of court-mandated reforms, it also phased
in clusters of counties sequentially. This allowed the counties
to get special training and new resources to help implement the
reforms.
CDF recommends that the Subcommittee undertake a similar
approach at the federal level. Extraordinary measures should be
taken to ensure that states get the help they need to move
children who are waiting for adoption into adoptive families.
State agencies and courts that have identified children who
have been in care too long, established permanency plans for
them, and know what it will take to move them into permanent
homes should be made eligible for special one time assistance
to help move these children into permanent families. The
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (S.708), introduced
by Senators DeWine, Chafee, Landrieu, Rockefeller, Levin,
Kerry, and Kerrey, begins this process. It includes a backlog
grant program to provide one-time assistance to courts to move
these cases to termination of parental rights and then on to
adoption. Increased specially targeted resources are necessary
so that agency and court staff can focus on these cases without
neglecting children with other permanency goals or those just
entering the system.
This step alone--carefully clearing the child welfare
system of the backlog of children in care who should have been
moved to adoptive families many months, and often years,
earlier--will positively impact the futures of these children.
It also will impact the futures of hundreds of thousands of
other children as well. With fewer children in care and reduced
caseloads, the child welfare system will be better able to
protect children in the future.
Data systems that allow for internal monitoring and tracking of
children and also the comparison of trends across states.
Any meaningful monitoring system is only as good as the
quality of the data that are available to it. CDF strongly
believes that it will never be possible to track the extent to
which children are benefiting from the protections in federal
law unless significant improvements are made in the data
available at the local, state, and national levels. Data that
track the movement of individual children in care can provide
important indications about the experiences children are having
in care--both good and bad.
CDF has been talking with this Subcommittee about improved
data in child welfare for close to two decades. We had great
hopes when the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act was
first enacted, that we would finally be able to have some basic
data on state performance. Renewed efforts were then made to
improve state reporting in 1986.
Now, more than a dozen years later, there finally has been
important progress in the establishment of the Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). Efforts
also are being made to improve the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System. These efforts must continue. However, even
in their best form, these two systems will offer only a
snapshot of the children in care at one point in time. They
present a picture of a cross-section of the system, but do not
follow individual children or groups of children over time.
More is needed. CDF recommends that the Subcommittee take
steps immediately to help all states become part of the
MultiState Foster Care Data Archive. The Archive, now
maintained, with some federal support, by the Chapin Hall
Center for Children at the University of Chicago, was started
with five participating states (CA, IL, MI, NY, and TX) and
this year will have 11 states (AL, CA, IA, IL, MD, MI, MO, NM,
NY, OH and WI). These states together account for about two-
thirds of the children in foster care nationally. The Archive
is a multi-state database that contains the complete child
welfare history of every child who is in the care and custody
of the state child welfare agency. The data are comprehensive
at the level of the individual child. They are extremely useful
in better understanding the movement of children in care, by
age, type of placement, and other characteristics, and also in
looking across states at things like different entry and exit
patterns, lengths of placements, and placement patterns.
Any such investment must be conditioned upon the assurance
that these data would be available to HHS, and in some form to
the relevant Congressional committees and the public. The
states obviously must have access to the data. Such a system
would allow more meaningful oversight of the children in care,
and would expand opportunities for establishing outcomes that
could be measured within states and applied across states. It
also increases opportunities to link these data with data on
child protection, the courts, Medicaid, and other systems with
which the children and families interact. On a related note, we
also ask the Subcommittee to support data improvements for the
courts similar to those in the pending bipartisan Strengthening
Abuse and Neglect Courts Act mentioned earlier.
Opportunities for parent involvement, citizen review, and
judicial recourse to address alleged abuses
A good monitoring system must include federal oversight and
improved opportunities for the states to carry out their
activities and track the care individual children receive. It
must also include opportunities for input from parents and
other citizens, and judicial recourse to address circumstances
where children or families are denied the services and
protections that they are afforded under federal law.
Incentives must be provided for parent involvement in
system reform and, where appropriate, in the design and
delivery of services to children. Increased parent involvement
in case planning and service delivery will help to provide a
watchful eye on the system. Certainly there are families who
because of the nature of the abuse or neglect involved will
have no further contact with their children, but there are many
more cases where involvement of the parents at an early stage
is essential to ensuring the best interest of the child within
the ASFA timelines. Therefore, we are pleased that HHS, in its
September 1998 proposed regulations, requires that a child's
case plan be developed jointly with the parent or guardian of
the child in foster care. (Sec. 1356.21(g)(1)). Early
engagement of the parent, where it is safe and appropriate, is
essential so services can be provided and a decision can then
be made within the first twelve months of care about the most
appropriate permanent plan for the child.
Other citizen involvement in child welfare also is an
extremely important means of oversight, and there is a growing
body of experience from which to draw.
Twenty-six states now are using citizens in their
regular reviews of foster care cases, required by the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act. The trained citizens on the
foster care review boards review individual cases, and also
bring concerns about policies and practices that are impacting
children, both negatively and positively, to the attention of
state officials and the public. Guidelines that describe how
citizen foster care review boards can be used as an
accountability tool are pending in HHS.
Court Appointed Special Advocates (called CASAs)
oversee the care the individual children receive and make
recommendations to the court. Their combined voices also bring
information to the public's attention about the larger barriers
that prevent children from getting the services and supports
they need. Currently there are 843 CASA programs in the 50
states and the District of Columbia. S. 708, the Strengthening
Abuse and Neglect Courts Act, includes funds to expand the CASA
program in the largest 15 urban areas in the country and in
rural areas as well.
Child death review teams, which include citizens
in some states, are in place in at least 48 states, up from 12
states in 1990.
Citizen review panels, mandated by Congress in
1996, as part of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) amendments, must be operational by July 1999. The
panels are to determine whether state and local agencies are
effectively discharging their child protection
responsibilities. This includes compliance with the state's
CAPTA plan, but also the extent of the child protection
agency's coordination with the Title IV-E Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance Programs and the child death review teams
that are in place in the state.
Community child protection activities underway in
a number of states aim to promote increased understanding in
the community of the problems children face and increased
responsiveness on the part of community leaders, businesses,
religious organizations, and others to help to keep children
safe and in permanent families. They promote community
involvement and oversight and the chance for more prompt
attention to problems in the system.
Finally, in any system for federal oversight, it is
critically important for children and families who have been
wronged by the system to have an opportunity to challenge those
wrongs in federal court. As of 1998, child welfare reform
lawsuits were pending or completed in 30 states and the
District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions, the cases address
recurrent, systemic problems in a state or local child welfare
system, and seek relief on behalf of classes of children harmed
by these problems. Examples of problems addressed in the
lawsuits include the inadequacies of case plans and case
reviews, preventive and reunification services, termination of
parental rights, adoption activities, training of caseworkers
and foster parents, staffing, health care, and special services
for children with disabilities.
CDF urges the Subcommittee to call upon parents and
citizens involved in these activities to learn about what they
are observing and hear their recommendations about what it will
take to ensure that children are kept safe and placed in
permanent families. The young people you heard from last month
at the hearing on youths aging out of foster care was a
testament to the value of such input. Similarly, attorneys
directly involved in child protection litigation should be
asked for their views on improving federal oversight. In any
system of federal oversight, the views and experiences of these
outside entities should be seriously considered and in some
cases trigger a federal agency review of compliance.
Meaningful Federal Agency Oversight
My leaving the discussion of federal agency oversight to
the last is not intended to suggest its lack of importance. To
the contrary, it is an essential part of the monitoring
process, but it cannot stand alone, even in its best form.
In discussing federal agency review, I am not going to
dwell on the past. The record of the Department of Health and
Human Services in the monitoring of state compliance in child
welfare has been abysmal through numerous administrations. Now
it is time to make it work.
CDF is encouraged by the steps taken by HHS to put a new
compliance review system in place that will promote improved
permanency, safety, and well-being for children. At the same
time, we recognize the challenges involved for both the states
and HHS in undertaking the reviews, responding when non-
conformity is identified, ensuring that the necessary program
improvements are made, and imposing penalties when they are
not.
CDF submitted detailed comments to HHS on the September 18,
1998, Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking for Provisions in the
Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Multiethnic Placement Act,
and the Child and Family Services Review and Title IV-E
Eligibility Review and have provided those comments to the
Subcommittee staff. This morning, I will summarize just several
of CDF's recommendations about the proposed federal review
process.
First, CDF believes that there are some key characteristics
of the proposed review process that increase the likelihood of
its effectiveness and should be retained in the final
regulations.
Broad partnership. The review process builds upon
partnership and collaboration between the states and HHS, and
also broadens the involvement of other interested parties in
the state. It recognizes the need for a broad base of community
involvement in both the self-assessment and the on-site review.
It also provides opportunities for public review and inspection
of all self-assessments, reports of findings, and program
improvement plans. In our comments to HHS we recommended that
opportunities for external representation on the review team
and for public response to the reviews and program improvement
plans be expanded. We believe that an expansion will promote
broader buy-in to program improvement plans, and help to
eliminate the likelihood that a state will gloss over problem
areas in the review or steer the review team around them.
More than paper reviews. The proposed review process
involves more than a paper review. My discussions with
representatives of states involved in the pilots of the review
process indicate that the self-assessment has been especially
helpful in getting the state to identify real barriers to
appropriate service delivery and the causes of those barriers.
The requirement that the full review involve face to face
interviews with children and families, service providers,
foster families, and staff also make it more likely that
problems in the actual delivery of services, likely to be
missed in a case record review, will be identified.
Opportunity for corrective action. CDF agrees that a fiscal
penalty without action first to correct the problems identified
harms children. Therefore, we support the HHS proposal for
states to correct the problems identified in a review within
established timelines, and efforts to hold HHS and states
accountable for these timelines.
We also believe, however, that there are a number of areas
where the proposed conformity review system must be
strengthened. Both the states and HHS should be required to
take additional steps to ensure that the process will provide
the oversight that children and families deserve.
Clarify and increase penalties. We think it is extremely
important that HHS make much clearer to state agencies that
they must be in compliance with requirements in law and
regulations by a date certain or fiscal penalties will be
imposed. The bottom line must be clear. Then HHS can state that
it is focusing on partnership and program improvement because
it believes that this is the most effective way to ensure
conformity with what the law and regulations require to protect
children.
Especially in the political context in which so much of the
business of human resources is conducted, and where the work of
child welfare agencies often is given low priority, the cut off
of funds may be the only threat that can trigger corrective
action. There may be nothing more compelling to a Secretary of
Human Services, who may be several layers removed from the
operation of the state's child welfare system, than a notice
from the federal government that the state's failure to conform
to federal law is depriving that state's abused and neglected
children and their families and prospective adoptive families
of millions of dollars of support.
On a related note, we believe that the fiscal penalty for
lack of substantial conformity, as proposed by HHS, is too
modest to provide a real incentive to states to work vigorously
to establish the program improvements necessary to protect
children. It is troublesome that the funds exempted from
penalties are the Title IV-E foster care room and board and
adoption assistance payments, thereby allowing states to
continue with business as usual if a penalty is imposed. These
are the same activities that a state would be most likely to
continue if federal funds were cut. We recommend that the pool
of funds made subject to penalties should include all the funds
subject to state plan assurances. We hope that sufficient
program improvements will be made by all states and that
penalties will never have to be imposed. But, if they are, they
should be applied to all relevant programs.
Increase the capacity of HHS and the states. The success or
failure of the proposed review process is totally dependent
upon both the capacity of HHS and individual states and we have
serious concerns about the adequacy of that capacity,
especially given the current staffing limitations within the
Children's Bureau and the federal regional offices. Staff
expertise is needed for there to be good reviews and good
decisions made initially about a state's compliance, and
quality technical assistance will be necessary for states to
develop quality program improvement plans and make the
necessary improvements in a timely fashion. Capacity begins
with the quality and experience of those doing the reviews. HHS
must assure the state staff and others participating in the
reviews that the federal review team will be knowledgeable
about all aspects of child welfare practice, the statutory and
regulatory requirements against which state performance will be
judged, the process for conducting the reviews and determining
the level of compliance, and the operation of the child welfare
system in the state where the review is being conducted.
The technical assistance also must be high quality. This
will mean developing an individually tailored technical
assistance package for each state implementing a program
improvement plan, and having experts available to provide
assistance in the areas identified for improvement. Given how
essential technical assistance is to the success of these
reviews, we are very concerned by the language in the preamble
to the proposed regulations that conditions technical
assistance on the Administration for Children and Families
``having the resources and funds available.'' Congress in the
1993 amendments of federal oversight that required HHS to
develop a new conformity review process specifically required
HHS to make technical assistance available to the states. The
lack of technical assistance also was one of the problem areas
cited by the HHS Inspector General in that Office's June 1994
report on oversight of state child welfare programs.
Specifying the content on which states will be judged. CDF
recommends that changes be made in the proposed regulations for
both the self-assessment and the on-site reviews to state more
clearly and completely what must be examined. Without some
statement of what, at a minimum, states must examine in the
self-assessment, there will be no assurance state to state that
there has been a comprehensive look at a state's performance
with regard to the state's protections for children in the
federal child welfare programs. The lack of clarity about the
self-assessment is especially troublesome given that the
preamble to the regulations says that ``the analysis of the
self-assessment will provide the focus for the on-site review
by identifying particular aspects of State programs that need
further review.'' We recommend, at a minimum, that the outcome
measures developed for the annual reports on state performance
that were mandated by Section 203 of ASFA should be
incorporated in the proposed regulations as measures for
assessing state's conformity in the areas of safety,
permanence, and well being. We also suggest that the proposed
regulations be amended to require that the assessment and
reviews examine all of the state plan requirements that are
related to outcomes. These must include provisions such as
those that require periodic reviews of the care children
receive, including permanency hearings and the new requirement
expediting termination of parental rights. It is especially
important that these and others be added because many of these
provisions were amended by ASFA.
Finally, the sample of cases being examined must be large
enough to fairly represent the children and families being
served and provide a meaningful assessment of specific
outcomes. We are all too familiar with the pitfalls of making
policy from anecdote. We agree with HHS on the importance of
reviewing cases more intensely and doing more than case record
reviews, but we recommend that HHS reconsider the ``30 to 50''
cases referred to in the preamble to the proposed regulations.
Instead, it should develop a randomized method of sampling that
will better reflect the different numbers of children served by
state agencies and the varied experiences in different
jurisdictions within the states.
What can Congress do to increase the opportunity for a
meaningful conformity review process? We recommend that the
Subcommittee take at least the following steps:
Reinforce to HHS your concerns about the points I
have emphasized above;
Require the Secretary of HHS to provide estimates
of the additional staff and technical assistance resources that
will be necessary to make the proposed conformity review
process work in a timely manner, and suggestions about how to
provide the resources.
Emphasize to the Secretary of HHS and the
President the importance of getting the final regulations on
conformity reviews published immediately, so children do not
have to go another year without these important protections;
and
Request that HHS notify the Subcommittee of the
schedule for the conformity reviews to be held in the states
during the first three years, and appropriate follow-up. The
follow-up should include: the time frames within which those
reviews were actually completed; the associations of the
individuals, beyond the representatives of the state and
Federal agencies, that participated in the reviews; the
outcomes of each of those reviews (including the specific areas
to be addressed by the states in their program improvement
plans); and the timelines within which the individual state
review was completed and substantial conformity, or lack
thereof, was identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to make recommendations as
you examine improved methods of child protection oversight. The
Children's Defense Fund looks forward to continuing to work
with you to ensure safety and permanence for children.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. We are going to have to
recess for 10 minutes to go vote and then we will proceed with
the questions.
