[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOSTER CARE FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
91-276 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
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
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JERRY WELLER, Illinois MAX SANDLIN, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
Allison H. Giles, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
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 June 4, 2003, announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Wade F. Horn,
Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families........... 8
______
American Public Human Services Association, Elaine M. Ryan....... 28
County Welfare Directors Association of California, National
Association of County Human Services Administrators, and Sonoma
County Human Services Department, Dianne Edwards............... 33
National Indian Child Welfare Association, Terry L. Cross........ 38
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Barbara Riley........ 24
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, statement......................... 58
Allen, MaryLee, Children's Defense Fund, statement............... 69
Alliance for Children and Families, Carmen Delgado Votaw, letter
and attachment................................................. 59
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
statement...................................................... 61
Association on American Indian Affairs, Rockville, MD, Jack F.
Trope, letter and attachment................................... 62
Atwood, Thomas C., National Council For Adoption, Alexandria, VA,
statement...................................................... 92
Child Welfare League of America, statement....................... 63
Children's Defense Fund, MaryLee Allen, statement................ 69
Clark, Elizabeth J., National Association of Social Workers,
statement...................................................... 81
Coalition for Family and Children's Services in Iowa, Des Moines,
IA, Ann Harrmann, statement and attachment..................... 76
Delgado Votaw, Carmen, Alliance for Children and Families, letter
and attachment................................................. 59
Diehl, Sue, Maryland Chapter, National Association of Social
Workers, Baltimore, MD, statement.............................. 79
Emig, Carol, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, statement 98
Family Services of Central Florida, Leesburg, FL, Marlin
Livingston, letter............................................. 78
Harris, Jesse J., University of Maryland School of Social Work,
Baltimore, MD, statement....................................... 101
Harrmann, Ann, Coalition for Family and Children's Services in
Iowa, Des Moines, IA, statement and attachment................. 76
Hernandez, Antonia, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, statement.................................... 81
Katzenmeyer, Paula, Hutchinson, MN, statement (see listing under
Olund, Lynn)................................................... 97
Livingston, Marlin, Family Services of Central Florida, Leesburg,
FL, letter..................................................... 78
Maryland Chapter, National Association of Social Workers,
Baltimore, MD, Sue Diehl and Judith M. Schagrin, statement..... 79
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Antonia
Hernandez, statement........................................... 81
Mirabal, Manuel, National Puerto Rican Coalition, statement...... 96
National Association of Social Workers, Elizabeth J. Clark,
statement...................................................... 81
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Alexandria, VA,
Richard Wexler, statement...................................... 89
National Council For Adoption, Alexandria, VA, Thomas C. Atwood,
statement...................................................... 92
National Council of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre, as submitted by
Sonia M. Perez, statement...................................... 94
National Puerto Rican Coalition, Manuel Mirabal, statement....... 96
Olund, Lynn, Brimson, MN, Paula Katzenmeyer, Hutchinson, MN,
Debbie Retterath, Adams, MN, and Deborah Trotter, Aitkin, MN,
statement...................................................... 97
Perez, Sonia M., National Council of La Raza, submitting for Raul
Yzaguirre, statement........................................... 94
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Carol Emig, statement. 98
Prevent Child Abuse America, Chicago, IL, statement.............. 99
Retterath, Debbie, Adams, MN, statement (see listing under Olund,
Lynn).......................................................... 97
Schagrin, Judith M., Maryland Chapter, National Association of
Social Workers, Baltimore, MD, statement....................... 79
Trope, Jack F., Association on American Indian Affairs,
Rockville, MD, letter and attachment........................... 62
Trotter, Deborah, Aitkin, MN, statement (see listing under Olund,
Lynn).......................................................... 97
University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore, MD,
Jesse J. Harris, statement..................................... 101
Voice For Adoption, statement.................................... 102
Wexler, Richard, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
Alexandria, VA, statement...................................... 89
Yzaguirre, Raul, National Council of La Raza, as submitted by
Sonia M. Perez, statement...................................... 94
BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOSTER CARE FLEXIBLE FUNDING PROPOSAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger
(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
June 04, 2003
HR-4
Herger Announces Hearing on Bush Administration Foster Care Flexible
Funding Proposal
Congressman Wally Herger (R-CA) Chairman, Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the
Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the foster care flexible funding
proposal included in the Bush Administration's FY 2004 budget proposal.
The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 11, 2003, in room B-318
Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include representatives from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and other experts in child welfare issues.
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:
In 1980, Congress enacted legislation that created a program of
Federal support for child protection programs conducted by State and
local governments. The legislation created two major programs, a capped
grant program under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act that gave
States flexibility in providing treatment for families and children
involved in abuse or neglect as well as services for foster and
adoptive families, and a series of open-ended entitlement programs
under Title IV-E that help States operate their foster care, and
adoption programs for children who have been removed from their
families. In 2002, the Federal Government provided approximately $7
billion to the States for these programs. However, the majority of
these funds ($5 billion) support the Title IV-E foster care program,
which focuses on out-of-home placements for at-risk children, rather
than on services designed to return children to their families or place
them in adoptive homes.
The Subcommittee is interested in reviewing proposals to provide
more flexibility to States to spend their IV-E foster care dollars,
including for additional prevention and treatment as well as for out-
of-home placement needs. The Administration's proposal would offer
States such an alternative financing system to their current Title IV-E
foster care program. Under this proposal, States could opt to receive
their share of Federal foster care funds in a constant, fixed amount in
each of the next 5 years. By exercising this option States would
receive more money in the early years to spend on prevention
andtreatment activities to support a broader range of families in need.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated, ``It's time to
begin thinking creatively about how we can help States provide more
comprehensive and coordinated services to children and families. States
should have ample flexibility to use the resources we provide to best
protect vulnerable children. I look forward to hearing more details on
how the President's proposal to allow States more flexibility would
help them to meet their child welfare needs.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will review the proposal included in the
Administration's FY 2004 budget to provide States an alternative foster
care financing system.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Due to the change in House mail policy, any person or
organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed
record of the hearing should send it electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, by the close of business, Wednesday, June 25, 2003.
Those filing written statements who wish to have their statements
distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing should
deliver their 200 copies to the Subcommittee on Human Resources in room
B-317 Rayburn House Office Building, in an open and searchable package
48 hours before the hearing. The U.S. Capitol Police will refuse
sealed-packaged deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
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. Due to the change in House mail policy, all statements and any
accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted electronically to
[email protected], along with a fax copy to
(202) 225-2610, in WordPerfect or MS Word format and MUST 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. Any statements must include a list of all clients, persons, or
organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet
must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,
telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
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 HERGER. Good afternoon and welcome to today's
hearing. The purpose of today's hearing is to review the
Administration's foster care flexible funding proposal.
Today, the Federal Government provides open-ended
entitlement funding to help States support children in certain
foster and adopted homes. These programs support the most
vulnerable among us, children who have been removed from their
own parents due to abuse or neglect.
We all agree States should have ample resources and
flexibility to prevent child abuse. I am pleased that this
Subcommittee took steps last Congress to extend and expand the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, which provides
important services to prevent abuse or support adoptions.
I would like to thank Mr. Cardin for co-signing a letter
with me to key appropriators supporting full funding for this
important program. If extended in each of the next 5 years, it
would ensure that $1 billion in added funding is available to
prevent abuse or to speed the placement of children in
permanent adoptive homes. Today's hearing will review
additional steps to make these programs serve children and
families better.
Most of what the Federal Government spends each year on
child welfare programs, about $5 billion, supports children in
foster care. These funds support the costs of maintaining
children in out-of-home placements, the costs of administering
this program, and some training costs.
However, under current law, States generally lack the
flexibility to devote any of these funds to services and
interventions to prevent foster placements in the first place.
In short, we provide most of our funding in response to child
abuse and neglect, not to prevent such abuse. To the degree
States would like to refocus their efforts more on prevention,
their hands are generally tied by current Federal rules. That
is not good enough. We should think creatively about how we can
help States better serve children and families.
As we have learned from the States' success with welfare
reform, flexibility, and positive incentives are critical to
achieving good results. As we will hear today, there is
evidence that the sort of flexibility promoted by the
Administration's foster care proposal has been exercised in
recent waiver programs and achieved results.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Wade Horn and the rest
of today's witnesses on the Administration's foster care
flexible funding proposal. Without objection, each Member will
have the opportunity to submit a written statement and have it
included in the record. Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an
opening statement?
[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman, and a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing. The purpose of
today's hearing is to review the Administration's foster care flexible
funding proposal.
Today the Federal Government provides open-ended entitlement
funding to help States support children in certain foster and adoptive
homes. These programs support the most vulnerable among us--children
who have been removed from their own parents due to abuse or neglect.
We all agree States should have ample resources and flexibility to
prevent child abuse. I'm pleased this Subcommittee took steps last
Congress to extend and expand the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program, which provides important services to prevent abuse or support
adoptions.
I'd like to thank Mr. Cardin for co-signing a letter with me to key
appropriators supporting full funding for this important program.
Extending the program in each of the next five years would ensure that
$1 billion in added funding is available to prevent abuse or to speed
the placement of children in permanent adoptive homes.
Today's hearing will review additional steps to help these programs
serve children and families better.
Most of what the Federal Government spends each year on child
welfare programs--about $5 billion--supports children in foster care.
These funds support the costs of maintaining children in out-of-home
placements, the costs of administering this program, and some training
costs.
However, under current law, States generally lack the flexibility
to devote any of these funds to services and interventions to prevent
foster placements from the start. In short, we provide most of our
funding in response to child abuse or neglect, not to prevent such
abuse. To the degree States would like to refocus their efforts more on
prevention, their hands are generally tied by current Federal rules.
That's not good enough. We should think creatively about how we can
help States better serve children and families. As we've learned from
the States' success with welfare reform, flexibility and positive
incentives are critical to achieving good results.
As we will hear today, there is evidence that the sort of
flexibility promoted by the Administration's foster care proposal has
been exercised in recent waiver programs, and achieved positive
results.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Wade Horn and the rest of
today's witnesses on the Administration's foster care flexible funding
proposal.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
first thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is a very
important hearing as we talk about foster care and child
welfare issues.
I must tell you, we are about one-fourth finished with this
term of Congress, and I am getting very frustrated on issues
that affect children. Dr. Horn has been a champion of speaking
out on these issues. I would like to help him with getting more
resources to deal with it first. I think one of our major
problems has been that we just are not putting enough resources
into these programs, and it is tough to talk about innovative
new ways when we are not willing to put up the tools necessary
to adequately deal with America's most vulnerable children.
This Subcommittee has had a proud history of dealing with
vulnerable children, and we have been able to bring out some
good bipartisan products that are now the law of the land. I
hope that will be the model for moving forward on this issue.
On the floor a little bit earlier, the Chairman and I were
engaged on a bill that extended Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) (P.L. 104-193) for 3 additional months as we
try to figure out TANF reauthorization. I pointed out at that
time--and I will repeat that during this term of Congress--we
seem to be able to find resources for everything but helping
our children.
We spent a couple of trillion dollars on tax cuts in 2001
and now in 2003. There was just recently a book released by
Isabelle Sawhill, who points out that we spend 2 percent of our
gross domestic product for our children at the Federal level.
We spend 2.5 percent of our gross domestic product servicing
our national debt. Our national debt will increase by $400
billion--this is the recent projections--in this next year.
That will require us to spend somewhere around $15 to $20
billion in additional debt service in the next budget. We can
only get a little bit of that money for children. The money
instead is being used to service a tax cut. I think that is a
mistake.
So, Mr. Chairman, as we start this hearing, I am going to
be expressing some serious concerns about the direction we are
moving in these programs. I must tell you, I think it stems
from, first, our budget priorities and whether we are willing
to give the tools necessary.
We have problems in our child welfare systems. We have
caseworkers who turn over on average 2 years. That is not going
to be solved by just giving States more flexibility. You have
to be willing to make a commitment if we are going to deal with
the problems of caseworkers that are handling our most
difficult and most vulnerable children.
We have real obstacles in our child welfare system dealing
with substance abuse. If we are not willing to put some money
into it, you can give all the flexibility you want to the
States. I use the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO)
report on child care. I think every one of our Governors, every
one of our State Legislators would like to put more money into
child care. It has been proven to be successful in dealing with
a whole host of problems. Yet, all of our States are cutting
child care. In my own State of Maryland, unless you go on
welfare, you can't be a new enrollee in the child care system.
What a message. So, we need more resources in order to deal
with these problems.
On behalf of my Democratic colleagues, I filed legislation
that I thought would be a model for our discussion, which talks
about trying to provide more resources to our States to deal
with the foster care problems and to deal with the turnover and
preventive services and updating certain eligibility.
Unfortunately, I think the Administration is taking a different
approach.
We don't have the legislation yet, Dr. Horn, but we do know
that you are suggesting what I would call a block grant option
to the States which would have the opportunity to opt in. The
problem is that once you start down this path, I don't know how
much improvement we are going to have for those States who
don't want to opt in, who want to continue the current system.
You also indicate there is going to be a finite amount of
money available. As I understand it, there are no reductions.
We are trying to project what is going to happen, but we don't
know what is going to happen with caseload. The caseload could
vary. These are circumstances that are not as predictable as
what we do in the welfare system generally. We are dealing with
children. We are dealing with children for whom there may not
be adoptive parents willing to take care of them.
So, what happens if we are wrong on the caseload? What
happens with the States that stay under the current system? I
am not sure we have answered those questions and I am very
concerned as to what is going to happen as we move forward.
Let me also suggest that there are a lot of questions that
have been raised, and I will mention these early, Dr. Horn, in
hopes that you will be able to deal with them. The State opts
into a block grant and its foster care caseload goes up. How
will it cover the resulting cuts in reimbursement? What will
happen to children whose Medicaid coverage is tied to their
current eligibility for Federal foster care payments? How will
State funding for child welfare services be locked in under the
block grant? Will Federal adoption assistance become less
available if it is left with an increasingly out-of-date
eligibility standard? Those are just some of the questions that
I have, and I hope that we will be able to deal with them.
I can assure you that as a Member of Congress so concerned
about the children we are dealing with--and I know every Member
of the Committee feels the same way--I welcome an opportunity
in a public, private, or any kind of setting to see whether we
can't continue the tradition of this Committee and reach a
bipartisan agreement on what is in the best interest of Federal
policy to help our foster children. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]
Opening Statement of the Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I am glad there seems to be a growing consensus that
improvements are needed in our child welfare system. Along with my
Democratic colleagues on this subcommittee, I introduced legislation
earlier this year to help our States and communities combat many of the
specific problems that now plague children in foster care. The bill
seeks to give our States the tools, motivation, and resources needed to
ensure child safety, address the connection between substance abuse and
child abuse, improve the retention of quality caseworkers, expand
preventive services, and update certain eligibility standards.
The Bush Administration has chosen a different path. The President
has proposed an optional block grant for foster care, under which
States could receive a fixed allocation of funds for five years, rather
than being guaranteed matching payments for each eligible child. This
plan, which is designed to be cost neutral, concerns me for a number of
reasons.
First, I do not agree with the premise that our child welfare
system is undeserving of any new resources. We have now spent over $2
Trillion for three successive tax cuts, so it seems more than a little
stingy to suggest that we cannot spend a single dime of new money on
protecting abused and neglected children.
Second, the Administration's plan is a piecemeal approach that will
deny an opportunity for meaningful change in many and probably most
States. Some states may opt in, but many others will surely decide to
pass on assuming the inherent risks associated with the proposal. The
President's plan offers nothing to these States who think the block
grant is a bad deal. No new resources for preventive services, no
needed updates in eligibility criteria, and no increased flexibility.
The end result will be no change and no improvement for millions of
children.
Third, the proposal raises more questions than it answers, and it
may cause more problems than it cures. For example:
If a State opts into the block grant and its foster care
caseload goes up, how will it cover the resulting cuts in
reimbursement?
What will happen to children whose Medicaid coverage is
tied to their current eligibility for federal foster care payments?
How will State funding for child welfare services be
locked in under the block grant?
And will Federal adoption assistance become less
available if its left with an increasingly out-of-date eligibility
standard (as it is under the President's plan)?
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there is a middle ground between what
my colleagues and I have introduced and what the Administration is
proposing. But I am always willing to work toward a consensus. Perhaps
we all might benefit from the work now being conducted by a new Pew
Commission on this topic. This non-partisan panel includes many leading
child welfare experts, and it is chaired by a former Republican Member
of this Committee, Bill Frenzel. The commission hopes to provide
Congress with recommendations to improve the foster care system by
early next year.
In any event, I hope we can continue this committee's tradition of
bipartisanship on issues related to our Nation's foster care system.
Millions of vulnerable children are counting on us to get the job done.
Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on
to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit their
oral statements to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all
the written testimony will be made a part of the permanent
record.
For our first witness today, we are pleased to have with us
once again Dr. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
Dr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WADE F. HORN, PH.D., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a great
pleasure to appear before you again to discuss the President's
proposal for improving child welfare in our Nation. Our
proposal provides States and Indian tribes with both the
flexibility and sustained financial support needed to build
innovative programs that provide effective services to the
thousands of children and families in the child welfare system.
Over the past several years, with your help, the Federal
Government has made important strides in reforming child
welfare services. Through the Adoption and Safe Families Act
1997 (P.L. 105-89), and other important legislative reforms, we
built a national consensus on the key goals for child welfare,
ensuring children's safety, meeting children's needs for timely
permanency, and promoting child and family well-being.
The Bush Administration is proud of the progress that we
have made to date in providing more resources to States to
support children, families, and youth. We are pleased to be
able to work with this Committee and other Members of Congress
to pass legislation reauthorizing and significantly increasing
the funding level for the program, and I just want to pause for
a moment to thank both you and the Ranking Member, Congressman
Cardin, for indicating your support in writing to the
Appropriations Committee to fully fund the President's request
for increased resources for the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program. We also appreciate the authorization and, at
this point, partial funding of the President's proposal to
provide education and training vouchers for youth who age out
of foster care.
These efforts represent important contributions to
improving child welfare services, but we all know that there
must be more done to protect children, support families, and
promote timely permanency. Therefore, in the President's 2004
budget, the Administration is proposing a major change in the
Title IV-E foster care program, an alternative funding option
to provide States with greater flexibility so they can design
more effective ways to help vulnerable children and families
and move toward a seamless child welfare system. States that
don't elect this option would continue to operate the existing
Title IV-E entitlement program.
Briefly, the alterative funding option would incorporate
dollars from the existing Title IV-E maintenance payments
program as well as the associated administrative and training
costs. States that choose this option would be able to use the
funds for foster care payments, prevention activities,
permanency efforts, case management, administrative costs,
training child welfare staff, and other service-related child
welfare activities--a far broader range of uses of these funds
than allowed under current law.
The proposal would provide States with the flexibility to
develop a child welfare system that supports a continuum of
services to families in crisis and children at risk while
removing some of the administrative burdens of many of the
current Federal requirements, including the need to determine
the child's eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC).
While States that choose this option would have greater
flexibility in how they use the funds, they would continue to
be required to maintain the child safety protections under
current law, including requirements for conducting criminal
background checks and licensing of foster care providers,
obtaining judicial oversight of decisions related to a child's
removal and permanency, meeting permanency time lines,
developing case plans for all children in foster care, and
prohibiting race-based discrimination in foster and adoptive
placements.
Allocations for this alternative financing structure will
be determined in consultation with States, using historic
expenditure information, and would be cost-neutral over 5
years. However, a State could receive up front funding at the
outset of the program cycle. This approach would allow States
to develop innovative programs and make initial investments
that are likely to result in cost savings to the States in
later years.
The proposal also includes a maintenance of effort
requirement to ensure that States selecting this new option
maintain their existing investments in the program. To help
protect States against unanticipated emergencies affecting
their foster care system, the proposal also includes a
provision that would allow a participating State to access
additional funding through the TANF contingency fund if
specified crisis conditions are met.
In addition to providing a new option for States, our
proposal includes a $30 million set-aside for Indian tribes or
consortia that can demonstrate the capacity to operate a Title
IV-E program. Currently, tribes, as you know, are not eligible
to receive direct Title IV-E funding, although some tribes are
able to access funds through agreements with the States. This
proposal would open the possibility for tribes to receive
direct Title IV-E funding.
In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to discuss the President's bold new vision for
strengthening child welfare through our child welfare program
option. This option encourages innovation and the development
of cost-effective programming that, over time, will result in
children reaching permanency more quickly and fewer children
being removed from the home, a goal I know we all share.
This Administration is firmly committed to improving the
lives of every child in America. Enacting legislation that will
give States a choice in how they design and fund their child
welfare programs will move us closer to meeting this
commitment. Thank you for this opportunity. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Horn follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
President's proposal for improving child welfare in our Nation. The
proposal responds to long-term criticisms about the current structure
for addressing the needs of at-risk children and families and the
Administration's desire to support innovation in addressing this
critical issue. Our proposal provides States and Indian Tribes with
both the flexibility and sustained financial support needed to build
innovative programs that provide effective services to the thousands of
children and families in need of child welfare services.
Background
Over the past several years, with your help, the Federal Government
has made important strides in reforming child welfare services. Through
the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and other
important legislative reforms, the development of national outcome
measures, and the implementation of the new, results-oriented Child and
Family Services (CFS) review process, we have built a national
consensus on the key goals for child welfare: ensuring children's
safety, meeting children's needs for timely permanency in a loving
family, and promoting child and family well being. We have developed
regulations and policies to promote these goals and an infrastructure
to track progress toward meeting them. We also have seen important
progress, most notably in the area of adoption, with the annual number
of children adopted from foster care increasing from 31,000 in FY 1997
to 51,000 in FY 2001. We expect that the final number of adoptions for
FY 2002 will exceed last year's impressive results.
It is fair to say that because of improved data collection and the
CFS review process, we have more and better information than ever
before about the state of child welfare services, both strengths and
weaknesses. And despite the progress to date, it is evident that we
still have a long way to go. Newspaper accounts from around the country
continue to report individual tragedies where the system has failed to
protect children. National statistics show that too many children are
lingering in foster care and waiting for adoptive families.
The CFS reviews began in FY 2001 and, to date, we have reviewed 37
States. We will complete the first round of all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico by the end of March 2004. This is the most
comprehensive and far-reaching Federal review of State child welfare
services ever conducted. The review covers all areas of child welfare
services, from child protection and family preservation to adoption and
youth development. When weaknesses are identified, States are required
to implement Program Improvement Plans. Through a network of National
Resource Centers, we provide technical assistance to help States
develop and implement their Plans.
Among the most significant findings of the CFS reviews:
States are performing slightly better on safety outcomes
for children than on permanency and well being. In fact, the timely
achievement of permanency outcomes for children in foster care,
especially adoption, is one of the weakest areas of State performance.
All State program improvement plans need to include
provisions to strengthen the quality of front-line practice in such
areas as conducting needs assessments of children and families and
developing effective case plans.
Most States need to make significant improvements in
their judicial processes for monitoring children in foster care, such
as ensuring timely court hearings and increasing their attention to
timely termination of parental rights, where appropriate.
The reviews pointed to a correlation between frequent
caseworker visits with children and positive findings in other areas,
such as timely permanency achievement and indicators of child well
being.
What more can be done to address these program shortfalls and
better serve this vulnerable population?
The Bush Administration is proud of the progress we have made to
date in providing more resources to States to support children, youth
and families. We were pleased to be able to work with this Committee
and other Members of Congress to pass legislation reauthorizing and
increasing the funding level for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program, which funds family support, family preservation, time-limited
reunification, and adoption promotion and support services. And we
appreciate the authorization of the President's proposal to provide
education and training vouchers for youth who ``age out'' of foster
care. This program offers youth a chance to pursue and complete their
education, thereby improving their prospects to become truly
independent and self-sufficient adults.
The recent 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution provided
almost $405 million for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program,
$29 million over the FY 2002 level, and included additional first-time
funding of nearly $42 million to support educational vouchers for youth
aging out of foster care. The President's FY 2004 request would go a
step further and fully fund the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program at the level of $505 million and the educational vouchers
program at $60 million. I hope that you will join us in supporting
these targeted but important investments, as well as critical policy
changes to foster care and adoption incentives requested by the
Administration.
Child Welfare Program Option
The programs mentioned above make an important contribution to
improving child welfare services. However, given what we have learned
about the States' child welfare systems, we all must continue to do
more to protect children, support families, and promote timely
permanency. Therefore, in our FY 2004 budget, the Administration is
proposing a major change in the title IV-E foster care program. Under
this proposal, States would be offered an alternative financing option
to the current title IV-E entitlement program, where States could
choose to administer their foster care program with a fixed allocation
of funds over a five-year period, should this approach better support
their particular child welfare needs. States that do not elect to
receive funding provided by this option would continue operating under
the current title IV-E entitlement program.
Under current law, States may be reimbursed for a percentage
(ranging from 50 to 79 percent) of the costs associated with the foster
care stays of eligible children. The Federal Government also reimburses
States for 50 percent of allowable administrative costs and 75 percent
of training costs for State and local staff and foster parents. While
an essential source of funding to assist States with supporting
children in foster care and related administrative and training
expenses, the program has long been criticized for, among other things,
its lack of flexibility, administrative burdens, and narrow focus on
only those children already removed from the home.
We have consistently heard from the States that the title IV-E
foster care program is too restrictive because it provides funds only
for poor children who have been removed from the home. In order to be
eligible for title IV-E, a child must have been removed from a family
that would have met AFDC eligibility requirements as they existed in
1996, prior to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the creation of the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program. Under the IV-E program, the
Federal Government does not share in the expenses relating to non-IV-E
children and, as time passes, a declining proportion of foster care
children nationally meet the old AFDC income standard.
The program also is criticized for failing to support the goal of
permanency. While reimbursement for foster care and related case
management services is open-ended, title IV-E funds may not be used for
other types of services that could prevent a child from needing to be
placed in care in the first place or that could facilitate the child's
returning home or moving to another permanent placement. Furthermore, a
State that is successful in preventing unnecessary removals or in
shortening lengths of foster care stays actually is apt to receive less
Federal funding than a State where children remain in foster care for
long periods of time.
States are concerned that the title IV-E program contains
significant administrative burdens, which take valuable time and
resources away from serving children and families. These include making
IV-E eligibility and re-eligibility determinations and engaging in the
cumbersome cost-allocation process for claiming administrative costs.
In response to these concerns the Administration is proposing the
alternative funding option to provide States with a more flexible
environment so they can design more effective ways to strengthen
services to vulnerable children and families and to further the goal of
helping States develop a seamless child welfare system. Specifically,
the alternative funding option would include dollars currently
estimated for the existing title IV-E foster care maintenance payments
program and the associated administrative costs. States that choose
this option would be able to use the funds for foster care payments,
prevention activities, permanency efforts (including subsidized
guardianships), case management, administrative activities (including
developing and operating State information systems), training child
welfare staff, and other service-related child welfare activities--a
far broader range of uses than allowed under current law. The proposal
would provide States with the flexibility to develop a child welfare
system that supports a continuum of services to families in crisis and
children at risk while removing the administrative burden of many of
the current Federal requirements, including the need to determine the
child's eligibility for AFDC.
While States that choose this option would have much greater
flexibility in how they use funds, they would continue to be required
to maintain the child safety protections under current law, including
requirements for conducting criminal background checks and licensing
foster care providers, obtaining judicial oversight of decisions
related to a child's removal and permanency, meeting permanency
timelines, developing case plans for all children in foster care, and
prohibiting race-based discrimination in foster and adoptive
placements.
States that select this alternative financing structure would be
required to apply for the new child welfare program option soon after
enactment of the proposed legislation and to commit to the new funding
structure for the full five-year period. State allocations would be
determined in consultation with States, using historic expenditure
information, and would be cost neutral over five years. However, a
State could receive up-front funding at the outset of the program
cycle. This approach would allow States to develop innovative programs
and make initial investments that are likely to result in cost savings
to the States in later years. The proposal also includes a maintenance-
of-effort requirement to ensure that States selecting the new option
maintain their existing level of investment in the program.
To help protect States against unanticipated emergencies affecting
their foster care systems, the proposal also includes a provision that
would allow a participating State to access additional funding through
the TANF contingency fund if specified crisis conditions are met.
In addition to providing a new option for States, our proposal
includes a $30 million set-aside for Indian Tribes or consortia that
can demonstrate the capacity to operate a title IV-E program.
Currently, Tribes are not eligible to receive direct title IV-E
funding, although some Tribes are able to access funds through
agreements with States. This proposal would open the possibility for
Tribes to receive direct title IV-E funding. Indian Tribes would be
subject to program requirements similar to those of States. However,
the Secretary could waive certain program requirements, provided that
doing so would not compromise child safety.
We also are requesting a small administrative set-aside to
facilitate program monitoring and technical assistance necessary to
support the efforts of State and Tribal child welfare programs and to
fund important child welfare research. As States and Tribes develop new
and innovative service models and financing structures through the
child welfare program option, it will be even more important to ensure
that we have sufficient resources to provide technical assistance and
to monitor their activities so we have an understanding of how the new
option is affecting child welfare services and outcomes and to share
any success stories with other States.
We believe this proposal will result in the development of
innovative child welfare programs that ultimately will better serve
vulnerable children. We ask for your support in making this vision a
reality.
Adoption Incentive Proposal.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly address
another proposal in the President's FY 2004 budget as part of our
request to reauthorize the Adoption Incentive Program. The Adoption
Incentive Program, authorized under the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
was the first Federal performance-based incentive program in child
welfare. The program proved very successful in engaging all States in
efforts to increase adoptions and made an important contribution to the
large national increases in adoption we have seen over the past several
years. However, as we have analyzed adoption data, we have learned that
while the overall number of children being adopted has grown
dramatically, older children in foster care still face excessively long
waits for adoption, and in many cases, are never adopted. This is
clearly a problem that warrants our attention.
In fact, data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS) show that between the ages of 8 and 9, the
probability that a child will continue to wait in foster care exceeds
the probability that the child will be adopted. Further, the number of
children in this older age group is growing, now representing almost
half of the children waiting to be adopted nationally.
To ensure that the adoption incentive focuses on these hard-to-
place children, the President proposes that the Adoption Incentive
Program be amended so it continues to recognize and reward overall
increases in the number of adoptions while providing a special focus on
the adoption needs of children age 9 and older. Awarding the incentive
funds in this way will provide a special focus on the adoption needs of
older children, while maintaining the goal of increasing adoptions for
all waiting children.
Conclusion
In closing, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to discuss the President's bold new vision for
strengthening child welfare through our new child welfare program
option. This option encourages innovation and the development of cost-
effective programming that over time will result in children reaching
permanency more quickly and fewer children being removed from the home,
a goal we all share. Under this option, we believe that States would be
better able to develop a seamless child welfare system that supports a
continuum of services to families in crisis and children at risk.
This Administration is firmly committed to improving the lives of
every child in America. Secretary Thompson has always been a strong
advocate of increasing State control in designing programs that best
meet the needs of their citizens. Enacting legislation that will give
States a choice in how they design and fund their child welfare
programs will move us closer to meeting that commitment. We look
forward to working with you to pass legislation implementing these new
proposals, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Horn.
Now, we will hear the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis, to
inquire.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, will there be
anything in the President's proposal that would allow the
States the flexibility to keep children within the family unit
as far as aunts, uncles, grandparents? It seems like there
should be an emphasis on this, to try to keep children with
family members rather than in a new, strange environment, and I
am not sure that there is that flexibility now. I think the
grandparents or the aunt, uncle, brother, or sister, would have
to go through the process of becoming legally a foster parent
in order to do that.
I know we have about 60,000 grandparents in Kentucky that
are caring for their grandchildren now, which is good, but a
lot of those people are on Social Security. They are elderly
and it makes it a little difficult. We are paying a lot of
dollars to take those children out of those circumstances and
put them in, like I said, unfamiliar surroundings.
Dr. HORN. That is an excellent question and, in fact, under
the current system, States are prohibited from using Title IV-E
funds for subsidized guardianship arrangements, which often are
the kinds of situations that you describe with kinship members.
Under the President's flexibility proposal, States could, in
fact, opt to use those monies, in part, to support subsidized
guardianship arrangements.
In fact, the State of Illinois has had a very large waiver
over the last 5 years to look at using Title IV-E funds more
flexibly in order to support subsidized guardianship
arrangements, and one of the things that they found is that, by
doing so, they move more children more quickly toward
permanency arrangements, and have less need for long-term
foster care. They are doing all that without compromising child
safety. So, we think that this flexibility proposal would
precisely address the issue that you raise.
Mr. LEWIS. That would be wonderful. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn,
let me just go through a couple scenarios so I understand
exactly what we are trying to achieve here. As I understand it,
there are no new resources over baseline being put into this
proposal for States that go into the optional block grant.
There is some advance money, but over time, it is basically
neutral on cost.
We have seen in the history of foster care that there have
been episodes where we have had large increases in the number
of foster care children. In the late 1980s, we saw in a 5-year
period a 42-percent increase in foster care, which was
attributed mostly to the crack cocaine problem.
Obviously, the funds that are being made available through
these programs are not geared towards a crack cocaine problem
or a significant national problem. If there were a spike in the
number of children that needed assistance with the State that
chose the optional path, what would happen during this 5-year
period?
Dr. HORN. Well, first, it is not precisely correct to say
that the President has not proposed additional resources for
the child welfare system. As you know--and I know that you are
very supportive of it--the President has proposed $1 billion in
additional funds over 5 years through Safe and Stable Families,
which can be used to fund an array of services in the child
welfare system.
In addition to that, we were very concerned with exactly
the situation that you describe. In fact, I, in my first tenure
in government, was the Commissioner of the Administration on
Children, Youth and Families during the spike in foster care
placements largely because of the crack cocaine epidemic and we
were concerned that there be some protection for the States who
chose this option.
So, what we have built into the proposal is the ability for
States to draw down additional funds under certain
circumstances from the TANF contingency fund. As you know, that
is a $2 billion fund that already exists and no State has yet
needed to draw down any of those resources through the TANF
program and we thought that by allowing States the ability to
access those funds if there are spikes in foster care----
Mr. CARDIN. So, you would use the TANF contingency? You
would not build in anything directly in this program? There is
a lot of concern about whether there are adequate resources in
TANF, including the contingency funds that we could argue
another day. There would be no adjustment in the overall
program that you are configuring based on external increases in
caseload?
Dr. HORN. In terms of the 5-year cost to the Title IV-E
program, what we do is we capture all those costs over the next
5 years. We then allow States to increase the spending in the
first few years, if that is their choice, and reduce funding in
each of the subsequent years, in order to return to the
baseline.