[Recess.]
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you all for your
testimony and, Mr. Waldman, I will start with you, Mr. Waldman.
I was sorry to have to miss your testimony, and I understand
that you did mention the challenge of increasing State
flexibility in the use of child protection dollars. And you
have heard the administration refer to the waivers and the
other means of creating flexibility that they have employed and
that are available to them under the statute, but would you
comment on whether you think the current tools that they have
at their disposal to create flexibility are adequate.
Mr. Waldman. I think our association and myself would like
to see us go further in that area. I think there are additional
opportunities, short of a block grant, for example, where
States could be afforded additional flexibility, particularly
in use of IV-E funds, which is the major source of funding for
this program. I think so.
There could be opportunities, for example, on a limited
basis, to permit a State to identify some of the outcomes that
we have talked about here today and, if successful, redirect
some of the funds that might otherwise be designed for foster
care to a whole array of things like preventive primary
services, postadoption services, court improvement programs--
others that experience has taught us needs to be fixed.
Limiting the funds to that one area can be
counterproductive, and I think we can go further in that area.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Do you see forces in
process that will ultimately reduce the number of kids moving
into foster care?
Mr. Waldman. I think your observation was right on target
this morning. I think another compelling reason to look, review
at the funding system is that it will not be adequate over time
as States continue to succeed and reduce the length of time
that children are on foster care. And I think that we want to
reward the positive outcomes, and we may want to think about a
shift of how we finance this.
I think your comments are right.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. If adoption works, if we
get to a system, the 15-month system is certainly going to
focus on family problems earlier in the process. If we treat
those problems, we are going to have fewer children placed into
foster care----
Mr. Waldman. Exactly.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. And if you look back at
the initiative that Ron and I worked on some years ago, if you
had socked in the expected rise in foster care children, then
the States would have more money now than they have. So I think
it is very, very important to give this issue our immediate
attention because if some of the reforms that we adopted in the
last couple of years work as we had hoped, the number of
children in foster care will decline, and that will steeply cut
the amount of money in the system.
And if we could go to something that was more like welfare
reform, when the number of people who went off welfare didn't
decrease the dollars the State received, then the States would
be in a far stronger position.
So this is something we are going to have to think about.
And I invite anyone who is interested to help us with the issue
of the trigger, what happens if there is a rise? And how can we
address the concerns of the States if something happened? But I
am very concerned that policies already in place--and then if
we succeed in drug treatment, which is really a big challenge,
if we succeed in ramping up the drug treatment resources, then
you are going to have another reason why families don't get to
the point where their kids get placed in foster care.
So, if there is going to be money out there for the
protective services, for the drug treatment, for the family
strengthening, for the things we know do help, we are going to
have to be open to much greater alteration.
And then, briefly, Ms. Spar, would you just comment on the
States under court order. I am getting a lot of complaints
about those court orders, that they were done a long time ago,
that judges don't know much about services, and that sometimes
the constraints of the court order are preventing the very
reforms that would help kids.
Ms. Spar. To be honest, I am not qualified to speak about
that.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. OK. I'm sorry. Missed your
testimony. So I wasn't quite sure one way or another. And I'll
come back to that.
Mr. Cardin.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, let me thank all four of you for
your testimony. I found it very helpful.
Mr. Waldman, let me comment on a letter that was sent by
the Subcommittee last year. It was not sent by Mrs. Johnson or
myself, but I would like to get your comments on it.
It dealt with the effectiveness of State penalties, and Mr.
Shaw, in authoring that letter, indicated that we have no doubt
that there will be occasions when States will need to be fined
for violating Federal laws. And the letter goes on to express
concern as to whether the penalty provisions will be strong
enough in order to bring about the type of action necessary to
comply with Federal requirements.
I thought you might want to comment on that.
Mr. Waldman. I do have a view on this, and I----
Mr. Cardin. I thought you might. [Laughter.]
Mr. Waldman [continuing]. I had comparable experience of
overseeing counties and having both incentives and consequences
for not improving. And one of the things I was striking
recently--you may have followed the litigation or the turn of
litigation that occurred in New York City, where it was
recognized that the traditional kinds of settlements with court
orders and so forth--and I'm getting a little bit into the
previous question--did not bring about the desired change that
everybody wanted. Even the advocacy group, the plaintiffs,
realized that as well.
I think the judge and everyone opted more for program
improvement model, where people from significant national
foundations came in to help the city. I think penalties should
stay in the law, frankly. But I think there should be, again,
that spirit--I think States do want to do the right thing. And
I think if you bring it to their attention, I think if you
require a corrective action plan, if you require remediation,
you provide technical assistance, all else fails, and there is
a penalty in it, it should be a serious one.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you. I would also refer to one of your
letters to HHS, on a different regulation, but one that you
suggested the State-by-State rankings of child welfare outcomes
would not be useful at this time. I am curious as to your
concern there because I think people in the State have a right
to know how their State is stacking up compared to other States
in dealing with these issues.
Mr. Waldman. I think that at the point that we have outcome
measures that are refined, I think that is the right time to do
it. And I think the law envisions putting out that kind of
report card. I think we support that at that point.
One of the difficulties I know I have had in several areas
is that my own knowledge tells me that laws are different from
State to State, even things as basic as what constitutes child
abuse. I would just want to make sure that the outcomes that we
use are fair to the States and give you really comparable
examples. And I am pleased to see that we are moving, and in
your law you moved toward that direction, and I think that is
positive.
Mr. Cardin. Oh good. So we can expect a letter that might
be different from you in the future.
Mr. Waldman. Yes.
Mr. Cardin. That's good. Ms. Allen, if I could just get
your comments on any suggestions you might have as to what we
do about substance abuse as it relates to child abuse. I mean,
it is one of the major things that we find in a home in which
child abuse occurs is substance abuse. And I would be curious
if you have any suggestions in that regard as to what we might
want to do.
Ms. Allen. Certainly the area of substance abuse, as we
talk to States who are now faced with implementing ASFA, is a
major issue that needs to be addressed. And it certainly could
be the subject of a whole hearing, in and of itself.
We believe that partnerships are key to addressing
substance abuse and child protection. I mean partnerships
between child welfare agencies and substance abuse agencies,
and mental health agencies as well because these issues are all
intertwined together. Given these partnerships, there needs to
be more attention in at least four different areas.
You need attention to how you do that initial screening,
identification, and assessment of the problem. You need to put
in place the whole range of comprehensive services and
treatments that will address the needs, the differing needs, of
the families that come forward. You need tracking and
monitoring systems to identify what progress is being made and
to ensure that children are protected. And you also need
aftercare and attention to the fact that we are talking about a
lifelong process of recovery for some of these families.
We actually have a lot more recommendations in this area.
CDF has been working with a number of groups and would love an
opportunity at some point to come back to the Subcommittee
informally or formally, to talk more specifically about the
issue of substance abuse and child protection.
Mr. Cardin. Well, I think that is a good suggestion. I am
encouraged. If you have some good thoughts on that, just make
it available to us. It could be very helpful to us.
Ms. Allen. We will certainly do that. Thanks.
Mr. Cardin. Ms. Spar, very quickly because my time is
running out. I was a former State legislator and now a
Congressman, so I would like to see legislative action and
executive action. I am always leery about court action, even
though I applaud many of the court decisions. I look at the
need to get a court decision against a State as a failure.
You indicated that there have been numerous cases that have
been filed. How many States currently are under court order as
it relates to child welfare.
Ms. Spar. That number is difficult. What I was able to
identify was in each--in some cases localities within the
State. Yes, I think it could be more than 24. It was 24 that I
was able to identify. This is over a period of about the last
18----
Mr. Cardin. They are not all court orders?
Ms. Spar. They are not all court--not every case is the
welfare system under a court order per se. In some cases, these
cases have been resolved. Other cases, they are still open and
they are ongoing where the court maintains oversight.
Mr. Cardin. It might be useful if you, if that information
is readily available, if you could make it available to our
Subcommittee. It might be helpful.
Ms. Allen. Mr. Cardin, on that note, the National Center
for Youth Law prepares periodically a docket of all the child
welfare reform litigation. I think the most recent one is their
1998 docket. I would be happy to get a copy of that information
to you.
Mr. Cardin. That would be very helpful.
[The National Center for Youth Law Foster Care Reform
Litigation Docket 1998 is being retained in the Committee
files.]
Ms. Allen. Some of these court cases involve actions in
counties or cities; some of these are State actions. Many of
the States are operating under consent decrees, rather than
actual court orders. I would be happy to get that docket to
you.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you. Ms. Warburton, I just want you to
know I appreciated your testimony and I agree with the point--
and I hope it is our law--that we always put the child's
welfare first, that we try to do that in ways, sometimes, that
don't always appear like child welfare is first, but you
underscored that sometimes it is a very difficult way that our
system works in that regard. And I very much appreciate you
adding your voice to that particular issue.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Mr. English.
Mr. English. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Warburton, in your testimony you state that the
performance measures are vague and difficult to measure, and
then you suggest seven indicators to measure safety. I take it
these measures are not incorporated in the regulations as
proposed, and do you think this submission is significant?
Ms. Warburton. I would tell you that those indicators are
not in the regulations as they have been proposed. Those were
changes that we had suggested that ACF make in order to make
measuring the outcome more substantive and more quantifiable so
we could focus the issue on the children and make sure that it
is the child's need that we are meeting. I believe those, with
the indicators we have provided, will be a first step toward
helping us determine whether or not we are meeting the child's
needs.
I think we could expand beyond that to go further to
determine whether or not we are keeping the children safe, are
we making the right choices and decisions, and are we moving
them swiftly enough.
I think that understanding, as Mrs. Johnson raised this
morning as we opened, the need for more research relative to
the brain, is important. There has been really only one very
small posttraumatic stress syndrome research project that has
been undertaken relative to children. And it is a very
insightful piece of work, and called for a great body of
research to be done so that we understand how it is that we
impact a child once they are traumatized.
And we continue to traumatize them. We continue to reexpose
them to their victimizers. Understanding what all of that is,
the impact on the child, will only then allow us to understand
fully how we need to move kids through the system and what we
need to do to make sure it is fully their needs that are being
met.
Mr. English. Ms. Warburton, you also state that the
proposed rules, and I quote here, ``violate the act by not
requiring States to terminate parental rights of parents who
commit felonies.'' Could you please amplify on this objection.
Ms. Warburton. Sure can. If you give me 2 minutes, I will
do that for you. I had it here in a more lengthy form of
testimony.
There are two sections to ASFA, 675(5)(e) that sets out
certain felony circumstances within which a State is required
to terminate parental rights. Those felonies have to be
committed against the child. Then there is another section to
the act, 671(a)(15)(d), which provides that States need not
make reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child when a
parent has committed these same felonies and that once the
court determines that the reasonable efforts to reunify are not
necessary that the State must hold a permanency hearing within
30 days.
That is where the conflict arises. In the proposal, ACF
sets out two examples how they would resolve that conflict.
They resolve the conflict using the lesser standard. And,
moving on to--their one example is that after a parent is
convicted, a court will determine if reasonable efforts are
required to reunify the parent and the child.
If a court determines that reasonable efforts are not
required, the case will proceed to the permanency hearing.
If adoption becomes the permanency goal, the State then has
30 days to terminate parental rights. A State would not be
required to terminate parental rights if adoption is not the
permanency goal.
That interpretation of the act ignores completely the
mandatory requirement to terminate when felonies are committed
against the child. So we have set up a scenario, thereby
saying, if the child is not placed out for adoption, then you
cannot terminate parental rights.
How do we then achieve permanency for the child and
guarantee the child is safe and healthy?
Mr. English. That is a very interesting argument. Well, I
want to thank all four of you for testifying today. This has
been wonderful, and this has certainly enhanced my
understanding of some of the issues involved, having come to
this Subcommittee, having participated in the past in a number
of hearings on this subject, having seen the very slow
progression of the regulations, my hope is that in the near
future, we will see these issues resolved.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much.
Mr. Foley from Florida.
Mr. Foley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Allen, do you think the regulations give the States
enough information on how and what they will be judged?
Ms. Allen. No, Mr. Foley, that is one area that we
addressed in more detail in our written statement. We think
there needs to be further elaboration about what it is against
which States will be judged, both in their initial self-
assessment and in the followup review as well.
Mr. Foley. Let me ask you a more broad question because it
is troubling today, when you are looking at the newspapers
about what has just occurred in Colorado, then you look back at
the Matthew Shepard slaying, and you look at so many instances
where children commit the most heinous, heinous of crimes, and
then yesterday's example they do so laughing as they shoot into
other people and kill other lives. You know, and all different
backgrounds. Some with good families, some from welfare
dependency. I talk to judges in local courts where they are now
talking about a growing concern over crack babies growing up
and having no remorse in court whatsoever. Can any of you shed
any light onto some of the causations, some of the cures.
And I know it may not deal directly with adoption, but it
is just so frightening today that you see this carnage and
people just can't explain it.
Maybe, Ms. Allen, if you start, and then Ms. Warburton.
Ms. Allen. I think that is the question that we all have
been asking and continue to ask, certainly given the tragedy
that we have seen in Littleton.
What are we giving our young people? Are we giving them the
guidance and the support that they need? Are we watching for
signs, for signals, and responding? Are we being there for
them? Again and again these last couple days we have heard the
experts who work with young people directly, who have been
involved in analyzing these situations around violence,
emphasizing the importance of talking to, interacting with, and
supporting young people, so that they don't have to look to
other sorts of settings for the support that they are not
getting in familiar settings.
But I think that it also is something that is related to
what we are talking about today. When you have a group of young
people who have been abused and neglected, as in the case of
the children we have been talking about today, and you do not
give them the treatment and ongoing support that they need,
then you threaten their futures and you also threaten the
futures of other children as well.
We have all got to ensure that we are giving all of our
young people what they need. We must ensure that they are
making investments, not only in formal systems, like the child
protection system that we are talking about today, but also in
our informal interactions with our own children, with our
neighbors' children and other children as well.
Mr. Foley. Ms. Warburton.
Ms. Warburton. I would just like to add that Mr. Camp
summed it up very well in the floor debates when he said that
children deserve a compassionate but effective system that
works on their behalf, not one that subjects them to continued
abuse. And the reason that I raise that quote is because it has
always struck out at me and it relates back to an area that we
study a lot and an arena in which we work a lot, which is
trauma and its effect on a developing brain stem, and its
effect on the developmental trajectory and the ability for
children to have remorse.
When a child comes down to even being neglected, if that
child is neglected on a long-term basis, and that neglect
continues, and the child is not taken into an atmosphere where
they are unconditionally loved, unconditionally accepted,
nurtured, and loved, a part of the developing brain stem that
is emerging never learns the capacity for remorse. It never
understands it. If a child is traumatized during the
developmental stage, where the brain is developing the capacity
for remorse and that trauma is left untreated, the stimulus
from it shifts the endocrines that the brain produces, thereby
eliminating the child's ability to develop along that line.
We come back down to repeatedly, in my estimation, in my
mind's eye, the inability to fully assess the trauma that a
child has sustained, what drove that trauma, and how do we
remove that child out of that traumatic situation to relieve
the pressures and allow that child to then fully develop as
much as the child might otherwise have the opportunity to
develop.
When you are dealing with traumatized children, there is
never any guarantee that you can ever go back and rebuild that
developmental stage with which they have missed. But if we
remove the child out of the arena of the trauma, place him in a
loving and a nurturing environment, and then work with the
child from that point, we stand a very decent chance of then at
least helping the child be functional as they arrive into
adulthood.
And Bruce Perry out of Baylor Children's Hospital in Texas
has done four pieces that speak to this. And the one that
really strikes as being most important to all of you is called
``Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the Cycle
of Violence.'' And it really calls for breaking that cycle and
focusing on posttraumatic stress syndrome, identifying it,
treating it properly, and dealing with the child's placement.
Mr. Foley. Thank you.
Mr. Waldman. Just very briefly, I concur with the two
previous speakers and the Chair, who opened this hearing by
focusing on the importance of brain research. I would just like
to add in my own long experience in the field, I have observed
that violence is a learned behavior and that the youngsters who
experience it in terms of living in households where a spouse
is battered or being victims themselves are often doomed to
repeat that behavior in future generations unless and until
there is a successful intervention.
I know in the battered spouse movement that there is some
focus now on children to help them deal with the trauma that
they have experienced to unlearn that as a way--that behavior
as a way of dealing with frustration or anger.
I think we could do more on that way to understand the deep
effects of traumatization that we see in children that we serve
today.
Mr. Camp. Would you indulge for one last person?
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Warburton, thank you for being here and for the courage
that you have and for dedicating your life to helping children.
And I think part of the reason we are here and passed the
legislation in 1997 was to make sure what happened to you and
Danny doesn't happen to anybody else again.
I am very interested in your comments regarding attachment
and bonding and how critical that is. In fact, in our
discussions of this legislation, we found that the studies are
starting to indicate, as you have quoted and others, that this
affects a child's, not only emotional state, but also their
intellectual ability as well. The lack of attachment in bonding
could have a negative effect on those things.
Is permanency in adoption a way to sort of break that cycle
do you think?
Ms. Warburton. Yes. I would support that one thousand
percent. I believe that how we view as a Nation, how we view
families, is very biased and needing to be connected to
biology. We overlook that in a tremendous amount of
circumstances children create long-term, indepth bonds and
attachments with people other than that of biology.
We minimize the importance of those individuals in the
children's lives. We view them on a lesser standard. And we
feel that their lives are not entitled to Constitutional
protections that families of biology are created or are
entitled to. Adoption offers a child an opportunity to be
unconditionally loved, unconditionally accepted, and know that
for the remainder of their life, no matter what, there will be
someone there for them. They have a family and they belong.
Mr. Camp. I think that your written testimony and your oral
testimony also that we need to watch closely over the
implementation of this act so we don't repeat the mistakes of
the eighties with regard to reasonable efforts is very well
said and certainly something that we need to take note of.
The other point that you raise, that I have concern about
and within the letter that the Senators and the Chairman at
that time and I sent to HHS in December about this conflict
that you refer to as sort of mixing the safety outcome of the
children, child safety is the primary item in our bill, that
they are maintained safely in their homes. And that this is
mixed in the proposed regulation. And I think that really does
have the potential to undercut everything we are trying to do
with regard to making child safety the very most important
thing.
Can you just comment on that again?
Ms. Warburton. Yes. From our focus point and our
philosophical viewpoint, children don't come into the system by
happenstance; they come into the system for very real reasons.
So from our perspective, once a child arrives in the system, if
you then resolve the child's legal life, based on the child's
needs, then you focus on the child.
But if we start the process from the notion that we are
going to try to maintain a child in their home safely, it seems
to me our focus then becomes, we are going to keep this family
together at all costs, and only under the most egregious of
circumstances are we going to remove this child and place him
in protective custody.
One of the aspects that we seem to miss the most is
emotional abuse in the system. It is the unheard cry of the
child. You can't see it, you can't measure it, you can't feel
it, but it is very real and it is very difficult for the child.
So if we leave a child who is being neglected and abused in
their home, we are not weighing the safety to the child of what
we can't measure. You can see physical abuse you can measure.
You can see it; you can see the scars. You can't see the actual
emotional abuse. So I think we signal to the States that it's
OK to leave children in their homes unless you have the worst
of circumstances present. And I think that is very dangerous to
the child. And it doesn't place the child first and foremost.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I thank this panel very
much. On your comments, Ms. Warburton, about some of the
research that has been done in Texas and other places--I had a
very interesting meeting with Dr. Joan Kaufman at Yale and her
work on just the chemical changes that go on in children in the
course of placement and replacement. You know, when I look at
the money this Nation has put into posttraumatic stress
syndrome to try to help veterans recover from the stress that
they have endured, and then here are these kids, moved from
home to home, home to home, hardly any notice, ties broken, I
mean, it is extraordinary that we have paid so little attention
to the price the child is paying. And now we do have a lot of
evidence that the physical damage is real, it is not going to
change, and we are creating children with emotional deficits
that will be very compromising of their ability to realize
their potential as adults.
I thank the panel very much for their input, and we must
move on to the next one.
Welcome. We will start with Kathleen Kearney, the secretary
of the Florida Department of Children and Families from
Tallahassee. Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN A. KEARNEY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Ms. Kearney. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Judge Kearney.
Ms. Kearney. Good morning. I am Judge Kathleen Kearney from
the State of Florida. I am a recovering judge, as they say. I
am now the secretary of the Department of Children and
Families. Living proof of be careful what you ask for, you may
get it.
I spent 10\1/2\ years in dependency court in Florida and
was chair of the Supreme Court of Florida's dependency court
improvement program, which this Subcommittee oversees and was
responsible for. I would like to start first by thanking this
Subcommittee and those Members--and I see that Mr. Camp is
present today--who were clearly responsible for the passage of
the Adoption and Safe Families Act. I am here also on behalf of
the Department of Children and Families, and the Florida
dependency court improvement program. And we thank you for your
leadership in this area.
I have been specifically asked to testify about the
increase in adoptions in Florida and the success that Florida
has seen in increasing its adoptions as the result of the
implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. So my
written comments are designed to meet that end for you, but
also I will comment on various things that you have brought up
this morning that were of interest and concern to the
Subcommittee.
Florida has in the past fiscal year 1998 increased
adoptions by almost 57 percent. That was over our baseline,
which was from 1995, 1996, and 1997 data. We attribute that as
follows. First, Florida has had an expedited termination of
parental rights proceeding in cases of egregious abuse and
neglect, and in cases of continuing abuse and neglect,
notwithstanding provision of services. We have had that prior
to the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
and we believe that that has contributed to our increase in
adoptions because that has been up and running for many years
in Florida.
There are concerns though that I have both as in my past
career as a judge who sat and did termination of parental
rights cases, over a thousand in the 10 and a half years I
served in that capacity. There are concerns that I had both in
my judicial capacity and now as the secretary of the Department
of Children and Families that the regulations are in fact
confusing as set forth by ACF. I am very concerned they are
mixing signals on family preservation and health and safety of
the child as paramount concerns.
Florida has taken the lead in using the expedited
termination of parental rights proceeding for egregious abuse,
and I believe that the current regulations as framed may in
fact water down that act significantly.
Also, we attribute our increase in adoptions to the passage
of State legislation that would allow tuition waivers in
college for children that are adopted out of foster care. We
had always had the tuition waivers for children that were in
foster care at the time that they entered college, but once the
adoption was finalized, at that time then the waiver was lost.
So we had many children that would stay in foster care,
particularly older children that would not be necessarily
adopted, would stay in order to ensure that they would be able
to have their college tuition paid for.
In order to give permanency for those children, many of
whom were in very stable, loving foster families that wanted to
adopt them, Florida recognized that and it passed legislation
that would then allow the State to give them a tuition waiver
as well.
You will note, if you do look at our adoption data, you
will see approximately a 6-month lag time at the end of 1997
that then started up dramatically in the beginning of 1998.
That was predominantly because families would wait in order to
qualify, which the qualifying date was January 1st of 1998.
Also, we as a department, have implemented outcome
measures, including ones pertaining specifically to the number
of children who are adopted from foster care. I also share the
concerns of the Subcommittee regarding the regulation and the
outcome measures and agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Warburton's
analysis that those seven outcome measures, ones that we are
capable at this moment, absolutely, of giving data on, should
be included there. They are absolutely measurable and they
truly go to the situation at hand.
Also, we have increased our recruitment efforts, and we
have established more significant public-private partnerships
to facilitate adoptions.
As to the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
pertaining specifically to adoption, we thank you for your
continuation of eligibility for the adoption assistance subsidy
in cases of disrupted adoptions. Tragically, we do see that in
cases of particularly older children that are adopted. The
trauma is so great that without assistance, we are concerned.
We are glad that you have continued that.
Also, the adoption incentive payments to States are
critical. Florida at this time, because of our statistics this
year, would have been entitled to $3 million in assistance,
which we plan to use specifically for postadoption support,
which was a concern that Mr. Cardin raised about what support
the States are giving to families once adoption takes place,
especially from foster care. It is critical that Congress, in
fact, continue that subsidy and fully fund it so all States can
receive that incentive.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary, Florida Department of
Children and Families, Tallahassee, Florida
Madame Chair and Members of the Subcommittee of Human
Resources, I am honored to have been asked to appear before you
today to testify about the impact of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 on adoptions in Florida.
I am Judge Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary of the Florida
Department of Children and Families, hereinafter referred to as
the ``Department.'' I was appointed to serve as the Secretary
by Governor Jeb Bush on January 5, 1999 and was confirmed by
the Florida Senate on March 2, 1999. The Florida Department of
Children and Families is responsible for the child and adult
protection systems; services for the developmentally disabled;
substance abuse and mental health programs for children and
adults; licensure of all child care facilities; and economic
services for the indigent. The Department employs over 27,000
people and has a budget in excess of $4 Billion dollars for
fiscal year 1999-2000.
Prior to accepting this position, I served as a county and
circuit court judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida for ten and
one-half years. I have elected ``retired judge'' status to
serve as Secretary of the Department. Throughout my active
tenure on the bench I presided over dependency court
proceedings including over one thousand termination of parental
rights cases. I was appointed by the Florida Supreme Court to
chair Florida's Dependency Court Improvement Program (DCIP) in
1996 and still serve as a member of the DCIP oversight
committee.
On behalf of the Florida Department of Children and
Families and the Dependency Court Improvement Program, I want
to express my thanks to members of this Subcommittee who played
a major role in crafting the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997 (ASFA). I am proud to say that Florida was one of the
first states in the nation to incorporate the provisions of
ASFA into state law. I have seen the results of your hard work
save countless lives and the future of our nation's children,
and of our country as a whole, is better because of this
historic piece of legislation.
Adoptions of children from foster care in Florida increased
in federal fiscal year 1998 from a baseline of 987 adoptions to
1,549 adoptions--an increase of 56.9%.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The baseline was established by averaging the number of
finalized adoptions for federal fiscal years 1995, 1996 and 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Children and Families attributes
this dramatic increase in part to the following factors:
Expedited termination of parental rights (TPR)
proceedings in cases of egregious abuse and neglect. Florida
law allowed for expedited TPR proceedings in certain limited
circumstances prior to the passage of the ASFA. The
implementation of ASFA has reinforced that the health and
safety of the child must be the paramount concern in
determining the ``reasonable efforts'' the state must make to
reunify the child and parent.
A proactive environment created by the Executive,
Legislative and Judicial branches of state government. Governor
Jeb Bush and the late Governor Lawton Chiles established child
protection as top administration priorities. The 1999 Florida
Legislature has responded with precedent setting budget
increases to insure full implementation of ASFA. The Florida
Supreme Court has consistently endorsed the work of the Florida
Dependency Court Improvement Program and has incorporated DCIP
recommendations into court rule.
Passage of state legislation providing for tuition
waivers at state colleges and universities for children adopted
out of foster care. This legislation removed a long standing
barrier to the adoption of foster children. Tuition waivers had
previously been available to foster children who were in foster
care at the time they entered college, but waivers were not
available once the children were adopted. This resulted in many
children remaining in foster care rather than being adopted so
that college costs would be born by the state.
Implementation of departmental outcome measures,
including one pertaining to the number of children adopted from
foster care. Florida law requires that budgeting for state
agencies be performance based and the state Legislature has
mandated that adoption finalization from foster care be a
performance based measure.
Increased emphasis on recruitment efforts. The
Department has created specialized adoption workers who are
responsible for finding adoptive homes for the most difficult
to place children. The Department has also continued a strong
working relationship with the One Church, One Child recruitment
program aimed at finding adoptive homes for African American
children. Local initiatives like the Special Needs Adoption
Council of Tampa Bay increase community awareness of the need
for adoptive parents through the use of local media.
Expansion of public-private partnerships to
promote adoption of special needs children. The Department has
entered into contracts with private licensed adoption agencies
in Florida and throughout the United States to assist in
locating adoptive families. These agencies are paid a fee to
recruit, prepare and match waiting families for Florida foster
children.
Establishment of The Adoption Information Center.
The Florida Legislature mandated that the Department establish
the Adoption Information Center to promote adoptions. The
Center operates a statewide toll free telephone line (1-800-96-
ADOPT), responds to inquiries generated by the Department's
Internet Website on adoption, and maintains the state's
adoption registry service.
The provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997 pertaining to adoption will continue to have a far
reaching and positive impact on increasing the number of
children adopted from foster care. In particular, Florida will
benefit most from the following provisions of the Act:
Continuation of eligibility for an adoption
assistance subsidy for children who experience the tragedy of a
disrupted adoption. These are children whose adoptive parents
have died or who have had their adoption dissolved for some
other reason by the court. In Florida, such children were
previously eligible for state funded assistance. ASFA allows
the state to receive federal assistance in these cases which
will allow for increased services to these special needs
children.
Requirement that states must document their
efforts to secure an adoptive placement for foster children.
This requirement will assist the Department in identifying
trends and will help in our overall quality improvement
initiative.
Adoption incentive payments to states. The state
of Florida is projected to receive approximately $3 Million
dollars in adoption incentive payments based upon the 56.9%
increase in adoption finalizations in our state. This is
contingent upon Congress allocating additional funds beyond
those currently appropriated by ASFA. Florida plans to use its
incentive dollars for post-adoption support to adoptive
families, professional development and training for specialized
adoption staff, and adoptive parent recruitment activities.
I strongly encourage this Committee, Congress and the
Clinton Administration to do everything possible to assure that
incentive payments are available at the levels set forth in
ASFA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ States are entitled to an incentive payment under ASFA in the
amount of $4000 for each adoption exceeding the baseline, plus an
additional $2000 for each title IV-E eligible child adopted beyond the
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, I bring to your attention a concern expressed
by adoption staff in Florida regarding the length of time it
takes to secure FBI clearances for foster and adoptive parent
applicants. It is currently taking up to six (6) months to
obtain clearances from the FBI which is resulting in a backlog
of adoption cases and denial of permanency for children. This
is a new requirement for adoptive applicants and one that is
critical to our efforts to place children in safe, as well as
loving, homes. However, unless some special provision is made
to insure that these FBI clearances are given special priority,
full implementation of ASFA is not possible.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you
today on this very important and exciting topic. I look forward
to working in partnership with you over the next four years as
we commit ourselves to insuring the safety and well being of
all of America's children.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of April, 1999 to the
United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and
Means, Human Services Subcommittee, Washington, D.C.
Judge Kathleen A. Kearney, Secretary
Florida Department of Children and Families
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much.
Mr. McDonald.
STATEMENT OF JESS MCDONALD, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I am Jess
McDonald, director of the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services and we are pleased to be here for another
reason other than a tragedy in our State child welfare system.
We have had a 112-percent increase in adoptions over our
baseline. We are running 45 percent ahead of last year's rate
of adoptions. And we think that we will continue at a high
rate.