A piece that is important to keep in mind is that the
baseline projections for this program have been decelerating
over time. That is, if you go back 4 years ago, the baseline
was accelerating at a higher percentage than it was 2 years ago
and at a higher percentage than 1 year ago and so forth. So,
actually, what we are seeing is a ratcheting down of the
baseline over time. If, in fact, that continues, there actually
will be less money 4 or 5 years from now than current baseline
projections----
Mr. CARDIN. Let us hope you are right. I hope these
projections--I just worry if it doesn't. One of the problems we
have, I think we all agree, is that the lookback, where you
have to go back to the 1996 eligibility to see whether a
family, a child qualifies, needs to be adjusted. However, you
don't change that. So, isn't a State being penalized if it
doesn't go into the optional program because you still have the
lookback arrangements? You are not trying to modernize the
current program. Basically, it seems to me, you are trying to
force States to go into the optional program that you call
voluntary.
Dr. HORN. No, it is a complete voluntary choice on the part
of the State. If the State feels that this is something that
works for them, then the State can opt into it. Otherwise, the
program stays the same.
Mr. CARDIN. Would you be willing to work with us to
modernize the program on eligibility for those States that stay
under the current system?
Dr. HORN. I think at the heart of this proposal is this
notion that it seems kind of absurd to continue to have as an
eligibility requirement for the Title IV-E program--a program
that hasn't existed for 6 years called AFDC.
Mr. CARDIN. Good. Well, maybe we can at least agree on that
part of the issue. I think my time is just about expired, so I
will save the final questions for the next round or I will send
them to you in writing. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. The gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. McCrery, to inquire.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, there do
seem to be some parallels between the Administration proposal
with foster care and the welfare proposal in 1996, the welfare
plan that passed in 1996. In the welfare reform plan, we
basically wanted to get people off welfare instead of adding to
the rolls and basically giving States more money the more
people they had on welfare. We said, look, we are going to give
you a set amount of money and you can use it, and we hope you
will use it, to keep people off of welfare and get them into
work.
This proposal seems to me to be somewhat the same. You are
telling the States, look, we are going to give you the same
amount of money we have been giving you, but we are going to
give you flexibility that we hope you will use to prevent
children from going into foster care. Is that kind of where we
are with this?
Dr. HORN. I think there are certain similarities between
the two, yes.
Mr. MCCRERY. I know that you have granted some State
waivers and there are some demonstration projects. Can you
point to any that have shown results from the States using this
money in the ways that you anticipate?
Dr. HORN. Yes. For example, in North Carolina, we granted a
waiver in which they could use their Title IV-E funds with much
more flexibility, including preventative services. One of the
things that North Carolina found in this waiver process is that
by providing more preventative services and being able to use
those funds more flexibly, there was less need for children to
go into foster care.
It is important for us all to keep in mind that foster care
is an important service. The goal is not to eliminate the
foster care system. There are children who require foster care
placements. We believe that the categorical nature of the
funding streams that support the child welfare system often get
in the way of allowing the flexibility that States need in
order to create a system that is both seamless and efficient,
so that foster care is available for those children who need
foster care. We ought to be able to also provide more
preventative services so there is less need for foster care in
the first place, not at the expense of child safety, but in
order to prevent abuse from occurring in the first place,
obviating the need for some foster care placements.
Mr. MCCRERY. So, in effect, you encourage States to invest
some of this Federal money in prevention, preventing children
from having to go into foster care, but then if they are
successful in that, in keeping children off the foster care
rolls, you don't punish them by taking away their money. You
reward them by continuing to give them a set amount of money
that they can use for those purposes.
Dr. HORN. Yes. In fact, under the President's proposal, if
a State did not use up its allotment in one year, much like the
TANF program, they would be able to carryover those funds into
subsequent years in case there were spikes in subsequent years
in terms of a need for foster care or other services. So, yes,
the idea would be if States are able to reduce the costs
associated with foster care--not because they have compromised
child safety but because they have been successful in
prevention efforts--there may be savings that States then can
reinvest or save for future years when there might be an
additional need for foster care.
Mr. MCCRERY. Is there anything in the Administration
proposal that would allow States to reduce the child safety
protections in the law?
Dr. HORN. Nothing. Our proposal says that all of the child
protections that are currently in place would continue. We
actually think, in fact, that under the President's proposal,
if a State were to choose that option, we would be in a better
position to be able to ensure those protections are there. This
would be true not just for kids who are fully eligible, but for
all of the children in foster care. This is because the
mechanism for looking at many of those protections would no
longer be the Title IV-E reviews, which are only relevant to
kids who get a Title IV-E payment, about 44 percent of the
caseload, but rather the child and family services reviews
which look at all the kids in care.
We think we would be in a better position to ensure those
protections are in place, not just for Title IV-E kids, but for
all the children in foster care, under the President's
proposal.
Mr. MCCRERY. So, in other words, this proposal would
actually give States the flexibility to expand their child
safety protections?
Dr. HORN. We think that it would give them the ability to
dedicate the resources they need to ensure those protections
are in place.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. McCrery. The gentleman from
Washington, Mr. McDermott, to inquire.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk. I wish we had a bill to look at, but since
we don't, I will have to go on what I sort of surmise is going
on here. When you put a block grant out there and you say to
the States, you can choose a block grant or you can choose to
stay in the old program, obviously, you want them to go to the
block grant, don't you?
Dr. HORN. That would be up to the State. I have no----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Wouldn't that be the purpose of putting out?
You want to get them off the old program.
Dr. HORN. I think it is simply giving the State the option,
and they can choose what they see is in their best interests.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. It seems to me, if I understand what is
going on, you haven't changed the payments since 1996 and if
you want to have an upgrade in your payments, you have to go
into the block grant. If you stay in the old program, it is
based on the 1996 data, is that correct? There has been no
update since 1996?
Dr. HORN. States have the ability to set their own payment
rates.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. The payments from the Federal Government,
those haven't changed.
Dr. HORN. The Federal Government reimburses using the
Federal Medical Assistance Payments rate, so that has not
changed.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. If you stay with the old program, it is only
kids that qualified for AFDC in 1996, right?
Dr. HORN. That is current law. That is right.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, what you are doing here is trying to
make every incentive push in the direction of getting people to
take the block grant, is that correct?
Dr. HORN. No, it is not correct. What we are trying to do
is provide an option for a State. The State would then have the
ability to make a decision based upon what they perceive is in
their own best interests, and if they think the current system
works best for them, we have no a priori belief whether that is
a good or a bad judgment. That is for the State to make. So, it
is giving an option to a State.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I guess you were never in a State
Legislature, but I was. I was a budget Chairman in a State
Legislature and we would always try to figure out how to get
the maximum amount of money out of the Federal Government. What
you are telling me is that somebody would stay in a program
where they would get less money? No. They are going to go for
the block grant because they are going to get more money. Under
present law, that baseline declines over time, right?
Dr. HORN. No, actually it depends on the State, and that is
why a State would have to individually determine whether it
makes sense to them. Some State baselines are accelerating;
some are decelerating.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. We will discuss that if we ever see the
language. Having done this a few years and watched the majority
operate here, I always like to see what is in the language. We
find out stuff in the language that is different than what we
find in the newspaper, and these kind of hearings where we are
kind of groping around in the dark.
One question I would like to ask you is the whole question
of, if you go to the issue of a block grant, are the children
covered by Medicaid or not?
Dr. HORN. Under the President's proposal, States choosing
the option could do one of two things regarding Medicaid. First
of all, they could continue to qualify kids for Medicaid as
under the current system. Most children in foster care actually
qualify for Medicaid because once a child is placed outside of
their home, it is the child's individual assets and income--
most of these kids don't have income, most don't have assets--
that qualify or don't qualify them for Medicaid. So, a State
could continue under the option to do it that way, or under the
President's proposal, a State could make all children in foster
care categorically eligible for Medicaid. So, we see this not
as reducing the availability for Medicaid one iota for children
under this option.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So, it is your testimony that no child will
be denied Medicaid who is in foster care?
Dr. HORN. It is my testimony that a State would have the
ability to make a choice, either to continue to determine
Medicaid eligibility as under the current system, or to make
all the children categorically eligible for Medicaid who are in
foster care under the State option.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. That would be using options--using standards
from 1996. If they stayed in the present program and used it,
they would be using lower standards so that less kids would get
in.
Dr. HORN. We may be confusing two issues here. The
standards for Medicaid eligibility are separate from the
standards for Title IV-E eligibility. Medicaid eligibility for
kids in foster care is based on the assets and income of the
child. The asset threshold is $10,000 per child under the
Chafee amendments and that would not change under the current
law. If a State were to choose the option, they could continue
to address Medicaid eligibility that way or make all the
children categorically eligible in Medicaid.
Right now, most kids in foster care are, in fact, eligible
for Medicaid. Either they are categorically eligible because
they are Title IV-E eligible or they are eligible because of
the asset-income test. Under the President's proposal, we would
do away with the existing Title IV-E program for those States
that choose the option. So, rather than making Title IV-E the
category that allows kids to be Medicaid eligible, a State
could choose instead to make all their children categorically
eligible in foster care.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What they have to do, then, is take that out
of the block grant that they have gotten in Medicaid?
Dr. HORN. No. I think they would----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. The additional money----
Dr. HORN. Pay for it the same way they are paying for
Medicaid now.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I have got a State where we are putting in
waiting lists in Medicaid, so I think people are going to be
looking----
Dr. HORN. In foster care?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. No, not in foster care, in the regular
Medicaid program.
Dr. HORN. Okay, then that is a different issue. We are
talking about the foster care.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Oh, this is another Medicaid program?
Dr. HORN. This is the Medicaid program for kids in foster
care.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. It is not the same Medicaid? That is,
Medicaid is not Medicaid?
Dr. HORN. You said that your State has waiting lists for
Medicaid, and I asked if that was true for foster care.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes, I understand that.
Dr. HORN. I would be surprised if you had waiting lists for
Medicaid coverage for kids in foster care.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would like to see the language, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. CARDIN. Could I just ask unanimous consent for 15
seconds, just to get a clarification on Dr. Horn's point?
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much. You are suggesting that
States have legislative authority so that all of their children
in the new program could be eligible for Medicaid, is that what
you are suggesting?
Dr. HORN. Yes.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs.
Johnson, to inquire.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
for holding this hearing and for your interest in this subject.
Dr. Horn, I have been working on this since 1990. My State
was one that got a waiver and they very smartly divided the
kids into a control group and a demonstration project. I just
want to report how very well the children did under the
demonstration project which allowed the money to follow the
child's need. Now, the money only goes to the State if you take
the child out of the home. That is just so absurd, it is
unbelievable.
So, we got a waiver to do that, and in our waiver, 39
percent of the kids in the demonstration, that is, those kids
who are allowed to have their needs determine where the money
was spent, 39 percent of those kids were in in-home placements
versus 11 percent under the regular program. Twenty-four
percent of the--in the 12 months of the demonstration project,
kids spent 24 percent of their days with their family versus 9
percent for the control group, and children in in-home
placements had 16.5 percent fewer clinical system visits than
in the control group, which was 7 percent.
So, in other words, their mental health, their progress
toward dealing with their emotional problems was greater. Their
treatment options were greater. Their length of stay in
restrictive settings was radically decreased. The children did
better. The families did better. It cost no more money.
I do have two concerns with your proposal, because while it
costs no more money, in a bill I introduced some years ago
actually working with Mr. Cardin, we did allow States to
negotiate with the Federal Government what their baseline would
be, looking at projections. So, I think it is important that we
not just automatically freeze them where they are now--that the
expected increase in costs is recognized, because while this
provides much better quality care for children and enables
States to develop a much better group of community-based
services, it isn't necessarily going to save money.
You have got to allow salaries to increase. One of the
biggest mistakes we make in the human services is we don't plan
for salary growth costs. So, I think I would like you to
address whether your plan in any way looks to the future of
cost growth.
Then the second thing we did in our bill was to enable
States when there were certain dimensions of increasing
caseload, and you referred to the problem with the crack
babies, to elect to snap back into the entitlement-based
program. That structure will be there because not every State
is going to elect the block grant. If they could elect the
block grant knowing that if certain triggers were reached they
could automatically snap back into the old program, then I
think you would see not only services grow and there never
being a need to snap back, but I think we would see the quality
of care for these children dramatically improve.
So, those two things--the snap back and negotiated
baseline, looking toward future costs--I would like you to
address.
Dr. HORN. First of all, I would like to recognize your
longstanding interest in this----
Mrs. JOHNSON. Sometimes mean-spirited interest in this.
[Laughter.]
Dr. HORN. I just hope that in 2010, we are still not in
this room trying to figure out how to reform child welfare.
Mrs. JOHNSON. I hope not.
Dr. HORN. In terms of your two issues, first of all, under
the current baseline projections nationally, the expenditures
under the Title IV-E program are expected to grow at about 4
percent a year, and all of that would be captured in the 5-year
projections.
Mrs. JOHNSON. You are not talking about freezing. You are
talking about a baseline based on the expected growth.
Dr. HORN. That is exactly right. So, there is expected
growth that is part of the baseline. Some States have a higher
growth rate than 4 percent, some have a lower growth rate.
Nationally, the growth rate is 4 percent.
Now, what is different about our proposal is that we don't
just say, if you take this, you are stuck with what the current
baseline projections are year by year by year. You can choose
that if you want to under our proposal. The other thing that we
let you do is--as an option--is to collapse that 5-year total
and take it in equal 5-year increments, which means in the
first few years you get more money than you would expect under
the current baseline projections and at the latter part you
would have less money. The State would have the option. They
could do it that way, equal increments, or allow it to grow
over time given their baseline projections.
The advantage of the former, that is, to take it in equal
increments, is that you can put some up front investments in
prevention that may reduce, we hope, the need for foster care.
The advantage of the other is that you get a predictable growth
in terms of the money that you get from the Federal Government
over 5 years----
Mrs. JOHNSON. Which is basically the growth they would get
anyhow.
Dr. HORN. That is right, and so----
Mrs. JOHNSON. So, we are not in any way reducing the amount
of money they are allowed to get.
Dr. HORN. Not at all.
Mrs. JOHNSON. We are giving them some options about when
they get it.
Dr. HORN. That is exactly right. In terms of your question
about if there is an increase in caseload--we considered as an
option the ability for States to opt back into the open-end
entitlement and we couldn't do that and keep this proposal cost
neutral over 5 years if we also allowed States to take the
money in equal increments over time.
Mrs. JOHNSON. So, you could allow a snapback for the States
whose base rose each year, but not for those that chose the
option?
Dr. HORN. That is not currently part of the President's
proposal. The way we try to deal with that is allow States who
experience an uptick in the need for foster care to access
additional dollars through the TANF contingency fund.
Mrs. JOHNSON. Right.
Chairman HERGER. The gentlelady's time has expired. I thank
her. The gentleman from California, Mr. Stark, to inquire.
Mr. STARK. I guess we don't know what the plan is, but I
guess, basically, if I understand it, Dr. Horn, you want to
give the States an option for a block grant and you are not
increasing any funds to State programs for foster care
programs, is that right?
Dr. HORN. It is not true that we haven't asked for
additional funds for State child welfare systems, including
foster care, because we have asked for $1 billion in additional
money over 5 years in the Safe and Stable Families Program.
Mr. STARK. How much did you get?
Dr. HORN. We only got half of it, and----
Mr. STARK. Half?
Dr. HORN. Half of it has been appropriated----
Mr. STARK. Is that $500 million or $100 million?
Dr. HORN. We got $500 million over 5, and this year----
Mr. STARK. Oh, $100 million a year.
Dr. HORN. Over 5 years, $500 million in additional money,
and what we are asking for this year is for the other half. You
came a little bit late to the hearing and I already expressed
my gratitude to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member for
sending a very supportive letter to the Appropriations
Committee supporting our request for the additional money in
Safe and Stable Families.
Mr. STARK. If a State were to take your block grant and
their caseload increased, if the preventive program didn't
work, or if there was a drug epidemic as we had with crack,
then they would have no way to find the additional funds to
deal with that increased caseload, is that correct?
Dr. HORN. No, it is not, because under our proposal, the
State in those conditions would be able to draw down additional
funds from the $2 billion TANF contingency fund, and so there
is an ability for States to access that money.
Mr. STARK. That cuts their TANF program, so----
Dr. HORN. Well, no----
Mr. STARK. Let us just deal with the foster care. Under the
block grant program, you are letting them take 5 years flag, or
5 years fixed, and they can draw it down earlier if they
choose, right? If the programs don't work, then toward the end
of the program where they would need more money for foster care
services, is that right?
Dr. HORN. Well, again----
Mr. STARK. If the caseload increases----
Dr. HORN. If the caseload increases, they would have the
ability to draw additional funds.
Mr. STARK. They would not get that from the Federal
Government, would they?
Dr. HORN. No, they would. The TANF contingency fund is part
of the Federal budget.
Mr. STARK. The contingency fund is for TANF, right, or for
cases that one might expect in the coming recession who have
nothing to do with foster care. That money could be used for
child care and worker training and day care and all those other
things, right?
Dr. HORN. Well, we have just been through a recession and,
in fact, under the TANF program--there was no State that drew
down any money in the contingency fund.
Mr. STARK. You may do very well in social work, but in
economics, we are in a recession. We haven't been through one
yet. We are on the way down, pal, and let us confine your
expertise, such as it is, to social work. We have not been
through one yet. We are losing a couple of million jobs a year
and they are not being recreated by the stupid tax cut and the
unemployment is going up. In anybody's book, that is very apt
to increase the burden on TANF funds. So, that with a block
grant to the States, it is close to lying to suggest that there
will be money in the TANF funds to support foster care.
Mr. CARDIN. Would the gentleman yield just very briefly on
that point?
Mr. STARK. Yes, I would be glad to.
Mr. CARDIN. It is not only an increasing caseload, you are
assuming a declining caseload.
Dr. HORN. In which program?
Mr. CARDIN. As I understand, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) baseline assumes over the next 10 years a decline
in the caseload, and therefore, the 4 percent reflects a
decline in the caseload because of the average monthly
maintenance payments going up.
Dr. HORN. The way that----
Mr. CARDIN. I think that if a State just held its own, it
actually would be under the CBO baseline.
Dr. HORN. Well, I will try to restrict my testimony to my
area of expertise and one of them is as a social scientist who
looks at empirical data, and we actually have data from States
who, in fact, have opted under the waivers to take this money
more flexibly. The fact of the matter is, what they have been
able to do is demonstrate with more flexible funding that they
can, in fact, reduce the need for foster care. They can reduce
the length of time in foster care and, in fact, expend less
money.
Mr. CARDIN. Let me just make one more point before Mr.
Stark's time expires, and that is that the total TANF
contingency fund is $2 billion. The foster care system is $5
billion a year. It is hardly enough if we really run into a
problem for the entire system.
I think the point is, if we run into a problem, we are
running significant risks here whether the resources are going
to be there to deal with these vulnerable children. Thank you,
Mr. Stark.
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time is expired. Dr. Horn,
your testimony describes how national statistics show that too
many children are lingering in foster care and waiting for
adopted families. Could you give us a little more background
about the number of children currently in foster care, how long
these children spend in foster care, and what these lengths of
stay mean in terms of outcomes for those children--and also
could you give us the Administration's proposal to address
these concerns?
Dr. HORN. Currently, there are about 542,000 children in
foster care. About 46 or close to 47 percent of them are Title
IV-E eligible children. The average length of stay for a child
in foster care is about 3 years. Now, one of the things we know
from the empirical literature is that the longer a child spends
in foster care and the increase in the number of placements in
foster care is directly associated with poor outcomes.
So, if we want to have better outcomes for children, what
we need to do is find ways to reduce the length of stays in
foster care--again recognizing the foster care system is an
important piece of the system of child welfare services--and
also try to reduce the number of placements. We believe that by
providing the ability for States to use this money more
flexibly--to, in fact, fund more preventative services as well
as more intensive services for kids that are particularly at
risk--will support State efforts to improve outcomes for
children.
There is a State waiver that we gave that looked at
children who are very, very much at risk from multiple
placements, disruptive placements, and long-term foster care.
These are kids with long histories of aggressive behavior, fire
setting, and so forth. Right now, you can't use Title IV-E
funds for those kids to provide intensive services. So, we
provided the waiver to provide intensive services to those
kinds of children, and what we found was that those kids who
are provided those intensive services were less likely to have
disrupted foster care placements and so we think that States
can use this more flexible funding structure to better suit the
needs of children in the foster care system.
Remember, it is important to keep in mind that we do not
fund all children in foster care. We only fund 47 percent of
the kids in foster care, those children who are Title IV-E
eligible. Those children, in part, are Title IV-E eligible by
pretending the AFDC system still exists. It doesn't exist. Yet
we make eligibility workers in the foster care system pretend
as if the 6-year-old dead program still is alive, and well,
that makes no sense.
So, what we are saying is, break down the categorical
nature of this funding stream. Allow States to use this money
more flexibly. Allow them to use it for services as well as
administrative costs and foster care payments, which they can't
do now under current law, and we think--and based on the
experience we have had with the State waivers--that we are
going to see better outcomes for kids.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. The Congressional Research
Service (CRS) recently did a memo that shows how Federal foster
care funding can swing wildly within States from year to year.
At the same time, we don't see these wild swings in the number
of children in foster care based on this. If I were a State
program administrator, one of the most attractive features of
this proposal is the added predictability I could gain in terms
of Federal funds that we receive to serve children and families
in the next 5 years.
Dr. Horn, would you care to comment about how this proposal
can provide States more predictability over funding they
receive and what that can mean for States?
Dr. HORN. Well, certainly if a State were to choose this
option, they would have a very clear idea of the amount of
money that they will have in each of the next subsequent 5
years. They could choose that money to come to them in equal
installments over 5 years or in an acceleration based upon the
State's baseline projections. They would know exactly how much
money they would have and I think that would add to
predictability. If I were running a child welfare system and
wanted to know what my budget was, I would have a better sense
of being able to budget for the future years if I knew what
that money was, as opposed to sort of rapid changes in how much
money is being drawn from the Federal Government.
Chairman HERGER. Dr. Horn, thank you very much for your
testimony. With that, I would like to ask the next----
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HERGER. Yes?
Mr. STARK. Could we have a second round here?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, this will be the
first time I have made this request. I think we have made some
progress here today in clarifying some of the points. I think
it might be useful to have a second round, and I would request
maybe we could limit it to 3 minutes rather than 5.
Chairman HERGER. I think we have had good testimony from
the Administration. I do not want to delay the next round, and
I believe we will move to the next round.
Mr. STARK. Sort of like weapons of mass destruction, Mr.
Chairman. If we hide them from the public----
Chairman HERGER. The next panel will have a seat at the
table, please: Barbara Riley, Deputy Director of the Office of
Children and Families of the Ohio Department of Job and Family
Services; Elaine Ryan, Deputy Executive Director of Policy and
Government Affairs of the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA); Dianne Edwards from my home State of
California, Director of Sonoma County Human Services
Department; and Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National
Indian Child Welfare Association in Portland, Oregon. Ms.
Riley, if you would testify.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA RILEY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Ms. RILEY. Chairman Herger, distinguished Subcommittee
Members, I am Barbara Riley, Deputy Director of the Ohio
Department of Job and Family Services and responsible for
Ohio's child welfare program.
It is my pleasure to testify today in regard to the
Administration's foster care flexible funding proposal. For a
number of years, the States have been eager to engage in a
conversation regarding child welfare financing, and I welcome
the opportunity to discuss some of the benefits and the
challenges this proposal presents.
In order to provide some context for Ohio's interest in
foster care financing, I would like to share just a quick
snapshot of our child welfare system. In State fiscal year
2002, we had over 71,000 reports of child abuse and neglect
involving nearly 114,000 children. In July, 1992, we had 17,285
children in out-of-home placement, and by July of 2002, that
had risen to 22,883, with an average length of stay of 208
days, and until I heard the average for the country, I had no
idea how lucky Ohio's children are that we are only at 208.
However, I would like to ask you to think about how long 208
days is in a child's life.
In State fiscal year 2002, Ohio's children spent over 8
million days in foster care, which is equal to 2\1/2\ days for
every child in Ohio, and an increase of 39 percent from 1992.
In that same timeframe, placement costs rose by 134 percent.
In State fiscal year 2002, 36,417 Ohio children were in the
custody of a public children's service agency, and our total
expenditures for child welfare in Ohio in fiscal year 2003 are
projected to be about $850 million, with county taxpayers
bearing 55 percent of that total while the Federal Government
will absorb approximately 38 percent of that cost.
These statistics clearly represent the scope of our issues,
but the depth and the breadth of the problems we face to
resolve is vast, and our experience has taught us that
segregated funding streams do not support the efforts that need
to be made to affect child safety and well-being. In fact, I
believe that the current Title IV-E funding system rewards
failure rather than success. So, Ohio is very much interested
in the foster care flexible financing proposal with some
modifications.
This proposal would allow the States to choose to receive
their foster care maintenance, administration, and training
funding in the form of a quasi-block grant, providing greater
flexibility. I am able to foretell the future of this proposal
for Ohio with some level of confidence as Ohio is in the
enviable position of having a Title IV-E child welfare
demonstration wavier that has taught us just how important
flexible funding can be.
In our protect Ohio waiver, 14 counties receive a budget of
placement days at a very set unit cost and along with that the
flexibility to use their Title IV-E funding on children and
services as they see fit. To the extent that a county is able
to avoid the placement of children, their allocated dollars not
used on placement may be used for non-Title IV-E services, such
as family counseling, drug treatment and prevention.
We have just completed our 5-year evaluation, and it
reveals several very intriguing results. On the business side,
we have saved $41.2 million in placement costs while those
dollars are available for alternative services. Most
importantly, children experience 682,350 fewer days in
placement.
On the programmatic side, the waiver results include
improved availability and quality of services, development of
new services, increases in service capacity, timely access,
increased attention to outcomes, and increased family
involvement. In essence, the State serves as a managed care
provider to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government
indemnifies itself against any cost overruns for increases in
placement costs that might be experienced by those 14 counties.
If we could extend this ability statewide to align funding
with successful outcomes for children and families, I believe
it could herald the beginning of child welfare reform in Ohio
akin to the level of reform experienced under the TANF program.
The Administration's foster care flexible funding proposal
promises much. However, for us to be able to experience such a
reformation, we would like to recommend that Congress provide
States with the ability to negotiate how to administer this
budget-neutral flexible funding option in each State.
The Congress allows States to choose to opt in beyond the
Federal fiscal year 2004. Even if you freeze the base for
establishing funding levels, this type of endeavor requires
incredible planning at the State level and may even require
changes in State law. We would ask Congress to allow States to
reopen the option if additional Federal requirements alter the
actuarial assumptions on which original funding levels were
based.
Also, the inflation factor needs to more accurately reflect
an individual State's experience rather than a national
average. We also believe that access to the contingency fund
should be dependent only on increases in State caseloads, not
national experience.
Also, for Ohio, it is important that the statewide
Automated Child Welfare Information Systems funding not be
included.
Chairman HERGER. If you could sum up your testimony,
please.
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, there
is little doubt in my mind that the Federal funding for foster
care forces rigidity--that is, as it is today--forces rigidity
onto the foster care system and the flexible funding here
offers much promise to Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Riley follows:]
Statement of Barbara Riley, Deputy Director, Ohio Department of Job and
Family Services, Columbus, Ohio
Good afternoon. Chairman Herger, distinguished Subcommittee
Members, I am Barbara Riley, Deputy Director of the Ohio Department of
Job and Family Services, and responsible for Ohio's child welfare
program. It is my pleasure to be able to testify today in regard to the
Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding proposal. For a number of
years the states have been eager to engage in a conversation regarding
child welfare financing, and I welcome this opportunity to explore some
of the benefits and challenges this proposal presents.
In order to provide context for our interest in foster care
financing, I would like to share a snapshot of our child welfare
system.
In State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2002 we had 71,366 reports of
child abuse and neglect, involving 113,897 children.
In July 1992 there were 17,285 children in out-of-home
placements. In July 2002 that number had risen to 22,883, with an
average length of stay of 208 days.
In SFY 2002 Ohio's children spent 8,105,166 days in
foster care, which is equal to 2\1/2\ days for every child in Ohio, and
an increase of 39% from 1992. In that same time frame costs rose by
134% to $325.4 million per year.
In SFY 2002, 36,417 Ohio children were in the custody of
a public children services agency.
Total expenditures for child welfare in Ohio in SFY 2003
are estimated to be $850-$865 million, with county taxpayers bearing
about 55 percent of that total, while the Federal Government will
absorb approximately 38 percent of the cost.
These statistics clearly represent the scope of our issues. The
depth and breadth of the problems we must resolve is vast, but our
experience has taught us that segregated funding streams do not support
the efforts that need to be made to affect the safety and well-being of
children. In fact, I believe that the current Title IV-E funding system
rewards failure rather than success, so Ohio is very much interested in
the Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal, with some modifications.
This proposal would allow the states to choose to receive their
foster care maintenance, administration, and training funding in the
form of a quasi block grant, providing greater flexibility in
determining who we serve and with what services. I am able to foretell
the future of this proposal for Ohio with some level of confidence, as
Ohio is in the enviable position of having a IV-E child welfare
demonstration waiver that has taught us just how important flexible
funding can be. In our ProtectOhio waiver, 14 counties receive a budget
of placement days at a set unit cost; and along with that, the
flexibility to use their IV-E funding on any child who is a victim of
abuse and neglect, and for any service, regardless of IV-E eligibility.
To the extent that a county is able to avoid placement of children,
their allocated dollars, not used on placement, may be used for non IV-
E services such as family counseling, drug treatment, prevention
services, etc.
Our five year evaluation has been completed and reveals several
very intriguing results. On the business side: we have saved $41.2
million in placement costs, with those dollars available for
alternative services; and most importantly, children experienced
682,350 fewer days in placement. On the programmatic side, the waiver
results include: improved availability and quality of services,
development of new services, increases in service capacity, timely
access to services, increased attention to outcomes, increased family
involvement in case management, and increases in recruiting results for
foster and adoptive parents. In essence, the state serves as a managed
care provider to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government
indemnifies itself against any ``cost overruns'' for increases in
placement costs that might be experienced by these counties.
If we could extend statewide this ability to align funding with
successful outcomes for children and families, I believe it would
herald the beginning of child welfare reform in Ohio, akin to the level
of reform experienced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The
Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal promises much,
however, for us to be able to experience such a reformation, I would
like to recommend that:
Congress provide states with the ability to negotiate how
to administer this budget neutral flexible funding option in each
state;
Congress allow states to choose to ``opt in'' beyond FFY
2004, even if you freeze the base for establishing funding levels, as
this type of endeavor requires planning at the state level, including
potential necessary changes in state law;
Congress allow states to reopen the option if additional
federal requirements alter the actuarial assumptions on which original
funding levels were based;
The inflation factor more accurately reflect an
individual state's experience, rather than a national average;
Access to the contingency fund be dependent only on
increases in state caseloads; and
SACWIS funding not be included in the option.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, there is little doubt in
my mind that federal funding for foster care, as now manifested in
Title IV-E, forces a rigidity onto child welfare practice that limits
and stifles state and local innovation. Removal of that rigidity would,
in my opinion, create a singularly powerful catalyst to state and local
innovation and reform by targeting service dollars to both stated
federal policy objectives, and just plain good child welfare practice.
I also believe that any flexible funding model must occur in the
context of preserving a federal entitlement for foster care maintenance
funds, while also creating a more rational array of funding incentives
which reward best practice behaviors. Against this backdrop, Ohio would
both welcome and embrace many of the elements of the Administration's
proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Riley. Ms. Ryan?
STATEMENT OF ELAINE M. RYAN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY
AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES
ASSOCIATION
Ms. RYAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. I am Elaine
Ryan. I am the Deputy Executive Director of the APHSA. I really
appreciate the opportunity to focus on this very critical issue
of child welfare financing that just impacts so many children's
lives. We have had the opportunity to testify before you and
really commend Congresswoman Johnson's leadership on child
welfare financing in the past, and Mr. Cardin's, and also look
forward to working with the Committee on these important
issues.
Our association has spent the last 7 years looking at child
welfare financing, so this is not new to our association. We
see what I think most of the experts in the room and those who
have testified see, and that is the fact that the Title IV-E
entitlement structure is just woefully inadequate and out of
step with the needs of the children and families we serve.
For example, the circumstances of abuse and neglect bring
children to the system. It is not the income of their parents.
Yet we have a Federal funding stream that only supports the
services to the poor children in the system, but not all the
children in the system. We believe that needs to be reformed.
The second principle that we have embraced over the years
is enhanced Title IV-E flexibility. By flexibility, we mean the
ability to use Federal funds in a way that are more
contemporary with the needs of the system. For example, Title
IV-E funds cannot be used for investigations, frontline worker
training, post-adoption services to guarantee that those are
successful adoptions, permanency, or subsidized guardianship
for some of the older, more troubled children in the system. It
is out of step with the children and families' needs and it
needs to be reformed.
So, we come to you with a lot of recommendations and are
grateful for the opportunity, because we feel a sense of
urgency. You see, because of the lookback, the Federal
financial commitment to child welfare has slipped over the
years. Just by inflation alone, fewer children are eligible for
any reimbursement or services.
Second, we have experienced huge cuts in the Social
Services Block Grant program (SSBG), and I just want to commend
the Members of this Subcommittee in particular for your
leadership, and Congressman Levin's and Mrs. Johnson's
leadership, in particular, to restore block grant funding for
the SSBG, such a critical source. The block grant has been cut
from $2.8 billion to $1.7 billion and it is hurting on the
frontlines. We need to have that restored.
I have a lot of passion about this issue, and it is because
I think so much is at stake that we do this right, that we take
the time to embrace proposals that will have the maximum
possible benefit for the vulnerable children and families in
this system.
We were asked early on, quite frankly, when the
Administration released their budget proposal to examine it,
and we gladly did so by putting together a working group of
States. When we asked about which States had interest in the
issue of child welfare financing, 38 States signed up
immediately to say, count us in, because they know what we all
know, that this system is in bad need of reform.
The foster care flexible funding option that the
Administration has put forth has some very positive options.
First, it stops the slide and the lookback. In other words,
States don't have that declining Title IV-E reimbursement.
Second, States can use those dollars for all children in the
system. Third, you can use those dollars for multiple purposes,
like some of those that I have mentioned earlier in my
testimony.
With that said, we also have heard in our exploration of
this some concerns raised. For example, Congresswoman Johnson's
point of the snapback--I like that better than opt out--but
quite frankly, States are concerned that if they commit once
and have a short period of time that they are in for 5 years.
They also have raised some issues that I have outlined in my
testimony that I commend to your attention.
States are in very different points of reform. Ohio is in a
place. California is in a place. One thing we know is we need
every option possible to serve these children as quickly as
possible and with some flexibility to meet their needs. The
current system doesn't do that.
Let me just close by saying that we are very appreciative
of Mr. Cardin's leadership in terms of trying to fix the
lookback, making it a bit more contemporary. Of course, we want
Federal financial participation on all children in the system,
but we really appreciate your initiative as a fine starting
point for future discussions.