Now I must issue my disclaimer that it is not that we had
foresight and saw that there would be an adoption bonus
program, but child welfare systems that grow too fast don't
always keep their focus on the right objectives, and our system
has had low rates of adoption. Our objective is to have a 20-
to 30-percent permanency rate within our caseloads, to see kids
moving to adoption or permanency in short times. To have
reunification rates that are between 25 and 40 percent,
respecting safety as the primary consideration here, and to
have our length of stay drop to between 1 year and 2 years--to
have a median length of stay of about 12 months.
So Illinois has a ways to go, although we have made
significant progress. I do want to tell you that a major reason
why we made changes in law was because of H.R. 867. This
Committee, and Representative Camp, were instrumental in
issuing wakeup calls to many States. Our Governor, Governor
Edgar at the time, called together bipartisan groups, brought
in advocates, and we changed laws, and we made changes.
The reason we got to where we are at and why we are going
to keep going on this direction is through partnerships with
the courts and with voluntary agencies. Seventy-five of our
cases are served by nonprofit voluntary organizations, like
Catholic charities and so on. Those partnerships are absolutely
vital. If you don't have a partnership, you may think your
system is working well, but if the courts aren't ready for you,
nothing will happen.
If you don't capacity, that is, if you do not have workers
that have the time to do the work, nothing gets done. You have
to have the time to build the case. If you are going to do
concurrent planning, you have to have workloads that are
reasonable. Our workloads run between 15 to 25 children per
worker. And I will tell you, people tell you that the work is
harder now then when they had a hundred cases. It is because we
expect them to do the work. And it is not easy work.
And you have to have the right incentives in the system. We
do have performance contracting which rewards people for
getting the right outcomes. As I mentioned in our written
testimony, we also have a lot of oversight built into that
because you want to make sure that while people are getting the
right quantity of what you think are the right outcomes, they
have to, in fact, be doing the work the right way. So there is
a lot of oversight that goes into the decisions about adoptions
and subsidized guardianship.
The story in Illinois is Cook County. Judge Nancy Salyers
has done an amazing job. She is a close partner of mine. We
work together in terms of how we plan changes in the system.
She has added court calendars. She has done a lot of work. We
do a lot of work with the private providers and with our own
staff and with the union. And if we aren't working closely
together, people try and play one off against the other. You
have to understand that the courts are absolutely critical to
any changes.
And if you take a look at what is happening in Cook County,
we are seeing amazing turnarounds in terms of the drop in the
number of cases. It is also in the written materials, but
adoptions have gone from about 956 in calendar year 1994 to
about the 5,100 we expect this year. And we expect some
incredible improvements continuing in the Cook County court
system.
The safety issues are interesting because even though we
are seeing all these improvements and adoptions, people think
we might be losing our focus on safety. In fact, based on
research on what we do on the front end and what we do with
cases managed, we have seen a 26-percent reduction in reports
of reabuse of children where the department has had prior
involvement. This includes cases where we have done an
investigation and decided that the case was not necessary to
open up. So we are seeing significant improvements there.
I want to quickly just make some suggestions to you. There
is a lot of information about the stuff in Cook which I think
is amazing because urban child welfare systems can work. It is
an urban myth that they can't. But you had better make the
investments, and you have to make the investments in the courts
and you have to make it in terms of the people that do the
work.
Four things I would like you to consider. One, we have got
to deal with alcohol and other drugs. Everyone is talking about
it. It is absolutely vital that we develop systems that can
deal with the issue of the two clocks. The fact that the
permanency clock in Illinois is now 12 months--judges are going
to make decisions in, practically speaking, 6 months, and at 9
months, not the day before we walk into court. If a woman has
dropped out of treatment, it is a problem. And 70 percent of
our kids in foster care for a year have parents who are
involved in drugs.
Seventy-five percent of those parents, unfortunately, have
dropped out of treatment or never entered treatment. I have
talked to some of these parents who would say I wish I had
known there would be these consequences. The power of addiction
is incredible. And although we have decriminalized it and treat
it as a health issue, I will tell you that in the child welfare
field, a lot of our constituencies believe we have
recriminalized it with probably the most difficult of all
punishments, and that is the loss of your child. So fair
treatment systems are critical, and responsive ones are
critical. And that would include aftercare.
Most importantly, training. You have got to change the way
you reimburse training. We absolutely need to be able to
provide training at the enhanced rate, 75 percent, for our
private-sector partners. It is a small investment. It will get
you enormous returns. You train people better, you will get
better results.
And continuing support for court improvements. Not one-shot
deals, but continue the support so that the judges who are
facing major problems in aligning incentives within the court
system to keep good judges, to keep the courtrooms reasonable
and have the time to work with families, it is vital they have
support.
And last, expand the waivers. If this system is broken, as
everyone contends, then what's wrong with innovation that has
decent parameters. Every State should be encouraged to have as
many waivers that improve the outcomes in their system as is
possible. It is not about competing for the 5, or 6, or 10
waivers that might be available, you want everyone looking at
how to improve their systems.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows. An attachment is being
retained in the Committee files.]
Statement of Jess McDonald, Director, Illinois Department of Children
and Family Services, Springfield, Illinois
Every child deserves a stable and lasting family life. This
basic principle of ``permanency,'' endorsed as far back as the
1909 White House Conference on the Care of the Dependent Child,
has been a stated goal of public child welfare systems for most
of this century. But only in the last few years has substantial
progress been made in bringing permanency to the lives of
thousands of children who otherwise would have spent their
formative years in foster care.
Thanks largely to bipartisan efforts, state and local
governments posted a 40 percent increase in adoptions over
federal FY95. The nation as a whole is well on its way towards
doubling the number of adoptions out of foster care by 2002.
I am pleased to report that Illinois, the second-largest
child welfare system in the nation, was able to achieve this
goal in just one year. The federal fiscal year that ended in
September of 1998 resulted in a 112 percent increase in
adoptions over the annual average of the prior three fiscal
years--from 2,200 to 4,456 adoptions. And already, we are 45
percent ahead of last years--performance. If the pace
continues, the state will boost the annual number of adoptions
to more than 5,500 by the end of June 1999.
Illinois' long-term goal is to achieve permanency for most
children within a two-year time frame. If successful, the
projected size of our foster care system should shrink to below
20,000 children by 2,003--a substantial change from 1995 when
over 50,000 children swelled the state's foster care system.
Setting challenging goals is an important part of our
efforts at change. But I am here to emphasize that it is only a
start. In addition, we need to build the capacity of workers
and service providers to meet the challenge. Furthermore, we
must redesign the system so that incentives are directly
aligned with the outcomes we want to achieve. And lastly, we
need to recognize that our efforts will succeed only if we
forge partnerships with private providers, the courts, and
allied human service agencies. Building capacity, re-aligning
incentives, and forging partnerships are the essential
components for honoring our long-standing commitment to
permanency.
Challenging Goals
While the commitment to permanency is long-standing, most
states struggled in the early 1990s to make good on the
promise. Foster care caseloads rose nationwide from 280,000
children in 1986 to 502,000 children in 1996. There were 6.9
foster children for every 1,000 children--the highest
prevalence rate recorded this century.
In Illinois, the magnitude of the problem was much greater.
There were 17.1 foster children for every 1,000--the highest
prevalence rate in the nation. When I became Director of the
Illinois Department in 1994, tensions were understandably high.
Foster care growth was eating up far more of its fair share of
state revenues. Workloads of 50 to 60 children per caseworker
were commonplace. And there were calls to dismantle the agency.
It was obvious that change was long overdue. So we set
about the task of making good on our commitments to
comprehensive reform that the State had agreed to in its B.H.
Consent Decree. A central provision of the Decree was the
reduction of caseloads to below 25 children per worker. To
accomplish this goal, we needed to get overall growth under
control.
First, as a result of the Home of Relative (HMR) Reform
Plan implemented in 1995, we were able to curtail the runaway
growth in our intake. By more clearly demarcating the lines
between child dependency and child neglect when relatives are
involved, we were able to cut annual caseload growth from 17.1
percent in 1995 to 5.9 percent in 1996 to 2.5 percent in 1997.
Although the explosive growth in the Illinois foster care
system ended in 1997, stabilization of intake was not enough.
Our read of the situation was that our substitute care system
should be half its current size. Addressing the permanency
backlog became our top priority.
In the course of analyzing our caseload dynamics, we found
children were staying far too long in substitute care. As a
result, the median length of time children who entered remained
in care increased from 10 months in 1986 to over 50 months in
1996.
Our studies of children in Illinois foster care showed that
many of these children were for all practical purposes
``already home.'' Reunification had been ruled out years
earlier, and many of the children in relative care had entered
the system in kinship homes that pre-existed state
intervention. Our challenge was to convert these stable
substitute care arrangements into legally permanent homes.
Building Capacity
Turning stable placements into legally permanent homes is
no simple matter after years of inattention by the child
welfare system. First, state laws had to be changed so that
undue hesitancy about terminating parental rights was removed
as a barrier to adoption. In 1997, the Illinois General
Assembly passed comprehensive legislation (``Permanency
Initiative''), which--among other things--eliminated ``long-
term foster care'' as a permanency goal, reduced permanency
planning timelines to one-year, and directed the Department to
engage in concurrent planning to help achieve permanency at the
earliest opportunity.
To do the important work of permanency requires a skilled
and qualified workforce. This was a critical deficit in the
Illinois system. Years of high worker turnover, lack of
professional training, and new agency start-ups had left
Illinois with a child welfare workforce that was ill equipped
to perform the demanding task of securing permanent homes for
children.
The Department responded to this need, first, by sending
its supervisory staff back to school to get their MSWs. Second,
DCFS initiated the time-consuming but ultimately rewarding task
of getting the Department accredited by the Council on
Accreditation. As of today, two-thirds of DCFS sites are
accredited. And we have made it state policy that DCFS will
contract only with accredited agencies in the future.
Capacity-building also meant opening up additional pathways
to permanency. Because over half of the children in the
Illinois foster care system were placed with kin, we learned
that adoption did not always fit the needs of relatives wanting
to assume long-term responsibility for the children in their
care. In response, the Department applied for and received IV-E
waiver authority to mirror its adoption-subsidy program,
extending subsidies to families assuming private guardianship
for children who otherwise would have stayed in long-term
foster care. Since the implementation of the demonstration in
May of 1997, Illinois has discharged over 2,700 children to the
private guardianship of relatives and foster parents. Our
experimental design shows convincingly that subsidized
guardianship has increased overall permanency by 30 percent
over what it would have been without demonstration (26.6
percent v. 20.0 percent).
Reunifications with parents must also increase to achieve
our long-term reforms of the system. To enlarge this existing
pathway, DCFS increased the investment in family reunification
services from $600 to $8,000 per family. Although the state
still has a long way to go toward restoring reunification rates
back to previous levels, the decline has subsided and return-
home rates are rising again for the first time in a decade.
Beyond building a qualified workforce and expanding the
pathways out of foster care, we found that permanency efforts
require a cadre of specialized staff who are dedicated to the
daily tasks of getting the work done. In response, DCFS devoted
new resources so that every public and private agency team was
supported with a permanency worker who could help identify
permanency opportunities, arrange family meetings, and push
along the business of the courts.
The results of our investments in capacity-building speak
for themselves:
Finalized adoptions in Illinois rose from 1,961 in
FY96 to 2,229 in FY97 to 4,293 in FY98. As of March 30th, FY99
adoptions were already 41 percent ahead of last year's pace for
the same time period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.010
Subsidized guardianships rose from 176 in FY97 to
1,266 in FY98. As of March 30th, FY99 guardianships are 162
percent ahead of last year's pace for the same time period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.011
Total adoptions and guardianships rose from 2,411
in FY97 to 5,559 in FY98. If current trends continue, Illinois
will close FY99 with 7,000 new adoptions and guardianships.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.012
Realigning Incentives
Illinois' record illustrates that permanency can be
achieved for a far greater percentage of children than many
believed possible. Goal-setting and capacity-building was
essential to turning around system performance. But another
piece of our reform effort involved realigning financial
incentives to favor permanency outcomes rather than long-term
care.
Eighty percent of our relative foster care and 60 percent
of unrelated foster care is provided by private agencies.
Starting with the Cook County relative foster care population,
we implemented performance contracting in FY98. With
performance contracting, we did more than set outcome goals for
foster care. We built performance expectations into the
contract and payment structure. The heart of this structure is
a mechanism guaranteeing results. We contract and pay for child
welfare services by building in an expectation that agencies
will meet specific permanency outcomes: 6 permanency results
for every 33 children served annually. Within this framework,
agencies have a clear incentive to perform. They benefit
directly from exceeding performance expectations by retaining
savings from lowered caseloads. Consequently, they also bear
the risk for not meeting their contracted performance level and
can suffer financially.
Under performance contracts, agencies must balance entering
new cases with those exiting in order to ensure payment and
caseload parity. When permanency standards are exceeded,
caseloads fall while administrative payments are unchanged.
This effectively enhances an agency's payment rate. Conversely,
when permanency expectations are not met, an agency's caseload
increases (more children enter than leave) while the level of
payment is unchanged. This effectively lowers an agency's
payment rate. Added to this is the fact that we use annual
performance levels to make contracting decisions for subsequent
years. Successful agencies continue to receive referrals,
maintaining their contracted caseloads.
Applying this concept to kinship care in Cook County has
produced results that exceeded our expectations. Still the
quality of the care is as important as the quantity of
outcomes. Agencies have to meet all contractual obligations
with respect to service standards. Their practices must
withstand the scrutiny of agency performance monitors and
juvenile court oversight. Performance contracting is not only
about producing the numbers; it's about doing the job right.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.013
The application of performance contracting in Illinois re-
energized the
child welfare system by emphasizing the importance of
results rather than activities. By mandating uniform results,
we were able to shift resources and attention from maintaining
children in care to finding them permanent homes.
Forging Partnerships
The investments in capacity-building and the realignment of
incentives have begun to pay off. In FY1998, the substitute
care caseload in Illinois fell for the first time in over two
decades. From a peak of 51,550 children, the caseload now
stands at 41,500. If current trends continue, we expect to
stabilize at a level of approximately 20,000 children in foster
care by 2003. This translates into a prevalence rate of 6.4 per
1,000 children in substitute care--slightly below the current
nationwide rate.
It is safe to say that these accomplishments would not be
possible without the partnerships we have forged with the Court
and private child welfare providers. Under the creative
leadership of Judge Nancy Salyers, Presiding Judge of the Cook
County Child Protection Division, the Cook County Juvenile
Court has taken the lead in establishing the legal groundwork
for moving Illinois wards into permanent homes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.014
The flip-side of the termination trend is the growth in
adoptions out of foster care in Cook County. These results
clearly show that state and county governments can achieve the
goals promised by the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.015
The Cook County Juvenile Court has also cooperated with
DCFS efforts at reforming the front-end of the child protective
system so that children are served in their home only when
their safety can be assured. Our efforts at improving the
technology of child safety assessment with the help of the
American Humane Association and developing more comprehensive
safety plans for children at risk have enabled DCFS to reduce
the rate of child removal from intact family cases. From 1993
to 1997, the percentage of children taken into custody while
being served by DCFS as an intact family cases was cut in half,
falling from 11 percent to 4 percent of children.
The evidence for the decline in placement demands at the
front-end and the alleviation of placement pressures at the
back-end is clearly conveyed by the changes in the Cook County
Court docket.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.016
New petitions for state custody have dropped from 9,991 in
1994 to 4,440 in 1998 while the number of closed petitions due
largely to adoptions, guardianships, and reunifications have
risen from 3,947 in 1994 to 10,230 in 1998. The net result of
these crisscrossing trends is a steadily shrinking system in
Cook County from a peak of 39,682 active petitions in 1995 to
29,375 active petitions in 1998.