Second, States, as you well know, are going through the
child and family services reviews. They are then asked to put
together Program Improvement Plans (PIPs), and as I have put
it, in some circumstances, State budgets are too pooped to PIP.
[Laughter.]
In other words, we don't have the resources to meet the
objectives contained in those proposals, to be able to get some
of those improved outcomes for children and families, and we
have a lot at stake here.
So, let me say that we appreciate the recognition of the
idea that more resources might be needed for those program
improvement plans, but we think we can find perhaps some reform
in making Title IV-E more flexible so that you can actually use
those dollars to drive those outcomes. For example, training
caseworkers in child development, you can't----
Chairman HERGER. If you could sum up, please.
Ms. RYAN. You can't do that now, and we think that Title
IV-E could be made more flexible in a number of ways.
Let me just sum up by saying we are appreciative of the
child welfare waiver authority and Congressman Herger, for your
leadership in including that in the Welfare Reform Act (P.L.
104-93). We want to see that demonstration authority that has
worked so well in Ohio and Connecticut continue. In sum, I am
happy to answer any questions that you may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ryan follows:]
Statement of Elaine M. Ryan, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and
Government Affairs, American Public Human Services Association
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
Elaine M. Ryan, Deputy Executive Director for Policy and Government
Affairs at the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify about child welfare
financing reform and the proposal to create a foster care funding
option for states.
Child Welfare Financing Reform Goals
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 in operating these programs
for our nation's most vulnerable children and families. Indeed, APHSA
members have dedicated nearly seven years discussing and crafting
policy recommendations with respect to the financing of the child
welfare system. APHSA has embraced two fundamental goals for child
welfare financing reform outlined in our policy document, Crossroads:
New Directions in Social Policy. First, there should be federal
financial participation in support of all children in the child welfare
system and, second, there should be increased flexibility in the use of
IV-E funds.
APHSA policy supports delinking IV-E eligibility from AFDC so that
the Federal Government can share in the support of all children in the
child welfare system, regardless of income. With respect to increased
flexibility, we strongly believe that the current IV-E structure fails
to support the outcomes for children and families that we seek to
achieve. Federal funding is disproportionately directed to funding out
of home care--the very part of the system agencies seeks to minimize in
order to achieve greater permanence for children. The IV-E entitlement
should fund front-end services, reunification, post-permanency for
children and families in the system as well.
Over the past several years, the demands on the child welfare
system have increased significantly. State administrators have focused
their efforts on implementing the requirements of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act and setting forth plans to achieve improved outcomes for
children with respect to safety, permanency and well-being. At the same
time, fewer and fewer children served in the child welfare system are
supported with federal funds, due to the ``look back'' provision of the
welfare reform act that links IV-E eligibility to the former AFDC
eligibility rules in effect as of July 16, 1996. In addition, since
1996, the Social Services Block Grant, a critical source of federal
funding for child welfare, has been dramatically reduced from $2.8
billion to $1.7 billion. And recent federal policy announcements and
actions threaten to restrict federal IV-E reimbursement for
administrative costs incurred on behalf of children in unlicensed
foster family homes as well as for targeted case management under
Medicaid. Given the growing demands on the child welfare system and in
light of the fragmented and fragile funding infrastructure, we believe
Congress must address the critical issue of child welfare financing.
With so much at stake, we urge this subcommittee to engage in a
thorough and comprehensive examination of all possible reform
proposals.
The Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal
We want to commend the Administration for highlighting the need for
child welfare financing reform by setting forth a foster care flexible
funding option in its FY 2004 Budget. Shortly after the release this
year of the Administration's proposal, APHSA formed a working group of
interested states to discuss various aspects of the proposal. In
addition, Dr. Horn, Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families and various Administration officials have met
with our members and have solicited input on the proposed idea and the
design of a state option. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share
some of our preliminary thoughts on the broad construct of the foster
care flexible funding proposal, based on the feedback we have received
from our working group. However, it is important to note that APHSA has
not taken a formal position on the Administration's proposal to date.
When legislation is introduced in Congress, we will bring the proposal
before our membership for consideration at that time.
As we understand the proposal, there are several strong aspects of
the Administration's foster care flexible funding option. First, states
would have the flexibility to use their IV-E funding allotments, as
well as their MOE funds, for a broad range of services to children and
families. We assume any legislative language would enable states to
invest in prevention, subsidized guardianship, case-management, post-
adoption services, and cross-system collaborative efforts with
substance abuse agencies and juvenile courts and other activities and
services as they see fit. Second, under the option, states could use
the federal and MOE funds for all children in their foster care system,
without regard to income. Third, under the option states could stem the
decline in IV-E funding, due to the ``AFDC look-back.'' Fourth, states
would have the option of spending a greater proportion of their annual
allotments in the first several years and could opt to roll any unspent
funds from one fiscal year to the other. Finally, states would have
access to a contingency fund in the event of a significant increase in
their foster care caseload.
Determination of Baseline and Opt-in Period
As the subcommittee members are well aware, states child welfare
systems are at various stages of reform and their state fiscal
situations vary. Some states have experienced dramatic declines in IV-E
eligibility claims in recent years, some have achieved reductions in
foster care caseloads, some have seen increases, and some have operated
waiver demonstrations. In addition, states differ in the resources used
to support their child welfare systems--some have used TANF, SSBG,
Medicaid, and a host of state and local resources. Therefore, states
will need to engage in a complex calculation of whether to embrace the
option or continue to operate under the entitlement structure.
States will have great interest in the calculation of the baseline,
the base year, treatment of claims filed vs. claims paid, the treatment
of child support collections, disallowances and deferrals. States
should be consulted in the development of the criteria used to
calculate the baseline. In addition, we would urge the subcommittee to
consider adding a state option to exclude the cost of AFCARS and SACWIS
systems from the baseline calculation and retain the current federal
match for these data systems.
Lead time will be important to states interested in opting in to
allow for calculations to determine benefits of participating, to make
any needed regulatory and/or statutory changes, systems changes, and to
instruct the field of changes in practice. A significant time period
may be required due to the need for extensive discussions with their
local jurisdictions who administer child welfare. In addition, the
proposed one-time opt-in period may limit some states from taking
advantage of the option, due to the need to seek legislative approval
or to undertake the aforementioned approval process. The subcommittee
might explore the idea of allowing states to opt in within a two or
three year period.
Opt Out
Some states have expressed concerns with the provision in the
foster care option that would require states to stay in the option for
five years. In light of the fiscal difficulties in the states, and the
uncertainty related to the rising cost of child welfare, caseload
dynamics and other factors, we urge the subcommittee to consider
affording states the opportunity to opt out within the five year
period. The creation of a contingency fund, while helpful, may not be
able to shield states from unexpected revenue shortfalls or rising
state deficits. With the protection of children our paramount concern,
state should be able to opt out of the plan.
Maintenance of Effort
As in the TANF statute, we recommend the maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement should be limited to the historic share of state
match for the base year identified in the law.
Links to Other Programs
As the subcommittee considers the option, we encourage you to look
in-depth at the relationship this foster care option will have to other
federal programs such as IV-E Adoption Assistance and Medicaid. While
states may serve all children without respect to income under the
foster care option, IV-E eligibility for Adoption Assistance must be
simplified. Medicaid coverage must be continued for all previously
eligible children under the option.
Contingency Fund
Under the Administration's proposal, states would need to meet a
federal and state trigger in order to draw contingency funds. We
recommend that the subcommittee consider one trigger linked to a
significant increase in the state's foster care caseload. In addition,
Congress should ensure that the match rate under the contingency fund
is no greater than the state's current IV-E match rate.
Additional Congressional Actions
As stated earlier, state child welfare systems vary widely. For
some states, the proposed option may not be viable. Cost neutrality
conditions and financial risks may not be acceptable to some states.
Therefore, in addition to considering the foster care funding option,
we encourage the subcommittee to consider the following revisions to
the IV-E entitlement.
Address the ``Look Back''
Under the welfare law of 1996, states were given greater
flexibility to establish Medicaid eligibility, including an inflation
factor. However, with respect to IV-E eligibility, no inflation factor
was included in the provision. In 1996, Congress acknowledged that they
would need to address the IV-E eligibility criteria at a later date.
Nearly seven years have passed and no action has been taken. We urge
action on this critical issue. We want to acknowledge the legislation
sponsored by Congressman Cardin that would update the IV-E eligibility
by linking it to TANF eligibility. While we believe the proposal does
not go far enough, we believe it is a positive starting point for
further discussion.
Expand IV-E Flexibility
We appreciate that the Cardin bill recognizes that states will need
additional resources in order to implement their Program Improvement
Plans resulting from the federal Child and Family Service Reviews. We
urge the subcommittee to examine the ways IV-E funding might be made
more flexible so that states could use these resources to improve the
outcomes for children and families in the system.
Restore the Social Services Block Grant
I cannot discuss child welfare funding without mentioning the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). SSBG is a critical source of
federal funding for child welfare services, and $1.3 billion in
increased funding is currently pending in the Senate as part of the
CARE Act. It is also through the leadership of several members of this
committee including Representatives Johnson, Levin, Camp, Cardin,
McDermott, English, and Stark who have called for full restoration of
SSBG to $2.8 billion as part of the Social Services Block Grant
Restoration Act. APHSA strongly encourages the subcommittee to support
SSBG Restoration, either through passage of this legislation or as part
of HR7, the companion bill to CARE that may move through the House.
There are a host of SSBG services that support children and their
families involved in the child welfare system; it is significant that
in FY 2001 49 states used over $825.5 million for such child welfare
services such as foster care, child protection, prevention and
intervention, and adoption. According to an Urban Institute survey,
SSBG was the second major funding stream for child welfare services
after Title IV-E. Also, with only $21 million available federally under
the Child Abuse and Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) for the
protection of children, states made use of over $314 million in SSBG
funds for the same purpose.
Reauthorize and Expand IV-E Child Welfare Waivers
We appreciate the leadership of this subcommittee to reauthorize
IV-E waivers in H.R. 4, the welfare reform act and call on Congress to
include this provision in any final TANF legislation. The current
waiver process limits innovation, prohibits approval for multiple
states to test similar innovations, such as subsidized guardianship;
restricts research, control groups, and random assignment requirements;
cost-neutrality methodology; and limits statewide approaches. While the
waiver program has enabled some states to reinvest federal foster care
funding in services and other activities to improve their systems and
promote permanence, in its current mode of HHS implementation, it is a
promise unfulfilled and will not meet state's needs for the flexibility
necessary to achieve broad systems change. APHSA strongly supports
making substantial modifications to the current Title IV-E waiver
process to allow more flexibility and to foster system change,
including eliminating the limited number of waivers HHS can approve;
eliminating approval criteria that require random assignment and
control groups that limit statewide approaches; eliminating the limited
number of states that may conduct waivers on the same topic;
eliminating the limited number of waivers that may be conducted by a
single state; and enabling states to continue their waivers beyond five
years. The Title IV-E Demonstration Waivers would afford states another
option to achieve flexibility and improve performance.
Conclusion
APHSA's vision for child welfare is a society where children are
free from abuse and neglect, and live in safe, stable, permanent
families-where children and families have needed supports and can help
themselves. When children are at risk and come to the attention of the
public agency, the agency can provide services and supports to them and
their families to mitigate their problems and prevent them from being
removed from their families and communities. When children must come
into care, the agency can address children and family needs
expeditiously and enable a safe reunification or, where that is not
possible, find an alternative permanent placement expeditiously, while
assuring their well-being in the interim. This is a vision where the
safety and protection of children is the shared responsibility of all
parts of the human service agency and the larger community. It is a
vision where the child welfare system has the capacity to improve
outcomes for children and families and the Federal Government and
states are equal partners in serving all children in all parts of the
system.
The child welfare financing system, developed 23 years ago, no
longer supports states' efforts to achieve this vision. We need reform
and look forward to working with the subcommittee to devise a financing
construct that can meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and
families we serve.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Ryan. Now, Dianne Edwards
from my own home State of California, Director of the Sonoma
County Human Services Department. Ms. Edwards?
STATEMENT OF DIANNE EDWARDS, DIRECTOR, SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA, VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS,
AND CHAIR, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. EDWARDS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am honored to be here today to give the
local perspective on the Administration's foster care proposal.
I am Dianne Edwards, Director of Human Services for Sonoma
County. I am also representing the County Welfare Directors
Association of California and the National Association of
County Human Services Administrators.
California is among 12 States where counties operate foster
care with State and Federal oversight. We have experienced
increased public scrutiny of our programs in recent years,
leading to a multitude of ideas for reinventing the system. One
of the most promising ideas is increasing the front-end
prevention services for families in order to reduce further
involvement with child welfare.
Past efforts to increase prevention have been held back in
part by the inflexible child welfare funding structure. States,
as you have heard, must evaluate Federal Title IV-E eligibility
for every foster child, using outdated rules from the AFDC
program. Since these rules have not been updated, the
proportion of eligible California children has dropped by more
than 4 percent over time and is expected to continue to decline
unless this is changed.
For these reasons, counties urge you to eliminate the AFDC
lookback and we would welcome the ability to use Title IV-E
funds for front-end services. States opting into the
Administration's proposal could do both. However, we are
concerned about other provisions that would limit our
flexibility to administer child welfare.
In particular, the 5-year budget neutrality requirement
will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to fully
realize the benefits of increased flexibility. At a time when
the Federal Government is working with States to expand front-
end services to families and improve outcomes, we feel it would
be detrimental to cap Federal funding for child welfare
services. We would like to see more prevention, treatment,
training, and fiscal incentives for States that improve.
Emphasizing these aspects of the child welfare system while
maintaining the uncapped Title IV-E system as in the
legislation that Congressman Cardin has introduced, the Child
Protective Services Improvement Act (H.R. 1534), would improve
the services available to all families.
We have a number of recommendations to improve the
Administration's proposal and make it more workable for a
greater number of States and counties. First, the Federal
Government should share in the services provided to all abused
and neglected children, not only those from poor families or
those who reside in States that choose the flexible funding
option. The lookback should be eliminated.
Second, while increased prevention activities should reduce
the need for out-of-home care, it could take longer than the
Administration's 5-year time line. Instead of sharing this
risk, the proposal would shift it to States and counties. A
better option would be to increase flexibility in the use of
Title IV-E funding while maintaining the program's uncapped
nature so all States can increase their prevention and early
intervention strategies.
While the proposal would allow States to access the TANF
contingency fund, the criteria for doing so are relatively
narrow. Access to the fund should be more flexible and should
be broadened to allow a county or a sub-State region to also
receive funding.
Importantly, States must maintain their current level of
spending on child welfare programs. The definition of child
welfare is of critical importance, and we would be happy to
assist in drafting specific maintenance of effort language to
ensure that spending remains in the program.
Further, training dollars and automation expenditures
should be kept outside of the flexibility proposal. Increased
training is key to improving performance on the Federal
outcomes of safety, permanence, and well-being.
The statewide child welfare data systems are key to
measuring and tracking these improvements. As such, the Federal
Government has a stake in the operation and improvement of such
systems.
Currently, children who are found eligible for Federal
Title IV-E funding are automatically eligible for Medicaid. We
understand that States will be given the option to declare all
children covered and we strongly support this option.
Finally, given the ramifications of the flexible grant
option, States with county-administered child welfare systems
should be required to consult with the local statewide
organizations before opting in.
Now that you have heard our recommendations, we also have a
question. Can States truly opt back out after the 5-year
period? It appears that a State would have to redetermine Title
IV-E eligibility using the lookback for its entire caseload in
order to return to the uncapped funding environment. If so,
this would be cost prohibitive. Further, States and counties
would have to continue serving the non-federally eligible
families using their own funding or scale back their services.
Neither option is appealing.
In conclusion, States and counties are working in
partnership with the Federal Government to improve outcomes and
ensure safety, well-being, and permanence for children and
families. Elimination of the AFDC lookback requirement and the
ability to use Title IV-E funds for front-end services would
enhance the implementation of program improvement plans. Given
the fiscal condition of counties, we believe that this is not
the time to limit Federal funding for foster care, training,
automation, or program operations. The Federal Government
should continue to share in the risk of a new prevention-
focused strategy as well as the rewards. I thank you again for
inviting me to testify and would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
Statement of Dianne Edwards, Director, Sonoma County Human Services
Department, Santa Rosa, California, Vice President, National
Association of County Human Services Administrators, and Chair,
Legislative Committee, County Welfare Directors Association of
California, Sacramento, California
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
honored to be here today to give the local-level perspective on the
Bush Administration's foster care proposal. I am Dianne Edwards,
Director of the Human Services Department in Sonoma County, California.
I am a past president of the County Welfare Directors Association of
California (CWDA), currently serve as chair of CWDA's Legislative
Committee, and am also Vice President of the National Association of
County Human Services Administrators (NACHSA).
Each of California's 58 counties operates its own child welfare,
foster care, and adoptions programs, with oversight from the state and
Federal Governments. We are one of a dozen states where counties
operate foster care. In recent years, we have seen a trend toward
increased public scrutiny of the child welfare system, not just at the
state and federal levels, but also from the courts, the media, and
foster children and their families. This increased attention has led to
a multitude of ideas for reinventing the system. As you will hear often
during your examination of this issue, one of the most promising
practices is that of increasing ``front-end'' prevention services for
families in order to reduce their further involvement with child
protective services.
Prevention is not a new concept, but the sharpened focus on front-
end services is a significant change. Past efforts to increase these
services have been hampered by a lack of flexibility in the federal
child welfare financing structure. For example, the funding we receive
through Title IV-B can be used for a wide range of activities to
protect and reunify families, but it is an insufficient allocation that
most California counties exhaust in the first three months of each
fiscal year. We spend the rest of the year scrambling to patch together
services using other limited and less flexible funding sources. At the
same time, we are required to evaluate federal Title IV-E eligibility
for every child who enters foster care, using outdated rules from the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Because these
rules have not been updated since 1995, the number of eligible
California children has dropped by 4 to 5 percent over the past several
years. This decline is expected to continue if nothing is changed, with
counties covering a greater share of the costs for these children.
For these reasons, counties generally support increased flexibility
in the use of Title IV-E funding. That said, we have concerns with
provisions of the Administration's proposal that would actually limit
our flexibility to administer child welfare, rather than increase it.
Much of the proposal, especially the elimination of the AFDC look-back
requirement and the ability to use Title IV-E funds for some front-end
services that are not presently covered, could lead to major
improvements in child welfare. But this is not the time to limit
federal funding for foster care, staff training, program operations, or
automation. In particular, we fear that the budget neutrality
requirement will limit our ability to spend more money on prevention
activities and staff training over the long-term. This would make it
very difficult, if not impossible, for us to reap the benefits of
increased flexibility. Without assurances that the funds will grow to
support the expanded services, rather than diminish over time, we
cannot endorse the proposal.
WHY FLEXIBLE FUNDING IS NEEDED
To give you a sense of magnitude, California will spend more than
$4 billion on its child welfare program next year. While county funding
currently represents one-quarter of these expenditures, the counties'
share may increase to nearly $1.5 billion in the coming year. Although
$4 billion is a lot of money, counties would need much more in order to
offer up-front prevention to all of the families who could benefit from
it. Our child welfare workers already carry caseloads that are twice
the recommended levels, making it difficult for them to provide
services beyond the basic protections to children and
families.1 Mental health and substance abuse treatment
programs are also overextended, making these services unavailable to
many families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California Department of Social Services (April 2000). SB 2030
Child Welfare Services Workload Study: Final Report. Sacramento,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years counties have recognized that federal funding should be
available to children in need of protection regardless of their
parents' income. The Federal Government should share in the services
that we provide to all abused and neglected children, not only those
from poor families. Enabling counties to use Title IV-E funds in a more
flexible manner, as included in the Bush Administration proposal as
well as HR 1534, the bill that Congressman Cardin has introduced, would
definitely help. If we could use Title IV-E funding to pay for mental
health services and substance abuse treatment, we could ensure faster
access to needed services. If we could use Title IV-E funding without
``looking back'' to outdated eligibility rules from a program that no
longer exists, we could save administrative costs and direct those
funds toward more services for a broader group of families. Congressman
Cardin's legislation would also provide new funding for staff training
and retention, substance abuse assessment and treatment, and fiscal
incentives for states that achieve better outcomes. Emphasizing these
aspects of the child welfare system would further improve the services
available to families.
CONCERNS WITH FUNDING PROVISIONS
We support the elimination of the AFDC look-back requirement, but
this flexibility comes at too high a price in the Administration's
proposal. While we agree that increased prevention activities should
ultimately reduce the need for out-of-home care, no one knows how fast
that reduction will occur. It could very well be longer than the
Administration's five-year budget neutrality timeline. This
uncertainty, though not uncommon in social services programs, is
usually accompanied by some sharing of risk among the federal, state,
and county governments. In this case, instead of sharing the risk, the
Administration shifts it entirely to the states and counties. If a
state front-loads its funding for prevention activities, it might not
see a return for eight or ten years, or even more. During the five-year
budget-neutrality window, a state could run out of federal money and be
left holding the bill for continuing foster care placements.
From counties' perspective, a better option would be to increase
flexibility in the use of federal Title IV-E funding and eliminate the
unnecessary AFDC look-back requirements, while maintaining the
entitlement nature of Title IV-E. This will enable all stakeholders to
share in both the risks and the rewards of providing more prevention
and intervention services. Restructuring child welfare in partnership
is particularly important at a time when most states, including
California, are entering into plans with the Federal Government to
improve their child welfare outcomes. The expanded services and
supports and additional staff training called for in these plans--and,
ultimately, the improved outcomes that all of us seek for children and
families--cannot be realized unless Title IV-E is made more flexible
and is continued as a stable, dependable funding source for states and
counties.
While the proposal would allow states to access the $2 billion
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program contingency fund under
certain circumstances, the current proposal would not enable all states
to benefit. Access to the contingency fund should be made more flexible
and should also be broadened to allow a county or a sub-state region to
receive funding. As we understand the current proposal, the criteria
that must be met in order to access the fund are relatively narrow,
enough so that a state may not be able to receive funding even when it
is dire need. Of particular interest to county-run child welfare
systems is the idea of allowing a county or region to access the
contingency fund even if the state as a whole cannot. For example,
caseloads or unemployment rates in one county may increase sharply,
while the rest of the state experiences only minor increases.
Another vital issue for counties is the structure of the state
maintenance-of-effort requirement. States should be required to
maintain their current level of spending on child welfare programs. We
believe the way in which ``child welfare'' is defined will be of
critical importance in ensuring that spending remains in the program.
We would be happy to assist in drafting the specific language regarding
this requirement.
Further, we recommend that training dollars be kept outside of the
flexibility proposal and maintained as an uncapped funding source, as
in the current system. In California, counties have forged many
successful training partnerships with universities and community
organizations, using the enhanced 75 percent federal matching rate for
training activities to improve the skills of our child welfare staff.
Increased training will be a key piece of improving county performance
on the federal outcomes of safety, permanence, and well-being. The
Federal Government has a stake in ensuring that the changes it hopes to
facilitate in state child welfare programs come to pass, and ensuring
that funding remains available for this vital function.
Along the same lines, states should not have an incentive to limit
the maintenance and operation of their Statewide Automated Child
Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) or to shift funding for these
projects to other program areas. We believe that automation funding
should not be included in the proposal, in order to ensure continued
state commitment to these vital systems. The SACWIS projects ensure
more consistent data collection and reporting across the nation, and
are a key component of the federal child welfare review system. As
such, the Federal Government has a stake in the continued operation and
improvement of these systems.
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Additionally, while states opting into the program will be able to
forego the time-consuming process of determining federal eligibility
for children placed into foster care, they will continue to determine
eligibility for adoption assistance using the old AFDC look-back rules.
While the rules will be changed to enable states to test at one point
in time rather than two, this requirement still will reduce the
effectiveness of eliminating the look-back requirement for foster care.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
At this time, it is not clear what steps a state would be required
to take in order to opt into the flexible funding proposal. Given the
potentially significant ramifications of opting in, a decision-making
process that includes program administrators and other stakeholders is
advisable. In states that are county-administered, we ask that the
state be required to consult with the statewide association of counties
on the advisability of opting into the proposal. In states with county-
administered child welfare programs, the county association would also
have the right to approve or disapprove the state request for the
optional grant. State legislatures should also have the right to
approve or disapprove the request.
ENSURING MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY
Currently, children who are found eligible for federal Title IV-E
funding are automatically eligible for federal Medicaid reimbursement
under Title XIX. This categorical link helps to ensure that foster
children receive preventative and acute medical care. Understandably,
counties are concerned that removing the look-back requirement for
federal Title IV-E eligibility could also jeopardize the eligibility of
those children to the Medicaid program. From our discussions with
representatives of the Administration, we understand that states will
be given the option of either declaring all foster children a covered
group, or conducting a separate eligibility process for these children.
As the cost of allowing states to declare all foster children eligible
for Medicaid without a separate eligibility determination process is
estimated to be minor, we encourage the committee to preserve this
option for states.
CAN STATES TRULY OPT BACK OUT?
While the states opting into the proposal could theoretically opt
back out after five years, we are unclear on whether that is truly
possible. Would a state have to re-determine Title IV-E eligibility
under the old AFDC rules for its entire caseload in order to return to
the uncapped funding environment? Would programs operated using
flexible Title IV-E dollars be grandfathered in, or would they become
state-only programs? Redetermining eligibility would be cost-
prohibitive, requiring a significant administrative effort. Further,
states and counties would have to decide whether to continue serving
non-federally eligible families using their own funding or scale back
their programs and services. Neither option would be appealing, even if
the national economy has improved by that time.
CONCLUSION
States and counties are working with the Federal Government to
improve program outcomes and ensure safety, well-being and permanence
for children and their families. Much of the Administration's proposal,
especially the elimination of the AFDC look-back requirement and the
ability to use Title IV-E funds for front-end services, would enhance
the implementation of these program improvement plans. However, we
believe that this is not the time to limit federal funding for foster
care, staff training, program operations, or automation. The budget
neutrality required under the Bush Administration proposal could very
well serve to limit, rather than expand, prevention activities and
training. The Federal Government should continue to share in the risks
of the new prevention-focused strategy, as well as the rewards.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on the foster
care funding proposal. As always, counties stand ready to provide any
assistance and support that we can as you consider how to proceed along
the path toward greater flexibility.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards. Now, Mr.
Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child
Welfare Association in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Cross?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, before you--may I ask a point
of information, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman HERGER. Yes.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. All these people are responding as though
they have something in hand or they know what is going to be
proposed. The only thing I know of is a 6-inch paragraph in the
budget proposal. Is that what you are responding to, or have
you been presented other information?
Chairman HERGER. Well, that is what we have. That is the
purpose of this hearing. That is why we asked the
Administration----
Mr. MCDERMOTT. You mean they are responding to this?
Chairman HERGER. We heard witnesses, again, from the
Administration--the purpose of this hearing is to try to bring
out the thoughts on all sides, and basically, yes, that is what
we have done.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. How did they get this information?
Chairman HERGER. Mr. Cross, if you would proceed, please.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF TERRY L. CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. CROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very honored to be
here today. This is a historic day for our American Indian
children, to be included at the table at the front end of
decisionmaking about children's policy, because so often we
have been left out of the process and our children get left out
of programs, including Title IV-E.
I would like to commend the Administration for this bold
inclusion of tribes in this particular language. As several
people have said, it is very early. We don't know exactly what
it is. In reviewing both the short paragraph in the budget
proposal as well as the testimony presented today, we think
that the proposal is on a good track when it comes to tribal
children.
I also want to thank Congressman Camp for his leadership on
this issue and bringing this to the attention of the House in
his bill, the Indian and Alaska Native Foster Care and Adoption
Services Amendments of 2003 (H.R. 443), which would open direct
funding for the entitlement portion of this program to tribes,
since tribes don't currently have that.
You might ask why, and, what is the situation? Well, tribes
are sovereign nation-states within a nation, and one of the
areas that they retain sovereignty over, the power to govern
themselves, is around the custody of their children and
Congress affirmed that in 1978 in the Indian Child Welfare Act
(P.L. 95-608) that set up a mechanism for tribes to be able to
exercise their jurisdiction on child welfare issues, have their
own tribal courts and tribal codes and child welfare programs.
However, in 1980, when Title IV-E was put into being,
tribes were not at the table. We did not get invited to the
hearings. So, as a result, we are left out of that funding
stream.
We have been working now for many years to open this
funding stream to tribal children under the custody of tribal
courts. It has been almost an impossible process. We have
approximately 5,000 Indian children in foster care across the
country for whom nobody is paying any foster care payment. Poor
people are taking care of those children out of the kindness of
their hearts. There is no training for the workers, there is no
money for administration, and there are no funds for record
keeping.
This Committee has done a marvelous job in the last several
years of addressing issues in child welfare, but none of what
you have done has done one thing for children under the custody
of tribal courts because none of the protections of safety and
well-being or permanency extend to children under the custody
of tribal courts. So, while I applaud your efforts with all
children, our children are left behind, and I have to tell you
that it is time for that to stop.
I had a grandmother come up to me at a meeting 2 weeks ago.
She takes care of three children, not her grandchildren, though
they call her ``Grandmother.'' She is a foster parent. Her
question was, ``Do you think it would be possible for me to get
some financial help to take care of these kids? I can't meet my
housing costs. I can't buy enough food to feed them. Some of
the kids have been sexually abused. There is no money for
counseling or mental health care.'' That has to stop.
We estimate that the Navajo Nation alone has 300 children
in foster care for whom no one pays a foster care payment. We
also know that many, many Indian children would be adopted by
their relatives, by their neighbors, by their families'
friends, but there is almost no access to adoption assistance.
While tribal members can go to State offices and apply, those
offices are mostly hundreds of miles away and those services
are not available through their tribes. The human cost is high.
The systems costs are also high. We know that over-
representation of Indian children in the State system is high.
The Children and Family Services Review (CFSR) has shown that
65 percent of the kids in South Dakota are Indian in the foster
care system. Only 17 percent of the kids are Indian in the
State. If tribes had access to these resources, they would be
providing services for those children and those children would
be close to their homes and they would be with their relatives.
Adoption does not seem to be addressed in this proposal. We
don't see any language, but I may have missed it. There are
some issues we are going to have to be very careful about and
we want to make sure that tribes are in this discussion, things
like what is the distribution formula? What about match when
tribes can't provide match? What about unexpected increases in
cost? Say, for instance, that 65 percent of kids in the South
Dakota foster care system--tribes take over their own services,
those kids go back to the tribes. Representative Johnson raised
a very important point earlier today. The dollars should follow
the child.
Tribes also need access to the same option that States
have, to opt into the entitlement portion of this program,
which they currently do not have.
This proposal is consistent with every piece of Federal
policy of the Administration and the Congress over the last
several years, including ``No Child Left Behind,'' self-
determination, community-based, faith-based, permanency, and
well-being. I hope you see fit to include Indian children,
because you guys can do something about it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cross follows:]
Statement of Terry L. Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child
Welfare Association, Portland, Oregon
The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits this
statement on the Bush Administration's foster care flexible funding
proposal. Our statement will focus on the potential benefits for
American Indian children and areas needing further clarification. This
statement will also show how not having access to Title IV-E funding in
the past has hampered the ability of tribal governments to provide
basic services that support permanency for their children.
Summary of Recommendations
The National Indian Child Welfare Association is honored to have
this opportunity to present our comments and recommendations before the
subcommittee. In the past, tribal governments were often not included
in the debates that decided how federal funding would flow or how
services would be designed, which underscores the importance of this
opportunity.
Our general response to the President's flexible funding proposal
as it applies to American Indian children is very positive. This
includes a $30 million reserved amount for distribution to eligible
tribal governments. For many years now, tribal governments have
struggled to piece together funding to provide child welfare services
in ways that are as creative and innovative as anything you will see
elsewhere. This has not been easy but has demonstrated the strong
desire of tribal governments to exercise their sovereignty and right to
self-governance.
There are still many details that need to be worked out and
clarified, and this is why it is very important for Congress and the
Administration to open a dialog with tribal governments on how to
develop the best possible funding proposal. The nuances and
complexities of making a child welfare program successful for American
Indian children, such as integrating requirements under existing
federal Indian laws with this proposal, are many, but there are many
good minds and people with expertise in these areas that can help.
Our primary recommendations are summarized below:
Tribal governments should have the same options as states
under this proposal, including having access to the existing Title IV-E
program. This means amending the Title IV-E law, as in Representative
Dave Camp's legislation, H.R. 443, which allows tribal governments to
administer the program.
Tribal government eligibility should be extended to all
tribal governments in the United States and also include tribal
consortia.
The distribution of tribal funding from any reserved
amount should take into consideration the historic lack of child
welfare funding for tribes and provide opportunities in the future to
adjust funding based upon factors such as need and inflation. In
addition, if enacted, the numbers of tribal governments likely to apply
will grow each year for several years. Allowing for the redistribution
of any funds not allocated during a fiscal year would be helpful and
could be accomplished through the use of supplemental or contingency
budgets submitted by eligible tribal governments.
Maximum flexibility in the use of these funds will be
important in addressing the issues that cause American Indian children
to become involved in the child welfare system, including cross cutting
issues like alcohol and substance abuse that impact all child welfare
populations, but have unique origins and dynamics in American Indian
communities. We also support the Administration considering providing
some limited waiver authority to the Secretary to adjust program
requirements for tribal governments that improve outcomes but don't
sacrifice health or safety.
Tribal governments that apply should also be able to
determine their service area and who they will serve, similar to what
is available in other federal laws (TANF and Title IV-B).
The ability of tribal governments, who are the poorest of
the poor, to provide matching funds is limited in most cases. We
recommend waiving any matching fund requirement for tribal governments.
If the subcommittee is not amenable to this, we recommend using a
strategy that is used in other federal programs that allows tribal
governments to use other public funds as match (state and federal) and
consider the use of in-kind contributions to meet match requirements.
Because tribal governments have not received the funding
that state governments have, there will be a need for additional
technical assistance than what is already available. The technical
assistance should be rooted in tribal child welfare realities and will
help tribal governments access a knowledge base for program innovation
and success.
American Indian Children and Title IV-E
Important to understanding how the Bush Administration's proposal
will impact American Indian children is the overall experience with
Title IV-E for these children. It is a story of American Indian
children left behind.
In 1980 when the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act was
debated and then enacted into law, Congress did not consider that
thousands of American Indian children receive child welfare services
through their tribal governments. State governments were the only
eligible recipients for Title IV-E funds as written into the law. This
oversight created a gap in the program where American Indian children
under the jurisdiction of tribal courts could not receive Title IV-E
services. These are the same children who are found to be some of the
most over represented children in the foster care system and live in
communities with some of the greatest needs in the United States. This
oversight has essentially made a class of children ineligible for
federal entitlement services simply because of where they live in the
United States.
In most tribal communities, the inability to access Title IV-E
funds has meant additional hardship for tribal governments as they try
to develop child welfare services that can move American Indian
children towards permanency. Recruiting, training, and maintaining an
adequate pool of foster and adoptive homes has been very difficult,
with many tribes having to place children in unsubsidized homes because
no funding exists. Case management, a critical element of helping
children move out of crisis and into a permanent arrangement, is
hampered when funding for staff positions and the training of staff is
inadequate. Data systems critical to developing information that can
inform government officials and policymakers have received a boost from
Title IV-E funding, but tribal governments have not shared in this. The
overall effect has been to limit progress towards improving permanency
for American Indian children.
Addressing this disparity in recent years have been several members
of the House and Senate who have signed on to legislation that would
amend Title IV-E to make tribal governments eligible to receive these
funds directly. We thank the primary House co-sponsor of H.R. 443,
Representative Dave Camp, for introducing this important legislation
and working to seek its passage.
Some stopgap efforts to piece together foster care funding for
tribal governments has occurred in 13 states. Agreements between tribes
and states have allowed a small portion of tribes the ability to
receive Title IV-E funding for foster care services. These agreements
have given about 70 tribes access to foster care funding to support
maintenance payments to foster families. However, these agreements are
often hard to develop and provide only a small portion of the overall
program funding to tribes. Agreements to provide access to the adoption
assistance program or reimburse tribes for eligible administrative
services are almost non-existent. Tribal governments who want to
develop agreements in many other states have not been able to because
of state officials who are cautious about administrative or legal
concerns. Two studies, one conducted by the Department of Health and
Human Services Office of Inspector General in 1994 entitled,
``Opportunities for Administration for Children and Families to Improve
Child Welfare Services and Protections for Native American Children''
and one that Casey Family Programs and the National Indian Child
Welfare Association conducted in 2000 entitled, ``Tribal/State Title
IV-E Agreements: Facilitating Tribal Access to Federal Resources'' had
similar findings.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs offers some discretionary funding for
foster care to a limited number of tribes, but this source does not
support program costs and is unavailable to a large number of tribes.
It is part of an $85 million pot of funds termed ``Welfare
Assistance'', which must also meet the other following needs of tribes
nationwide: general assistance, non-medical institutional or custodial
care of disabled adults; the Tribal Work Experience program; burial
expenses of deceased indigent American Indian people; and emergency
assistance to prevent hardship caused by fire, flood, or other acts of
nature. To say the least, this is not a reliable source of funds for
foster care and adoption assistance. We also point out that the funding
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not support adoption assistance
services. At the Navajo Nation, a recipient of these Bureau funds, the
tribal social services program still has to place approximately 300
children a year in unsubsidized foster care. The Navajo families that
volunteer their time and homes have very modest incomes and yet are
forced to use what little resources they have to support the costs of
providing a foster care or adoptive placement. This situation creates
an additional risk factor for disrupted placements, beyond what state
child welfare programs typically see. As you can see, the funding
picture for foster care and adoption assistance services for American
Indian children is bleak and does not even begin to meet the
overwhelming needs found in most tribal communities.
The Department of Justice reports that violent victimizations were
more likely among American Indian children than any other racial group,
and that between 1992 and 1995 child abuse and neglect rates increased
among American Indians while declining for other groups (1999 National
Report Services: Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Many of these Indian
children end up in the child welfare system; tribes need the resources
of the Title IV-E program to assist these children and their families.
The Administration's Proposal for Title IV-E Flexible Funding and
Application with American Indian Children
Our general response to the Administration's proposal to provide
$30 million for allocation to eligible tribal governments is supportive
in that the proposal recognizes the needs of tribal governments to be
included in any new development or reform of federal child welfare
programs. We also interpret this element of the Title IV-E proposal as
support for the government-to-government relationship that tribal
governments have with the Federal Government. It is consistent with the
way many DHHS and other federal funds are distributed to tribes--on a
government-to-government basis that allows for local design of programs
within the confines of federal law. While there are still many details
to be ironed out, this appears to be a promising beginning. A number of
the tribal governments with whom we have talked regarding this proposal
are also very interested and looking forward to having the opportunity
to provide their input too.
Our basic understanding of the proposal, at this point, is that it
would be an option for states and require a five-year commitment.
Funding is also reserved for eligible tribal governments under this
proposal--approximately $30 million--which would be available after an
application is submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services
and approved, although the process and amounts available for
distribution to individual tribal governments have not yet been
determined. The process for determining who is an eligible tribal
applicant has not been decided either, although conversations with the
Children's Bureau have indicated that they are looking at a number of
possibilities. We also understand that individual children will not
have to meet a certain income level requirement in order to qualify for
services under this proposal. The President's proposal also mentions
providing some waiver authority to modify or waive certain requirements
for tribal programs as long as the modifications do not compromise
child safety or health. Funding under this proposal will also be
available for purposes authorized under Title IV-B or IV-E, which would
include subsidized guardianship placements--a good option for some
children for whom adoption is not realistic.
Based upon the information we have received so far, we are
providing a brief description of what the National Indian Child Welfare
sees as the key issues, areas that need clarification, and our ideas on
how to address these challenges.
Eligibility for tribal governments--Tribal governments, like state
governments, need dependable, adequate funding for child welfare
services for children under their jurisdiction. In many situations,
lack of funding has been the primary barrier for tribes as they seek to
protect their children and give them a greater sense of permanency. All
tribes in the United States operate some form of child welfare service,
and a great number of these currently operate foster care and adoption
services. Since the President's proposal implies great flexibility in
how the funds can be used and tribal communities have the experience
and some of the greatest needs, it makes good sense to allow all tribal
governments to participate in this proposal. Basic program and
reporting requirements required for all applicants will provide the
Children's Bureau with an opportunity to evaluate the suitability of
this program for each applicant. Furthermore, by increasing tribal
participation in this program, the Federal Government will also
facilitate the collection of tribal data on foster care and adoption,
which is currently not available. By not limiting eligibility to only
select groups of tribes, the Administration will be making a strong
statement about its commitment to improving child welfare services for
all American Indian children.
Tribal consortia--Tribal child welfare services have been provided
through consortium in many parts of the United States for over 20
years. Tribes in states like Alaska and California, which comprise over
half of all tribal governments in the United States, rely on the option
to use consortium to maximize their limited funds. Typically, the
consortium designates a lead tribe that becomes the services
administrator for Indian children in the identified service area. The
organization of tribal consortium in child welfare is a response to
several things: 1) the need to improve service coordination, 2) the
need to maximize the use of limited funding and improve access to other
potential funding sources, and 3) the need to provide tribal
governments with insufficient resources the opportunity to exercise
their authority and responsibility to protect their children. Allowing
tribal consortia to qualify for funding under the President's proposal
will help a much greater number of Indian children who otherwise would
go unserved, and, we believe, will help make the administration of the
program by the Children's Bureau easier.
Distribution of funds--Related to tribal eligibility will be the
issue of how available funding is distributed to eligible tribes.
Because most tribes have had very limited access to federal child
welfare funding, especially foster care and adoption assistance
funding, it is almost impossible to know what an accurate baseline of
need related to these types of services is. Accurate caseload and
program histories, especially related to use of Title IV-E funds, are
not available at this time. If the President's proposal is enacted, our
experience tells us that tribal governments will apply incrementally,
with more applying each year. At the end of five years, we could see
even more tribal governments wanting to apply as increased information
regarding promising practices and critical analysis of program
operations becomes available. These issues underline the need for
tribes to have the same options as states to choose between the
existing IV-E program and the President's flexible funding option and
for a periodic system to review the adequacy of tribal funding under
this proposal. This review may trigger the adjustment of the reserved
funds for tribal governments, based upon factors such as need and
inflation and also be equitable with any mechanism that provides
adjustments for state allocations.
An approach to ensuring adequate tribal participation and benefits
for American Indian children would be to allow redistribution of any
unspent funds in a given fiscal year. This is consistent with how other
similar federal funding for tribal governments is distributed (Title
IV-B, Subpart 2) and can be accomplished through the use of
supplemental or contingency budgets submitted by tribal governments.
The Secretary could review supplemental applications and assess them
for their merit and feasibility.
Waiver authority--Research regarding tribal child welfare programs
demonstrates that culturally defined services are much more likely to
succeed with Indian children and families, and this is an area where
waivers may be appropriate. Another reason for allowing waiver
authority is the economy of scale of applying requirements designed for
larger programs that are not feasible for smaller programs. The ability
of federal programs to allow flexibility in program requirements is a
positive development, and, used wisely, will help reduce the flow of
children into the child welfare system and produce better outcomes for
those who are involved.
Service area--Under the TANF program and other federal programs,
tribes define their service area and the American Indian population
being served. This is important because of the differences in available
tribal resources, working relationships with state and county
governments, and jurisdictional variances. When tribal governments have
this option, they will often use it to provide services to more than
just members of their tribe. They may provide the services to Indian
people from other tribes living within their reservation or service
area. This can help alleviate the burden state and county agencies
often feel and provide more accessible and/or culturally designed
services. New and emerging partnerships can also develop as tribal and
state agencies work to map out a service delivery plan that meets
everyone's needs.
Matching funds--Proposing a significant match or maintenance of
effort requirement for tribes could become an impediment to tribal
participation. The majority of tribal communities continue to be
economically disadvantaged. In many cases, their only source of revenue
for government services will come from Bureau of Indian Affairs or
Indian Health Services funds, which are restricted to specific
activities. Because tribal communities often have such high rates of
poverty and unemployment, tribal governments have very few options when
it comes to raising general, unrestricted revenue. As a result, a
number of federal programs have reduced match requirements that apply
to tribal governments and/or provide them with the opportunity to use
other federal or state funds as match (e.g. TANF, Title IV-B and Child
Care Block Grant). This can be done without supplanting tribal funding
or significantly reducing maintenance of effort. We strongly recommend
flexibility with regard to any required tribal match rates.
We note that, according to the 2000 Census, the poverty rate for
the large federal reservations is 40.3%; the unemployment rate for the
same set of large reservations is 22.8%. Several reservations have
poverty rates of over 50% with unofficial employment rates exceeding
30%.
Technical assistance--While the National Indian Child Welfare
Association, through our partnerships with four of the National
Resource Centers in Child Welfare, has been able to provide technical
assistance to many tribes that are planning for or operating foster
care and adoption assistance services, we consistently have to turn
away tribal governments who request technical assistance. We can also
see an increased demand for technical assistance from tribal
governments once this proposal is enacted. To ensure that critical
information and assistance is available to further the program's goals,
it would be worthwhile to establish technical assistance resources for
tribes interested in child welfare services. This could be approached
in several ways, but the overall goal would be to improve access to the
knowledge base in practice and policy.
Conclusion
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
share our thoughts and ideas regarding the President's proposal for
flexible foster care funding. As we said earlier, both our organization
and the tribal governments that we have talked with are very interested
in this proposal in combination with amending the Title IV-E law to
allow tribal governments, like state governments, to administer the
current Title IV-E program. I think it is fair to say that all of us
are looking to improve the way in which children and families receive
services in the child welfare system. We want to avoid the mistakes of
the past, take advantage of the opportunities before us now, and create
a world where all children can receive the services they need. The
National Indian Child Welfare Association feels strongly about this, as
we are sure you do, and is hopeful that this will be the Congress that
will make this vision a reality.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Cross. Now to
inquire, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. McCrery.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Riley, you talked
in your oral presentation generally about how current foster
care program rules limit how a State can serve children and
families. Would you elaborate on that? What are some of the
limitations or restrictions that current law places on the
States?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman McCrery, the limit
that you have heard a lot about today is that we have to spend
Title IV-E funds on placement costs and placement is really
only one small part of what a child welfare system ought to be,
and in fact, it ought to be a smaller part than what it is.
So, the restriction for that weighs heavily on us. The
opportunity to have the flexibility to do something with those
dollars that would provide things like family counseling--we
are not allowed to provide counseling for families with Title
IV-E dollars. We are not providing substance abuse services for
families with Title IV-E dollars. All of those types of
ancillary services that wrap around the placement of a child
are crucial to returning that child home--and not just services
for the child but services for the family, as well, so that the
child has an opportunity to go back to an intact and
functioning family. So, those are all precluded under the
current Title IV-E funding stream.
Mr. MCCRERY. Is that one of the reasons that Ohio requested
a waiver?
Ms. RILEY. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. MCCRERY. Is it working as you thought it would when you
get that flexibility to use that Federal money?
Ms. RILEY. I have to admit that I wasn't there when we
applied for that waiver, so I am not certain what people
thought it would do. I do know that we had hoped for somewhat
better results than we have achieved. Five years has not been
long enough. We are just beginning to see a glimmer of change
in many of the areas. We do think that that glimmer is
sufficient to show us that this flexibility would be vital to
that ongoing building of that service. We have learned that 5
years has not been sufficient to really see outcomes and have
measurable outcomes that we can project accurately into the
future.
Mr. MCCRERY. Well, what types of services were you able to
develop with this increased flexibility?
Ms. RILEY. Like California, we are a State supervised,
county administered system, so 14 counties did it basically 14
different ways. We had things like subsidized guardianships. We
had lots of prevention services, lots of counseling services.
We had folks like social workers placed in schools to deal
directly at the school with the children who are in the child
protection system. So, a real array of services. It also
allowed us to be an incredible pot of experiment to be able to
tell which of those things work best, and we are just now
beginning to get a handle on what happened in one county versus
another and how we might learn from where it was successful.
Mr. MCCRERY. Prior to your waiver, you were unable to use
the Federal Title IV-E funds for those kinds of services?
Ms. RILEY. That is correct.
Mr. MCCRERY. So, I assume that since you have seen some
glimmer, as you put it, there is hope for the favorable
outcomes that you had gone for with these kinds of services. Do
you think that there is some merit to expanding the waiver in
your State to all States across the nation?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. McCrery, I think it would be very helpful to
be able to expand it from 14 counties to 88 in Ohio and across
the country.
Mr. MCCRERY. Last, you say in your testimony that, ``I
believe that the current Title IV-E funding system rewards
failure rather than success.'' Would you elaborate?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. McCrery, right now, we are receiving funding
for children that are in placement rather than funding that
rewards the goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which
encourage States to keep children at home, to quickly reunify
children. Instead, we get money--the longer the child stays,
the more money we get. We want it to be the opposite, and in
our waiver counties, that is exactly what we have been able to
do. They bank their dollars that they did not spend on
placement and can spend them on those alternative services.
Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. McCrery. Ms. Riley, I want
to thank you also for the great work that we hear coming out of
your State. Thank you very much for the example I believe you
are setting and that we can all, hopefully, learn from and help
improve the system throughout the nation. With that, the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we
all agree that we need to reform the Title IV-E system, so that
is not a matter that is in disagreement. In fact, as you
noticed, on the Democratic side, we filed legislation to do
just that.
I was disappointed we didn't have a second round because I
thought we were trying to come to a conclusion on the lookback
with the Administration. One of my concerns is that we all
agree the lookback is not a good idea, to go back to the AFDC
rules. Yet, if I understand the Administration's proposal, we
still have the lookback for adoption services assistance,
because that is not dealt with in the legislation. If I had a
chance on a second round, I would have tried to clarify that.
So, I think that we are still going to need to reform the
basic system, and I think we all agree with that, and
particularly with giving States a true option. We want to make
sure that the current system is reformed to give the States the
flexibility they need and still protect our national goals.
Ms. Edwards, in your testimony, you--the CBO baseline
assumes a 25-percent reduction in the Title IV-E caseload
assumptions over the next 10 years, as to how they get to the
dollars that are available. So, I guess my concern is that in
your State, if you were to go into the option, if you would go
into the block grant and you were not able to achieve the
caseload reductions, in fact, if you had a caseload increase,
is it possible that where we are trying to get more funds in
preventive services, and we all agree with that, that
ultimately you might have to take money out of preventive
services in order to finance your basic caseload increases? Is
that a real risk?
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Cardin, Mr. Chairman, obviously, that is a
risk and one that is greatly concerning to us. If, indeed, our
State opted in and we invested more money up front and the
caseload increased, then we would have no other option. I would
point out, too, that already, there are many children in the
system for whom we cannot use Title IV-E funding because of the
lookback. We still are responsible for those children. So, it
would only add to the burden and that burden ultimately falls
at the local level.
In California, counties pay about one-quarter of the costs
of the foster care system, and that is roughly $1 billion. I
don't think it comes as any surprise to you that not only
counties in California, but across the nation, are having
financial difficulties meeting all of the needs for services in
their communities.
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that answer. Ms. Ryan, I also
appreciate your testimony where you try to be kind to the
Administration's proposal and then you add a lot of caveats
that you would like to see improved on, and I like all your
caveats. States should be allowed to opt out of the block
grant, Mrs. Johnson already covered that. The triggers for the
contingency funds should be improved. The State maintenance of
efforts are limited. This plan should be accompanied by an
increase in the SSBG. All States should be allowed to update
their eligibility standards for foster care regardless of
whether they opt into the block grant. All States should be
provided more flexibility for preventive services. I agree with
all of those assessments.
I guess my question to you is, that is fine, but as I
understand the Administration's proposal, they want it budget
neutral. It seems to me that your recommendation, your
suggestions--and I support them--require that we provide
additional help in order to be able to achieve the flexibility
and the results that we want.
Ms. RYAN. Mr. Cardin and Mr. Chairman, I would have to
respond that--and really to a question I think Congressman
McDermott asked--we have been in a series of conversations with
the Administration. We haven't seen the actual details of the
proposal. We hope that there is an opportunity to talk about
the baseline, what is in the baseline, what might be the rate
of growth in the baseline. National rates of growth are quite
different than State rates of growth. Congresswoman Johnson
talked about the fact that States are not similarly situated.
We have rising costs of care that have nothing to do with
inflation or the number of children, so-called children, who
have been in the system with multiple issues that are actually
more costly. So, yes, we believe that under the
Administration's proposal, we need to have that discussion
about baseline growth.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that response. Ms.
Riley, you present to us a real opportunity because you already
have something similar to what the Administration is proposing
in a certain number of your counties. So, I would like you to
make available to our Committee, unless you have the
information today--some of the problems you are encountering.
We know we have high caseloads, caseworker turnover is very
heavy, and we don't have experienced caseworkers. I would like
to know if there has been a difference in those counties in
which you have had the waiver program in effect. I would like
to know the caseload reductions, the comparisons, et cetera. I
assume that in those counties, you feel you have adequate
resources. If that is not the case, I would like to know that,
also.
So, if you could make available for the Committee the
specific information over the last several years of what has
happened as far as caseworker longevity, reduction of caseload,
eligible individuals, and whether you have adequate funding in
order to deal with these problems, I would appreciate it.
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, we would be happy to
do that. Anecdotally, I can tell you that it has been positive
in some counties and less so than in others, but we will be
happy to provide that county by county and try to tie it back
to some of the things they did that engendered those outcomes.
[The information is being retained in the Committee files.]
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. Just
a couple of points. Number one is that in the next 15 minutes
or so, we are expected to have a series of three or four votes.
Second, any questions that any Members of this Committee have
for any of our panelists, including Dr. Horn, can be submitted
in writing and we will include that in the record.
Also, it is my understanding one of the reasons why the
Administration does not have this writing is that this policy
is evolving now. I understand, Ms. Ryan, that they are in
contact with you, and again, one of the purposes of this
Committee is to get the information out and hopefully to come
up with the very best policy that we can. Certainly, that is
the intent of this Committee.
With that, I would like to, Ms. Ryan, ask you the same
question I posed to Dr. Horn. With the recent CRS memo that
shows how Federal foster care funding can swing wildly within
State from year to year, would you care to share how you feel
this proposal can help provide States more predictability over
the funding they currently receive, and what that can mean to
States?
Ms. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what the
CBO data may be showing is that, frankly, there are wide
variances among States in terms of the number of children cared
for, the cost of care, and the so-called penetration rate in
terms of Title IV-E claiming. A lot of things can drive that
caseload.
One thing that we have seen, is that in some States in
recent years, they have actually increased their Title IV-E
claims. The State of Washington, for example, has. West
Virginia has. In other places, States have seen a dramatic
reduction in those claims.
I think under this foster care reduction, or this proposal,
what it would do is enable States to be able to know the fixed
amount of money that they have, be able to set some reasonable
targets as to whether or not they believe that they can operate
from year to year with some certainty of how many resources
that they have available to them. Quite frankly, for some
States, they may be able to achieve what Ohio has achieved,
which is a reduced length of stay in foster care or reduced
number of children to free up those dollars to be able to use
them for more preventive front-end services. In other States,
they may not be so successful, and that may actually influence
whether they decide to opt in.
Just to close with this and say that sometimes within the
course, given the wide variation of those claiming rates,
sometimes during the course, like the crack epidemic or the
methamphetamines on the West Coast, there are things beyond the
control of a particular system where, for whatever reason, we
believe States should be able to opt out within the 5-year
period because the protection of children are paramount in this
program.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Ms. Ryan. Ms. Riley, would you
mind commenting on the same question?
Ms. RILEY. I smiled while you asked that question, because
although I think it would give us greater predictability and I
would welcome that predictability, I worry a little about where
my swing is whenever the baseline is established, because if
that base happens to hit one of my down years, it could very
negatively reflect on my next 5 years' worth of revenue flow.
So, that causes me concern. The predictability would be
welcome.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much. With that, the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, to inquire.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to ask
earlier, what do you think this system is going to do? What
kind of specificity did you have when you prepared your
testimony coming here, because some of you say you are in favor
of this? You just want to have flexibility? Is that enough of
an offer from the Federal Government?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. McDermott, speaking from Ohio's point of
view, flexibility is not enough, but it is a big incentive. I
also raised in my testimony a number of issues we would like to
see addressed, some of which we have had some answers to,
some--or not answers, but we have had some information around
and some we have not. So, I think there are still many things
undetermined. Our source of information was primarily APHSA and
some conference calls that they have convened and their
willingness to share from their perspective.
Ms. RYAN. I would be happy to respond to that question, as
well. After the President's proposal was put in the budget, we
actually reached out to our States, quite frankly thrilled that
someone was paying attention to child welfare financing at that
level, and asked them to convene a workgroup. We invited the
Administration, Dr. Horn, as well as Joe Knoll and Susan Orr,
to actually talk to our members about what they had in mind. We
had nothing written. In fact, I think in some ways those are
things that I have actually prepared as a series of
conversations that are continual conversations.
So, we don't have any formal proposal. We have a broad
rubric, and we have been engaged in discussions about what
makes sense in terms of opt in, opt out, claims filed versus
claims paid, and other kind of arcane issues.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Are you saying that you like this new
proposal with the thought in mind that you will have the same
amount of money or less money or more money?
Ms. RYAN. I think that at this point, our association does
not have a formal position on the proposal because we haven't
seen it, and when legislation is introduced, we will put it
before our Membership, understand the details, and determine
whether or not this, quite frankly, fits the needs of the
States. So, we have not taken a position to date.
What we do believe is that some of the fundamental pieces
of it are well worth the time to explore. The flexibility to
use those funds on all children in the system is very
attractive to States, and I will defer to the professionals at
the table.
The second piece, the fact that you can use those dollars
for things that actually make sense for families, is also very,
very attractive. There is some peril among some administrators
in some States saying, we are not sure we can take the risk to
enter a fixed allotment of funds and be able to produce the
kind of changes needed to free up those dollars to do those
good things.
So, I think at this point, we have taken this as an idea,
something that we want to work with the Administration to try
to refine. If it is a State option, we want to make it the best
option. If there are States that cannot opt into this for
whatever reason, we want to continue to pursue things like
fixing the lookback, making sure Title IV-E is much more
flexible so that they can actually support the goals of the
program.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What is it that States do that make it not
possible for them to opt into the program? What have they done
wrong? Give me an example of a State that hasn't been able to
opt in because of something they have done. Is it a law they
have or----
Ms. RYAN. I think at this point, because we don't really
know what would be involved in the opt in--for example, the
baseline determination, what the rate of growth might be over
time. Those could give pause to States. Some States have
actually achieved shorter length of stay in foster care for
children. They might not see enough promise in this to lock in
at a fixed amount of money, thinking that they have done as
well as they could do.
Some other States, like the State of Washington, quite
frankly, have increased Title IV-E claims in recent years, and
so if they have expectation that they might be able to find
more children who are Title IV-E eligible to be able to get
increased Federal reimbursement, they are going to be unlikely
to look back a year when their claims weren't as high and then
lock in at that point.
So, as I tried to put out in my testimony, States are in
very different places, and as you well know, child welfare
financing is a system in crisis serving children and families
in crisis, and we have the gall to expect outcomes and measure
them. We have got half of the children covered with any Federal
dollars. We are patching together SSBG dollars, a little bit of
Medicaid, some TANF, some court costs, some local costs, some
State costs, and then actually say it is a system.
I think that the issue before us is whether or not we can
create some context for this next round of reform so that we
actually can get the hydraulics right, that we have the funding
stream flexible enough to serve families and children and that
it is adequate in order to meet the outcomes that these Child
and Family Service Reviews ask States to achieve. So, we want
to have a very thoughtful and planned full discussion on this
next round of reform.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I assure you, I hope we have another hearing
when we have a bill.
Ms. RYAN. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Cross, the
Administration proposal would provide $30 million for tribes to
operate child welfare programs. What types of programs and
services do you feel the tribes would provide under this
option?
Mr. CROSS. Foster care, primarily, because right now, that
is where the need is. We don't have enough detail to judge. One
of the things that scares me about this, while I believe it is
on a good track, is that we have no baseline by which to
measure because so many tribal children are in foster care
without any payment or because they are in the custody of
States, and tribes would do those services if they had that
money.
I believe we are going to have to be very cautious and
flexible with how we create the baseline for tribes and that is
going to have to take shape over a period of years. I hope any
legislative language allows for some realistic picture of how
many children this is really going to mean.
Tribal programs right now across the country are providing
a range of child welfare services, but they are piecing
together those services with a variety of funding sources. Some
contract with the States around them. Some are using their own
tribal resources. They receive very small amounts from IV-B
part 1. Most of those grants are under a couple thousand
dollars. Seventy tribes in the country, approximately, are
receiving IV-B part 2. The majority of them receive less than
$20,000 each. Tribes receive about $20,000 each from the Indian
Child Welfare Act Title II appropriation.
So, tribes are piecing all of these different funding
sources together, and then are able to hire one or two
caseworkers who are handling everything and then not having
enough resources to pay a foster care payment.
So, this would be the most dramatic thing to happen for
Indian children since the passage of the Indian Child Welfare
Act. I can't emphasize enough that when a people have the
authority and responsibility to protect and care for their
children and then there are no resources to do that, we are
leaving children behind simply because of their residence and
citizenship in the nations of our Indian Tribes in this
country. It is as if you cut off the upper peninsula of
Michigan or something and said, you are just not eligible for
an entitlement or in the program.
So, I am here because whatever happens, tribes need a
voice. I can't say that this is a good thing. We don't know
because we don't have language yet to indicate what the real
impact of this would be across the board. We can only say that
it seems that these concepts are on a good track. This is a
good conversation to have. For the tribal provisions, I am
feeling that this is very promising. It is the first time that
this kind of dialog has gone forward within the Administration.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cross. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Stark, to inquire.
Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses, and I want to address this problem. We don't know,
and the Chair doesn't seem disposed to let the Administration
tell us very much about what this plan will look like.
Basically, all we know is they want to block grant the funds,
and this thing will not increase them if the caseload goes up.
We do know that the same Administration for children and
families has given us some dire predictions. Now, in
Connecticut, HHS has told us that the caseworkers have failed
to maintain stability of foster care placement and that
reducing the staff would have--a reduced staff will have more
difficulties ensuring stability for foster children.
In Indiana, 70 kids died from abuse and neglect in the year
July 2001 to July 2002, a new State record. HHS found that the
cause was that the State child protection agencies failed to
sufficiently reduce incidences of repeated mistreatment and
warned that State budgets will further impact the limited
ability to track these incidences. Now, there are dozens of
comments. All these studies are bad. So, we are hearing from
the same people who are suggesting we limit the funding.
Ms. Riley's State, I gather, operates under what would be
the way you would operate if you had the block grant, is that
not correct?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Stark, 14 of our 88 counties operate under
something that we think----
Mr. STARK. Well, but when you answered Mr. Cardin--because
the Children's Bureau found that Ohio's welfare program did not
achieve substantial conformity with any of the seven safety,
permanency, or well-being outcomes. In addition, Ohio did not
meet national standards for measures relating to repeat
maltreatment, maltreatment of children in foster care, foster
care reentry, stability of foster care placements, length of
time to achieve reunification, or the length of time to achieve
adoption. There are a few things that you did right, but it
doesn't have much to do in here.
It goes on, caseworkers didn't visit parents with
sufficient frequency. Your case reviews found that children did
not receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental
health needs. You are going to tell me that you can improve
that with less money?
Now, I would like to know if those figures didn't apply to
these 14 counties where you are using this system. That would
be very good to know. I will bet you they are just in there
with the rest of the counties, aren't they?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Stark, the figures you are referencing refer
to the Child and Family Service Review----
Mr. STARK. Yes.
Ms. RILEY. Which we, like every other State that has gone
through it----
Mr. STARK. Every State in the Union got----
Ms. RILEY. Has not done well.
Mr. STARK. It is not well in any State. I don't know how we
did in California. We probably didn't do much better.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Stark, California did not pass the
reviews, either.
Mr. STARK. Yes. I am not suggesting--every State didn't.
What I am saying is that block granting it didn't seem to help
much.
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Stark, really, the Child and Family Service
Review--I have to admit, I am not certain I can encompass all
of this in a very short time, but the Child and Family Service
Review has, I think, a lot of other deficiencies attached to
it, and----
Mr. STARK. Well, you just heard the guy. He has a lot of
deficiencies, too, the guy who is running this system. We are
not here to talk about the deficiencies in our Administration.
What we are trying to say is, is it suddenly a solution to
underpaid, underfunded, overworked social workers in States to
say, we are going to give you a block grant and let you move
the chairs around on the Titanic as it sinks? Is that what you
guys want?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Stark, that is not a solution. That,
however, may contribute to a solution, and I am hopeful for
that.
Mr. STARK. Will it help us in California, Ms. Edwards?
Ms. EDWARDS. No, I am afraid it will not. We need the
flexibility. We need to eliminate the lookback. I am gravely
concerned when I know that in California, we have a study that
shows we need $280 million more to adequately staff child
welfare as it exists today.
Mr. STARK. Ms. Ryan, your association--can we do this
without adding any resources?
Ms. RYAN. I think I have testified, Mr. Stark, that the
fact is that the system needs more resources. So, it wouldn't
be my testimony that we would plan shrinkage and think that we
could do a better job.
Having said that, I have to say that, on all of our
members' behalf, the Child and Family Service Review is a
snapshot. It is a baseline. It is the first time we have
actually taken a look. So, it ought not to be perceived as a
measure of whether or not States are actually achieving
outcomes.
I think it is very important, though, to your point, to
look at those measures and to ask whether or not Title IV-E
funds can be used to meet any of those improved outcomes. That
is why we called for improved flexibility----
Mr. STARK. What if we just made them an entitlement for
matching funds? Wouldn't that be better?
Ms. RYAN. We testified to broaden the use of Title IV-E
funding and we would have a better chance at moving those----
Mr. STARK. Would you like that better, Ms. Riley, just to
make it an entitlement and let Ohio match it?
Chairman HERGER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. STARK. I want to hear that answer, Mr. Chairman. It
might change your mind.
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Stark, I would love an entitlement.
Mr. STARK. A little information wouldn't hurt you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. We have gone----
Mr. STARK. Once you get used to learning things, even as
Republicans, it helps.
Chairman HERGER. We have gone 1 minute and 6 seconds over
your time. Would the gentlemen from Michigan, Mr. Levin, like
to inquire?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my apologies. Due to other
meetings, I just had to miss most of this, but I guess I came
in at an important moment for the discussion of the issue. We
have a number of votes now.
I don't think the issue is more flexibility. I think we
want to grant enough flexibility so that you can do your job.
That is a different question than a block grant. Mr. Stark
asked you whether you want more flexibility without more
resources. Do you?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Levin, no.
Mr. LEVIN. I would think that that may be an important
message for everybody to hear. I have been on this Subcommittee
off and on for how many years, 14 or 15? This has been a major
problem area, and anybody who thinks that the answer is simply
to shift this off to the States with the present level of
resources, when we got into this issue in part because the
States were not doing a job--if the States had been pulling
their weight on these issues, I don't think we ever would have
been involved in this difficult and important area.
So, now simply to say, ship it back to the States with the
States in the present circumstances they are in--right? What is
the budget deficit in your State?
Ms. RILEY. Mr. Levin, I fear to say which year?
Mr. LEVIN. You pick.
Ms. RILEY. We are anticipating, I believe, another $1
billion shortfall after several billion dollar cuts in the
upcoming biennial.
Mr. LEVIN. I don't have anything further.
Mr. STARK. How about in California?
Mr. LEVIN. I didn't want to embarrass you.
[Laughter.]
Ms. EDWARDS. I can top that, Mr. Levin.
Mr. LEVIN. It was $30 billion, wasn't it?
Ms. EDWARDS. The last count was, I think, $36 billion.
Mr. LEVIN. So, resources are an issue?
Ms. EDWARDS. Absolutely.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you.
Chairman HERGER. Ms. Riley, you say in your testimony, ``I
believe that the current Title IV-E funding system rewards
failure rather than success.'' Do you believe this option could
give you the flexibility necessary to address this issue in
your foster care system that needs to be addressed?
Ms. RILEY. Chairman Herger, that is the linchpin for why I
want to at least further explore the option, because right now,
I believe that we are rewarding excessive, potentially
excessive placements of children because we fund placements,
while we are not funding child abuse prevention, we are not
funding family casework services, we are not funding substance
abuse services, all of which would help our families immensely.
Chairman HERGER. Ms. Riley, I want to thank you very much,
and I want to thank each of the members of our panel and our
previous panel for testifying today. Your testimony will be
very helpful to us as we consider options to improve our foster
care system.
With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]
[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger and Mr. Cardin to
the Honorable Wade F. Horn, and his responses follow:]
Question from Chairman Wally Herger to the Honorable Wade F. Horn
Question: Under the existing child welfare waiver authority, four
states--Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon--have demonstrated
some of the promise of the Administration's Foster Care Flexible
Funding proposal. Could you describe these programs and what they have
been able to accomplish?
Answer: In each of these four child welfare waiver demonstration
sites, the State is providing counties or other local entities the
opportunity to use Title IV-E foster care funds more flexibly to
enhance the array of services available to prevent foster care
placement, facilitate reunification and otherwise ensure safe,
permanent outcomes for children. In these States, counties may use
Title IV-E funds for an array of services, but their total Title IV-E
allotment is fixed by agreement with the State. These States have
arrangements with participating counties to share risks and rewards if
expenses are either below or above their planned Title IV-E allotment.