Safety Is Paramount
The steps Illinois has taken to reduce the size of the
foster care system by reducing placement demands and increasing
permanency outcomes obviously raises the question: are the
children safer? The answer, I am pleased to report, is an
unqualified yes.
A report soon to be released by the University of Illinois'
Children and Family Research Center finds that there has been a
steady decline in the recurrence of abuse and neglect in intact
family cases. This rate has declined from 3.6 per 100 in FY95
to 2.7 per 100 in FY97, and the first six months of FY98 shows
an annualized rate of 1.8 abuse and neglect findings per 100
intact family cases.
In addition, safety in foster care has improved. This trend
is led by kinship care, which registers the best safety record.
For every 100 children in kinship care, the annual rate of
abuse and neglect declined from 3.3 in FY95 to 1.3 in FY98. The
rate of indicated abuse and neglect for children in foster
family care was 2.4 per 100 children in FY98.
Lastly, improvements in the technology of child safety
assessment have helped to produce a 28 percent decline in the
rate of recurrence of abuse and neglect among children
investigated by DCFS since 1995.
Future Prospects
Illinois' record of ensuring child safety and pursuing
permanency stands among the best in the nation. While we are
pleased with this performance, in the back of my mind, I wonder
whether the reason we're doing so well now simply reflects the
fact that we may not have done as well as we should have in the
past. Whatever the case, one thing is clear: tough work remains
ahead.
To achieve our projected size of 20,000 children in foster
care by 2003, we'll need to tackle the alcohol and other drug
(AOD) problem head-on. A 1998 GAO report showed that 74 percent
of Cook County, Illinois parents with children in foster care
have AOD problems. More troubling is the fact that 76 percent
of parents with children in the system for at least one year
either failed to complete or never entered drug treatment.
Illinois has submitted a letter of intent to gain IV-E
waiver authority to test innovative approaches in serving AOD
involved families early enough to prevent children from
remaining in foster care beyond the two-year mark. Two clocks
are running: the addiction-recovery clock and the permanency
clock. With the waiver, we are confident that we will be able
to quicken the tempo of recovery so that no children are
unnecessarily severed from their families because of a lack of
AOD resources and treatment.
To meet the AOD challenge, we require a highly skilled
workforce that is capable of providing, within the tightened
time frames, the AOD services, family group meetings, and
concurrent planning that are critical for achieving the
permanency goals set by Congress. Enhanced federal support of
training (75% federal match) needs to be made available to all
sectors of the system, not just public employees. Seventy-four
percent of the foster care business is handled by private child
welfare agencies in Illinois. Making enhanced federal match
dollars available for training caseworkers in the private
sector needs to become a top Congressional priority.
Similarly, we need to make sure that no permanency pathway
out of the system is closed off. Our first IV-E waiver on
subsidized guardianship is scheduled to expire in 2002. We
believe that Illinois has gained sufficient experimental
evidence to show that subsidized guardianship works and ought
to be made a formalized part of the permanency package that the
federal government makes available to relative and foster care
families.
Lastly, permanency can not be accomplished without making
investments in the work of our judicial partners. States need
federal support for continuing court improvements in ensuring
safe reunifications, handling permanency hearings, and ruling
on terminations of parental rights. This year in Illinois, we
are celebrating the centennial of the founding of the Cook
County Juvenile Court--the first such court in the nation. It
would be a fitting tribute to this venerable institution if
Congress were to pass legislation that recognizes the critical
role that juvenile and family courts play in the achievement of
permanency for children.
[An attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kroll.
STATEMENT OF JOE KROLL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH AMERICAN
COUNCIL ON ADOPTABLE CHILDREN, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Mr. Kroll. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the
Subcommittee. I want to say how pleased I am to be here today
and thank you for the kind words about our study. We are the
voice from the hinterland who discovered early in the fall of
1998 that States had made remarkable achievements in adoption
and we decided we better ask them all.
Someone has asked me what happened to my hand, and I have a
response, but my son who has joined me today suggested a better
one, and that was that someone came up to me and said a 12-
year-old that they knew was unadoptable and I overreacted.
[Laughter.]
That probably would be closer to the truth as opposed to an
old man's sports injury. I represent the North American Council
on Adoptable Children. I am also here on behalf of the National
Foster Parents Association and Voice for Adoption, two other
groups that I am very active with. Eight thousand, five hundred
and eleven is the current count on the increase in adoptions
over the baseline from the previous 3 years to 1998. I had
tried to use my cell phone in the hall to get Ohio's numbers
because we are struggling with a couple States that just can't
quite get them out of their computers, and we think that may go
up to 9,000. That is a phenomenal increase. And if you look at
the bar chart in the testimony, which many of you have already
done, you will see that there has been a steady increase since
1995, but an even more dramatic increase between 1997 and 1998.
I remember standing here in February, I think it was, of
1997 and Representatives Camp and Kennelly proposed what turned
out to be the Adoption and Safe Families Act. And it was just
like what NACAC has been working on for 25 years in our
organization, became the mission of Congress. And to hear how
it has changed and how the States have responded is a great joy
to us. But it means even more, I think, to the children who are
represented. You have heard me testify before about the
dramatic placements of older children, of sibling groups.
Unfortunately, when we collected these data, we could only ask
for one thing, and that was total numbers of adoption.
When AFCARS says their report is officially done, I think
that we will see dramatic increases in sibling groups, with
children of color particularly, and something that we should
all be proud of because there is a great deal of movement in
the system. I just wanted to make a comment about the kids in
the picture because they are the ones who really are the story.
The sibling group of four from Indiana, they were placed as
a direct result of being on the poster that we do every year
for adoption month, and which I think we send to all Members of
the Subcommittee. They were placed in the same State, in
Indiana. The other two boys, a little bit older, were placed
after being in the system for a number of years. And, as matter
of fact, Damion, who is 15, was removed from active
recruitment. Then a family who had seen him stepped forward and
all of a sudden active recruitment occurred and a placement was
made.
So someone had stopped doing the work and a family stepped
forward and said: Oh no, don't stop. We are still here.
The other part of the story I wanted to share was again
from my testimony of a sibling group of three children in
Mississippi, 13, 15, and 17, who many folks said were
unadoptable. What happened, was one couple said we can take the
15- and 17-year-old, and the worker said you shouldn't have the
13-year-old. So the couple found another family in the same
community to adopt the 13-year-old.
The work of families and workers in Mississippi caused a
sibling group of three boys with some real tough life
experiences to be placed in permanent families. The families
still face challenges, and I think that that is one of the
messages that we always have from NACAC is that when we make
placements, we need to support the families.
In the adoption incentive program, there is mention of how
the dollars should be spent. That they should be spent on IV-A
and IV-B and that can include postadoption services, which is
an editorial that we always put into our press releases. The
money has to be targeted back to the families who have stepped
forward to take on these tough kids.
It goes for respite care, it goes for counseling, in some
cases, it needs to go for residential treatment for kids who
have had real tough experiences, whose families are committed
to them but need more help.
In my testimony, you will notice that I suggest that figure
was $25 million to fully fund the adoption incentive program
based on the calculations that we had done. I appreciate the
fact that $28 million is a slightly higher number. I think when
the situation is taken care of for this year and the States are
able to receive full reimbursement, we need to look at the next
2 years. Does it need to be $30 million? Does it need to be $40
million? Try to get some projections, check with our good
colleagues in Illinois, Florida and Texas, where some huge
strides are being made. Better make sure that we have the
program taken care of so that States are rewarded for the work
they have done. Because if States are rewarded for they work
they have done, it is another way to provide support directly
to the families who created the placements, the families who
stepped forward, the children who took the chance and said I
will try a permanent family.
Those are the people we are talking about supporting, and
providing the full incentive payments will allow that to occur.
Thank you very much
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Joe Kroll, Executive Director, North American Council on
Adoptable Children, St. Paul, Minnesota
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I thank you
for this opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Joe Kroll, executive director of the North American
Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). I also serve as the
adoption chair of the National Foster Parents Association and
Vice-President of Voice for Adoption, a coalition of over 50
state, local, and national adoption organizations. More
importantly, I am a parent of two adult children, one by birth
and one by adoption.
NACAC represents adoptive parents and parent groups,
adoption agencies, adopted children, and most importantly the
110,000 ``special needs children'' waiting for families in the
U.S. For nearly twenty-five years we have been involved at the
local, state, and national level as advocates for these
children.
1998 U.S. Adoptions from Foster Care Projected to Exceed 36,500
Finalized adoptions of children from the U.S. foster care
system rose significantly during the last year. Preliminary
reports from 45 states from federal fiscal year 1998 project
adoptions of at least 36,500 foster children, which includes
increases of 8,511 (see table 1 for details) over the average
number of adoptions from the previous three years. The attached
bar chart reflects the growth in public agency adoptions
between 1995 and 1998. The figures for 1995 to 1997 are drawn
from the Department of Health and Human Services AFCARS system
and state by state totals are reflected in table 2.
This is the good news and everybody in this room should be
proud of the outcome. There is enough praise to go around.
Representatives Camp and Kennelly and Senators Rockefeller,
DeWine, and Chaffee provided congressional leadership to ensure
passage of ASFA. Their staff worked long hours negotiating the
final language and should be proud of the outcome. At the state
level, you will hear from Jess McDonald, Director of Illinois
Department of Family and Children Services on the remarkable
progress they have made in doubling the number of adoptions in
the past year. Judges have played a key role in making children
a priority in their courts and making permanent decisions in
one year. Judges Patricia Macias of El Paso and Judge Harold
Gaither of Dallas have provided dramatic leadership in Texas
resulting in reductions of nearly 5 years in the time children
spend in care.
Every waiting child needs an adoptive parent and they are
stepping forward in record numbers for children waiting in
foster care. Many foster parents (it is estimated at least 2/3
of children adopted from the public child welfare system are
adopted by their foster parents) have stepped forward to
provide permanency for children in their care. Twenty years
ago, social work practice dictated that foster parents should
not become emotionally attached to their foster children and if
they showed any interest in adoption, the children were
removed. Times have changed.
Even children perceived to be difficult to be placed are
finding homes. Over 2/3 of the children of color featured on
NACAC's 1997 Adoption Month poster have been adopted. I would
like to share the story of a sibling group in Mississippi.
Three boys ages 13, 15, and 17 needed a permanent family but
the social worker determined that they should not be placed
together. When one couple offered to adopt the 15 and 17 year
old, another family in the same community was found for the 13
year old. The families agreed to keep the children in contact
and schedule regular visits. Many might assume that these
children were unadoptable but the creative worker and flexible
families allowed a sibling group of teenagers to find permanent
homes.
But the real heroes in adoption are the children
themselves. I have offered pictures of two older boys and a
sibling group of four that were placed as a result of the
Adoption Month poster. They were in foster care from 2-6 years
and had multiple placements. Yet they were willing to give new
families a chance to parent them. They are all part of the
dramatic growth in adoptions in 1998.
Following recent changes in public opinion, political
support, and law, many states have shortened foster care stays,
found more adoptive homes, and designated new resources to
support adoptions. As a result, more children than ever before
have found permanent families.
In December, NACAC staff began polling states to obtain
their data on the number of finalized adoptions completed in
fiscal year 1998. Of the 45 states that submitted figures, all
but five reported an increase in adoptions. Dramatic changes
were seen in several states: Illinois more than doubled the
number of adoptions from foster care--the state averaged only
2,200 adoptions from 1995 to 1997, but achieved 4,656 adoptions
in 1998. State officials attribute this 111 percent increase to
reduced average caseloads (from 75 children to 25 children per
worker) and streamlined court processes. In Texas, adoptions
from foster care are up 75 percent (to 1,548 in 1998) due to
changes in state law that limited the length of time children
could remain in foster care and administrative reforms that
assigned additional staff to move children to permanence.
Iowa's 54 percent increase is the result of the creation of
adoption specialist positions, expanded recruitment activity,
and the commitment of former Lieutenant Governor Corning to the
cause. Wyoming nearly doubled the number of adoptions in one
year (from 16 in 1997 to 29 in 1998). The state attributes the
dramatic jump in an increased focus on terminating parental
rights (TPR), including the assignment of a staff person in the
attorney general's office who is dedicated to TPR hearings.
Twenty states experienced increases of 20 percent to 55
percent. Several states reported even higher increases,
including South Carolina (84.4 percent), Mississippi (64.9
percent), North Dakota (68.1%), and Minnesota (61.2 percent).
The increased adoptions show great promise that the country
can meet the goals identified in President Clinton's Adoption
2002 initiative and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
of 1997. In addition to legislative guidance that helps states
increase the number of foster children who are adopted, ASFA
also included an adoption incentive program that will make
additional funds available for child welfare services.
Beginning with fiscal year 1998, states became eligible to
receive incentive payments for all adoptions over a baseline
number determined by HHS.\1\ Table 1 shows each state's
baseline figure, the state reported estimate of finalized
adoptions for 1998, and the difference between the two figures.
For each adoption over the baseline, HHS will pay the state
$4,000, plus an additional $2,000 if the child has a federal
Title IV-E Adoption Assistance agreement in effect. States may
spend incentive payment funds on child and family services,
including post-adoption support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To determine the baseline for each state, HHS averaged the
number of finalized adoptions for federal fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997. States are eligible to receive incentive payments for federal
fiscal year 1998 only if they have an approved Title IVE plan for the
year, provide HHS with data to determine the baseline, meet other data
requirements, and exceed the baseline number of adoptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption Incentive Payment Authorization Level Inadequate
Unfortunately, there will not be enough funds to provide
states with their full adoption incentive payments. Congress
appropriated $20 million per year for four years for the
incentive program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pro Rata Adjustment if Insufficient Funds Available.--For any
fiscal year, if the total amount of adoption incentive payments
otherwise payable under this section for subsection (h) for the fiscal
year, the amount of the adoption incentive payment payable to each
State under this section for the fiscal year shall be the amount of the
adoption incentive payment that would other wise be payable to the
State under this section for the fiscal year; multiplied by the
percentage represented by the amount so appropriated for the fiscal
year, divided by the total amount of adoption incentive payments
otherwise payable under this section for the fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we assume that 75 percent of adoptions will qualify for
the total payment of $6,000, the appropriation will cover
increases of 3,636 adoptions for 1998.\3\ If claims exceed the
appropriated amount, ASFA requires HHS to reduce the incentive
payments proportionately. As NACAC's preliminary estimates
show, states have already achieved increases of 8,511--more
than twice the 3,636 mark--with six states not reporting. NACAC
expects the final numbers to reflect total increases of nearly
9,000 which would result in dramatically reduced incentive
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This assumption is based on the fact that at least 75 percent
of children adopted during federal fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997
were eligible for Title IV-E Adoption Assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NACAC is asking Congress to increase the authorization and
appropriation for the adoption incentive program by $25,000,000
for fiscal year 1999 for a total of $45,000,000. This would
allow states to receive full payments for the excellent work
they did in increasing adoptions last year. Congress should
also consider increasing the authorization for the next three
fiscal years to $30,000,000 in anticipation of annual increases
in adoptions of 5,000 per year.
We applaud the work of the committee and encourage Congress
to continue providing the states with incentives to increase
the adoption of children from the public foster care system.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.009
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much.
First of all, I thank the panelists for all their
testimony. It really is exciting to see what's happening. It is
just really thrilling. Rarely have I ever seen a law change
that concretely affected the lives of so many children and
adults in a positive way. Really wonderful. Also, it is
wonderful to see the system responding because you are right,
without systems change, you can't get the teamwork you need to
get complicated situations resolved. So that is very, very
encouraging.