Indiana has set aside 4,000 slots and is allowing
counties to use up to $9,000 annually per slot to develop an increased
capacity for home- or community-based alternatives to institutional
placements. All counties pay any costs for foster care or related
administrative expenses that exceed $9,000. Eligible children are those
who are at risk of placement, or have already been placed, and who have
substantiated reports of abuse/neglect. Services most frequently paid
for with Title IV-E funds have been child and family counseling,
parenting and homemaker skills. Job-related services, legal assistance
and other services also are available.
In North Carolina, 19 counties receive a capped amount of
Title IV-E funds that may be used flexibly to meet the needs of
children and families in the child welfare system. If a county's
expenses are in excess of their Title IV-E allotment, the State and
county will share the excess costs. Eligible children are those who are
at imminent risk of placement or are already in placement. Counties use
their funds in a variety of ways. Thirteen counties use funds to meet
needs on a case-by-case basis. Other counties developed new services
in-house or entered into contracts with providers for such services as
family support, assessment, adoption, substance abuse and mental health
treatment and family reunification.
In Ohio, 14 counties are experimenting with a diverse
array of managed care strategies. The State provides the participating
counties with a capped amount of funds. Each county has developed its
own managed care strategy for managing expenditures within the
allotment. Some of the strategies employed by counties include
establishing capitated or case rate contracts with private providers;
developing utilization review strategies including pre-placement and
period review processes; increasing incentives to enhance foster care
provider networks; and establishing quality assurance procedures.
In Oregon, the State requested plans from interested
branch offices to spend a portion of their foster care budgets more
flexibly than typically allowed. Plans addressed three types of
services: foster care prevention, expansion of established services,
and ``innovative'' service plans for the development and implementation
of new services. The State approved plans and negotiated agreements
with the branch offices. If the branch office spends less of its
flexible funds than budgeted, the difference is ``banked'' and
available for future local waiver proposals. If additional foster care
funds are needed, the State makes up the difference with realized
savings through the first quarter after the shortfall occurred. Key
service strategies employed by Oregon's counties have included Family
Decision Meetings, Enhanced Visitation, and facilitation of drug and
alcohol treatment.
Two of the States, North Carolina and Oregon, have now submitted
final evaluations reporting on outcomes for children based on their
first 5 years of implementation of these demonstrations.
In North Carolina, researchers found that while the
probability of foster care placement following a substantiated report
of abuse or neglect declined in both the demonstration counties and the
comparison counties over the 5 years of the demonstration, the decline
in out-of-home placement was more dramatic in the 19 demonstration
counties with access to flexible funding under the waiver than in the
comparison counties.
Similarly, Oregon's final evaluation report found that in
the localities in which the child welfare agency had access to flexible
funds through the Title IV-E waiver and/or through a State-funded
System of Care initiative, children were more likely to remain in their
own homes. Children in the localities with access to both waiver and
System of Care funds were over three times as likely to remain at home
as children in localities that did not have access to either source of
flexible funding.
Questions from Representative Benjamin L. Cardin to the Honorable Wade
F. Horn
Question: In your testimony, you suggest that under the
Administration's plan, States ``could receive up front funding'' to
make investments in family related services that may reduce future
foster care placements. However, the Administration's estimates (from
OMB) suggest that the plan would increase child welfare spending by
only $119 million over the next two years (while reducing expenditures
correspondingly in later years). Do you believe $119 million is going
to make a huge difference to a foster care system that will spend $10
billion over the same time period?
Answer: The Child Welfare Program Option allows States to receive
up front funding and to save funds immediately from reduced
administrative burdens. States claimed approximately $68 million of
these administrative costs in FY 2001. Although some activities that
are linked to eligibility requirements will continue under the
proposal, we expect significant savings in this area. Another area
where we expect savings is in the area of cost allocation, as this
process will be significantly streamlined.
We believe that this initial influx of funding in addition to the
longer-term savings generated from innovative programs that reduce
foster care caseloads will allow States to fund new and improved
services and maintain their responsibility for children in foster care.
This proposal is an opportunity for States to use Federal funds to
improve the way they plan, organize, and invest in their child welfare
system.
Additionally, the President's FY 2004 budget requests full funding
of Promoting Safe and Stable Families, which will provide States with
an additional $1 billion influx of funding for their child welfare
systems over 5 years. States may use that influx in the same flexible
manner they may use Program Option funds.
We believe that the flexibility afforded states through the Program
Option coupled with the additional funding in Promoting Safe and Stable
Families will have a significant impact in improving state child
welfare systems.
Question: You stated that the Administration's foster care plan is
designed to be cost-neutral over 5 years. Does the Administration have
a position on other proposals that may provide net new resources to the
child welfare system (beyond seeking full funding for the current
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program)? For example, is the
Administration willing to consider providing additional resources to
the child welfare system to implement program improvement plans,
address substance abuse problems, and improve the retention of
qualified caseworkers?
Answer: We developed the Child Welfare Program Option using the
following principles: 1) provide maximum flexibility to States; 2)
maintain child safety, permanency and well-being outcomes and 3) retain
cost neutrality. Any child welfare reforms that we consider must
comport with those principles.
The Option allows each State that chooses it to direct its funding
in the manner that best serves the population, including, but not
limited to implementing program improvement plans, addressing substance
abuse problems and improving the retention of qualified caseworkers.
Having said that, we are, of course, willing to discuss issues and
other proposals with members.
As with the Safe and Stable Families Program, the Administration is
requesting full funding ($60 million) for the Independent Living
Education and Training Vouchers program for FY 2004, the same as the FY
2003 request. The program was funded at $42 million less a rescission
of .65 percent in FY 2003. These vouchers provide youth an additional
resource to prepare for adult living, increasing the prospect that they
will be able to secure work and become contributing members of society.
Full funding would allow us to continue supporting State efforts to
meet the needs of this highly vulnerable population.
I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the
President's FY 2004 budget for SAMHSA provides a new $200 million State
voucher program for substance abuse treatment.
Question: Your testimony highlighted the growing inequality of the
current eligibility standard for Federal foster care assistance. Under
this so-called ``look back'' provision, States must verify that a
foster child's birth family was eligible for welfare under the rules in
place in 1996 (which are not indexed for inflation). You suggested that
States selecting the proposed option foster care block grant would not
have to go through this look-back process. Does the Administration also
support addressing this problem for states [sic] decide not to opt into
the Administration's proposal. [sic] In other words, would you support
updating eligibility standards for Federal foster care payments in
States that do not believe the proposed block grant is a good deal? The
Administration's plan does not address the look-back problem for
determining adoption assistance payments, regardless of whether a
States opts into the proposed block grant. Does the Administration
support updating eligibility standards for Federal adoption assistance
payments?
Answer: The Administration developed the Child Welfare Program
Option in a cost-neutral environment. With respect to both of your
questions, we are unfamiliar with any proposals that address the look-
back date for both the foster care and adoption assistance programs
that are cost-neutral. However, we are willing to review and discuss
any proposals that do so.
I would point out that spending under the Title IV-E adoption
assistance program continues to grow at a rate of 10 percent per year
and thus we are maintaining the entitlement to adoption in order to
ensure that all children can grow up in a loving and permanent home.
However, under our proposal, any State that chooses the child welfare
program option would only be required to test for AFDC eligibility once
at the time that termination of parental rights proceedings are
initiated rather than determining eligibility at two points in time (at
the point of removal from the home and when the State files the
adoption petition), as is currently required.
Question: Between 1987 and 1992, the number of children in foster
care increased by 42%, going up from 300,000 to 427,000. A significant
factor in this increase was the emergence of crack cocaine and the
devastating impact it had on families. If a similar trend occurs in the
future for whatever reasons, what would happen under the
Administration's proposal? Do you think a capped contingency fund
designed to help state [sic] welfare programs during economic downturns
can truly respond to such a dramatic change in the number of at-risk
children?
Answer: The Child Welfare Program Option allows each State to re-
direct dollars as necessary so that the State quickly may address
unexpected changes, trends and circumstances within the State before
such circumstances become overwhelming. If a State is not able to do
so, and it meets all other criteria, the contingency fund is available
to provide relief.
The TANF contingency fund is currently authorized at a level of $2
billion. No State has drawn down these funds even during an economic
downturn and we anticipate that few States will need the funds for the
TANF program in the future. Further it should be noted that the
triggers for the contingency fund under the Child Welfare Program
Option have been modified to appropriately address the child welfare
environment. Under the Option, States may request additional funding
from the TANF contingency fund when the State's foster care population
increases by at least 15 percent over the course of two fiscal years
and either the foster care population increases by at least 10 percent
nationally over the course of two years, or the unemployment trigger
for the TANF Contingency Fund is met.
Question: Children currently eligible for federal foster care
payments are categorically eligible for Medicaid. If a State no longer
calculates eligibility for these payments under the proposed block
grant, how are we going to guarantee continued Medicaid coverage for
these kids? You mentioned the Administration's plan would allow States
to make all children in foster care categorically eligible for Medicaid
if they opted into the block grant. Can you outline how that would
work? Does OMB consider such a reform to be cost-neutral?
Answer: Our child welfare proposal does not impact Medicaid
eligibility. Children that are currently eligible will continue to be
eligible. The vast majority of children in foster care are either
currently entitled to Medicaid under the existing Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments program or would otherwise qualify for the
program. With the exception of the children who have significant income
and resources of their own, all children who have been removed from
their parents' home and receive services under the program option would
be eligible for Medicaid under an eligibility group that covers all
children with incomes at or below the Federal poverty line.
Question: The Administration's plan requires a projected baseline
under current law of foster care spending over five years in every
state [sic] opting into the block grant (to devise funding levels). Do
such baselines exist today? Are their [sic] any other programs that you
are aware of that depend on state-by-state [sic] baselines of projected
future spending? How would you ensure that all of these state [sic]
baselines add up to a budget-neutral National baseline? What role would
OMB play in constructing these state [sic] baselines and ensuring
budget neutrality?
Answer: The Administration does not currently project State-by-
State baselines for the Foster Care program, or for any other relevant
Department of Health and Human Services (``HHS'') programs. We plan to
work with States, the Congress and other interested organizations such
as the American Public Human Services Association to develop a
methodology for determining State-by-State allocations that would
function within the national baseline. Similarly, the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') will be involved in these discussions,
as both OMB and HHS have strong interests in maintaining cost-
neutrality, which the President requires for this proposal.
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of the Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
I commend the Chairman and the committee for focusing their
attention on the critical problem of protecting and providing for our
nation's abused and neglected children. I am confident that this marks
the beginning of a dialogue on this urgent national problem, one that I
expect will culminate in action by this Congress to strengthen our
nation's response to child abuse and neglect. I agree that providing
more flexibility under the IV-E program is an important step in this
direction, and like many of the states, Puerto Rico would be very
interested in investigating the option of the allotment, given an
appropriate baseline. We agree that it is of vital importance that
federal funding support more services, including preventive services,
for these families and children.
I also want to take this opportunity to bring to the committee's
attention the specific difficulties the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is
facing with the IV-E program regarding the federal support available to
assist us in ensuring the safety and well being of our most vulnerable
boys and girls.
Sadly, as is the case on the Mainland, child abuse and neglect are
very serious and urgent problems in Puerto Rico. The twin evils of
poverty and substance abuse have combined to conspire against our
children and have placed too many of them at risk for abuse and
neglect. In 2002, the Commonwealth received around 30,000 complaints of
abuse and neglect and approximately 10,000 children went through our
foster care system.
When Governor Sila Calderon was sworn into office two and a half
years ago, she encountered a child welfare system that was in complete
disarray. There was a backlog of over 4,000 complaints that were
waiting to be assigned; the investigations themselves took 2-3 months
to complete, and social workers were overwhelmed with caseloads of over
50 complaints each. Leaving children in possibly risky environments for
such extended periods of time was simply unacceptable.
Improving our child protection system became one of our highest
priorities, so over the last two and a half years, with an investment
of an additional $12 million in Commonwealth dollars, the Governor
doubled the number of social workers in this program, shrunk the
backlog of cases by 88 percent, and reduced social workers' caseloads
down to an average of 28. In addition, last year a pilot program to
reduce the turnaround of complaint investigations to 48 hours was
successfully instituted in one of the Family Department regions. It
will be extended to the whole Island by the end of July. Moreover, last
year the Commonwealth inaugurated the first multidisciplinary
transitional shelter, ``Mi Casita Feliz,'' at an annual operating cost
of $2.4 million. This 108-bed shelter, run in cooperation with the
Health, Justice, and Police Departments, not only provides immediate
shelter for children who have just been removed, but it also offers
integrated medical, psychological, social, and educational evaluations
and services. Similar shelters are slated to open this year in two
other regions of the Island.
I am very pleased with the progress made. However, all these
ground-breaking improvements came without the benefit of any additional
support from our Federal partners. Children living in Puerto Rico are
denied their entitlement to IV-E assistance solely on the basis of
where in the U.S. they live. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico's IV-E program
is capped, so once the ceiling is reached, the Federal partnership ends
and it is up to the Commonwealth alone to provide resources for these
essential services. This legislatively imposed cap on foster care
expenditures has no foundation in either welfare or economic policy,
but is an arbitrary limitation imposed on the Commonwealth.
States with populations similar to Puerto Rico are reimbursed $40
to $50 million a year for their foster care and adoption assistance
expenditures, however, and Puerto Rico receives about $12 million a
year. Puerto Rico receives one quarter of one percent of all IV-E
funding, when the Commonwealth has seven times that proportion of the
nation's foster kids. This limitation undermines our ability to respond
quickly and appropriately to provide the necessary level of care these
children require. It also undermines the Federal investment in the
system as it prevents investments in training and in data systems to
assure appropriate record keeping and tracking.
One example of unintended consequences resulting from the statutory
dollar limitation on the IV-E program for the Commonwealth occurred in
October 2002, when Puerto Rico the Commonwealth earned an adoption
incentive bonus. On one day the Department of Health and Human Services
awarded the bonus and on the next day, it reduced the Foster Care IV-E
basic grant because the performance bonus had put Puerto Rico over the
welfare cap. Similarly, there is no room under the cap for our IV-E
eligible training, administrative, and placement expenses. Furthermore
we have been advised by ACF that the additional funds Mr. Horn spoke of
in his testimony to the Subcommittee, the Educational Vouchers Program
which is intended to support educational opportunities for youth
placing out of foster care will not be available either, because of the
cap.
Furthermore Puerto Rico has been advised by ACF that because of the
cap on IV-E the $648,557 Puerto Rico was to receive for the Educational
and Training Vouchers for Youths Aging out of Foster Care will not be
available. This is the program that Dr. Horn referenced in his
testimony to the Subcommittee that Congress established, which is
intended to support educational opportunities for youth placing out of
foster care.
Mr. Chairman, Puerto Rico is in favor of additional flexibility for
the IV-E program. However, it is also important to establish an
appropriate baseline so that children, regardless of where they live in
the United States, have access to a foster care system that is
responsive, caring, and addresses their needs. The issue of child
protective services is a critical issue in the Commonwealth and I look
forward to working with you so that we can take significant steps to
resolving these issues.
In addition to the critical issue of establishing an appropriate
base line--a concern that I believe is shared by all of the states--
there are other issues that the Commonwealth would like to work with
the Committee to resolve as the foster care proposal is developed.
These are the:
1. Contingency Fund: Puerto Rico is not authorized to participate
in the TANF contingency fund. While I am hopeful that Congress will
address this issue during the reauthorization of TANF, access to the
Contingency fund is a fundamental need if the Commonwealth is to
implement the flexible foster care proposal.
2. Maintenance of Effort: Puerto Rico has historically
overmatched the IV-E requirement because of the cap. Given the relative
low levels (as compared to the states) of Federal financial
participation in the Puerto Rico IV-E program, mandating the
Commonwealth to this higher level of MOE would appear to be overly
burdensome.
3. Medicaid Eligibility: While children eligible for IV-E are
automatically eligible for Medicaid and, in the states there is a full
Federal partnership for the provision of healthcare. However, in the
Commonwealth, the Federal Government only contributes approximately 15%
of eligible Medicaid costs. I would urge the Committee to exempt the
Medicaid expenditures for IV-E children from the Medicaid cap.
4. CFS Review: Puerto Rico expects to have its CFS Review
completed this year by HHS. However, the difference between the
improvement plan that the Commonwealth will adopt and work to implement
and the plans implemented by the states is that there will be no
reimbursement for eligible IV-E expenses that occur with the
implementation of the plan. States can secure additional IV-E
reimbursement for eligible portions of their plan, but because of the
cap on foster care expenses, Puerto Rico will be required to confront
this federal mandate with no federal partner to help finance this
effort.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that my colleagues will join with me
this year in working to see that Puerto Rico's abused and neglected
children are provided the same access to federal assistance during the
darkest times of their lives--without the imposition of arbitrary
limits that bear no relationship to their actual needs. Let us renew
our commitment to protecting all the vulnerable children of this
country, regardless of where they live, and let us reinforce the
historical partnership between the Federal Government and the
Commonwealth so that children in Puerto Rico are not left behind.
Alliance for Children and Families
Washington, DC 20004
June 25, 2003
Honorable Wally Herger
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Ways and Means Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Herger,
Please consider this cover letter and the attached documents as our
submission for the printed record of the June 11, 2003 hearing held by
your Committee on ``Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal''. As you
consider this issue, we believe it is imperative that you take into
consideration the voice of the nonprofit sector, which has increasingly
been delivering services on the front lines to America's most
vulnerable children.
As your Committee prepares to explore the Bush Administration's
Flexible Funding Proposal for foster care, we ask that you consider the
recommendations of the Alliance for Children and Families, a national
association of nonprofit, human service organizations that serve almost
eight million people in more than 6,700 communities.
Please feel free to contact the Alliance for Children and Families
and our member agencies all across the nation. Our website lists our
members in every state (www.alliance1.org) and both our Milwaukee
headquarters and our Washington, D.C. policy office can answer your
questions about our research and recommendations. The Alliance would be
honored to participate in any upcoming hearings on these or other
issues affecting nonprofit human service providers.
Sincerely,
Carmen Delgado Votaw
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
______
The Alliance for Children and Families' Recommendations for the Bush
Administration Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal
The Alliance Responds to Secretary Horn's testimony on June 11, 2003
before the House Subcommittee on Human Resources, Ways and
Means Committee.
We are pleased that Assistant Secretary Horn was willing to use
this hearing as an opportunity to explore and clarify components of the
Administration's flexible funding proposal for foster care. There is a
growing consensus among national advocacy groups, child welfare
providers, as well as many states and policymakers that the current
mechanism for funding the nation's child welfare system needs revision,
and must be revamped. Child welfare funding has eroded, and scant
attention has been paid to maintaining the funding for children in the
foster care system, who often have severe physical and psychological
needs. It is imperative that any proposed changes promote and invest in
increased prevention and early intervention, while assuring protection,
permanency and well being of our country's most vulnerable children.
The Need for Increased Investment in Child Welfare Services
Although the Administration's proposal will provide states with the
option to utilize greater funds initially, they will be limited to a
capped amount over five years. Thus, it is unlikely that the block
granted funds will be sufficient to build the front-end capacity of
child welfare systems, in addition to sustaining foster care
maintenance payments and providing case management to families. We
recognize the states' need for more flexibility to provide more
targeted systems of care, however, new investments are also needed to
make improvements and build a more preventative system.
The Alliance for Children and Families further recommends the
following:
Eliminate the ``Look Back'' for Adoption Assistance--
While eliminating the ``look back'' provision for foster care
streamlines the IV-E process, maintaining the provision for Adoption
Assistance reverses this movement towards simplification. An assessment
of the child's household income at removal must still be completed
while the child is in foster care for accurate determination, because
this information is still needed for Adoption Assistance eligibility.
If eligibility determinations are eliminated from foster care, the
``look back'' provision should be eliminated from foster care as well.
Set Aside Funds for Children with Severe Needs; Research
& Training--Because the children coming into the foster care system
have increasingly complex physical and behavioral health needs, it is
unlikely that child welfare costs will be significantly reduced as
prevention strategies begin to take effect. The Federal Government
should acknowledge the severe needs of this population, and consider
maintaining the entitlement mechanism for specific populations, such as
children who are compliant with Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
regulations, and are placed in treatment foster care, group, and
residential care facilities. Furthermore, the federal commitment to
providing research and training dollars to states should be considered
distinct from the block of funds for prevention and service provision.
Create Minimum Standards for State Involvement in Child
Welfare--With the offer of more state flexibility, the Federal
Government is transferring a greater share of responsibility and risk
for the child welfare population to the states. The partnership between
the Federal Government and states in providing services to abused and
neglected children must be maintained and states should be discouraged
from diminishing their investment in the child welfare system once
receiving federal dollars. Additionally, Congress should create
appropriate and minimum standards in areas such as size of caseloads,
to give guidance to participating states to ensure the progress of
child welfare reforms. States must carefully weigh the decision to
forgo entitlement programs with state match requirements that may help
them leverage additional resources within their own state legislatures.
Statement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) is a labor organization representing 1.4 million workers,
predominantly in the public sector. Tens of thousands of our members
are caseworkers, supervisors and provide clerical support for public
child welfare agencies across the country.
Many child welfare programs are in crisis, with more abuse and
neglect cases than state and county run systems can handle
successfully. Congress can play an important role in alleviating the
strains on these systems that cause many of the heartbreaking stories
we read about in local newspapers. However, allowing states to cap
funding for the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance program
in exchange for more flexibility runs directly counter to this goal.
Retain and Expand Child Welfare Entitlement
The open-ended entitlement to Title IV-E funds has provided stable,
reliable funding for abused and neglected children who require
placement in out-of-home care. During periods like the late 1980s when
child welfare caseloads increased dramatically, state and county child
welfare agencies relied on additional federal assistance as the need
for foster care exploded. More recently, foster care roles have leveled
off in many states and concomitantly, the need for federal foster care
dollars has stabilized.
While federal support for foster care and adoptions has been
strong, states and counties have not received sufficient funds for
other components of their child welfare systems, including abuse
prevention, family reunification, substance abuse, and mental health
services. States should be allowed to fund kinship guardianship
assistance payments under Title IV-E as seven states currently are able
to do through waivers. Moreover, Congress should provide guaranteed
funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSFP), an
important abuse prevention program. In addition, the authority of the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
approve child welfare demonstration projects should be extended.
AFSCME's Recommendation: We urge Congress to preserve the Title IV-
E open-ended entitlement to ensure a stable and reliable federal
commitment to supporting abused and neglected children. We also support
allowing states to use Title IV-E funds more flexibly.
Workforce Crisis
In a 2003 report entitled ``The Unsolved Challenge of System
Reform, The Condition of Frontline Human Service Workforce,'' the Annie
E. Casey Foundation and the Brookings Institution Center for Public
Service appropriately refer to child welfare workers as ``America's
other first responders.'' They found that while this workforce is
highly committed and motivated, workloads are overwhelming, stress is
too high, and training is inadequate. All of this had led to 40 percent
turnover rates and inexperienced staff without the tools to perform
their extremely challenging jobs.
A 1998 AFSCME survey of our members who work in child welfare had
similar findings. Caseloads in well over half of the child welfare
agencies surveyed exceeded the recommended guidelines published by the
Child Welfare League of America. Wages were not commensurate with the
job demanded of these professional workers, virtually all of whom have
a minimum of four years of college. Training was inadequate, with
workers lacking a voice in shaping the training received. And, violence
in the workplace and in the neighborhoods where workers must go was
also a serious problem. Over 70 percent of the AFSCME affiliates
responding to the survey reported that front-line workers in their
agencies had been victims of violence or threats of violence in the
line of duty.
AFSCME's Recommendation: We support legislation that recognizes and
begins to solve the problems front line workers face. Federal grants to
states should be established to improve the working conditions of child
welfare workers by increasing wages, lowering caseloads and workloads,
improving education and training, providing scholarships and student
loan forgiveness, and increasing worker safety.
Fully Fund Child Welfare and Related Programs
Too often in the federal budget process, child welfare and related
programs do not receive the funding they require to perform the
critically important work they are charged to do. For example, funding
for the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program is often set below the funding level
authorized. Looking at the Fiscal Year 2004 budget, the House
subcommittee mark contains only a 1% increase in funding for mental
health services and an increase only slightly above inflation for
substance abuse treatment. These funding levels will not come close to
closing the gap between services needed and services provided.
Indeed, the House subcommittee mark proposes to reduce funding
overall for children and family services programs by 9 percent. And,
funding for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) has been flat funded
for years after it was cut in the mid-1990s. Almost one-quarter of SSBG
spending goes for child welfare services.
AFSCME Recommendation: All programs that provide services for
families either in the child welfare system or at-risk of abuse or
neglect should be provided the funds they need to keep children safe.
This includes services that get to the root causes of abuse, including
mental health and substance abuse programs, as well as child welfare
programs.
Conclusion
Protecting vulnerable children from abuse and neglect should be a
national priority. This commitment must be reflected in federal
policies and funding. We urge this Congress to reject a cap on funding
for the Title IV-E program, enact legislation that would support the
child welfare workforce, and increase funding for child welfare and
related services.
Association on American Indian Affairs
Rockville, Maryland 20850
June 23, 2003
Congressman Wally Herger
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Herger,
Re: Submission for the record of the June 11, 2003 hearing on the Bush
Administration Flexible Foster Care Funding proposal.
Please accept the following statement for the record of the above
hearing.
The Association on American Indian Affairs is an 80-year-old Indian
advocacy organization located in South Dakota and Maryland and governed
by an all-Native American Board of Directors. We have been involved
with Indian child welfare issues for decades and played a key role in
the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. We have had a
long-standing interest in the issue of direct funding to tribes under
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, having testified before this
subcommittee about this issue as far back as 1990.
We applaud the Administration's recognition of the need for direct
tribal funding under Title IV-E in its flexible funding proposal. We
also wish to thank Rep. Camp for introducing and seeking the enactment
of H.R. 443 that would provide direct tribal funding under the existing
Title IV-E program. It is long overdue that the exclusion of tribal
governments from this program be rectified.
There are many needs in Indian country that access to this money
can address. Among other things, this money can be used to pay foster
families, provide assistance and support for those families, finance
child protective services to prevent family breakup and ensure adequate
training for staff and foster families. Attached is a fact sheet that
summarizes the many reasons why inclusion of tribes in Title IV-E--both
any new program and the existing program--is critical.
As you move forward to develop legislation implementing the
President's proposal, it is critically important that tribes and
organizations such as ours and the National Indian Child Welfare
Association be involved in the discussion. In that way, the Committee
can ensure that any law that is enacted will truly meet the needs of
Indian country. It is also vital that this Committee support the
enactment of H.R. 443, so that tribes will have access to adoption
assistance money, in addition to foster care money, and in order to
provide tribes with the same option as states in regard to the Title
IV-E foster care program.
Thank you for considering this testimony.
Sincerely,
Jack F. Trope
Executive Director
______
Fact Sheet on Title IV-E Funding to Indian Tribal Governments
As has been well documented, tribal exclusion from the Title IV-E
program was not deliberate. At that time (1980), the Committees
addressing these issues did not fully understand nor recognize the
critical role of tribal governments in service delivery to children,
nor the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribal nations. Today, Congress
has a better understanding of tribal sovereignty and the critical role
of tribal governments in providing services to children and families
and it is time to correct this oversight. Tribal governments are the
entities best situated to provide such services to their communities
for several reasons:
Indian tribes are ``domestic dependent nations'' with
inherent sovereign powers. They have a direct government-to-government
relationship with the Federal Government and are not subdivisions of
the states.
History has shown, and a 1994 HHS inspector general
report confirmed, that in the case of Title IV-E, there have been some
tribal-state agreements negotiated, but they are limited in number and
scope and generally do not include the full array of IV-E services and
administrative support that states are able to access.
Tribal programs are more attuned to the special
programmatic and cultural needs of their local communities and have
experience in operating quality programs when resources are available;
permanency for Indian children who need out-of-home placements is best
achieved when tribes have the resources to ensure that quality foster
care and adoptive placements for these children.
Tribal members continue to experience inequity in the
quality and quantity of services available under State-administered
programs.
Although some tribes have accumulated significant
resources because of their successful gaming operations, most tribes
continue to lack a substantial economic and tax base from which to
generate resources.
Federal resources provided for Indian people for social
services through Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services
budgets have consistently been inadequate, falling far short of need.]
In the case of Title IV-E, providing for tribal access to
this program would address a substantial injustice--namely, that some
of the neediest children in the country are excluded from a program
that is an entitlement for all other similarly situated children,
simply because they fall under tribal jurisdiction.
Of note, support for these provisions is not limited to tribes and
Indian organizations. For example, the 1994 HHS Inspector General
report specifically recommended direct funding to tribes under Titles
IV-E and state-based groups such as the American Public Human Services
Association have taken a clear position in support of Title IV-E
funding for tribal governments.
Statement of the Child Welfare League of America
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) welcomes this
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our more than 1,100 public
and private nonprofit child-serving member agencies nationwide on the
Administration's proposal to restructure Title IV-E foster care
funding. This hearing represents an important opportunity to address
the comprehensive reform of the child welfare system that is needed to
ensure that our most vulnerable children are protected from abuse and
neglect.
Newspaper headlines across the country reveal that we, as a
country, need to do more to protect our children from abuse and neglect
and to care for the children who are in foster care. All children need
protection and do best when they are living in permanent loving homes.
There is also a compelling national interest in providing consistent
levels of safety, protection, and care for America's children across
each state in the nation.
CWLA strongly opposes any measure that limits the federal
responsibility to participate fully with the states in meeting our
fundamental obligation to America's most vulnerable children and
families. We believe that a new, more complete approach to shared state
and federal funding should be implemented. In the meantime, while
recognizing the inadequacy of the current program, we believe that it
is essential to maintain basic Title IV-E entitlements until a more
effective financing method is implemented.
Nationwide Reform Is Needed To Build A System Of Care That Will Ensure
Children Are Protected
While recognizing the valiant efforts of the people who work within
our nation's child welfare system, CWLA recognizes that the current
child welfare system does not protect all children adequately. The
shared federal, state, local, and tribal responsibility has never been
fully developed or realized. The result is an incomplete system that
continues to be in urgent need of reform and completion. We are overdue
in implementing an improved and strengthened system. True child welfare
reform hinges on an improved system of shared financing
responsibilities among federal, state, local, and tribal governments.
The national child welfare system continues to be in need of:
A reliable, responsive, and predictable method of
guaranteed funding, for a full range of essential services, as well as
placement and treatment services. The current Title IV-E entitlement
has proven to be an imperfect vehicle for funding a true child welfare
system. Viable alternatives that offer guarantees to all children in
need should be explored.
A means of maintaining consistent focus on safety,
permanency, and well-being as outcomes for children.
Rigorous standards combined with strong federal and state
accountability mechanisms.
Recruitment and support of adequately trained child
welfare professionals, foster parents, mentors, and community
volunteers.
Resources that enable parents to provide adequate
protection and care for their own children.
Flaws In The Current System
The current child welfare financing structure is unbalanced.
Title IV-E foster care provides approximately 38% of
support for all child welfare services, yet it supports only about 50%
of the small portion of children who actually are placed in out-of-home
care. At most, this group represents less than even 20% of children
receiving child welfare services. In fact, the federal role, as defined
and limited by these eligibility requirements, has never been extended
to all of this country's children who have been removed from their
homes. Due to the eligibility restrictions linking Title IV-E
eligibility to outdated 1996 AFDC standards, this limited level of
federal support for children through Title IV-E is consistently
diminishing over time.
Even among those who are Title IV-E eligible, the scope
of reimbursable care is limited to routine maintenance care. Family
support services that might keep a child at home or treatment services
that might reduce the length of time in out-of-home care are not
included.
The current system of financing child welfare services is complex.
An inordinate amount of state administrative costs is
attributable to maintaining individual eligibility systems, cost
allocation systems, blended funding formulas, match certification
protocols, and other artifacts of an overly complex system.
Since the patchwork of mechanisms that finance child
welfare services is so complex, states vary greatly in fully utilizing
existing resources.
LThe currect system is inadequately linked to either need or outcomes
and is over-invested in misplaced accountability.
Strong steps have been taken to move the child welfare
system to an outcomes-based accountability system. Despite some
significant shortcomings, the current federal review system, under the
Child and Family Service Reviews, has substantial promise.
In the meantime, states continue to be required to invest
considerable money and time in systems to track Title IV-E eligibility
and related administrative tasks. By some estimates, this consumes as
much as 5% of the total investment in the child welfare system. These
resources could be better utilized in providing services or managing
the mandated safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for children.
The current system is overly dependent on potentially transitory
resources.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Medicaid provide significant
federal resources for child welfare. These funding sources, however,
must provide resources for services to many other consumer populations.
In addition, funding for SSBG is unpredictable and has been
significantly reduced in recent years.
Principal Objectives Of Child Welfare Reform
An improved federal and state child welfare financing system should
be constructed to achieve four principal objectives. CWLA looks forward
to working with this Subcommittee to develop a comprehensive child
welfare reform proposal that includes the following principles:
1. Preserve the shared federal and state responsibility for
protecting and caring for at-risk children.
a.
Maintain and expand federal protections for individual
children.
b.
Ensure full federal financial participation in both protection
and care responsibilities for all children who require the attention of
state child protection agencies.
c.
Ensure that the Federal Government continues to share
responsibility for closing the gap between resources and need with the
states to guarantee safety and permanency of children coming to the
attention of the child welfare system--resources should match needs.
d.
Establish a nationally-recognized mechanism for objectively
defining the full extent of protection and care needs of children in
the child welfare system.
e.
Extend direct access to federal funding by tribes for care and
protection of children who are victims of abuse and neglect.
L2. Ensure that the outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being are
achieved for all children.
a.
Build on the success of the Child and Family Service Review
process by continuing the emphasis on child outcomes.
b.
Initiate a concerted national effort to refine the scope and
reliability of measurable outcomes.
c.
Connect performance indicators to nationally-defined standards
of child need.
3. Attain high levels of quality and accountability in state and local
programs.
a.
Ensure accountability through formal standards of care,
accreditation, certification, or licensure.
b.
Continue and strengthen Child and Family Service Reviews.
c.
Strengthen and refine national reporting standards (AFCARS,
NCANDS, etc.).
d.
Allow states and tribes substantial flexibility to design
service systems that work within a local context, while still requiring
them to meet performance standards.
4. Provide states with sufficient flexibility to permit simplified
administration and a full continuum of responsive services.
a.
Simplify administration by eliminating individual eligibility
determination and the need to track case administrative costs as
distinct from service costs.
b.
Provide state and local flexibility in defining the mix of
services and types of care. Permit flexible services in response to a
full range of child welfare client needs.
c.
Allow states to use all federal funds for both service and
administration to support delivery through either public or private
agencies.
d.