Mr. McDonald, you mentioned in terms of the four things you
would like to see, that everyone should have a chance to have a
waiver. What do you think of the department's comment that the
cap on waivers creates competition and puts more thought into
their projects.
Mr. McDonald. No. This is the kind of situation where you
want every State winning. I mean, you want improvement from
States that aren't doing well, you want innovation above and
beyond from the States that have been doing consistently well.
And, it seems to me, it would assist the department in its
efforts at quality improvement. You know, if you have an area
of improvement that you think a State ought to move in, you
ought to be saying why not try something here.
But I think--I cannot imagine why we wouldn't want to
encourage as much improvement across the States as possible.
Like I said, when the system has been declared by so many
people to be broken, then what's wrong with innovation that has
decent parameters.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much. I
find that interesting. It seems to me that also many of these
waiver projects are focused on just the kind of things that you
all are talking about.
Mr. Kroll, I did want to mention to you that the
Subcommittee is very interested in the independent living
program, and we certainly don't want to divert kids from
adoption that could be adopted, the opportunities for adoption
do vary tremendously, and we do want to improve the independent
living program. Would you have any comment on that?
Mr. Kroll. I guess I am first and foremost an advocate for
children, and my concern over the years as the pendulum has
swung back and forth on what we think on different issues is
that too often we give up on placing in an adoptive home a 14-
or 15- or 16-year-old. And that we need to make sure that
teenagers in foster care are aware of all their options.
I think any 16-year-old might respond to the question, ``Do
you want to live with your parents or do you want to live on
your own?'' Well, they might want to live on their own because
there is a little rebellion going on or whatever. I think a
child who has been neglected by the system, who doesn't trust
adults, if offered the option of independence versus a
permanent home would say ``I have had enough with adults.''
So I think we really need to counsel the children who are
older and make sure they are aware of the options because as we
have young people speaking out on their own behalf, we hear
many voices of teenagers who are saying I still want a family.
And we know of young people who have been adopted after 18
because the State did not terminate parental rights prior to
their reaching maturity. And when they became an adult, they
asked their foster parents if they would be willing to adopt
them now since it is their decision.
So I think there is a real range of behaviors there and
attitudes by children so that we shouldn't, as we help the
older kids who have to leave the system without a family, we
shouldn't make kids leave the system without a family.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Right. It certainly is
true the family provides a lifelong support system that no
amount of independent living can provide you.
Ben.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kroll, I thought that maybe your injury was related to
getting in the ring with your Governor in wrestling.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kroll. If you see--I won't go there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cardin. I wouldn't advise you going there.
I was really struck by your chart that you attached to your
testimony. We all are very pleased by the increased number of
adoptions from foster care, but the last column is really
remarkable, and that is the variation among States from a high
of 111-percent increase to a low of a minus 28 percent and all
numbers in between.
I mean, it seems like there is no consistency among the
States. Am I reading this right or wrong?
Mr. Kroll. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Cardin. What accounts for that?
Mr. Kroll. Well, another use of the dollars that the States
are going to receive might be to clone Jess McDonald and Judge
Kearney. Leadership comes into play in some of these States.
There are foundation efforts, like the Kellogg Families for
Kids and the Casey Family to Family, where there have been true
initiatives in some States and others there haven't.
And so, there is a lot of leadership around the country but
it isn't equally spread.
I'm not sure I could address a specific State, why it was
low. Some of the States had made dramatic increases in the more
recent years. So their numbers have leveled out. I have heard
from a couple of States. Some of the numbers, and I think
Louisiana particularly, which had the largest decline, they
reported the numbers they could but they believe those numbers
have improved. So that when the AFCAR's numbers make it
official, their number of placements in 1998 will be higher
than originally reported.
This was, you know, informal estimates, as best as the
States could do in January and February this year.
Mr. Cardin. Well, I appreciate that observation because
obviously we have offered incentives and would be curious
whether there is a need to deal with changes in Federal law to
make it easier for all States to show more progress. I don't
know.
But thank you for that observation. Illinois, of course,
has done very well. But I am very interested in your
observations, Mr. McDonald, on substance abuse and the
challenge that places to us achieving our objectives. What
should we be doing? What are you doing? You have got the
children's programs; you don't have all the health programs,
obviously. How do you coordinate to make sure that you can deal
with substance abuse in order to succeed in protecting the
child?
Mr. McDonald. We have a $25 million initiative with the
Department of Human Services, but I will tell you a significant
portion of that is assessment and, frankly, reassessment.
Someone drops out of treatment, they come back, they get
assessed again. The real key is keeping someone in treatment.
If you assume the prognosis for recovery is 2 years and that
relapse is part of recovery, then you have to figure out what
to do to keep a woman who has an interest in her children in
treatment.
That is a design issue. In Cook County we put an assessment
program in the courts so clients go right from the courtroom
right to an assessment program. The next thing we are
installing is independent case management so that all
substance-exposed births will be case managed independently as
well as by the child welfare worker.
We get no Federal reimbursement for this iniative.
We are also intending on trying to figure out how you
change and alter the structure of services. Women will stay in
treatment if they can stay close to their children. What
motivates someone to succeed? You have to provide some
incentive for people to crack what I think is a very difficult,
difficult issue. So the design of substance-abuse services is
the next thing we are going to be looking at, and we are
applying for a IV-E waiver to test alternative treatment models
in Cook County and several of our larger areas downstate.
The rural issues are even more dramatic because you have so
much travel involved in getting to treatment that oftentimes
you have more difficult problems structuring service in rural
areas.
But it is incredibly important to tackle this issue, and
NASADAD, National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Directors, and APHSA are working together to at least have a
dialog on it. But if you don't tackle this, we will continue to
have problems in the system.
Mr. Cardin. Well, let me applaud you for showing
initiative. Unfortunately, a lot of people look at their
responsibilities with tunnel vision and they don't look at the
broader ways of dealing with the problems. So I really do
applaud you for taking the initiative to provide the services
so you can succeed with children.
Judge Kearney, I want to ask you just one question on--you
were at the hearing that we had in Florida. I was not at that
hearing, but you were at the hearing that we had in Florida.
And one of the issues that came up was the high turnover of
social workers and the difficulty that causes in carrying out
responsibility. I think we all can relate to that.
Has Florida done anything about the problems of social
workers and I guess it is the pay issue.
Ms. Kearney. It is a pay issue. It is also a caseload
issue, which I think is probably more problematic. Right now we
have many of our caseworkers who carry caseloads in excess of
50 cases per worker. We have tried in the area of adoption to
lower the caseloads, and that has been effective in increasing
our adoption rate. But the problem we have, particularly, is in
the protective investigator side, when the cases are coming
into the system. We have a tremendous backlog.
Right now in Dade County alone, we have a backlog of over
3,000 open protective services cases that have not been
cleared. The Florida legislature in this session under Governor
Bush's proposed budget, which they have adopted, have given us
a 25-percent increase, most of which will go into the field in
order to provide additional workers. I have also totally
revamped the training program for our investigators. It
originally had been 12 weeks of straight lecture without any
field-based training. We were having many of our workers coming
out of training totally unprepared for the reality of what they
saw in the field.
So we have now revamped the training. We are--at this time
they come into the field the very first week. They are there
the entire week. We have established a mentor program, and then
the rest of the program, which is now shortened to 8 weeks, has
2 days in the classroom but 3 days in the field. So they can
truly see what they are getting into.
Mr. Cardin. That's great. I just want to underscore what
Mr. Kroll said: We have good leadership in Florida and
Illinois. We could use that model in other States.
Congratulations.
Ms. Kearney. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Mr. Camp.
Mr. Camp. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to thank the three of you, first of all, the people
who testified today for your testimony. I very much appreciate
it, and my first question is to Judge Kearney. Thank you for
your help with the Adoption and Safe Families Act because you
were a busy judge getting on the phone and helping us craft
that.
Ms. Kearney. Thank you.
Mr. Camp. I wanted to ask you, do you think--I mean,
obviously, the message of that legislation was child safety and
permanency--do you think States are getting that message
clearly? You know, Minnesota, Illinois, and Florida have from
the tremendous improvements that you have made. But do you
think in general that is occurring?
Ms. Kearney. Mr. Camp, again, I am concerned and I can't
say in all honesty that Florida has gotten the message because
the reality is I did a teleconference last week with over 200
of our child-protection leaders from the Department of Children
and Families, particularly on the implementation of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act because I am concerned that they
are not understanding that the health and safety of the child
is the paramount concern.
I have to tell you that I had to enact operations
procedures that made it clear that our children that are in
foster care that they could not put children who sexually
perpetrate in the same home as victims. And I have to tell you
that there were workers upset and angry that I had entered an
order that required that because they said they didn't see any
problem with that.
They have a problem in being able to assess risk. They have
a problem in being able to make the very hard call in the
beginning as to whether or not a child should be removed. And
they are still holding dear to an outdated model of family
preservation at all costs. And it has been very difficult to
enact truly the spirit of your legislation. I am concerned that
the regulations at this time are giving that same mixed
message, that same signal. That is not what this act and
Congress intended, and I would strongly encourage that you
continue your effort to make certain that the true intent of
the act is followed.
I would also ask that Congress would enact legislation to
ensure that the States, particularly those like Florida that
are moving to a community-based care model, privatization
model, if you would, would also ensure that training is held
for the private sector taking over the child protection system.
It is absolutely imperative that that be done.
We have had great success in Florida with our pilot
programs, but we have also had one or two that are not
successful and refuse to be trained in the adequate protection
of children. So I would strongly encourage that you get
oversight there also.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much. My next question is
regarding the methods of the funding stream to the States and
foster care. And obviously our goal is to decrease time spent
in foster care where possible. Do you have any, or does the way
the money goes to the States for foster care, the streams of
funding, is that consistent or inconsistent with the goal of
decreasing time in foster care?
Ms. Kearney. I have to say from my judicial experience in
dependency court improvement as well as coming to the
Department of Children and Families at this point is
inconsistent. It is very difficult. We have so many different
funding streams. Our reporting requirements are so different.
We have workers that are in the field spending countless hours
doing paperwork that should be providing direct services to
children and families so that they can meet that goal.
Florida has shortened its timeframe even further. We are a
12-month State for permanency. And what Mr. McDonald said in
Illinois is exactly the situation in Florida, where we actually
are looking at a 6-month and a 9-month period. And so I am
concerned that given all of the paperwork that we are truly
inundated with and the different funding sources that we are
not adequately being able to serve the population that we must
serve in order to make reasonable efforts and to then have a
strong court case for termination of parental rights if a
petition is filed.
Mr. Camp. And last, if you could comment on--obviously we
wrote this legislation to take into account needed State
flexibility--can you comment on the balance between the need
for State flexibility and the need for accountability?
Ms. Kearney. I am living that firsthand right now because
we are in a district structure of 15 districts in Florida. And
having that, allowing them the flexibility to spend the funds
as appropriate, taking into consideration local needs but at
the same time being accountable to the State while I, in turn,
account to the Federal Government, I think it is imperative
that we have the flexibility to do things such as what we are
now compelled to do in Florida, which is privatize our child
welfare system. We must have the flexibility in order to do
that.
But at the same time, I absolutely do believe it is
imperative that we account for every taxpayer dollar that is
spent on child protection. In the current system I think that
is not there at all. I am concerned about the regulations
because it does seem to be somewhat confused, and the answers
that I heard this morning were not what I would have liked to
have heard in order to really determine where we are going and
what flexibility will be given to the States.
I have no problem accounting for it, but I also have to be
responsible for serving that population, and I need the
flexibility to do that.
Mr. Camp. Well, thank you very much for that testimony, and
thank all of you for your efforts to increase the adoptions in
your States. And I have completed my questions.
And Madam Chairman, I just want to thank you for holding
this hearing and for beginning the discussion on the oversight
role, but also to let us get the reporting on how this
legislation is being enacted. Thank you very much.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I am really struck by the
fact that in order to make this work you had to improve
systems, and I get the impression that to improve systems you
had to get waivers?
For the most part, would you say that improving your
systems required waivers?
Mr. McDonald. May I?
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. It's more than one thing. I mean, the waivers
definitely help. The IV-E waiver was invaluable in terms of
helping turn around the response to the field. We were able to
construct performance contracting around the use of the waiver.
The subsidized guardianship option actually uncovered more
adoptions, and adoptions went up. When you start asking about
permanency, when you tie it to incentive-based work, what we
found is that you ask relatives, who are a major portion of our
caregivers, do you want to adopt? You have to rule out adoption
in order to consider guardianship. That is one of our deals
with the court. Relatives were very interested. But workers
never talked to them about permanency.
What you have to do is to force the system to perform. You
have to get to the top of every private agency and every
manager because they start to understand that their future
business, if you will, depends on performing well today. And we
have seen improvements in stability, fewer moves in the system,
because we evaluate them on stability in the system as well.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. But do you think these
current regulations adequately get the information we need, not
only the number--they clearly don't get the number of kids in
foster care. But we do need to know how long they are staying
there and how many moves they are making.
Mr. Mcdonald. Yes. For instance, Mr. Cardin, you mentioned
that the rate of increase--112-percent rate of increase in
Illinois. One good year, one great year, does not make a great
child welfare system. I do hope that is not a sound bite that I
see in the paper tomorrow, Ben. [Laughter.]
But the fact of the matter is, is that many States have
been performing consistently well. If they had a 20-percent
increase and they had had on an ongoing basis of a 20-percent
permanency rate or something like that, and if they had short
lengths of stay in their system, it is not just one measure
that you want to look at. It is length of stay. You want to
look at median and maximum lengths of stay. You want to look at
new populations, old populations.
We are doing well in Illinois. We will get back to where we
ought to be. But I, you know--we will have a couple of very
good years. But we had a median length of stay of almost 6
years.
When you have that, we should have some adoptions. We
should have a lot of adoptions. This system is going to be half
the size it is, and we are moving there. In another 3 years we
will have around 20,000 kids in the system, and we will look
more like the States that have been progressive all the way
along.
Child welfare is something that you have to manage for the
long haul. It does not respond well to mood swings from any
direction. If you have caseloads of 50, you get no results. The
investments that have to be made over the long haul are the
ones you need to look to. Don't look to a quick fix overnight.
It's not the best way to go.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. When you look at the fact
that all of you have to make changes. You have to respond to
what you think is going to motivate people and so on and so
forth. And then you look at Florida's challenge. And what I
hear you saying is that you think you can design a system
through which you will be able to hold your community-based,
privatized system accountable. Well now, if you can hold them
accountable, why can't we hold you accountable? And are these
regulations asking for the information that you, as a
practitioner, know you need from those you must hold
accountable and nothing more.
I mean, are these regulations going to fit into the system
as you see it developing from your perspective?
Mr. Kearney. As currently framed, no.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Well, we really want to
get very precise about what changes you would want to make, and
because this is a pivotal moment.
Ms. Kearney. Yes.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. And we have enough
experience with change in the system so that we really have to
do, and this is with no disrespect meant, but, as we try to
change Medicare, you know, you have people writing regulations
for a system for which it's been many years since they have
been involved in it. And, you know, and they are writing
regulations for entities that they don't know well. So we then
don't succeed in our objectives.
So, you see this in education. We wrote special-ed law
reform, and frankly the bureaucrats thought that it was
terrible. HHS is far better than this. But I mean they wrote
regulations that not only didn't recognize the reform in law
but went back. And it was so bad the groups, everybody were up
in arms. That is just too bad. But one of the problems we face
is that government, especially in Washington, with all due
respect for the many wonderful people that really work with us
on these things, is removed.
And they aren't experiencing the pace of change you are
experiencing. They aren't experiencing the intensity of the
challenge of these very difficult families, and the creativity
at the local level that is allowing you to do different things
with these families.
So I am really very anxious to be sure that at a very
specific level you give us input on why these regulations will
or will not work, and how they will help you move forward.
Ms. Kearney. Madam Chair, I absolutely agree with--it also
is a many-faceted problem, but it is also a question of
leadership. And one of the things that we have seen in Florida,
in particular, is that the Department of Children and Families
did not exercise the leadership in moving forward the Adoption
and Safe Families Act. That came from the court, not from a
Federal lawsuit, it came from the Supreme Court of Florida
through the dependency court improvement program.
And it was absolutely imperative--I think the success in
Florida is attributable to a strong executive branch, judicial
branch, and legislative branch that now has adequately funded
our funds. But we do need the flexibility and we need the
ability to draw down more Federal dollars to maximize. Florida
right now is 47th in the Nation in social service funding.
And obviously I am very concerned. I am taking over a
system that is so broken that it is going to take every ounce
of creativity to be able to fix it.
And I appreciate the attention that Congress has paid to
this problem because it helps me at the statewide level focus
our State on how important this is.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Well, we really appreciate
your very good input here today, and the input of both panels
and the administration. Any final comments? Any final
questions?
Mr. Kroll. Could I make a comment since in my testimony I
focused on children and parents? I think one group that needs
to heard from are the judges who are running model courts
throughout this country that make a huge difference. And in my
written testimony, I talked about a couple in Texas. In El
Paso, where Judge Patricia Macias through many different good
ideas working in that community was able to reduce the waiting
for children who had been legally free for adoption from 57 to
6 months, I mean, just a phenomenal drop. But it was because
everybody got together and there was judicial leadership, and
there was a little bit of resources.
It is kind of like the waivers are a tool for good leaders.
You know, if you don't have a good leader, the waiver doesn't
help. And so we have the Federal Government providing the tools
that they have in their toolbox to the good leaders. And I
think the waiver program and making it as universal as possible
is the way to go.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I appreciate your comment
about leadership. Obviously, it is just phenomenally true, from
magnet schools to nonmagnet schools, to manufacturing basic
commodities that when you say we aren't competitive and then
there they are. It is just extraordinary the difference that
leadership makes.
One of the things we are going to do, and Judge Kearney and
I were talking about this earlier, and Ben pursued it in his
questioning. We really are going to be looking at this issue of
substance abuse, both our treatment capability, the flow of
people into treatment, the variety of treatment settings that
are available, but also, we have a whole system in place to
require child support payments because if you bring children
into this world, you are obliged to support them.
If you bring a child into this world, you are obliged not
to abuse. You just lose that right. And I think that not only
do we have to look at the resources available, but I think we
have to do some real rethinking about the penalties, about the
pressure, about the incentives for parents to take their
responsibility very, very seriously, and prenatally.
So I don't know how we do this. But I can tell you, it has
got to be done. And we have got to find a way to do it. And we
can start by finding a way to at least improve treatment and
flow into treatment and management of treatment.
So any thoughts that you have on that, we will be looking
into that, probably through an informal breakfast first and
then through a hearing. But if there is one thing that has been
loud and clear, and I chaired a child guidance task force in my
hometown for about--I don't know, but was chair or treasurer
for 12 years. And then when I was elected to Congress, the
first thing I heard out there in the small towns was 80 percent
of our cases had an abuser in the family.
Well, isn't that dumb. And we are still there, and we still
aren't focusing on that as aggressively as we need to.
So I am delighted that the Adoption and Safe Families Act
has been such a success, and if we really focus now on other
aspects of the system, we ought to be able to give you both the
flexibility and support that you need.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Child Welfare League of America, Inc.
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) welcomes this
opportunity to submit testimony on the implementation of a
federal review system for child protection systems, and on the
impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) on the
number of adoptions in the United States.
CWLA is a 79-year-old national association of over 1,000
public and private voluntary agencies that serve more than two
million abused and neglected children and their families. CWLA
member agencies provide the wide array of services necessary to
protect and care for abused and neglected children, including
child protective services, family preservation, family foster
care, treatment foster care, residential group care, adolescent
pregnancy prevention, child day care, emergency shelter care,
independent living, youth development, and adoption.
Our brief comments that follow chiefly focus on the impact
of ASFA on adoptions. They also suggest ways to improve
adoption and other permanency outcomes. With respect to the
proposed review system, CWLA strongly supports federal efforts
to strengthen the quality of services and the capacity of
agencies to deliver them. We applaud DHHS and its focus in the
proposed rule on outcomes and program improvements. Our
comments on the proposal are available on the CWLA web site at
http://www.cwla.org/cwla/publicpolicy/pl105-89.html.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act, which originated in
this Subcommittee, made clear our shared national goal of
helping more children in foster care become part of permanent,
loving families when they cannot safely return home. ASFA
authorizes payments to states for increasing the numbers of
children with special needs who become part of permanent,
adoptive families. Early results indicate that many states have
been successful in achieving that goal as adoptions of children
with special needs have increased 22 percent according to the
North American Council on Adoptable Children.
We are pleased and encouraged by the increases in
adoptions. At the same time, we have concerns that we urge you
to address to ensure that safety and permanency are achieved
and maintained. ASFA demands faster permanency decision making,
but few new resourcesincluding the very limited adoption
incentive funding and additional funding under Promoting Safe
and Stable Families programneeded to build capacity among
caseworkers and others in the child welfare agency, the courts,
and the wider provider community to make good decisions in a
timely fashion. We urge Congress to take the following actions
to increase and improve stability and permanency for children:
Increase Resources for Post-Adoption Services
Adoptive families need support after, as well as before, an
adoption is made final. Children who have been abused or
neglected often have special needs and present special
challenges for their adoptive families. Post-adoption services
help parents meet the specific needs of their adopted children
in order to maintain nurturing and permanent families. Post-
adoption services often are key in preventing disruption and
dissolution and should be available to all families that adopt
a child with special needs from the child welfare system.
Federal or state adoption subsidies do not pay for the parent
training and education, counseling, respite care and
residential treatment that these families need. New resources
need to be dedicated to ensure that adoptive families have the
support they need to care for these vulnerable children.
Make all Children with Special Needs Eligible for Federal Adoption
Assistance
Under current law, children with special needs awaiting
adoption are eligible for federal adoption subsidies under the
title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program, only if their
biological family from whom they are being separated received
SSI or welfare benefits (or would have been eligible to receive
welfare benefits under the former AFDC program, given the
income and resource standards in place in each state on June
16, 1996). Eliminating AFDC eligibility as a criterion for
federal assistance would allow all children with special needs
to be eligible for a federal adoption subsidy. This change
would help more children with special needs be adopted, would
replace a current cost and administrative burden, and would
treat all children with special needs more equitably.
Support Court Improvements
In order to achieve the goals of ASFA, the already
overburdened abuse and neglect courts also need help. CWLA
supports legislation, such as the Strengthening Abuse and
Neglect Courts Act (S. 708) recently introduced in the Senate
to help courts deal with the accelerated timelines for the
termination of parental rights and other requirements imposed
by ASFA that increase the demands on abuse and neglect courts.
Help Older Children in Foster Care Transition to Independence
We are delighted by the interest expressed by members of
this Subcommittee to extend support to young people in foster
care who reach their eighteenth birthday and are facing life on
their own without the support of a permanent family. The
hearing held by this Subcommittee on March 9, highlighted the
needs of these young people and documented how the federal
government can help them become productive, self-sufficient
adults. We thank the Subcommittee for its attention to the
serious problems facing emancipating foster youths and urge
action to meet critical health and shelter needs, as well as
the skills needed to become self-sufficient adults.
We appreciate this opportunity to share our views and look
forward to working with the Subcommittee on these issues during
the coming months.
Statement of Cory J. Jensen, Legislative Assistant, Men's Health
Network
As the Subcommittee on Human Resources examines current
child protection laws, they should take note of successful
efforts at the state level. While states are accountable for
their own guidelines, the federal government should promote
those initiatives that have had a positive impact in moving
children off the adoption roles and into caring families. We
urge the subcommittee to consider the following three
improvements to the foster care-adoption system.
Foster Care Alternatives Must Be Considered First
By statute, Child Protective Services in the state of Texas
must initially consider placing a child with a fit and willing
relative instead of in foster care. The specific statue reads:
The court shall place a child removed from the child's
custodial parent with the
child's noncustodial parent or with a relative of the child
if placement with the noncustodial parent is inappropriate,
unless placement with the noncustodial
parent or relative is not in the best interest of the child
[S.B. 359 (e)].
An example CPS letter documenting child custody is included
with written testimony provided at the hearing (Exhibit A). A
recent Washington Post article (April 13, 1999) cited Texas as
having the fourth highest increase in adoption rates. In 1998,
Texas had a 76 percent increase in the number of adoptions (the
above statue went into effect September 1997).
Other states should be required to seek placement with
relatives before putting a child in foster care. The practice
of placing the child with a relative forgoes future long and
costly court fights over custody of a child that has
unnecessarily been placed on the adoption track. In turn, this
accelerates the adoption process for other children and allows
resources to be used for foster care and on placing those
children who do not have ``fit and willing relatives.''
Requiring Professional Standards
In order to ensure that well trained professionals are
handling child protection cases, the federal government should
require states to set caseworker standards. For example,
Louisiana requires that a person performing social studies have
a master's degree in marriage and family therapy or a related
field. Texas' requirements are less strict, requiring a college
degree and relevant experience. By requiring states to set
their own standards, qualified caseworkers will be appointed to
protect the best interests of the children.
Reporting Requirements
To better protect abused children, states should be
required to report the specific relationship of the perpetrator
to the abused. Current guidelines for the National Child Abuse
and Neglect Data System only require for data to be accumulated
on the number of perpetrators and if the perpetrator was a
parent (not which parent), caretaker, day care provider or of
another relationship to the victim. Documenting the familial
relationship of the perpetrator to the abused would provide
policy makers with the information necessary to develop better
policy and procedures to address the perplexing problem of
child abuse.
[An attachment is being retained in the Committee files.]
Statement of National Association of Foster Care Reviewers, Atlanta,
Georgia
Why Does the Child Welfare System Need a System of Accountability?
More than 500,000 children nationally were in the foster
care system in the 1970s. While most of these children had been
removed from their families as a result of abuse or neglect,
some had been removed as a result of poverty; still thousands
of other children were at risk of being removed from their
homes. Once placed in care, children often experienced foster
care ``drift,'' as they were moved from one placement to
another with little prospect of returning home or placement in
a permanent family. Many of these children remained in foster
care for years.
Few safeguards existed in the child welfare system at that
time to regulate the unrelenting stream of children entering
foster care, and few practices were in place to move children
through and out of the system back to their biological families
or to a permanent placement with kin or an adoptive family.
In 1980, Congress passed P.L. 96-272, the first national
attempt at instilling accountability into the national child
protection system. This legislation called for the review of
both state child protection systems (427 reviews/audits) by the
federal government and provided for state oversight of child
welfare cases through a two-tiered system of individual case
review by the courts or administrative body; periodic reviews
(every six months) and dispositional hearings (after eighteen
months). Though good intentioned, the accountability provisions
of P.L. 96-272 were never fully operationalized, never
supported.
In many places state review systems focused their activity
on monitoring procedural compliance of foster care cases. In
addition, potential users of review information such as judges,
child welfare administrators, policy and budget developers, had
neither the tools nor the relationships to capture and utilize
review data in their practice.
In many other places, state review systems have contributed
to raising community expectations for good foster care practice
by raising critical questions about what works in child welfare
practice, questioning the relationship between procedures and
improved outcomes for children. They have used aggregate and
anecdotal information from reviews to obtain increased
resources and alter policy that prevents permanency for large
groups of individual children in foster care. The review
systems that have demonstrated an impact on outcomes for
children have fed back information from reviews to the parties
who have the authority to eliminate barriers, change policies
and practices, and expand resources. This activity is described
in management literature as a ``feedback loop,'' and is an
essential element of an effective organization, one that
achieves its objectives and can adapt to changing environments
and circumstances.
Now again, we are faced with the same problem--a growing
crisis in child welfare. A growing number of children in and
out of the child protection system are dying each year. The
list of well-documented abuses within the management and
operation of child welfare systems across the country is also
growing, with 22 jurisdictions under consent decree or court
oversight. Since 1980 the cost of protecting our nation's
children has risen dramatically, while we have seen more
children enter the system, stay longer, and eventually ``age-
out'' of the system less prepared for adulthood. We have seen
countless audits and sanctions imposed by the federal
government on these systems, however, these penalties have had
little impact on improving the system or the outcomes of
children. Litigation, federal audits and penalties have been
unsuccessful in holding state child protection systems
accountable.
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89)
has provided for states a clear legislative direction. The Act
clarifies that the focus of child welfare systems is ensuring
the safety and swift permanency of children in need of
protection. P.L. 105-89 reinforces the need to monitor foster
care systems in terms of these outcomes. ASFA, like P.L. 96-
272, once again holds great promise for bringing accountability
to our child protection systems.
We can not repeat the mistakes of our past. The future of
our child welfare systems and of the children in care rests on
the implementation of ASFA and the construction and
implementation of a sound accountability system.
What Would an Adequate System of Accountability Look Like?
An adequate system of accountability would build on the
system begun in 1980 under P.L. 96-272 and would ensure:
Only children who are ``unsafe'' are brought into
care.
Children who do enter the system are kept safe.
Children in care are either reunified with their
parents or found permanent, life-long families quickly.
Children who spend time in care are provided the
same opportunity for success as any other child, the same
opportunity as our own children.
1. Objective Outcome Measures: The development of an
adequate system of accountability for child welfare would start
with outcome measures that are objective, and quantifiable.
Criteria for valid outcome measures would include:
Can be objectively quantified.
Able to be tracked over time.
Validated by independent sources.
Outcomes that you desire for your own children.
2. Independent Oversight: An adequate system of
accountability would be developed and administered independent
of the child protection system that provides services, allowing
for an objective assessment of the work performed and the
results of these efforts. It would draw on existing
accountability and independent review structures already in
place in state and local communities. Such a system would
collect management and child outcome data, have the capacity to
aggregate and analyze this information, to transmit and share
it with stakeholders throughout the system who have decision-
making authority at the case and policy level, and to
facilitate problem-solving and reform where needed.
3. Accountable to All Stakeholders: An adequate system
would be accountable to the citizens and taxpayers, to Congress
and state legislatures, to families and children.
Is the Proposed System of Accountability ``Adequate''?
According to the criteria outlined above the system of
accountability proposed by HHS is not adequate to ensure the
safety, permanency, and well-being of children in foster care.
1. An adequate accountability system requires a foundation
of child-specific and system outcomes. The outcome measures
proposed by HHS provide important management data for state
child welfare systems, however, they are not objective
indicators of outcomes for individual children in care. Given
the organizations the Department selected to consult with, it
is not surprising that the outcome measures selected are highly
subjective. These organizations have a vested interest in the
measures being subjective, so as to allow for broad
interpretations of compliance and success. If the outcome
measures had been formulated by former foster children, and
natural, foster and adoptive parents, the measures would focus
on child outcome indicators, not indicators of system
performance and would look quite different:
Minimal academic truancy
Academic performance consistent with IQ
An absence of criminal arrests or convictions
High school/college graduation
An absence of out of wedlock pregnancy
An absence of sexually transmitted disease
Each of these outcomes can be objectively quantified and
tracked into adulthood. Each of these outcomes can be validated
by reference to independent databases. These are the outcomes
which should be linked to eligibility for Federal and State
funds. The measures proposed by the Department can be helpful
if modified as management tools for the States and service
providers, but ultimately what parents and taxpayers want for
children in care is what they want for their own children.