Allow set-asides to address special needs, such as workforce
development, training, and research.
The Administration's Foster Care Funding Proposal
The Administration's response to the reforms needed in child
welfare include a proposal that would restructure the current Title IV-
E foster care program. While legislation has not yet been introduced,
some details have emerged through congressional testimony and public
comments from Administration officials. Under the proposal, each state
would have an option to receive a fixed, predetermined allocation, or
block grant, of Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments,
administrative costs, and training funds.
Under the proposed option:
States would receive annual grants over a five-year
period. Funding would equal the projected growth in federal foster care
expenditures. These projections would be based on the current
restrictions which require states to base eligibility on their 1996
AFDC program standards. States would be allowed to draw down up to 20%
of this five-year total in any one year.
All states would have a set period of time to opt-in, or
choose this option. States not choosing this option at that set time
could not elect to make that choice at a later date. States that do
choose this option must continue to receive this set funding for a
period of five years. Once a state chooses the option, it may not opt-
out during the five-year period.
States choosing the option could spend the funds on
foster care and any services now provided under Title IV-E and Title
IV-B, Child Welfare Services, and Promoting Safe and Stable Families
programs.
States could use the funds for any child in the child
welfare system, regardless of income. Based on current eligibility,
approximately 50% of all children in foster care are supported with
federal funds.
States choosing the option would have to maintain the
same level of state funds now used to draw down federal Title IV-E
foster care funds.
States would be expected to maintain the protections for
children that exist in current law.
If a state experienced an unusual increase in their
foster care population, a state could draw funds from an emergency fund
under the TANF block grant. To qualify for this relief, a state would
have to meet a national and state target increase in foster care
caseload or unemployment rates.
HHS would continue to conduct Child and Family Service
Reviews. For states choosing this option, Title IV-E eligibility
reviews would be eliminated.
A set-aside of $30 million would be established for
Indian Tribes or consortia that demonstrate the capacity to operate a
Title IV-E program. Indian tribes will have similar program
requirements as states. However, HHS may waive certain state program
requirements that are burdensome to Indian Tribes but do not compromise
child safety.
The Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program would remain
unchanged. The eligibility for this program would continue to be linked
to a state's 1996 AFDC standards.
CWLA Key Concerns About The Administration's Foster Care Funding
Proposal
The Administration's proposal opens the door to a serious national
consideration about the way in which we choose to carry out our
collective responsibility for protecting and caring for the most
vulnerable children and youth in our communities. Based on the
information available, the proposal does appear to recognize the urgent
need for administrative simplification and more flexibility for states
to develop creative solutions to the widely varied needs of children
and families. It acknowledges that up-front investment is required to
begin movement toward new patterns of child protection and care.
The Administration's proposal, however, does not yet appear to
offer the depth of reform or the guarantee of sufficient federal
financing necessary nationwide to improve the child welfare system and
ensure that all children are protected. The proposal appears to freeze
federal resources at a time when there is a great need for significant
new investments and reform in our national child welfare system.
CWLA also has many concerns about the Administration's proposal:
The proposal breaks the link between federal funding
based on an entitlement funding formula and transforms it into a fixed
amount of funds no longer driven by need or the number of eligible
children.
The proposal does not address the complex array of
federal funding sources for child welfare. Title IV-E foster care, the
subject of the Administration's proposal, comprises 38% of all federal
child welfare spending. Other federal funding sources include: Title
IV-E adoption assistance (10%); the Social Services Block Grant (17%);
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (15%); Medicaid (10%); Title
IV-B, Child Welfare Services, and Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program (5%); and SSI and others (5%).
The Administration's foster care proposal is cost
neutral, setting a five-year cap on spending. The proposal does not
recognize the need for any new resources to build a system of care to
better protect children and address pressing issues, including supports
for the child welfare workforce and substance abuse treatment for
families that come to the attention of the child welfare system.
A state choosing the foster care option would receive a
fixed allocation/block grant based on the current Title IV-E
eligibility criteria that link eligibility to 1996 AFDC standards. This
means that the allocation/block grant would be based on a declining
number of children becoming eligible over the next five years.
The proposal would not ensure that funds would be used
for prevention services. Current Title IV-E funding does not cover all
children in out-of-home care and few, if any states, adequately fund
their child welfare systems so as to provide the safety and permanence
contemplated by current law. States may have to use the fixed
allocation/block funds to cover non-Title IV-E eligible children. There
is no guarantee that any funds would be used for prevention services.
Federal Title IV-E funding currently supports only 50% of the children
in out-of-home care.
Adoption assistance eligibility would continue to be
linked to foster care eligibility. If the Title IV-E foster care
eligibility is removed, determining future eligibility for adoption
assistance would be complex and more difficult than it is presently.
This may result in reducing the number of federally-supported adoptions
from foster care.
The role of the cities and counties is not protected in
this state option proposal. There is no requirement that the fixed
allocation/block grant funds be distributed to local or regional
governments will be based on need or eligible children. There is no
requirement that a city or county, which may include the bulk of a
state's foster care population, will have any input in whether a state
chooses this block grant or not.
The proposed state maintenance-of-effort is based only on
state funds currently used to draw Title IV-E federal funds. Since the
financing of child welfare services (adoption, foster care, child
protection, and other services) involves a variety of federal, state,
and local funds, it appears that states would be able to reduce state
spending by billions of dollars and still meet the federal spending
requirement necessary to draw down the fixed allocation/block grant.
Questions remain about the formula being developed to
determine each individual state share of the fixed amount of funding.
Will all states that take the fixed allocation/block grant option and
project they will have increased costs over the next five years be
eligible to receive increased funds? Will the formula be based on
historical claim or actual reimbursements? Since the overall total
federal allotment is fixed, would some states get less if other states
negotiated an increase since certain formulas that benefit one state
could result in less funding for another state?
In order to access needed additional funds if states
experience a dramatic increase in child welfare caseloads (or an
increasingly complex caseload with greater needs), the proposal
suggests that states could access the TANF emergency fund. The trigger
that would allow a state to draw these TANF funds would be based on
national and the individual state increases in foster care. These
criteria would not necessarily reflect what is happening in a county or
city where the bulk of the foster care population might be found. These
emergency relief funds would divert funds from TANF. If the same event
(a recession for example) caused both cash assistance and foster care
caseloads to increase, a state may have to choose whether they wanted
to fund increases in TANF or foster care.
The proposal would combine Title IV-E training funds into
the fixed allocation. States would have to choose what, if any, portion
of the allocation could be dedicated to training and staff development.
CWLA Recommendations
CWLA urges Congress to comprehensively review and take action on
what is truly needed to build the system of care so that children are
protected. CWLA looks forward to working with this Subcommittee to
develop a comprehensive child welfare financing reform proposal that is
built on the following four principles and achieves the objectives
outlined earlier.
Maintain Federal/State Responsibilities
Achieve Sound Outcomes
Ensure Quality and Accountability
Provide State Flexibility
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has been established
to develop recommendations to improve outcomes for children in the
foster care system. The Commission was announced on May 7, 2003, as an
independent, nonpartisan body with the goal of developing effective and
practical recommendations to improve the foster care system. The
Commission will focus on recommendations in the areas of improving
existing federal financing mechanisms to facilitate fewer foster care
entries and faster movement of children from foster care into safe,
permanent, and nurturing families. The Commission will also focus on
improving court oversight by providing state and local courts with
tracking and management tools to help achieve safety and permanency for
foster children.
The Commission members are committed to reach consensus on a set of
achievable recommendations in these targeted areas and to seek
implementation of these recommendations. A final report and
recommendations are due to be released in the summer of 2004. CWLA
urges Congress to carefully weigh these recommendations as they move
forward in making changes to the federal/state partnership in financing
child welfare services.
Congressional Proposals Addressing Child Welfare Financing
Congress can also take action to make incremental improvements to
the child welfare system. Many of CWLA's recommendations were contained
in testimony submitted to this Subcommittee for the April 8, 2003,
hearing on the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA). Those recommendations included:
Eliminate the eligibility link to 1996 AFDC standards so
all children in foster care receive federal assistance. Congress has
mandated legal and permanency protections for all foster and adopted
children, however, federal funding is only available to pay for the
costs of children who are eligible for Title IV-E. A reformulation of
the federal-state share would have to be determined in order to
institute this change.
The current law links Title IV-E eligibility to archaic
standards that each state had in place under their 1996 AFDC cash
welfare system. States are required to maintain the same eligibility
standards that existed in July 1996. Since AFDC no longer exists, this
continues to be an administrative burden on the states. If the current
system remains in place, what is even more critical, is the fact that
as time goes by, fewer and fewer children will be eligible for federal
foster care and adoption assistance. Based on these standards, only 50%
of children in out-of-home placement are currently eligible for the
Title IV-E funding. Unless changes are made, some states may be able to
serve less than one-third of their children in out-of-home placement
through the use of Title IV-E foster care funds.
Address the growing child welfare workforce issues that
pose challenges to ensuring children's safety and care. A major
challenge in reducing the number of children entering or remaining in
out-of-home care or waiting for an adoptive family lies in the ability
of a well-staffed and well-trained child welfare workforce. Caseworkers
must assist families that are experiencing difficult and chronic family
problems. They also must achieve the goals of safety and permanency and
make lifetime decisions for the child within the ASFA timelines. Yet,
the safety and permanency of children is hampered due to large
caseloads, caseworker turnover, and minimal training. In addition,
extending federal training funds will ensure that workers employed in
private agencies are well-trained.
Dedicate significant new resources to provide substance
abuse treatment for families in the child welfare system. Families in
the child welfare system need access to appropriate substance abuse
treatment. Up to 80% of the children in the child welfare system have
families with substance abuse problems. Resources for substance abuse
treatment for families are chronically in short supply. All states
report long waiting lists. Alarmingly, over two-thirds of parents
involved in the child welfare system need substance abuse treatment,
but less than one-third get the treatment they need. To ensure that
permanency decisions can be made for children whose families have
alcohol and other drug problems, special steps must be taken to begin
services and treatment for the family immediately upon a child's entry
into foster care or to regain custody of their children.
Make available a federally-funded guardianship permanency
option to allow states to provide assistance payments on behalf of
children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal
guardianship of the children for whom they have committed to care for
on a permanent basis.
Extend and expand the existing child welfare waivers. The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should collect data on
these efforts in order to evaluate their effectiveness.
Extend and modify the adoption incentive program to help
older youth secure permanent adoptive homes.
Adopt the Administration's recommendation to increase
funding to $505 million for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program and $60 million for the educational and training vouchers for
youth aging out of foster care.
Restore funding for the Social Services Block Grant. SSBG
funding comprises 17% of all federal child welfare funding. Reductions
in SSBG funding in recent years has hampered state ability to protect
needed services.
Provide direct tribal access to Title IV-E funds.
Currently, tribes can only access these federal funds through
agreements with states.
Legislation has been introduced this year that adopt some of these
incremental measures. The Child Protection Improvement Act (HR. 1534),
introduced by Representative Ben Cardin (D-MD) and several members of
this Subcommittee, makes a down payment towards addressing the
comprehensive reforms needed. H.R. 1534 provides new funding to help
states implement strategies to expand and improve their child welfare
system, including the expanded use of child welfare waivers. The
legislation will also help public and private child welfare agencies
better secure and maintain a stable and well-trained child welfare
workforce. New funds are also provided to address the substance abuse
treatment needs of families in the child welfare system and to ensure
that more children are eligible for federal foster care and adoption
assistance. The bill also provides first-time federal assistance to
support kinship guardianship as a permanency option for some children.
Child welfare reform measures are also contained in Title VIII of
the Act to Leave No Child Behind, (H.R. 936). That legislation provides
additional federal funding for preventive, crisis, permanency, and
post-permanency services for children and parents or other caregivers
when they first come to the attention of the child welfare system; when
children enter foster care; and when children leave care to be united
with their families, adopted, or placed permanently with grandparents
or other relatives. Title VIII would also expand eligibility for foster
care, adoption assistance, and other services.
Conclusion
The child welfare system needs reform. CWLA calls on Congress to
take action to ensure that we, as a country, do a better job of
protecting and caring for our children. We urge Congress to take time
to review and act on comprehensive child welfare reform measures that
maintain a strong federal responsibility. CWLA strongly opposes any
measure that limits the federal responsibility to participate fully
with the states in meeting this fundamental obligation. We believe that
a new, more complete and streamlined approach to shared state and
federal funding should be implemented. In the meantime, while
recognizing the inadequacy of the current program, we believe that it
is essential to maintain basic Title IV-E entitlements until a more
effective financing method is implemented. CWLA believes important and
necessary reforms must be enacted to guarantee a federal/state/local
commitment to ensure a consistent level of safety and care for all of
America's children. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee
to develop a comprehensive child welfare reform proposal that meets all
the needs of America's most vulnerable children and families.
Statement of MaryLee Allen, Children's Defense Fund
The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) is pleased to have the
opportunity to submit a written statement for the record of the June
11, 2003, hearing on the Bush Administration's Foster Care Flexible
Funding Proposal before the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
The Children's Defense Fund's mission is to Leave No Child Behind
and to ensure every child a healthy start, a head start, a fair start,
a safe start and a moral start in life and successful passage to
adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. CDF
provides a strong, effective voice for all the children of America who
cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves. We pay particular
attention to the needs of poor and minority children and those with
disabilities.
CDF's advocacy for reforms on behalf of children who are abused or
neglected or at risk of maltreatment predates the passage of the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Over the years we
have had the opportunity to work closely with Members of the
Subcommittee on Human Resources, formerly the Subcommittee on Public
Assistance and Unemployment Compensation, to make improvements in many
aspects of the child welfare system. The Subcommittee has often played
a leadership role in securing new investments in family support
services, strengthening adoption opportunities for children, creating
new opportunities for older youths aging out of foster care, and
putting in place new monitoring mechanisms for promoting quality care
for children. Despite these gains, much remains to be done.
We therefore appreciate your current attention to how to structure
the financing of child welfare to create the best opportunities for
children--those who are at risk of entering foster care, those in care,
and those who have returned home, been adopted or are with kin and need
ongoing support to prevent them from returning to care. As you well
know, this is not a new discussion. When we testified before this
Subcommittee in 1979, we urged that funds for prevention and
specialized services be put on an equal footing with funds for out-of-
home care, and today our message is similar. There also have been a
number of financing proposals before you in recent years. Yet,
investments in out-of-home care are still almost three times the
investments in prevention and other services. We urge the Subcommittee
to give careful consideration to the issue of child welfare financing
throughout the 108th Congress--to hear from state officials,
providers, and advocates in states that have explored alternative
funding options, to review proposals from the recently appointed Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care that is examining child welfare
financing and the role of the courts, and to craft reforms that will
ensure long term gains for all vulnerable children and families.
In our statement, we will do three things:
Comment on the foster care flexible funding proposal
included in the Bush Administration's FY 2004 Budget, by posing ten
questions that we believe must be asked of it and any other financing
proposals;
Suggest briefly an alternative financing scheme for child
welfare; and
Recommend steps that can and should be taken immediately,
while broader financing options are being considered, to increase the
capacity in states to promote safety and permanence for children.
Concerns About the Bush Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding
Proposal
The Administration proposes to offer states the option of taking a
fixed amount of money over five years in exchange for its current open-
ended funding for foster care under Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act. While few details and no legislative language are yet available,
the Administration proposes that states could receive more money in the
early years to spend on prevention and treatment activities. While CDF
agrees with the goal of increased investments in prevention and
treatment, we do not believe that what appears to be a foster care
block grant, as proposed by the Administration, will reach that goal.
In fact, we are concerned that a block grant, especially if implemented
when states are in deep fiscal crises and as part of a broader strategy
to end key supports for poor children and families, would have a
negative impact on the very children and families it is intended to
serve. If we are to keep children safe and in permanent families we
need a continuum of services that includes prevention, specialized
services, foster care, and a range of permanency and post-permanency
options.
We list our concerns about the Administration's foster care block
grant below, in the form of ten key questions, and ask you to consider
these questions as you examine this and other financing proposals that
come before the Subcommittee.
1. Will the proposal assure increased investments in prevention?
The Administration's foster care block grant continues to pit
prevention against foster care. It appears that increased federal funds
for prevention would be available only if foster care costs decline,
yet some of the claims made by proponents of the block grant suggest
that states would be able to make more children in foster care eligible
for federally-supported payments because they will be able to use
federal funds for children who do not meet the current AFDC eligibility
criteria. Decisions about expenditures should be based on the
individual needs of the children and families, rather than pitting one
type of service against another. There also seems to be no assurance
that funds would be invested in prevention, even if foster care costs
should decline. It also is not clear at this time whether all states
opting for the block grant would be eligible for an initial increase in
funds or what the amount of that increase would be.
2. What attention will be given to the specialized treatment needs of
children and families facing substance abuse, mental health
problems, domestic violence, and other challenges?
The Administration's block grant similarly gives no attention to
the specialized treatment needs of families struggling with substance
abuse, mental health problems, and domestic violence. As many as 80
percent of the children who enter the child welfare system are from
families challenged by substance abuse. 30 to 60 percent of the
children who are exposed to domestic violence are also victims of child
abuse. Today you cannot attend a meeting of child welfare officials
from various states without the discussion turning to shortfalls in the
areas of substance abuse and mental health treatment. It is critically
important that funding be tied to what children need. Even if increased
dollars were available for prevention, it is difficult to foresee new
investments in treatment for substance abuse, mental health, and
domestic violence problems.
3. How will the protections under current law be maintained and
enforced?
The maintenance of protections and quality of care for abused and
neglected children has been a constant challenge in the states. More
than half of the states have been the subject of class action lawsuits,
most of which have resulted in consent decrees that specified
improvements in the protections afforded children. It is critical that
the protections in current law, such as requirements for case plans,
periodic case reviews, placements in the most family-like setting, and
reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families and to guarantee
quality foster care when other alternatives are not available be
maintained. While Assistant Secretary Horn testified to the
Subcommittee that current protections would be maintained in the foster
care block grant, it will be important to see how they are drafted. It
is also critical that there be a method in place to monitor and enforce
the protections. The current Title IV-E eligibility reviews will no
longer be required. While the Child and Family Services Reviews will
continue, they focus on ensuring certain outcomes are achieved for
children and do not directly assess whether individual protections for
children are maintained. The reviews also are only undertaken every
five years.
4. How will training for staff, foster parents, and adoptive parents
be improved?
It is not clear whether training funds will be included in the
foster care block grant. Although it was not mentioned in Assistant
Secretary Horn's testimony, training has been described as being part
of the new financing option in presentations by other Administration
officials. Given the crises in child welfare systems, it is clear that
increased training to improve the quality of care provided needs to be
an urgent priority. We are concerned that investments in training would
be reduced if training funds, which are now available on an open-ended
basis and at a higher match rate than foster care, were included in the
block grant. Instead, as we will describe later, funding for training
must be increased. Federal IV-E training funds must be expanded to
reach staff from private child welfare agencies (only public agency
staff are currently eligible) and staff from related child-serving
agencies, such as mental health and substance abuse, who are working
with children in the child welfare system.
5. What will be the impact on adoption?
Given current descriptions of the foster care block grant, it is
not clear how eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance, which
will remain outside of the block grant, will be determined. Although
Administration officials have made clear their priority for adoption,
it is not clear that more children would be adopted under the current
proposal. Currently most children qualify for federal adoption
assistance based on their eligibility for the IV-E foster care program,
but those eligibility requirements will no longer be in place. Will
states still be required to use the IV-E eligibility rules to determine
the individual eligibility of children for adoption? It certainly seems
inconsistent with a focus on increased flexibility and permanence for
children in foster care to increase requirements for getting children
adopted from foster care.
6. How will Medicaid eligibility be ensured?
The foster care block grant proposal also raises questions about
children's eligibility for Medicaid. Currently all children who are
eligible for IV-E foster care are categorically eligible for and must
be covered through the state's Medicaid program. States may elect to
cover non-IV-E eligible foster children through their Medicaid program
as well. In states that opt for the block grant, will all children
served by the block grant who receive foster care be automatically
eligible for Medicaid? Will foster children be mandatory or optional
participants in state Medicaid programs? Will children who receive
services through the block grant be eligible for Medicaid if they are
not in foster care? Will children currently in IV-E foster care who
receive Medicaid continue to be automatically eligible for it, even if
they no longer receive foster care under the block grant? Will states
have to develop an eligibility determination process for Medicaid? Will
an amendment to the Medicaid law be required? How will this proposal
work with the Administration's proposal to block grant certain aspects
of the Medicaid program? Recognition of special health and mental
health needs of these children is well established and it is critically
important that they not lose Medicaid.
7. How will the proposal accommodate emergencies in the child welfare
system?
The Administration has made clear that under no circumstances would
states be able to opt out of the block grant during the five-year
period. What would happen therefore if a state experienced a sudden and
dramatic increase in its foster care caseload? Many states saw this in
the mid-1980's as large urban areas experienced the crack cocaine
epidemic. Other states have seen sudden jumps in caseloads following a
tragic death of a child at home. Sometimes a change in the law also can
result in more children entering care. Sometimes these caseload
increases occur despite a state's best efforts but the state remains
responsible for ensuring that children's needs are met. What would
happen if a state experienced increased foster care costs, despite a
decreased foster care caseload, because the children in care presented
more complex challenges or the state better identified their
challenges? Again, the state would need additional funds to address the
needs of children in care. The safety valve proposed by the
Administration in its new funding option--the TANF contingency fund--
seems problematic in at least two ways.
First, the complexities of accessing the TANF contingency fund have
made it difficult for even TANF agencies to use the funds to date. It
also seems problematic for child welfare agencies to have to compete
with TANF agencies for emergency services. It means pitting families
who are struggling to work to keep their children out of the child
welfare system against families who are trying to get help to get their
children back home. Which services or groups of families would get
priority? This is an important question given that some of the factors
that might trigger a foster care caseload increase will also contribute
to a greater need for TANF.
Second, there is also uncertainty about what would count as an
emergency. In various presentations about its proposals, the
Administration has referred to both state and national triggers. Yet,
it is easy to imagine an individual state, say the size of Connecticut,
Louisiana, or Wyoming, having a big increase in their caseload that
would likely have no, or only a minimal, impact on the national
caseload. In considering financing proposals, attention must be given
to how best to expand resources for alternative services while at the
same time offering a safety net for the vulnerable children for whom
foster care may be the last and only option.
8. What is the danger that investments in child welfare will be
reduced over time before the needs of children and families are
adequately met?
What impact will the block grant have on other child welfare
spending? We have concerns, described more specifically below, that the
foster care block grant being discussed could actually result over time
in reduced resources for child welfare in the states.
First, it is not clear that protections will be built in to prevent
states from withdrawing some of their other investments in child
welfare when they receive their block grant. Currently states make
significant federal, state, and local investments in child welfare. In
2000, based on Urban Institute data, Title IV-E represented 25% of
child welfare expenditures. Of the remainder, 25% were from other
federal programs, 39% were state, and 11% were local. In examining
financing proposals, it is essential to ensure that states be required
to maintain at least their current levels of federal, state, and local
child welfare funding. In addition to including strong maintenance of
effort and non-supplanting provisions, it must be clear how the Federal
Government will enforce these provisions and what penalties would
attach. These were issues that the Subcommittee gave thoughtful
attention to during its look at financing options in the
107th Congress and should be revisited in the context of
proposals currently on the table.
Second, the conversion of programs to block grants often results in
decreased levels of expenditures over time. The Title XX Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) is a good example. In 2000, 22% of the SSBG
funds were used for child welfare activities. SSBG was funded at $2.7
billion in 1995 and $1.7 billion in 2002, a decline of 38% (a 45%
decline in constant 2002 dollars). We have great concern that a foster
care block grant will result in decreased dollars in the end, when
increased investments are actually needed. Yet, there seems to be no
assurance that states could opt out of the block grant if the dollars
available to them were reduced. In fact, it is difficult to figure out
how a state could opt out of the block grant even at the end of five
years. A requirement that it redetermine eligibility for its entire
caseload at that point would certainly be burdensome and costly.
Third, we have special concerns about the impact of the block grant
on spending in county-administered states. Under current law, counties
are assured each year of getting federal reimbursement for foster care
for all of their eligible foster children. Under the block grant
though, as we expect it to be proposed, dollars will go to the states
and states will decide on allocations to the counties. Some counties,
therefore, may be left with significant shortfalls. The Chair of the
Legislative Committee of the County Welfare Directors of California and
Vice President of the National Association of County Human Services
Administrators joined others at the June 11 hearing in raising
questions about the new financing option. She testified that she feared
``the budget neutrality requirements will limit our ability to spend
more money on prevention activities and staff training over the long-
term.'' ``Without assurances that the funds will grow to support the
expanded services, rather than diminish over time,'' she said, ``we
cannot endorse the proposal.''
Fourth, the block grant is likely to make it even harder for child
welfare administrators to obtain new state child welfare investments
that in the past they could have argued would bring them increased
federal investments. Given state fiscal shortfalls in states, it may
even be difficult for them to hang on to the state dollars they have
had.
Fifth, it is not clear what the call for cost neutrality means in
the context of the Title IV-E Foster Care Program overall. For example,
what would happen if states that remain in the entitlement program and
do not opt for the block grant exceed their projected expenditures and
overall IV-E spending exceeds the budget limits? Would HHS be permitted
or required to reduce the funds available to states that elected the
new program option in order to keep the overall program cost budget
neutral? There is also always the danger with a block grant, or any
funding change for that matter, that a future Congress could reduce
funding. Would a state then have the option of withdrawing from the
block grant?
9. In what broader context is the new financing mechanism being
proposed?
The Administration's foster care block grant is one of four major
proposals in its FY 2004 Budget to turn major federal programs over to
the states without adequate assurances that key services and
protections will be maintained. The Administration also is proposing to
cap portions of Medicaid funding, block grant the Section 8 Housing
Program for low-income families, and dramatically alter the structure
of Head Start without an assurance that comprehensive services will be
maintained. These changes all impact some of the same vulnerable
families. In fact, the assurance of health care, housing, and quality
early childhood services are all preventive services that can help keep
families out of the child welfare system. Thus we must ask what we know
about the likely outcomes of these proposals and whether the foster
care block grant proposal is part of a larger effort to dismantle
investments in the most vulnerable children and families.
10. Are there better ways to increase state flexibility and increase
preventive, permanency, and post-permanency services for abused
and neglected children and those at risk of maltreatment?
Yes, there are better short-term and long-term approaches than the
foster care block grant to increase state flexibility and key
investments in services and supports necessary to enhance safety and
permanence for children. These include alternative approaches to
providing flexibility and increased resources within the IV-E program
and steps that can be taken right now to increase state's capacity in
these areas, all of which are discussed below.
Alternative Proposals for Increasing State Flexibility and Increased
Resources to Promote Safety and Permanence for Children
Before describing what we believe can be done immediately, we want
to describe an alternative financing scheme that we believe is
responsive to many of the questions and concerns just raised. The
proposal is in the comprehensive Act to Leave No Child Behind (H.R.
936/S. 448), which is legislation that lays out a comprehensive policy
vision for meeting the challenge of giving all children a healthy
start, a head start, a fair start, and a safe start in life and
successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and
communities.
Title VIII of the Act to Leave No Child Behind takes important
steps towards giving all children a safe start in life and ensuring
that they grow up in nurturing, permanent families by giving states
increased flexibility and expanded investments. It also requires
additional steps toward enhanced accountability. It makes clear that
federal, state, and local governments should have shared responsibility
for ensuring the safety and permanence of all children who have been
abused and neglected or are at risk of maltreatment. We look forward to
discussing these proposals with both staff and Members of the
Subcommittee as you explore other financing alternatives throughout the
108th Congress. Very briefly, Title VIII of the
comprehensive Act to Leave No Child Behind:
Provides prevention, protection, and crisis services for
children when they first come to the attention of the child welfare
system by allowing IV-E funds to be used for these services on a
limited basis, eliminating fiscal disincentives that deprive some
children of important services, and restoring funding for the Social
Services Block Grant.
Promotes permanency for children in foster care and
expands permanency options for children leaving foster care by allowing
IV-E funds to be used for services to children in foster care and their
families, to promote safe reunification or other planned permanent
living arrangements as provided for under the Adoption and Safe
Families Act (ASFA), and to offer post-permanency services when
children are returned home or moved to adoption or other permanent
homes. It also offers ongoing Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payments
under IV-E to relative caregivers who obtain legal guardianship of the
children for whom they cared for in foster care and for whom return
home or adoption are not appropriate. It would also help promote
adoption and other permanency options by extending IV-E adoption
assistance payments to children up to age 19 in certain circumstances,
providing that the adoption assistance payments for children must be at
least equal to the foster care payment for which the child would have
been eligible, and promoting permanency grants to states to help them
move their backlog of waiting children to permanent families.
Gets rid of long time inequities in the IV-E Programs by
eliminating the AFDC eligibility requirements for both the Titles IV-E
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs; providing for a uniform
match across all Title IV-E activities; and also allowing Indian Tribes
and tribal consortia to be eligible for direct funding under the Title
IV-E Programs.
Increases accountability within the child welfare system
by requiring states to report regularly to HHS on improvements being
made in services and staffing and on the children who are not moving to
permanent families in a timely fashion; requiring coordination with the
Child and Family Service Reviews; asking external child welfare review
boards to report regularly to Congress on how children are faring; and
providing fiscal incentives for public child welfare agencies to become
accredited.
Steps That Can Be Take Immediately to Build State Capacity for Safety
and Permanence for Children
At the same time the Subcommittee reviews comprehensive proposals
like the above, we urge you to take some important steps now that will
help to increase the capacity of states to continue working to promote
safety and permanence.
The Administration's own proposal to reauthorize and expand the
Adoption Incentive Program and the proposal to extend the Child Welfare
Waiver Demonstration Program that was part of the House-passed TANF
Reauthorization Bill (H.R. 4), are two proposals that would help states
make important improvements now. The Adoption Incentive Program
includes alterations to recognize the special efforts needed to help
older children in care move to adoption. In the future, CDF would like
to see the program expanded further to reward successful state efforts
not only to move children to adoption, but also to help children return
safely to their families or be placed permanently with kin, the other
permanency options recognized in the ASFA. The continuation of the
Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Program, with the improvements
already approved by the House, will allow even more states to use their
IV-E and IV-B Program funds more flexibly. To date, some states have
taken steps to use this flexibility to invest in alternative services,
but generally on a smaller scale in selected counties. Much more can be
learned from these waiver demonstrations.
We also urge you to approve the provisions in the Child Protection
Services Improvement Act, H.R. 1534, introduced by Representatives Ben
Cardin and George Miller, which will further give states the capacity
they need to keep children safe and in permanent families. It offers
expanded flexibility to all states in selected areas, addresses gaps in
services, improves the quality of the child welfare workforce and staff
from related service systems, and enhances accountability. Let us
mention briefly some of its specific changes:
Expands flexibility for states so that they can provide
foster care and adoption assistance for all the children who need it
and allows states to provide assistance to children permanently placed
with grandparents and other relatives who have been caring for them in
foster care. These are both areas where states have been asking for
increased flexibility. The current Title IV-E eligibility rule that
requires that children must have been removed from families who were
eligible for AFDC according to standards in place in July 1996 makes no
sense. The TANF Program has replaced the AFDC program and most states
have increased their income and resource guidelines since that time.
Recognizing in the first instance that it makes little sense to
condition foster care or adoption eligibility on the income of the
homes from which abused and neglected children were removed, it
certainly makes no sense to require that these families be even poorer
than those who would be eligible for TANF in the state. In exploring
new financing structures, Congress should certainly ensure that the
Federal Government would contribute to assistance for all children.
Immediately, however, steps, as proposed in H.R. 1534 could be taken to
help eliminate this inequity in current law. H.R. 1534 would eliminate
the current requirement that states ``look back'' to July 1996 in
determining eligibility and instead allow states to update their
eligibility standards so that eligibility could be based on their
current eligibility for the TANF Program.
H.R. 1534 would also allow states to use Title IV-E funds more
flexibly to provide subsidized guardianship payments on behalf of
children who were in foster care with grandparents and other relatives,
for whom return home and adoption have been ruled out, and whose
relatives want to care for them permanently. Thirty-four states
currently have some sort of subsidized guardianship program that offers
help to varying numbers of children. Seven states have been using Title
IV-E funds for such programs under the Child Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Program and others have expressed an interest in doing
the same.
Addresses gaps in services by guaranteeing investments in
prevention and increasing substance abuse treatment for families who
come to the attention of the child welfare system. H.R. 1534 recognizes
that between 40 and 80 percent of the children who come to the
attention of the child welfare system have families with substance
abuse problems. It draws from bipartisan legislation in the Senate (S.
614) that would provide funds to states where the child welfare and
substance abuse prevention and treatment agencies apply together to
make improvements on behalf of children and families who come to the
attention of the child welfare system. States must indicate how they
will use the flexible funds to expand comprehensive substance abuse
treatment to the parents and their children, enhance screening and
assessment so that families can be directed to the treatment they need,
expand after-care services for families in recovery to ensure that
safety and permanence are maintained, and enhance training of staff in
both systems and the tracking of cases so progress can be documented.
It also clarifies that states could use their waiver demonstration
programs to expand community partnerships in their states to keep
children safe. Finally, the bill ensures that the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Program will receive funding at the full authorization
level by making all $505 million mandatory spending.
Supports a quality workforce for abused and neglected
children. H.R. 1534 addresses the turnover rate in child welfare and
provides funds for improvements in staff recruitment and retention
activities. The General Accounting Office recently reported that the
average tenure of a child welfare worker is only two years. The bill
requires improvements in working conditions, supervision, and training.
It also takes steps to expand training under the Title IV-E Program for
staff in private child welfare agencies who work with these families,
court staff, and staff of substance abuse treatment and mental health
agencies and domestic violence programs working with children in the
child welfare system. S. 2437 and H.R. 734 also address the workforce
challenges in important ways.
Enhances accountability. H.R. 1534 takes important steps
to make states more accountable for the care they are providing.
Certainly news headlines from Florida, New Jersey, Missouri, Delaware,
and other states over this past year do little to instill confidence in
public child welfare systems. The bill helps to restore confidence in
the system by improving the quality of the workforce, targeting
resources in the areas where states see they are needed, and
strengthening accountability. It provides grants and bonuses to states
that are implementing their program improvement plans developed in
response to the Child and Family Service Reviews. It also recognizes
the importance of having members of the community, and other
stakeholders, included in the review process and in the implementation
of the Program Improvement Plans. It takes important steps toward
getting improved data from the states. It is difficult to ensure that
children will get what they need if they cannot track where they are,
the type of help they are getting, and their progress over time. This
provision complements the recent request from HHS for recommendations
for improvements in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System.
CDF looks forward to working with you to explore further child
welfare financing strategies that will benefit children who have been
abused and neglected and are at risk of maltreatment. We ask you to
examine a range of options, including those in Title VIII of the Act to
Leave No Child Behind, to combine the best of them to benefit children.
Thank you.
Statement of Ann Harrmann, Coalition for Family and Children's Services
in Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa
On behalf of the Coalition for Family and Children's Services in
Iowa, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the President's
proposal for flexible funding for foster care. The Coalition is an
alliance of 32 agencies in Iowa that provide most of the direct
treatment services to abused and troubled children. Coalition agencies
provide services in all counties in Iowa.
Currently abused and neglected children in Iowa are facing a
gridlock when they try to get help in the child welfare system. We feel
that the federal and state child welfare system as currently structured
and funded is adding to harm of children who have already been hurt.
Let me offer one recent example, which unfortunately is all too
typical. It is a case of a young girl who has been sexually and
physically abused and is waiting to get into group care--in fact, has
been waiting to get into group care for 13 months. She has been in
emergency shelter and because shelter is meant to be short term, she
has been passed from shelter to shelter, knowing no stability, and
being further victimized. This cannot be an American value!
There are currently 188 similar Iowa children waiting to get
therapy in group care, and the number is growing every day. In the past
2 years, thousands of children did not receive needed child welfare
services because $30 million in state and federal funding was cut from
the state budget. Iowa lost about $12 million in IV-E and IV-B alone.
Additionally, 258 foster care beds closed, 82+ services/programs
closed, often in rural areas, and 500+ staff are no longer employed in
private agencies.
The number of state social workers has been cut back dramatically.
Iowa social workers currently have among the highest caseloads in the
nation.
The amount of red tape and bureaucratic record keeping required of
private non-profit agencies is shocking, keeping many staff documenting
every word and action rather than working with children in order to
turn their lives around.
We applaud President Bush's proposal to provide more flexibility in
the foster care/child welfare system. We believe the goal of the child
welfare system should be that children get better, not that every word
spoken and every action is documented with just the right words and
phrases. Flexibility would indeed help states to help children.
The Coalition also supports being able to use federal funds for
child welfare services other than foster care. In Iowa, private and
public agencies provide a rich array of child welfare services
including family centered services, family preservation, family foster
care, partial group care, shelter care, counseling, and group care/
residential treatment. We believe that all of these services deserve
equal federal participation and are of great value to abused and
neglected children.
The Iowa Coalition is concerned about the Administration's proposal
for several reasons:
Flexibility will not take the place of resources. The
child welfare system in Iowa (and many other states) is severely under
funded. Flexibility will not make up for the $30-$50 million that has
been stripped from the Iowa child welfare system in the past 2-3 years.
The Federal Government should allocate sufficient resources to improve
the lives of abused and neglected children.
We haven't seen any proposal to change the ``look back''
issue. The formula needs to be changed so that eligibility is not tied
to AFDC in 1996. There is not an AFDC program any longer and 1996 is 7
years ago. Our nation should be about helping all children.This should
be tied to an eligibility standard that covers all children in need of
care regardless of income.
If that cannot be accomplished in this fiscal year then
tie eligibility to another program such as TANF cash assistance or
another program that can be adjusted to address the annual impact of
inflation. Costs do increase for everyone in the child welfare system
i.e. insurance, heating, housing and staff salaries.
The provision that allows use of TANF in case of a foster
care crisis is unworkable. As noted above, Iowa is already in a foster
care crisis. We don't think a contingency fund will help, when
additional resources are needed now.
We believe that child welfare services should remain an
entitlement. All abused and neglected children should receive the
services they need to become healthy, productive adults.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this
critical issue.
__________
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1276A.001
Family Services of Central Florida
Leesburg, Florida 34748
June 25, 2003
Sub-Committee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Rayburn House Office Building
Room B-317
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Sub-Committee on Human Resources,
During the recent Ways and Means sub-committee on Human Resources
hearing for the President's proposal to block grant foster care,
several concerns were raised. The Child Welfare League of America has
highlighted several of their concerns, but I would like to address two
that specifically affect Florida's foster children.
The first concern is the low penetration rate of a block grant. As
you may be aware, currently the Title IV-E foster care program provides
funding for approximately 47-57% of children in foster care nationwide.
This area of concern, as well, does not address the diversity of
federal funding sources for child welfare. Under the current proposal,
76% of federal spending for child welfare would be frozen through 2008.
This includes the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance (10%), the Social
Services Block Grant (17%), TANF (15%), Medicaid (10%), and Title IV-B,
Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families (5%).
Furthermore, adoption assistance eligibility would continue to be
linked to foster care eligibility. If the Title IV-E Foster Care is
removed, determining the future eligibility for adoption assistance
would be complex and more difficult than it is presently and may result
in reducing the numbers of federally supported adoptions from foster
care, which in turn, would lead to an increase in the number of
children without permanency.
The second concern is the high growth rate in Florida and the
growing number of children in foster care in Florida. The
Administration's foster care proposal is cost neutral, setting a five-
year cap on spending. The proposal does not recognize the need for any
new resources (e.g. Staff development and training or prevention
programs). According the President's proposal, states choosing the
foster care option would receive a fixed allocation/block grant based
on the current 1996 AFDC eligibility standards. This means the
allocation/block grant would be based on a declining number of children
becoming eligible over the next five years. Based on these standards,
states that do not choose the child welfare program option would
continue to increasingly have to provide state only support for foster
care, since federal supports would continue to decrease since fewer and
fewer children would be eligible for federal assistance unless Congress
acted separately on this issue.
In addition, to access additional funds if states experience a
dramatic increase in child welfare caseloads or an increasingly complex
caseload with greater needs, the Administration's proposal allows
states to access the $2 billion TANF contingency fund. The trigger that
would allow a state to draw down these TANF funds would be based on
national and individual state increases in foster care. These criteria
would not necessarily reflect what is happening in a county or city
where the bulk of the foster care population might be found. These
emergency relief dollars would divert funds from TANF. If the same
event (a recession for example) caused both cash assistance and
caseloads to increase, a state may have to choose whether they wanted
to fund increases in TANF or foster care.
Along with both of these concerns are the questions about the
formula that will be used to determine each individual state share of
the fixed amount of funding. Will all states that take the fixed
allocation/block grant option and project they will have increased
costs over the next five years be eligible to receive increased funds?
Will the formula be based on historical claim or actual reimbursements?
Since the overall federal allotment is fixed, would some states get
less if other states negotiated an increase since certain formulas that
benefit one state could result in less funding for another state?
I hope that you will take these issues into consideration as you
deliberate on President Bush's Proposal.
Sincerely,
Marlin Livingston
Senior Vice President
Statement of Sue Diehl and Judith M. Schagrin, Maryland Chapter,
National Association of Social Workers, Baltimore, Maryland
We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments with regards to the
Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal. Like so many
others interested in child welfare, we value debate about alternative
funding strategies.
There is no disagreement that the IV-E funding strategy is broken
and needs to be fixed. The administrative costs for establishing
eligibility are unacceptable, the ``look back'' to AFDC eligibility in
June, 1996 is dated, and the rigidity of funding discourages
innovation. Furthermore, all children in the government's custody need
the nation's financial commitment, not just those from impoverished
homes. We welcome the interest the Bush Administration has in these
issues, and support much needed and long overdue reforms in the
nation's child welfare systems. Gambling with child welfare financing,
however, is hardly compatible with real reform. We would offer the
following concerns:
There is increasing recognition that a professionally
educated, trained, and supervised child welfare workforce is an
integral part to achieving the important goals of safety, permanence,
and child well-being. The Administration's funding strategy does not
address the child welfare workforce despite a recent GAO report
concluding that HHS should be playing a greater role in the recruitment
and retention of staff.
Other studies have demonstrated that child welfare
professionals with social worker degrees have higher job performance
and lower turnover rates than other workers. One of the most
outstanding initiatives to improve the child welfare workforce--IV-E
child welfare training partnerships between universities and public
agencies--will be undermined by the proposed funding strategy.
The Federal Child and Family Services Reviews are finding
a correlation between frequent caseworker visits with children and
positive findings in other areas such as achievement of timely
permanence for children in foster care, and indicators of child well-
being. Because caseload size drives caseworker contact, genuine reform
requires sufficient fiscal resources to insure that nationally
recognized caseload standards are met.
The funding plan touts flexibility as a selling point,
painting an optimistic picture of the preventive services that may (or
may not) significantly lower the number of children in foster care.
Recent studies completed by Chapin Hall and Westat, Inc. questioned the
effectiveness of preventive services and no data is available as to the
timeframe necessary to develop and implement preventive services.
States risk running out of money long before this five year experiment
has come to an end.
Since the success of prevention strategies remains
largely unknown, States receiving up-front funding at the outset of the
program cycle with the belief that investment in preventive services
will result in cost-savings later on are taking an enormous risk. The
likely impact is that the fiscal burden will ultimately shift to States
already in deep financial distress.
Under certain circumstances, the proposed fiscal plan
would allow States to access additional funds from the TANF Contingency
Fund. This pits the needs of the nation's poor children against the
needs of the nation's abused, neglected and foster children as this
fund, too, is capped.
With reference to the much promoted flexibility, in a
recent publication on child welfare financing, Rob Geen of the Urban
Institute pointed out that nationally, 56% of child welfare funding is
already flexible (SSBG, TANF, IV-B, and state funds not used for
matching federal allocations.) Mr. Geen found no direct correlation
between availability of flexible funding and front-end services, nor
was he able to identify data to support the contention that the result
of the Administration's strategy will be effective preventive services.
In states like Maryland, where 66% of child welfare
funding is already flexible, opting into the Administration's plan
would likely be imprudent. However, the Administration's plan forces
States that opt out to maintain a federal funding strategy that
everyone has agreed is wholly inadequate and needs reform.
Once states opt in for the five year period and receive
their fixed allocation, real accountability for federal requirements
becomes ephemeral.
In summary, the flexible foster care financing strategy is a
wonderfully optimistic but poorly informed proposal. Significantly, the
Administration's strategy is not evidence based; assumptions are made
about preventive services that have not been borne out by research and
experience. If preventive services are not effective or the timeframe
for success extends beyond five years, States already experiencing
serious financial hardships will be forced to take on even more
responsibility for funding critical services for children. Optimally a
foster care financing strategy that embraces a genuine commitment by
the Federal Government to our children's safety, permanence, and well-
being would include:
support for a quality workforce;
expansion of university and child welfare agency
partnerships;
incentives to promote innovation;
lower administrative costs;
enhanced accountability;
support for functional data systems;
an entitlement to funding.
While reforming the federal financing of child welfare services
must be a priority, basing a proposal on what amounts to wishful
thinking represents an abdication of responsibility for our nation's
most vulnerable children. Surely we can do better than this.
Statement of Antonia Hernandez, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
On behalf of MALDEF, a national Latino civil rights organization,
we urge you to remedy the problem of disparate foster care funding for
Puerto Rico. We have written to this Congress before about the need to
prevent discrimination in the provision of temporary assistance to
needy families (TANF). Today, we urge the House Ways & Means Committee
to amend H.R. 4 and solve the problem of disparate treatment of Puerto
Rican children. It is unconscionable that the abused and neglected
children of the island receive much less federal funding than other
American children. Foster Care and Adoption Assistance (Title IV-E)
should be removed from the welfare cap for Puerto Rico, to assure that
children needing foster care are not left behind due to a discrepancy
in how they are treated by federal policy.
Puerto Rico has been doing an excellent job to try to ensure the
safety of its most vulnerable boys and girls, but current federal law
blocks these efforts by capping its IV-E program. For example, Puerto
Rico has shrunk backlogs by 88 per cent, and consolidated services for
children at high risk in a shelter that combines police, medical and
social services. But unlike the U.S. States and the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico's IV-E program is capped, so once the ceiling is
reached, it is up to the Commonwealth alone to provide resources for
these children. States with populations similar to Puerto Rico are
reimbursed $40 to $50 million a year for foster care and adoption
assistance expenditures; however, Puerto Rico only receives about $12
million a year. Puerto Rico therefore receives only one quarter of one
percent of all IV-E funding, although Puerto Rico has seven times that
proportion of the nation's foster kids.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth is currently ineligible to receive
its earned adoption bonus. The Commonwealth has been doing outstanding
work to place neglected children in safe and loving homes, which also
reduces governmental expenditures. Yet, although Puerto Rico earned a
federal adoption incentive bonus, this put the IV-E program over the
cap for Puerto Rico. In 2002, funding was actually reduced due to
excellent performance. This contradicts the very reasons for the
adoption incentives, and it is unfair to Puerto Rican children.
If Puerto Rico is treated differently than U.S. states because of
various justifications, this is certainly not the fault of the children
and the poor. MALDEF urges you to amend H.R. 4 in order to remove the
IV-E cap for Puerto Rico, and treat its most vulnerable children in the
same way as other American children are treated. Any other
discrepancies in TANF funding for Puerto Rico should also be resolved
as you process TANF reauthorization this year.
Statement of Elizabeth J. Clark, Ph.D., National Association of Social
Workers
Organizational Description
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest
membership organization of professional social workers in the world,
with nearly 150,000 members. NASW works to enhance the professional
growth and development of its members, to create and maintain standards
for the profession, and to advance sound social policies. NASW also
contributes to the well-being of individuals, families and communities
through its work and advocacy.
Ninety-one percent of NASW members hold master's degrees in social
work, and 92 percent maintain some type of license, certification, or
registration in their state; 70,000 also hold advanced credentials from
NASW.
Nearly 40 percent of NASW members say that mental health is their
primary practice area; eight percent practice in child welfare or
family organizations; eight percent practice in the health sector; six
percent practice in schools; and another three percent work primarily
with adolescents.
Overview
The social work profession has a long tradition of involvement with
the child welfare system, and welcomes the opportunity to participate
in the current debate about how to restructure system financing to
improve outcomes for children and families.
Among NASW's major concerns with the outlines of the President's
flexible funding proposal is the possible loss of federal support for
educating and training the child welfare workforce. Without the current
Title IV-E financing structure, which provides three federal dollars
for every state/local dollar, training is not likely to remain a
priority--especially when states are facing record budget deficits.
Without a well-trained, competent, and stable workforce, it is nearly
impossible to deliver uniformly high quality services.
A number of studies have documented the critical connections
between training, competency, and quality services.
In 1982, a study based on an analysis of the data from
the ``1977 National Study of Social Services To Children and Their
Families'' found that workers with social work education were more
effective in service delivery than workers with bachelor of arts (BA)
degrees or other graduate degrees.[i]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[i]\ Olsen, L. & W. Holmes, ``Educating Child Welfare Workers: The
Effects of Professional Training on Service Delivery,'' Journal of
Education for Social Work, 18(1), 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1987, Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. found that the
``overall performance of MSWs [master's in social work] was
significantly higher than non-MSWs,'' and that ``education,
specifically holding an MSW, appears to be the best predictor of
overall performance in social service work.'' [ii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ii]\ Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc., ``The Maryland Social Services
Job Analysis and Personnel Qualifications Study,'' Executive Summary,
Baltimore: Maryland Department of Human Resources, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1990, a study of social service workers in Kentucky
found that staff with social work degrees, either BSWs or MSWs, were
better prepared than those without social work degrees.[iii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[iii]\ Dhooper, S.S., Rose, D.D., and L.C. Wolfe, ``Does Social
Work Education Make a Difference?,'' Social Work, 35(1), 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1992, a study on the ``Effectiveness of Family
Reunification Services'' found that, in nearly 40 percent of the cases
reviewed, insufficient or inadequate caseworker training or experience
was a contributing factor in preventing family
reunification.[iv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[iv]\ Hess, P., Folaron, G. and A. Jefferson, ``Effectiveness of
Family Reunification Services: An Innovative Evaluative Model,'' Social
Work, 37(4), 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those findings were confirmed in a 1993 study that found
child welfare staff with BSW and MSW degrees were more effective in
developing successful permanency plans for children who were in foster
care for more than two years.[v]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[v]\ Albers, E., Reilly, T., & B. Rittner, ``Children in Foster
Care: Possible Factors Affecting Permanency Planning,'' Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10(4), 1993.
The connection of workforce quality to family outcomes was further
documented in a March 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO). The report, ``HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff,'' states, ``A stable and
highly skilled child welfare workforce is necessary to effectively
provide child welfare services that meet federal goals. [However] large
caseloads and worker turnover delay the timeliness of investigations
and limit the frequency of worker visits with children, hampering
agencies' attainment of some key federal safety and permanency
outcomes.'' [vi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vi]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) concurred with
the GAO's findings, saying, ``ACF's initial analysis of the CFSR [Child
and Family Services Reviews] data involving the first 32 States
reviewed makes it abundantly clear that sufficient staff to make
regular, substantive contacts with the children and families in their
caseloads is essential. A direct relationship was found between the
consistency and quality of caseworker visits with the child and family
and the achievement of case outcomes evaluated in the CFSR.''
[vii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[vii]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Welfare Workforce
As it should, the public has high expectations for the child
welfare system. Everyday, these agencies make life and death decisions
for children and families with complex needs, while striving to meet
extensive legal mandates. Much of the burden of these decisions falls
to front-line workers and their supervisors.
Child welfare positions are particularly demanding and stressful,
often involving unreasonable workloads and low pay, in comparison to
jobs in other sectors that require comparable amounts of education and
responsibility. Consequently, it is difficult to attract the most
qualified employees, those with professional training and experience,
and turnover and vacancy rates among child welfare agencies are often
alarmingly high.
Standards and policies for child welfare practice that are
promulgated by the Child Welfare League of America, the American Humane
Association, and NASW recommend that child welfare administrators and
supervisors have a master's degree in social work (MSW) and previous
child welfare experience, and that direct service workers have at least
a bachelor in social work (BSW) degree.[viii] However, these
standards contrast sharply with reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[viii]\ National Association of Social Workers, ``Addressing the
Program and Personnel Crisis in Child Welfare: A Social Work
Response,'' NASW Commission on Family and Primary Associations, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1950s, close to 50 percent of child welfare staff were
professional social workers.[ix] By the 1980s, only 28
percent of child welfare staff had either a BSW (15 percent) or an MSW
(13 percent) degree.[x] A survey of the child welfare
workforce conducted in 1998 found that fewer than 15 percent of child
welfare agencies require caseworkers to hold either bachelors or
masters degrees in social work.[xi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[ix]\ Leighninger, L. & A.J. Ellett, ``De-professionalism in Child
Welfare: Historical Analysis and Implications for Social Work
Education,'' paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education
Annual Program Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March 1998, cited in C.
Risley-Curtiss, ``Current Challenges and Future Directions for
Collaborative Child Welfare Educational Programs,'' Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
\[x]\ Lieberman, A.A., Hornby, H., & M. Russell, ``Analyzing the
Educational Backgrounds and Work Experiences of Child Welfare
Personnel: A National Study,'' Social Work, 33(6), 1988.
\[xi]\ Child Welfare League of America, ``Minimum Education
Required by State Child Welfare Agencies, Percent, By Degree Type,
1998,'' State Child Welfare Agency Survey, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the late 1980s, the failed commitment to employing well-trained
child welfare staff was coupled with rising foster care caseloads,
rising rates of child abuse and neglect reports, increasing numbers of
class action suits, and increased media attention resulting from a
number of child deaths.[xii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xii]\ Zlotnik, J.L., ``Preparing Social Workers for Child Welfare
Practice: Lessons from an Historical Review of the Literature,''
Journal of Health & Social Policy, 15(3/4), 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the mid-1990s, 90 percent of states reported difficulty in
recruiting and retaining caseworkers.[xiii] The major
challenges child welfare agencies face in recruiting and retaining
front-line workers and supervisors include: low salaries, high
caseloads/workloads, administrative burdens, risk of violence, limited
and inadequate supervision, and insufficient training.[xiv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xiii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Child Welfare: Complex
Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services'' (GAO/HEHS-95-208), based on
survey by American Public Welfare Association (APWA), September 1995.
\[xiv]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worker Turnover
The GAO found that turnover rates of child welfare staff--which
affect both recruitment and retention efforts--has been estimated at
between 30 percent and 40 percent annually nationwide, with workers'
average tenure being less than two years.[xv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xv]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turnover rates vary greatly among agencies. In a child welfare
workforce survey conducted in 2000, 36 agencies reported annual
turnover rates between zero and 20 percent, while 23 agencies reported
rates between 50 percent and 600 percent.[xvi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xvi]\ Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human
Services Association, Child Welfare League of America, ``The Child
Welfare Workforce Challenge: Results from a Preliminary Study,''
presented at Finding Better Ways 2001, Dallas, Texas, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Texas state official reported that because of high turnover,
caseworkers with only three years of experience are commonly promoted
to supervisory positions, which has caused additional problems. Some
newly promoted supervisors have requested demotions because they feel
unprepared for the requirements of their jobs, and the caseworkers they
supervise have complained of poor management and insufficient
support.[xvii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xvii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arizona, a wide gap developed between the demand for child
welfare services and the availability of qualified staff to meet this
demand. Because of personnel shortages, the Department of Economic
Security (DES) was, in some recent years, unable to respond to as many
as 25 percent of child abuse and neglect reports deemed appropriate for
investigation statewide.[xviii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xviii]\ Risley-Curtiss, C., ``Current Challenges and Future
Directions for Collaborative Child Welfare Educational Programs,''
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequate Training
The good news-bad news about turnover is that, according to a 2000
workforce survey, states estimated that nearly 60 percent of turnover
is preventable.[xix] One way to prevent turnover, which has
been documented by a number of studies, is by hiring better-trained
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xix]\ Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human
Services Association, Child Welfare League of America, ``The Child
Welfare Workforce Challenge: Results from a Preliminary Study,''
presented at Finding Better Ways 2001, Dallas, Texas, May 2001.
A study based on the 1987 National Study of Public Child
Welfare Job Requirements found that turnover is consistently higher in
states that do not require any kind of degree for child welfare
positions, and is consistently lower in states that require an
MSW.[xx]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xx]\ Russell, M., ``1987 National Study of Public Child Welfare
Job Requirements,'' Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine,
National Resource Center for Management and Administration, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1990 study in Florida found that workers without
educational preparation for child welfare work were most likely to
leave within one year of being hired.[xxi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxi]\ Child Welfare League of America, ``Florida Recruitment and
Retention Study,'' 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1994 study in South Carolina found that social work
education (particularly graduate social work education) reduces
workers' burnout, a major cause of staff turnover.[xxii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxii]\ Anderson, D.G., ``Coping Strategies and Burnout Among
Veteran Child Protection Workers,'' Doctoral dissertation, University
of South Carolina, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1995 study in Ohio found that, among nine variables
predictive of worker retention, three of the most important were:
training; having had an internship in public child welfare as part of
preparation; and agency support (including strong
supervision).[xxiii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxiii]\ Harrison, S.G., ``Exploration of Factors Related to
Intent to Leave Among Child Welfare Caseworkers,'' Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1998 study examining the reasons child welfare workers
remain in their positions longer than two years found that--in addition
to concern for, and satisfaction in, helping children--the two most
decisive factors in employee retention were social work education and
the climate of the work environment, including supportiveness of
supervisors and peers. More than 80 percent of those who stayed beyond
two years had completed at least one social work
degree.[xxiv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxiv]\ Cicero-Reese, B. & P. Black, ``Research Suggests Why Child
Welfare Workers Stay on the Job,'' Partnerships for Child Welfare,
5(5), February 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Salaries
Another major obstacle to recruitment and retention is the fact
that child welfare agencies often are forced to compete for workers
with institutions that pay higher wages and offer safer and more
predictable work environments.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' national wages survey reports that
elementary and middle school teachers earn, on average, about $42,000
annually, while ``social workers'' earn about $33,000. One county
official in Texas reported that teachers now earn starting salaries of
about $37,000, while entry-level caseworkers earn about $28,000
annually, a difference of about 32 percent.[xxv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxv]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One private agency in California reported that foster care workers
with MSWs who worked in group residential care facilities, which
provided structured living arrangements and treatment services for
children with complex needs, earned $5,000 to $30,000 less than school
counselors, nurses, and medical- and public-health social
workers.[xxvi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxvi]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2000 workforce survey, the average annual salaries
for public child protective services workers is $33,000 and, for
private agency staff, $27,000. For child welfare supervisors in public
agencies, the average annual salary is $42,000 and, in private
agencies, $40,000.[xxvii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxvii]\ Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human
Services Association, Child Welfare League of America, ``The Child
Welfare Workforce Challenge: Results from a Preliminary Study,''
presented at Finding Better Ways 2001, Dallas, Texas, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Caseloads/Workloads
In California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas, agencies reported
that their inability to retain staff has contributed to their existing
unmanageable caseloads.[xxviii] Those four states are not
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxviii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain
Staff'' (GAO-03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) recommends a caseload
ratio of 12 to 15 children per caseworker, and the Council on
Accreditation (COA) recommends that caseloads not exceed 18 children
per caseworker. However, a national survey found that caseloads for
individual child welfare workers ranged from 10 to 110 children, with
workers handling an average of about 24 to 31 children each--double the
recommended number.[xxix]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxix]\ Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human
Services Association, Child Welfare League of America, ``The Child
Welfare Workforce Challenge: Results from a Preliminary Study,''
presented at Finding Better Ways 2001, Dallas, Texas, May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributing to the workload problem is the increasing complexity
of cases. Drug and alcohol abuse most often co-occurs with a finding of
abuse or neglect, but it is rarely the only serious issue. Poverty,
substandard housing, mental illness, domestic violence, and HIV/AIDS
are also often present.[xxx]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxx]\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999, cited
in C. Risley-Curtiss, ``Current Challenges and Future Directions for
Collaborative Child Welfare Educational Programs,'' Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One former private agency worker in Delaware reported that,
although caseloads were manageable, the complexity of each case was a
problem. And one former county worker in California said that cases are
becoming increasingly difficult, and caseworkers are no longer able to
do ``social work.'' This caseworker also said that the amount of work
and stress is endless, and limits the amount of time she has to perform
her job well.[xxxi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxi]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk of Violence
Another difficulty facing today's child welfare workers is the
constant risk of violence. According to a 1998 national study of front-
line caseworkers, more than 70 percent had been victims of violence or
threats of violence in the line of duty. In a peer exit interview
process conducted in one state, 90 percent of its child protective
services employees reported that they had experienced verbal threats;
30 percent experienced physical attacks; and 13 percent were threatened
with weapons.[xxxii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxii]\ American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, ``Double Jeopardy: Caseworkers at Risk Helping At-Risk
Children: A Report on the Working Conditions Facing Child Welfare
Workers,'' 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to public agency caseworkers in Texas, their salaries do
not reflect the risks to personal safety they face as part of their
work. These caseworkers reported that, given the safety risks they are
exposed to daily, they should be given hazardous duty pay, similar to
workers in other high-risk professions.[xxxiii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxiii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain
Staff'' (GAO-03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Support for the Child Welfare Workforce
Federal support for child welfare workforce began with enactment of
the Social Security Act (SSA) in 1935. The U.S. Children's Bureau
awarded SSA grants to states to strengthen child welfare services and
promoted professionalism of child welfare employees by encouraging
educational leave for workers to study in schools of social work. As of
1939, at least 35 states and Hawaii had granted educational leave to
people to attend graduate schools of social work.[xxxiv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxiv]\ Leighninger, L. & A.J. Ellett, ``De-professionalism in
Child Welfare: Historical Analysis and Implications for Social Work
Education,'' paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education
Annual Program Meeting, Orlando, Florida, March 1998, cited in C.
Risley-Curtiss, ``Current Challenges and Future Directions for
Collaborative Child Welfare Educational Programs,'' Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Federal Government's primary support for training
continues to be through its funding of two Social Security Act
programs--Title IV-B, Section 426 and Title IV-E both still
administered by the Children's Bureau.
Title IV-B, Section 426 Child Welfare Training Program
The Title IV-B, Section 426 Child Welfare Training Program was
formalized in the SSA Amendments of 1962, as a response to a perceived
workforce shortage for graduate level social workers who are prepared
for--and interested in-- working in public child
welfare.[xxxv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxv]\ Zlotnik, J.L., ``Preparing Social Workers for Child
Welfare Practice: Lessons from an Historical Review of the
Literature,'' Journal of Health & Social Policy, 15(3/4), 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the IV-B program, grants are awarded to public and private
nonprofit institutions of higher learning, usually social work
education programs, to develop and improve the education, training, and
resources available for providers of child welfare services. These
grants are used to upgrade the skills and qualifications of child
welfare workers through their participation, full-time or part-time, in
training programs focused specifically on child welfare practice.
Guidelines for the program vary from year to year, depending on the
Children's Bureau's analysis of need. Priorities for fiscal year 2003
grants, which were announced earlier this month, include practice in
rural communities, training for American Indian and/or Alaskan Native
public child welfare staff, effective models for staff recruitment and
retention, and training for healthy marriage and family
formation.[xxxvi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxvi]\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, ``Program Announcement No.
ACYF/CB-2003-01,'' Federal Register, 68(111), June 10, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Section 426 program is the only one of six child welfare
discretionary grant programs managed by the Children's Bureau with a
specific emphasis on staff training. In fiscal year 2002, even after
funding increases in the late 1990s, the training program received the
second smallest share--nine percent--of the Children's Bureau's total
discretionary funds.[xxxvii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxvii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a
Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain
Staff'' (GAO-03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funding reached a high of $8 million in 1978, was cut by
more than 50 percent (to $3.8 million) in 1982, and stayed at that
level for many years. Funding was not increased until 1995 when it
jumped to $4.6 million and then was cut again in 1996 to $2 million.
Strong advocacy resulted in an increase to $4 million in 1997; $6
million in 1998; and eventually to $7 million, where it stands today.
According to a leading expert on the program, ``The 426 program has
served as an important catalyst for innovations in child welfare
training and to stimulate the preparation of social work students for
child welfare careers. However, the competitive nature of the grant
program, the narrow categories for which applicants are sought each
fiscal year, and the limitations of a $7 million annual appropriation
restrict its beneficiaries to a small cadre of states and social work
education programs.'' [xxxviii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxviii]\ Zlotnik, J.L., ``The Use of Title IV-E Training Funds
for Social Work Education: An Historical Perspective,'' Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title IV-E Child Welfare Training Program
The Title IV-E child welfare training program represents a much
greater federal investment in the child welfare workforce than Title
IV-B. Created as part of the Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act
of 1980, Title IV-E is a valuable tool to address the child welfare-
staffing crisis and ensure that staff have the competencies necessary
to perform their jobs.
Under the program, the Federal Government demonstrates its support
for training by providing an enhanced federal match of 75 percent
(other administrative costs are matched at 50 percent) to fund training
programs both for current and prospective child welfare staff. In
addition to short-term and long-term training and direct financial
assistance to students, this funding also may be used for curriculum
development, materials and books, and incentives for recruitment.
Although the program was created in 1980, it was not until the
early 1990s that Children's Bureau staff became aware of the real
opportunities provided by Title IV-E training funds.[xxxix]
In fiscal year 1990, Title IV-E provided about $44 million to states to
train child welfare workers.[xl] By fiscal year 2001, 49
states received $276 million in Title IV-E training reimbursements.
These reimbursements ranged from a low of approximately $1,400 in
Wyoming to a high of more than $59 million in California, with the
median reimbursement approximating $3.1 million.[xli]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xxxix]\ Ibid.
\[xl]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Foster Care: Federal
Policy on Title IV-E Share of Training Costs'' (GAO/HRD-94-7), November
1993.
\[xli]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
University-Agency Training Partnerships under Title IV-E
According to the GAO report, the university-agency training
partnerships, funded by Title IV-E, present promising practices for
addressing the staffing crisis in child welfare. It is a finding with
which HHS concurred: ``[A]lthough few in number, the ACF funded
university and State child welfare agency partnerships referenced in
this report have had a positive impact on State child welfare agencies'
ability to recruit and retain child welfare staff.'' [xlii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlii]\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These partnership programs are designed to prepare social work
students for careers in the child welfare profession, and to develop
the skills of current workers. The programs require that students
receiving stipends for the study of child welfare commit to employment
with the state or county public child welfare agency for a specified
period of time. The length of the contractual employment obligation--
usually one to two years--and the curriculum content each program
offers, differ by state and sometimes by university.
A survey conducted in 1996 found that 68 university social work
programs in 29 states were accessing IV-E funds for BSW and MSW
education.[xliii] Today, it is estimated that partnerships
exist in over 40 states, and use more than $50 million, to prepare
workers for the challenges of child welfare service
delivery.[xliv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xliii]\ Zlotnik, J.L. & L. Cornelius, ``Preparing Social Work
Students for Child Welfare Careers: The Use of Title IV-E Training
Funds in Social Work Education,'' Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work
Education, 51, 2000.
\[xliv]\ Zlotnik, J.L., ``The Use of Title IV-E Training Funds for
Social Work Education: An Historical Perspective,'' Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While relatively few in number, available studies on the impact of
Title IV-E training partnerships suggest that they improve both worker
retention and worker competence.[xlv]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlv]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Worker Retention
One study, which tracked four groups of students who participated
in a training partnership, found that 93 percent continued to be
employed in the child welfare profession--and 52 percent remained with
public agencies--well beyond he minimum required by their employment
obligation.[xlvi]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlvi]\ Robin, S.C. and C.D. Hollister, ``Career Paths and
Contributions of Four Cohorts of IV-E Funded MSW Child Welfare
Graduates,'' Journal of Health and Social Policy, 15(3/4), 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings were similar in evaluations of programs in Kentucky and
California. Evaluations in both states found that more than 80 percent
of participants remained with the state agencies after their initial
work obligations concluded. In Kentucky, whose collaboration includes
nine of the state's undergraduate social work schools and the Cabinet
for Families and Children, state officials attribute their retention
rates, in part, to the intensive coursework, formal internships, and
rigorous training included in the curriculum of the training
partnerships. California's collaboration consists of the state's 15
graduate schools of social work, the Department of Social Services,
county welfare directors, and the California Chapter of
NASW.[xlvii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlvii]\ Barbee, A.P., ``Creating a Chain of Evidence for the
Effectiveness of Kentucky's Training System,'' For the Child and Family
Services Review, March 2003; and N. S. Dickinson and R. Perry, ``Do MSW
Graduates Stay in Public Child Welfare? Factors Influencing the Burnout
and Retention Rates of Specially Educated Child Welfare Workers,'' The
California Social Work Education Center, University of California at
Berkeley, August 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Texas--where six universities offer both BSW and MSW stipends,
five offer BSW stipends only, and one offers only MSW stipends--
graduates of one participating program were surveyed. The survey found
that 70 percent of respondents were still employed with the agency
after their contractual employment obligation
expired.[xlviii]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlviii]\ Scannapieco, M. and K. Connell-Carrick, ``Do
Collaborations with Schools of Social Work Make a Difference for the
Field of Child Welfare? Practice, Retention, and Curriculum,'' Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Worker Competence
The program evaluations in Kentucky and California suggest that the
training partnerships improved worker competence. In both states,
evaluations found that staff hired through specially designed Title IV-
E programs performed better on the job and applied their training more
deftly than employees hired through other means.