2. An adequate accountability system must be truly
independent of state and local child welfare agencies. The
proposed system is not independent; it allows states in
partnership with the Children's Bureau to hold themselves
accountable for their own work and practice. States and HHS
will remain under suspicion by the media and public as long as
they are reviewing their own work --much like the fox guarding
the hen house. The only way to ensure real accountability and
convince stakeholders that the data and information collected
through federal oversight is accurate it to design an
independent accountability system, one free of political and
financial interest.
Opponents to independence will claim that State child
welfare agencies must be critical participants in the
accountability system if systemic improvements will be
successful. While we agree that State input into the design is
valuable and that States will need to be engaged in problem-
solving and implementing reform and corrective action plans,
there is no justification for why representatives of the state
child welfare agency should be members of the team which is
assessing their own work and performance. Imagine if students
graded their own papers--everyone would get an ``A+.''
The proposed HHS framework does focus accountability
efforts on continuous improvement, however, the structures and
mechanisms are not in place nor identified for ensuring that
improvements are made or are effective in resolving systems
issues. In addition, these improvement schedules are far from
timely.
Effective accountability systems need to have uninterrupted
access to every stakeholder in the system including the
citizenry who pay for these services. There is no mechanism for
reporting or being accountable to local communities.
What Needs To Be Done?
Our child welfare systems are managed by headlines.
Administrators are forced to make rapid, often ill-considered
policy and practice responses to isolated cases of severe abuse
or child death. We need an accountability system that is
focused on the outcomes we want to achieve, not the situations
we want to avoid.
Experience demonstrates that litigation and class action
suits have not been effective oversight mechanisms. Where they
have occurred, outcomes for children and systems have not
improved, but in fact have gotten worse. Litigation has proven
to be a blunt accountability tool, focused more on process than
outcome. The result, a continued deterioration of outcome
measures.
A solid accountability system needs to be constructed now.
1. HHS' recommended outcome measures need to be expanded to
include child-specific, objective indicators as described
above.
2. The assessment phase of the child and family review
system needs to exclude representatives from state and local
child welfare agencies. This team should be convened by federal
representatives and composed of representatives from local
independent review programs as well as other stakeholders in
the system who are independent of practice. This team should
also be part of the problem-solving conferences where the
findings are presented and discussed and should also be the
entity to monitor timely compliance with corrective action
agreements.
3. State and local independent review programs need to
become an integral part of the accountability framework for
child welfare. Since being mandated as part of P.L. 96-272 in
1980, foster care review has been found to be an invaluable
accountability tool. Many state and local independent review
programs around the country have the capacity to serve in this
role. In fact, many already do, except their efforts are not
tied to the federal accountability structure and they lack the
authority needed to require corrective action by the child
welfare agency. We need to expand the capacity of these
independent review programs to be the accountability tool they
were intended to be.
With their inception in 1980, Congress gave states
discretion in the design of their independent review systems,
allowing reviews to be conducted by either a court or
administrative body. Congress intended that that there be an
independent review of cases that would result in agency
improvements, greater levels of accountability, and enhanced
community awareness of foster care issues.
We learned from these early efforts that foster care review
helps focus casework activity on the achievement of permanency
goals and on the improvement of conditions for children in
care. Periodic review serves two critical purposes; a timely
reminder of a child's needs and a monitor of the child welfare
systems' efforts to meet these needs.
After nearly twenty years Congress saw insufficient
progress and again became dissatisfied with the number of
children in foster care and the length of time they spent
there. Fueled by the public's anger over the failure of child
protection systems' efforts to prevent the severe abuse and
sometimes murder of children in their custody, Congress
legislated new priorities for system accountability: safety,
permanency and well-being. The Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) reflects the intent of Congress to achieve
accountability and improved outcomes for children in foster
care. ASFA mandates shorter timelines, more focused permanency
decision-making, and emphasizes making reasonable efforts to
prevent placement, reunify families, or secure an alternative,
permanent home.
The review of cases is a valuable tool for improving the
safety, permanency and well-being of children in foster care.
Congress has recognized the importance of focusing child
welfare systems on these outcomes for children and through the
implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA), has initiated a transition in child welfare policy from
a system focused on procedure to one focused on positive
outcomes and greater levels of accountability.
Recent research suggests that increased accountability and
more positive outcomes for children in care are more likely to
occur when a competent, independent case review program is in
place. One of the reasons case review programs are linked to
better outcomes for children is that these programs serve as a
catalyst for both case and systemic improvements, essential
processes if we are going to meet the requirements and intent
of this new federal policy. Linked to a revised HHS' child and
family review process, independent review could provide a
powerful accountability system for our country's child welfare
system and for our children in care.
Statement of Hon. Fortney Pete Stark, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Madame Chairwoman, thank you for holding a hearing on an
issue that often gets swept aside in the debate over welfare
reform. The critical issue of adoption for children in the
child welfare system must remain a priority as we search for
the best way to assist families in successfully caring for
their children. I'd like to begin by saying that I believe that
all children deserve a single, stable family environment.
Today we are reviewing a system created with the passage of
the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that provides
financial incentives to states that increase the number of
adoptions out of foster care. When this Subcommittee addressed
this legislation in the last Congress, I expressed my
reservations with a system that provides financial incentives
to States that swiftly move children through the foster care
system. My concern then, as it is now, was that a per-child
bonus would encourage states to jump at the chance to cash-in
at the expense of cases that need a longer review. With this
carrot dangling overhead, I suspected Governors would not do
what they should to encourage the public child welfare system
to work intensively with the child and family to meet their
individual needs.
My fear that we would see a rush to get children adopted
regardless of whether it is in the best interest of the child
and family is being confirmed. An article published in the
Tuesday, April 13, 1999 edition of the Washington Post reports
that the push to place children is raising the fears about the
appropriateness of many State placement decisions.
The Post reports that the encouragement of financial
incentives has driven up the number of foster children adopted
in virtually every state, and in many cases has increased the
number of adoptions by fifty percent.
Child advocacy groups such as the Child Welfare League of
America share my fear that States are getting lazy, that
caseworkers are giving up on trying to reunite children and
parents because of federal laws forcing agencies to decide
sooner on a child's fate, and that children are quickly being
placed with adoptive parents who may not have access to the
services necessary to prepare them to care for a child with
special needs.
I am all for providing technical assistance to States so
that they can identify barriers to permanency and develop
strategies for ensuring that children have a permanent home. I
am all for providing increased funding for the training of
public child welfare workers so that they have the skills
needed to address the individual needs of children and their
families and to make appropriate decisions about permanency.
And I am all for providing additional funding to states in
order to reduce the ratio of children in foster care to case
workers. But I remain fearful of any strategy that provides a
funding incentive that our States can use to halt efforts to
strengthen and reunify families.
Adoption is a worthy and important option for many
children, but there shouldn't have to be financial incentives
for the States to do right by their children. Only if adoption
is the chosen option by way of thorough permanency planning
efforts that adequately provide services to children and
families, then adoption it should be.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0978.002
Statement of Voice for Adoption
Voice for Adoption is a coalition of over 50 state, local,
and national adoption organizations that is committed every day
to working on behalf of children who are waiting for adoptive
families. Following are a few examples of children who have
been adopted over the past year as a result of the increased
emphasis on adoption of special needs children.
Daron, a handsome 15 year old African American youth, had
been in 20 foster care placements in Nevada since birth. He had
one failed adoption but he never gave up hope on having a
family of his own.A family from Salt Lake City got on the
internet, found the FACES of adoption site and read about
Daron. Several months later the Daron became their son. In
Daron's words, ``Knowing that you're not waking up the next
morning and not having to move to a new family to have a
permanent home is great.''
Stephanie, a 12 year old Latino girl from Arizona wants to
be an actress. She appeared on the Maury Povich show that was
devoted to children waiting for adoptive families in January
1999. Stephanie said, ``I'm jealous of my friends. They get to
go home to a family and I just can't do that.'' A family from
Alabama called about Stephanie after seeing her on the TV show.
By March she was with her new adoptive family.
Michael, 9; Antoine, 7; James, 4; and Shawn, 3 are four
spirited, active brothers. Their recent adoption assured that
they will grow up together. The boys all entered foster care
when Shawn was born with a positive toxicology screening for
cocaine. Their birth mother has not been able to recover from
her drug addiction. Antoine has some learning disabilities and
needs special tutoring at school. Shawn evidenced tremors and
other signs of drug exposure as an infant, but has since
developed into a typical preschooler. The older boys are very
healthy and doing well in school, but they worry about their
birth mother and younger brothers. They were afraid that
adoption might mean separation from their brothers, and were
relieved when a family was found for all four of them. Their
adoptive parents are adapting well to the permanent addition to
their home of four little boys. They note that they would not
have been able to commit to the care of all four brothers
without the availability of title IV-E Adoption Assistance.
The children above represent many of the children that
Congress sought to help with the implementation of the Adoption
and Safe Families Act. Many children like Daron age out of
foster care without ever having the opportunity to be part of
an adoptive family. Daron's dream was realized because he was
listed on the internet. Stephanie moved from Arizona to Alabama
to realize her dream and the state of Arizona had the courage
to include Stephanie on the Maury Povich show. Michael,
Antoine, James and Shawn represent the thousands of children in
foster care because of their parent (s)'s substance abuse
problems. Access to title IV-E Adoption Assistance assisted
with their placement with an adoptive family.
Children who leave the foster care system through adoption
often have special needs and the families who step forward to
adopt these children need to be prepared to address the special
needs of these children. Resources are needed to develop and
maintain a comprehensive system of adoption supports and post
adoption services that recognizes and addresses the challenges
these children present and the support that the families who
adopt them will require. In addition, we need the legislative
changes to provide the necessary structure. The waiting
children need your continued support. This support is critical
to assuring waiting children have the opportunity to be part of
an adoptive family.
Voice for Adoption (VFA) is pleased to have the opportunity
to submit testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources discussing the increase in the
number of special needs adoption. VFA has been a consistent
partner in development of strategies to move the thousands of
children who have been trapped in the foster care system to
safe, stable, permanent adoptive homes. Early results indicate
marked improvement in state efforts to recruit adoptive
families with permanent safe homes. We believe that these
results are directly tied to Congressional efforts to focus on
permanency and safety for children in the foster care system.
Passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act with the
inclusion of Adoption Incentive Payments has sent a clear
message to the states that children must not be allowed to
languish in foster care.
National attention on the need for states to move children
who can not return home to permanent adoptive placements has
focused state work on finding adoptive families for children in
the foster care system. Adoption 2002, the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, and Congressional hearings send a clear message
that there is strong interest in children moving to adoptive
families when they can not return home. States' performance has
exceeded the expectations of the Congress and many advocacy
groups. Voice for Adoption calls on Congress to continue to
support efforts to move foster children who can not return home
to adoptive families. Full funding for the Adoption Incentive
Program will continue to send the message to states that
Congress recognizes and supports the work done in the first
year. VFA estimates that the additional cost will be close to
$25million dollars.
Voice for Adoption feels strongly that the incentive
dollars to states must continue to support additional adoption
related work. As states fully implement the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, the number of children who will require adoption
services will increase. While many of these children will be
adopted by their foster parents, others will require
recruitment of adoptive families. Adoption professionals and
State officials agree that as time goes on the children
requiring adoptive placement will be more challenging and
require more time and energy to place in adoptive families.
Voice for Adoption has developed a Public Policy Agenda
that addresses the various components that must be in place to
achieve our goal of adoption for children who cannot return
home.
VFA supports the following funding and legislative
initiatives.
Funding Issues
Increased funding for adoption incentive payments.
We believe that the strong performance by the states in the
first year should be matched with full funding for the adoption
incentive program. VFA asks Congress to increase the
authorization and appropriation levels to assure full funding.
We estimate the need for an additional $25million to bring
total funding to $45 million. Congress recognized the need to
direct the incentive payments back to the states to support
additional adoption related activities. VFA supports
continuation of that requirement.
Full funding for the Adoption Opportunities Act.
Voice for Adoption calls on Congress to re-establish an
authorization level and fully fund the Adoption Opportunities
Act at $50 million.
This level of funding is needed as the numbers of children
double or even triple in the next few years.
Model programs must be developed and supported which
1. Recruit and prepare adoptive families
2. Match waiting children with approved families on the
state, regional and national levels
3. Apply the latest technology such as the internet and
video conferencing to the adoption process in order to
streamline the process
4. Office training and technical assistance to states on
all aspects of adoption
5. Measure the cost effectiveness of adoption services.
Public and private agencies, adoption exchanges and
adoptive parent organizations must be eligible for these funds
as they all play key roles in permanency for children.
Support development and funding of a national
purchase of service system. There is broad recognition that as
the easiest to place children move to adoptive families, the
recruitment of adoptive families for the remaining children
will be more challenging. The inclusion of interjurisdictional
placement language in AFSA challenges states to look throughout
the country to find families for children in need of adoptive
homes. One barrier to full implementation of this provision is
the lack of funding to support adoptive family preparation and
post adoption services in locations outside of the ``home''
jurisdiction and fully utilize the resources of the private
sector. It is unlikely that this provision of AFSA will reach
full implementation until the funding issues are addressed
through a national purchase of service system.
Support for funding for increased court and legal
costs associated with the increased number of special needs
adoptions. VFA congratulates Senators DeWine, Rockefeller,
Landrieu, Chaffee and others for their recently introduced
legislation and calls on the House of Representatives to
support this issue.
Support increased funding for post adoption
services either through existing funding streams or through
creation of new funding.All the good work that has been done,
and will be done, to secure safe permanent adoptive families
for children will be for naught if we do not support the
families who have adopted these special needs children.
Children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned present
special challenges for their adoptive families. If the families
and children are not supported these adoptions may not last and
the children will wind up back in the state child welfare
systems.
Legislative Initiatives
Support equal access to title IV-E Adoption
Assistance for all foster care children who need a permanent
loving home. Voice for Adoption calls on Congress to ``level
the field'' for all children who would benefit from a safe
permanent adoptive family. The financial background of a
child's birth family should have nothing to do with whether or
not their adoptive family has access to adoption assistance.
title IV-E Adoption Assistance must be extended to all special
needs children.
Assure legislation related to the implementation of the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is consistent with
current adoption requirements under AFSA with regard to
geographic boundaries. Legislation has been introduced in the
Senate related to the Hague Convention. VFA will be following
that legislation carefully to assure that the process created
for intercounty adoptions is not in conflict with adoption
requirements set forth in the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
What has happened to create the increased number of
adoptions throughout the country? The increase is a result of
national attention focused on foster children who have grown up
in foster homes that were created as temporary solutions for
children who had been abused or neglected. Too often foster
children who can not safely return to their homes ``age out''
of foster care never having been a member of a loving family.
Congressional interest and attention has focused state and
local officials on the need to do more for foster children.
The first year has been a success, but the work has only
begun. Congressional support is needed to establish and fund a
comprehensive system of adoption supports and post adoption
services. That system should include, but not be limited to,
1. Assurance that staffing in the state and local offices
is in place to focus on securing permanency through adoption
for waiting children,
2. Strengthening recruitment of adoptive families,
3. Providing thorough preparation of adoptive families,
4. Allowing all adoptive families of special needs children
access to title IV-E Adoption Assistance
5. And continuing to provide support for the adoptive
families post adoption.
Voice for Adoption thanks the committee for the opportunity
to submit testimony and looks forward to continuing to work
with Congress on these important issues.
-