Controlling for undergraduate grade point averages, the Kentucky
study found that those who completed the training scored better on the
agency's test of core competencies. Kentucky supervisors reported that
they considered students certified by the partnership to be better
prepared for their jobs than other new employees.[xlix]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[xlix]\ Fox, S., Miller, V. & A.P. Barbee, ``Finding and Keeping
Child Welfare Workers: Effective Use of Training and Professional
Development,'' Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
7(1/2), 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California study reported that students who participated in the
partnership training scored higher on a test of child welfare
knowledge, reported greater competency in their work, and had a more
realistic view of child welfare work than those who had not
participated.[l]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[l]\ Jones, L.P. and A. Okamura, ``Reprofessionalizing Child
Welfare Services: An Evaluation of Title IV-E Training,'' Research on
Social Work Practice, September 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Louisiana, research found that Title IV-E participants score
higher on child welfare competency exams than control groups, have
higher rates of retention with the agency, and score higher on
supervisor evaluations of their work preparation.[li]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[li]\ Ellett, B. and K. Gansle, ``Louisiana Title IV-E Program
Begins Evaluation Process,'' Partnerships for Child Welfare, 5(5),
February 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
Over the years, NASW has advocated for a number of improvements to
increase the effectiveness of the Title IV-E program. The association
continues to support those changes, but believes they should be made
within the current financing structure. Our recommendations for
improvements include:
1. Eliminating requirements for cost allocation based on the
percentage of the Title IV-E eligible caseload: All children in the
system benefit by better qualified staff, not only children from
families meeting the 1996 AFDC income test.
2. Expanding eligibility for training content: Eligible training
should include all areas related to meeting the federal goals of
safety, permanence, and well-being, and should not be limited to
training related to out-of-home placement.
3. Expanding access for reimbursement to private universities: In
many jurisdictions, social work education programs at private
universities are the most geographically accessible for child welfare
workers. However, direct financial participation by private
universities is prohibited, which limits access to quality training
programs for many child welfare staff.
4. Expanding the 75 percent reimbursement rate to include all real
costs of traiing, both direct and indirect, incuding the costs of
administering the training program: Current limitations significantly
reduce the number of colleges and universities able to provide the
required matching funds.
Conclusion
With or without the recommended improvements, it is clear that the
current Title IV-E child welfare training program is critical to re-
professionalizing the child welfare system. Continued strong federal
support for this program and others designed to create a well-trained,
competent, and stable child welfare workforce will be even more
critical in the future, as states develop and implement Program
Improvement Plans (PIPs) to meet outcomes measured in the Child and
Family Services Reviews.
In response to the March 2003 GAO report, HHS noted that ``a number
of States have identified strategies that target workforce
stabilization and reduction in caseloads as part of their PIPs,'' but
acknowledged that ``the Federal Government has limited resources to
offer States in these efforts.'' [lii] While additional
resources are clearly needed, now is not the time to jeopardize the
current federal funding available to assist states in their efforts to
educate and train their child welfare staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[lii]\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``HHS Could Play a Greater
Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff'' (GAO-
03-357), March 2003.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide the social work
perspective on child welfare financing, and look forward to
participating in the debate as the issue moves forward.
For additional information, please contact Cynthia Woodside, senior
government relations associate, 202-336-8324 or [email protected].
Statement of Richard Wexler, National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, Alexandria, Virginia
I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit written testimony
concerning the Bush Administration's foster care funding flexibility
plan on behalf of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, a
non-profit child advocacy organization dedicated to making the child
welfare system better serve America's most vulnerable children.
We are a very small organization, with no particular interest in
becoming another big non-profit bureaucracy. But what we lack in size,
we make up for in track record. We were the only national child
advocacy organization to predict the collapse of the Florida child
welfare system--three years before it happened--because we knew that
the child welfare agency there was embarking on the same course that
had led other states and localities to disaster.
And we are proud to have been the only child advocacy organization,
aside from the event sponsors, singled out for thanks by Rep. George
Miller at the Child Welfare Summit he helped to organize last year.
There is much more about us at our website, www.nccpr.org. But
there's something else you should know about us.
We're liberals--and in my case, at least, a tax-and-spend liberal
at that.
But when an Administration with which we often disagree comes up
with a plan that has the potential to be the biggest change for the
better in federal child welfare policy in 23 years, we'd rather put
ideology aside and help make it work than jerk our knees in opposition
before anyone has even seen the fine print.
The story of one child and his mother explains why this change has
the potential to be so important.
This is what a single mother in The Bronx named Rose Mary Grant had
to do every week for many, many months, just to see her 11-year-old
son, Issa, as described in a keenly-observed story in the Westchester
County, N.Y. Journal-News.
``Starting from her brick apartment tower, Rose walks a block
to Gun Hill Road, takes the 28 bus to the subway station,
catches the 5 train to Harlem, makes her way down 125th Street,
boards the Metro-North train to Dobbs Ferry, and rides a
shuttle . . . At each step, she places two metal crutches ahead
of her and swings forward on two prosthetic legs.''
The journey would have been worth it, had there been
something worthwhile at the end of the line. But there wasn't.
Issa was warehoused at a ``residential treatment center.''
Issa is not paranoid, he's not schizophrenic, he's not delusional.
The only label pinned on him is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder. Sometimes, at home, he was seriously out-of-control. But his
handicapped, impoverished single mother couldn't do what middle-class
and wealthy families do: find a good psychiatrist and hire home health
aides.
She couldn't do that because the Federal Government does almost
nothing to help pay for such alternatives. But, in many cases, the
Federal Government, in other words, the American taxpayer, will gladly
reimburse states between 50 and 79 cents for every one of the 86,000-
or-more dollars it costs to keep children like Issa in his ``RTC.''
Now consider another case, described in the cover story of the June
issue of the outstanding trade journal, Youth Today. EMQ Children and
Family Services used to be just like the place that warehoused Issa.
But ten years ago, they admitted to themselves that what they were
doing was not helping children. So they shut down 100 of their 130 beds
and came up with far better alternatives for the children. They wound
up helping more children at less cost and getting far better outcomes.
Another institution, called Youth Villages in Tennessee won a national
award for doing the same thing. Keep in mind that the children they
helped in their own homes or foster homes are the very same children
that the child welfare establishment--what I have come to call, ``the
foster care- industrial complex'' insists absolutely cannot be helped
anyplace except in their institutions.
But both Youth Villages and EMQ encountered the same problem: For
years, even though their alternatives were better and cheaper, they
couldn't get reimbursement from their states. EMQ almost went out of
business.
There are many cases that don't involve institutions at all, but do
involve needless use of foster care.
Contrary to the common stereotype, most parents who lose their
children to foster care are neither brutally abusive nor hopelessly
addicted. Far more common are cases in which a family's poverty has
been confused with child ``neglect.'' Other cases fall on a broad
continuum between the extremes, the parents neither all victim nor all
villain. What these cases have in common is the fact that there are a
wide variety of proven programs that can keep these children in their
own homes, and do it with a far better track record for safety than
foster care itself.
But financial incentives at the federal, state and sometimes local
level--plus the power of the ``foster care-industrial complex''
marginalize these alternatives.
Documentation for this, and other problems related to the
widespread confusion of poverty with child ``neglect'' can be found in
our Issue Papers at www.nccpr.org.
To many liberals, the confusion of poverty with child ``neglect''
is the single biggest problem in child welfare. That confusion is
encouraged by federal funding formulas.
The giant federal entitlement program for foster care--Title IV-E--
is about ten times larger than the primary ``funding stream'' used to
prevent foster care, Title IV-B.
The Bush Administration proposes to change that. And what are many
of my fellow liberals doing? Jerking their knees in opposition.
I will not go into the details of the plan here--to the extent that
we know them--the Subcommittee already is familiar with them.
There are many legitimate questions about this plan, and no one
should endorse it without qualification until they are answered. Most
of the questions involve arcane but important details you have heard
about in other testimony. They fall under headings like ``maintenance
of effort'' and ``eligibility lookback.'' But that is a reason to wait
for the details, negotiate, and then take a position. Instead, in much
of the child welfare community, the response boils down to: ``Whatever
it is, we're against it.''
In some cases, that's naked self-interest. Of course the Child
Welfare League of America is opposed--their member agencies hold
children in foster care. The Residential Treatment Center that held
Issa so long and so needlessly is a prominent member.
States and localities typically tell these agencies that their
first job is to return these children safely to their own homes or, if
that is not possible, find them adoptive homes. But if they do that,
those same states and localities will stop paying them. The states say
they want permanence, but they pay for limbo, reimbursing agencies for
every day they hold children like Issa in foster homes or institutions.
You have undoubtedly heard and read a great deal about the
``addiction'' problem in child welfare, and that problem is indeed
serious. But the biggest addiction problem in child welfare isn't
substance-abusing parents. The biggest addiction problem in child
welfare is politically powerful, old-line, well-established child
welfare agencies with blue-chip boards of directors that are addicted
to per-diem payments and addicted to institutionalization as the only
answer for too many children. And these agencies are putting their
addiction ahead of the needs of the children.
And the biggest ``enabler'' of this addiction is the Federal
Government, with its ``open spigot'' of money for substitute care, and
far, far less for anything other than substitute care.
Breaking an addiction is extremely difficult. One first has to get
past the addict's denial. So it's no wonder that so much of the foster
care-industrial complex is opposing this plan without even seeing it.
Sadly, even the Children's Defense Fund, an organization whose past
work in child welfare has been heroic, has lost its way on this issue.
Without waiting for the fine print, CDF has lumped this good idea in
with some bad ideas in the Bush budget and denounced all of them--in
apocalyptic terms. The CDF website has included material claiming that
the plan would ``dismantle'' foster care. That is preposterous. There
is no way that a purely voluntary plan that, in some cases, will give
states more money than they would get under the status quo, can
``dismantle'' foster care. Such claims only undermine CDF's credibility
when the organization seeks, rightly, in my view, to prevent budget
cuts in other areas.
The opposition to this proposal has consisted of a shameful
collection of fear, smear, and scare stories.
First of all, this is not a ``block grant'' in any
meaningful sense of the term. Under a block grant, several different
funding streams are combined, states are allowed to use the money for
any purpose covered by any of those funding streams--and, often, some
money is cut from the total.
LThis plan involves only one portion of one funding stream--Title
IV-E foster care funds. This money could be spent on prevention and
adoption. But the other funding streams remain separate. Title IV-B
funds for prevention, for example, cannot be used for foster care. This
``IV-B firewall'' is a crucial feature of the plan. Were IV-B and IV-E
to be combined, the ``foster care-industrial complex'' would grab the
prevention money to use for more foster care. This plan recognizes that
danger. In the absence of this firewall we would oppose the plan.
Second, this plan not only does not cut funding, in some
cases, funding may go up. Under this plan, states would receive the
same, agreed-upon amount of money for each of the five years. In
contrast, states that stick with the status quo will find that the
proportion of foster care costs covered by the Federal Government will
decrease, as a result of the ``eligibility lookback.''
And perhaps most important, this plan is strictly
voluntary. Though states that opt in must stay in for five years, any
state that feels it's not getting a good deal can walk away from the
table and stick with the status quo. If the fine print matches the
broad outlines, governors and child welfare leaders who have the guts
and imagination to try something with so much potential to do so much
good, should have the right to do so, without being held back by their
timorous colleagues and a foster care establishment with a huge vested
interest in the status quo.
As I said at the outset, there are legitimate questions about this
plan, and we cannot endorse it until we see the details and see if they
match the promise of the proposal's broad outlines. But because the
plan is strictly voluntary, it doesn't have to be ideal to be worth
offering to the states.
Some of the key questions include: How will the emergency fund
work? How will it be triggered? Is it adequate? (It may, in fact, be
adequate for some states and not others; that's the beauty of a
voluntary plan).
Ideally, I would like to see states able to opt out in fewer than
five years, and I'd like an emergency fund that would be more
reassuring to states than the ideas discussed so far. But again, that
may someday be a reason for some states not to take part in the plan,
it is not a reason to deny any state the chance to participate by
strangling the plan before anyone has even seen it.
Some of my liberal friends have argued that Congress should support
legislation introduced by Representatives Benjamin Cardin and George
Miller instead.
They're half right.
These representatives have been tireless champions for children,
and they have introduced a bill with some good provisions, increasing
funding for crucial prevention programs. But this bill and the Bush
Administration plan are not mutually exclusive. If the fine print in
the Bush plan lives up to the broad outlines there is no reason that
Congress shouldn't support this plan and the good provisions of Cardin-
Miller.
But Cardin-Miller also has a provision likely to backfire. It ties
some of the aid to states' performance on Child and Family Service
Reviews (CFSRs). Unfortunately, though well-intended, the CFSR process
is deeply flawed. The sample size is far too small to accurately
measure state performance. And in at least one crucial instance, the
incentives in CFSRs perversely encourage poor performance.
The CFSRs measure reducing average length of stay in foster care,
but they do not measure success in keeping children out of foster care
in the first place. As a result, this measure rewards states or
localities with hair-triggers for removals. These states remove
children at the drop of a hat. Then they realize that many of the
children didn't need to be taken and return them--much the worse for
the experience--in a month, or two, or three. As a result, the average
length of stay looks low.
In contrast, a state that takes family preservation seriously will
truly remove children only as a last resort. As a result, the problems
in those children's birth families will be genuinely serious and are
likely to take more time to resolve--if they can be resolved at all. So
in these states, average length of stay will be longer, even though
those states actually may be doing a better job.
The Administration is aware of these problems, and may be able to
fix them when the next round of CFSRs take place. But until we know
that, it would be counterproductive to base aid to states upon
performance using these flawed measures. And that is one of the things
the Cardin-Miller bill proposes to do.
Others have said that financial incentives don't really affect
child welfare decision-making anyway. (I wonder if they also believe
HMOs have no affect on health care decisions?) These tend to be the
same people who benefit most from the status quo. If they're right,
they have nothing to worry about, and the Bush plan is a great way to
put their claim to the test.
But in fact, I think they're worried about the nation as a whole
seeing the same kind of success as is now being seen in the State of
Illinois.
In 1997, Illinois had one of the worst child welfare systems in the
country. Illinois had 51,000 children in foster care--proportionately
more than any other state. Today, the foster care population in
Illinois is under 22,000--and, proportionately, below the national
average. At the same time, and this is most important, child safety has
improved.
If you thought that was all due to adoption, it's understandable.
Since that's the part of the story that is most popular politically, it
is the part that state officials like to tell the most. But the biggest
change in Illinois is that the state is taking far fewer children in
the first place--and it has changed financial incentives to get
children back into their own homes faster.
Illinois no longer simply pays private agencies for each day they
hold a child in foster care. Instead, agencies are rewarded financially
for keeping children safely in their own homes or finding them adoptive
homes. They are penalized financially for letting children languish in
foster care. Once Illinois changed the payment system, lo and behold:
The ``intractable'' became tractable, the ``dysfunctional'' became
functional the foster care population plummeted and, as I said, child
safety improved.
Some have argued that the very fact that Illinois managed to do
this under the current system shows that there is no need to change
federal financial incentives. However:
Illinois is an exception. It required rare and
extraordinary guts and imagination, combined with an unprecedented
child welfare crisis, before the state could summon the strength to
fight its ``foster care-industrial complex'' and accomplish real
reform.
Illinois was among the first states to take advantage of
waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and
among the most creative in their use.
In order to accomplish its reforms, Illinois had to swim against
the tide of federal policy as reflected by where the Federal Government
puts its money. If we really want to change child welfare and improve
the prospects of America's most vulnerable children, then the tide of
federal policy needs to turn toward reform, so states that want to do
better are swimming with the tide instead of against it.
If the fine print matches the broad outlines, then the Bush plan
offers the potential to do just that.
Statement of Thomas C. Atwood, National Council For Adoption,
Alexandria, Virginia
Chairman Herger, the National Council For Adoption thanks the House
Ways and Means Sub-Committee on Human Resources for the opportunity to
submit a written statement regarding the important topic of ``The Bush
Administration Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal.'' Although there
are details still to be determined, in our view the principles
articulated in this proposal would be a significant step forward in
America's efforts to develop new and better ways of serving children in
foster care.
The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) is a research, education,
and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-being of
children, birthparents, and adoptive families, by advocating for the
positive option of adoption. Since our founding in 1980, NCFA has been
a leader in promoting sound child welfare and adoption policies that
make it easier for children to be adopted out of foster care into
families, present adoption as a positive option for women with
unplanned pregnancies, reduce obstacles to transracial adoption, make
adoption more affordable through the tax credit, and facilitate
intercountry adoptions. NCFA's 1996 monograph, ``Foster Care: Too Much,
Too Little, Too Early, Too Late,'' by Dr. Carol Statuto Bevan,
contributed much to the intellectual basis for the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).
While reaffirming the commitment to family reunification when
appropriate, ASFA clearly established the priority of child safety.
ASFA reformed the child welfare system to promote more timely
permanency decisions to help prevent children from languishing in
foster care. ASFA encourages adoption out of foster care with
incentives for states, and it expanded support services to foster and
adoptive families. ASFA gave the Department of Health and Human
Services tools for producing greater accountability and innovation in
the child welfare system.
ASFA's results have been positive. The number of children adopted
out of foster care rose from 31,000 in FY 1997 to 50,000 in FY 2001.
ASFA has been a successful policy for tens of thousands of former
foster children who would not otherwise have been adopted into their
forever families. However, while we have made significant progress in
addressing the needs of children in foster care, there is still much to
be done. As of September 30, 2001, there were 542,000 children in
foster care, of whom 126,000 were waiting to be adopted.
The tide of children needing foster care is, unfortunately, all too
steady. Moreover, as we find homes for more children, the children who
remain in foster care may tend to be more difficult to place. Not all
children will find adoptive homes, especially those who are older.
These realities accentuate the need in our child welfare system for
increased child and family services in the areas of recruitment,
training, and education of adoptive and foster parents, pre- and post-
placement counseling and services for children and families, vocational
and job training for older foster care populations and for those aging
out of foster care, and counseling foster youth for independent living
and for prevention of substance abuse and other harmful behaviors.
The Bush Administration took creative steps in addressing the needs
of older children in foster care with its initiatives to provide
education and training vouchers for youth who age out of foster care
and to increase states' financial incentives for placing for adoption
foster children age 9 and up. The vouchers offer youth a chance to
extend their education and improve their possibilities of succeeding as
self-sufficient adults. States' increased incentives to place children
9 and up will improve this vulnerable population's prospects for
adoption. The Department of Health and Human Services has found that
from age 9 on, a child's likelihood of remaining in foster care is
greater than the likelihood of being adopted.
The President's foster care flexible funding proposal is a logical
next step in addressing the needs of the evolving population of
children in foster care. This new Child Welfare Program Option would
allow states to maintain the federal funding of their foster care
program as is, or to receive these funds as a flexible grant over five
years, to support a range of child welfare services. The proposal's
funding flexibility, including the option of up-front funding, offers
states the opportunity to be timely and effective in addressing the
particular concerns and needs of their respective foster care
populations and systems.
The flexible funding proposal is consistent with a proven model for
federal-state partnerships: The Federal Government provides goals,
incentives, standards, and accountability; the states determine the
best ways to achieve them, given the particular needs and circumstances
of their respective states. This model for federal-state partnership
has worked in many policy areas and can also work in serving the needs
of children in foster care, and of their families and caregivers. The
flexible funding proposal recognizes that it does not serve the best
interests of children and families for the Federal Government to
dictate a one-size-fits-all policy for our diverse 50 states. The
states have important perspectives on the needs of the children and
families served by their respective child welfare systems. The Federal
Government must work with the states to make safe and stable homes a
reality for all children.
Given the flexibility, states will direct their federal foster care
dollars in various ways depending on the particular needs of their
respective populations. The flexible funding should be sufficiently
inclusive as to allow states to use the funds for such programs and
child and family services as:
Recruitment, training, and education of adoptive and
foster parents.
Pre- and post-placement counseling and services for
adoptive and foster children and families.
Vocational counseling and job training and placement for
older foster care children and for those aging out of foster care.
Counseling foster youth for independent living and
prevention of sexual abuse and substance abuse.
If Congress grants states the flexibility recommended in this
proposal, states are likely over the next five years to develop
creative and effective approaches that address these concerns.
Finally, it should be noted that the proposal provides safeguards
against possible negligence of states' foster care populations by
requiring states to: adhere to the child safety protections mandated by
ASFA; maintain existing levels of investment in their child welfare
programs; and continue to participate in the Administration for
Children and Family's Child and Family Service Reviews. Congress should
ensure that the policy is sufficiently inclusive to allow states to
spend their federal foster care dollars on the areas of greatest need,
such as foster and adoptive family training and recruitment, pre- and
post-placement counseling, and vocational training and life skills
counseling for older foster children.
President Bush's flexible funding proposal recognizes the crucial
importance of the federal-state partnership in developing effective
solutions that meet the needs of children in foster care, and of their
families and caregivers. While reducing states' administrative burdens,
it offers states a useful tool to structure their child welfare
programs in ways that support the ongoing priorities of safety, timely
permanency, and improved well-being for children and families. While
protecting against a reduction of resources spent on foster care, the
proposal allows states the opportunity to target their foster care
resources in ways best suited to their respective populations' and
systems' needs. The President's flexible funding proposal is a logical
next step for America's child welfare system.
Statement of Raul Yzaguirre, National Council of La Raza, as submitted
by Sonia M. Perez
Introduction
My name is Sonia M. Perez and I am Deputy Vice President of the
National Council of La Raza (NCLR); I also oversee the activities of
NCLR's Puerto Rico regional office. NCLR is the largest national Latino
research and advocacy organization in the U.S.; and works to reduce
poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for the
estimated 38 million Hispanics living on the mainland U.S. and the
nearly 4 million people in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through our
network of 300 local affiliate community-based organizations and 33,000
individual associate members.
For more than 15 years, NCLR has been engaged in research and
public information efforts on poverty, social policy, and related
issues affecting Latino families. In particular, NCLR has researched
and written extensively on the experience of Latina women and their
children with public assistance, as well as on the impact that welfare
reform has had on Hispanic families in the U.S. mainland and in Puerto
Rico. Through its research on welfare reform issues, NCLR has learned
that significant disparities in funding for social welfare programs
exist between Puerto Rico and the 50 states, despite the Island's high
level of poverty and the significant challenges faced by poor families
and children.
Background
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico faces unique social and economic
conditions that significantly impact the well-being of the U.S.
citizens living on the Island, and, particularly, the Island's
children. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau:
Almost half (48.2%) of the total population lives below
the poverty level.
About three in five (58.3%) children in Puerto Rico are
poor--the only U.S. state, territory or commonwealth with a higher
child poverty rate is American Samoa (67%).
More than one-quarter (27%) of families in Puerto Rico
are headed by a female householder.
In addition, Puerto Rico has experienced slower economic growth and
significantly higher unemployment than the States--even during the
economic boom of the 1990s. According to the latest data from the
Puerto Rico Department of Labor, the Island had a 12.1% unemployment
rate in May.
Child Welfare in Puerto Rico
Poverty and other social and economic factors have placed many
children at risk, not only of poor educational, social, and health
outcomes, but also of abuse and neglect. While data on child abuse,
neglect, and foster care have not always been systematically collected
for Puerto Rico, data from the Puerto Rico Department of the Family
indicate the following:
The Commonwealth received 71,617 child abuse and neglect
complaints in fiscal year 2002.
At the end of 2002, there were roughly 9,555 children in
foster care in Puerto Rico.
Abused and neglected children are cared for in
approximately 3,380 certified foster homes.
To maintain this level of care, the Commonwealth spends
$25.5 million in payments to foster families alone, at an average
monthly maintenance payment of $325.
Funding Limitations
One of the most significant challenges that Puerto Rico faces in
trying to address these issues is low funding. Local government funds
help to meet some of the need, but as is the case with other states,
federal monies greatly help to offset the administrative costs and
payments to families providing foster care to children who have been
abused or neglected.
While children who have been removed from their families are
entitled to foster care and adoption programs and assistance under the
Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program in the States,
foster care is not an entitlement in Puerto Rico. The Title IV-E
program falls under the Section 1108 cap, which restricts total welfare
funding to Puerto Rico, creating a ceiling for several unrelated
programs, including TANF and Assistance for the Aged, Blind and
Disabled (Puerto Rico's substitute for Supplemental Security Income,
from which the Commonwealth is excluded). This means that aid to abused
and neglected children competes with assistance to the Island's poor
families, the disabled, and seniors.
The funding limitations placed on the Title IV-E program in Puerto
Rico have far-reaching consequences. For instance, States with
populations similar to Puerto Rico receive $40 to $50 million in
reimbursements per year for their foster care and adoption assistance
expenditures, whereas Puerto Rico is only reimbursed roughly $12
million a year. Also, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected
that the federal share of monthly maintenance payments averaged $564
for foster care, making Puerto Rico's average federal share of $152.50
only 27% of the national average.
Puerto Rico has not been able to take advantage of the adoption
assistance program to the same extent as the states: in 2000, 88% of
all children adopted out of foster care received adoption subsidies,
while in Puerto Rico, the rate was 19%. According to the CBO the
projected average federal share of monthly maintenance payments was
$283 for adoption assistance, however, the average federal share in
Puerto Rico was only $90. The Commonwealth spent approximately $500,000
in Adoption Assistance payments in 2002, for 255 special needs
children. Nearly one in three of these children were assisted with
state-only funds. Adoption assistance payments for children adopted in
Puerto Rico range from $107 to $300 a month, with an average of $180.
Federal funding in this area has become so restricted, that when Puerto
Rico earned a bonus for increasing adoptions, the basic IV-E grant was
reduced, because of the impact of the welfare cap on the program, in
order to provide the Island with the $218,000 performance incentive.
Taken as a whole, the limitation on federal funding for Puerto
Rico's child welfare system has created significant challenges in its
efforts to care for vulnerable children, which range from limited and
outdated case management capacity, insufficient communications between
regional offices because of inadequate technology, and poor management
and follow-up systems. In the end, the lack of federal funds, technical
assistance, and general support means that too many children in need of
services in Puerto Rico fall through the cracks.
Foster Care Flexible Funding Proposal: Disadvantages for Puerto Rico
NCLR believes that members of Congress must consider the unique
barriers facing Puerto Rico's child welfare system, particularly in
light of the President's proposal for offering an alternative financing
option to the current Title IV-E program. This proposal would not
enhance Puerto Rico's ability to serve children who are neglected or
abused. Specifically, the proposal does not consider the following:
There are existing disparities for federal funding for
these services between Puerto Rico and the 50 states. The problem
facing Puerto Rico's child welfare system is severely limited federal
contributions, due to the Section 1108 cap. As discussed above, Puerto
Rico is unable to serve its existing populations well because of
competing needs.
The current low federal contribution would undermine the
establishment of an appropriate baseline for any proposed foster care
block grant. In the last three years, Puerto Rico received $10 to $12
million in federal funding for foster care and adoption assistance.
Since the foster care block grant would be based on previous federal
reimbursements, the baseline would preserve the historic inequity in
funding and would result in inadequate resources for Puerto Rico to
care for children who are abused or neglected.
A block grant will aggravate the problem of low funding
levels in Puerto Rico. While the President's proposal to block-grant
foster care funding is purported to provide states with increased
flexibility in using federal funds to support a broader range of
families and prevention and treatment activities, such claims would not
apply to Puerto Rico. Because the Island currently receives inadequate
federal funds for the breadth of services provided to the Island's
poor, abused and neglected children, extending eligibility and
broadening the range of activities would result in greater competition
for funding and services than presently exist. Such an approach would
further strain already limited resources.
Elements of the flexible foster care funding proposal do
not apply to Puerto Rico. The President's proposal includes a provision
that would allow States to access additional funding through the TANF
contingency fund if specific crisis conditions are met. However, Puerto
Rico is not authorized to participate in the TANF contingency fund.
Therefore, this provision could not be used to benefit children in
need.
The Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program was
established as a state-federal partnership to ensure that abused and
neglected children receive the services needed to be safe. However,
because Title IV-E funding falls under the Commonwealth's federal
welfare cap, Puerto Rican children in need of these services have no
entitlement to federal aid--rather they must compete with the poor,
blind, aged and disabled for limited federal funding.
NCLR supports two directions for responding to these deficiencies:
Remove the Title IV-E program from Puerto Rico's welfare
cap. In order for Puerto Rico to reach parity with other states and
meet the existing needs in this area, the Title IV-E program should not
be considered as part of the Island's overall ``welfare'' cap. Such a
measure is a critical step in strengthening Puerto Rico's partnership
with the Federal Government and shoring up its ability to provide
appropriate levels of support and protection for these children.
Assess and enhance funding levels for foster care,
adoption, and abuse/maltreatment services for children in Puerto Rico
based on existing needs. In addition to the funding disparities
outlined above, the President's proposal would be largely inaccessible
to the Commonwealth due to the Section 1108 cap. The question of how
best to address the serious child welfare issues in Puerto Rico should
not be determined by faulty formulas or proposals that do not apply to
the Island, but instead by examining the serious deficiencies,
backlogs, and inadequate services that prevent the current system from
protecting the most vulnerable children in Puerto Rico.
Statement of Manuel Mirabal, the National Puerto Rican Coalition
On behalf of the National Puerto Rican Coalition (NPRC), a non-
profit organization representing the interests of the seven million
Puerto Rican U.S. citizens on the mainland and the Island of Puerto
Rico, I would like to express my appreciation to the Chairman and the
Committee for their attention in addressing a pressing issue: meeting
the needs of the nation's abused and neglected children.
I am confident that the Committee will work to ensure that no child
is left behind as you design this important legislation. However, I
would like to focus my remarks on the island of Puerto Rico, where the
Foster Care situation is very unique. While IV-E Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance is an entitlement throughout the states, funding is
severely limited in Puerto Rico due to a cap on Foster Care and two
unrelated programs. TANF, Aid to Aged, Blind and Disabled (the program
the Island has instead of SSI) and Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
fall under one arbitrary cap. This cap is so restrictive that Puerto
Rico has never received reimbursement for eligible administration,
placement and training cost in IV-E, nor was it able to receive
additional funding under the Adoption Incentive Bonus the Island earned
in 2002. Similarly, Puerto Rico bears most of the costs of providing
health care to children in Foster Care due to a federal funding cap on
Medicaid. Due to these funding restrictions, the Island has had to face
difficult challenges in meeting the needs of abused and neglected
children. Fortunately, the government of Puerto Rico has made it a
priority to care for these children by investing additional resources
into the program.
While I am encouraged by Puerto Rico's efforts, it is unrealistic
to expect the Island to continue to bear this disproportionate
financial responsibility in meeting the needs of these children. In
Puerto Rico, the child poverty rate is 58 percent, with 630,000 poor
children. In cases where parents are unable or unwilling to care for
them, these children should not be left behind.
The need for federal support is undeniable as many Puerto Rican
children are subject to some type of mistreatment. For example, in
2002, there were 30,000 complaints of abuse and neglect and 10,000
children were in the Foster Care system. Yet, while states with
populations similar in size to Puerto Rico are reimbursed from $40 to
$50 million, the Island receives approximately $12 million per year. It
is essential that resources are provided to ensure that children are
not trapped in high risk environments.
To remedy the federal funding inequity, NPRC recommends the
following:
Remove IV-E Foster Care from the Section 1108 cap. Due to
the cap, Puerto Rico could not even receive the adoption incentive
bonus earned last year without having to cut the IV-E Foster Care basic
grant. Further, Puerto Rico only receives 0.26 percent of total federal
IV-E dollars, yet 1.7 percent of the nation's foster children reside on
the Island.
Exempt Medicaid expenditures for IV-E foster children
from the Medicaid Cap. The states receive federal support for Medicaid
costs associated with providing health care to children in IV-E Foster
Care. However, in Puerto Rico, the Federal Government only contributes
approximately 15 percent of eligible Medicaid costs due to the funding
cap.
As the Committee moves toward crafting legislation to meet the
needs of the nation's at-risk children, I hope you will use this
opportunity to remedy the inequities the Island faces when providing
for this population of children.
Statement of Lynn Olund, Brimson, Minnesota, Paula Katzenmeyer,
Hutchinson, Minnesota, Debbie Retterath, Adams, Minnesota, and Deborah
Trotter, Aitkin, Minnesota
This written testimony is in response to the Foster Care Flexible
Funding Proposal that had a hearing on June 11, 2003. As an interested
human service professional and citizen concerned for the well being of
our nation's children, I would like to make a few short comments.
1. The professionalism of child welfare workers and consistency
in child welfare practice are major concerns, judging from the
statistics and testimony already provided to the committee.
2. Child welfare worker turnover contributes to both of these
concerns. Turnover has been connected to a lack of support due to a
shortage of proper training and excessive workloads. Administrative
duties also compete for time spent with children in need.
3. Retention of seasoned workers through the provision of
consistent training and support will contribute to the improved safety
and the well being of the most vulnerable members of our society, our
children. They depend on us now, as we will depend on them in the
future. With ongoing training, policy will be interpreted correctly and
practice will be followed accurately, helping to insure that all
children will receive equal care and oversight, improving their chances
for success, or even survival. Workers who are trained will have the
confidence and competence to make the most efficient use of their time,
reaching more children in need, and minimizing their own stress in
achieving positive outcomes.
4. If the flexible funding proposal is followed, we will be
moving away from the safeguards listed above, and moving toward the
likelihood that child welfare workers will be frustrated in their
efforts and make misjudgments that affect the safety of the children
under their responsibility.
I was a front line worker in county social services until I
accepted my present position as a community trainer of social services
agencies. The reason I was interested in taking my present position was
my own experience of the frustration of good workers trying to follow
policy and do the best work possible, while not always having
sufficient training support to be sure what the best practices are. In
my current position, our project team conducted a satisfaction survey
of workers who have received support and training. The response was
consistently positive regarding assisting workers with meeting their
responsibilities. Having been both a worker and trainer, I know the
value and necessity of training. I know how much more productively time
is used when workers are clear as to their obligations and they know
where to receive support from resources about difficult situations.
Training partnerships are invaluable in solving some of the worst
dilemmas we face in improving child welfare outcomes. These outcomes
are so important since they represent real children who are counting on
us.
Thank you.
Statement of Carol Emig, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
The nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care was
launched on May 7, 2003 under the leadership of former Congressmen Bill
Frenzel and Bill Gray. This expert panel of experienced legislators,
child welfare administrators and providers, judges, parents, and youth,
is committed to improving outcomes for some of the nation's most
vulnerable children by developing practical, bipartisan recommendations
related to federal financing and court oversight of child welfare. It
will report those recommendations in 2004.
For the purposes of this hearing, this statement primarily
addresses the Commission's work on federal financing. It is important
to note, however, that court practices are also an integral part of our
work.
The Commission shares Congress' desire to protect children who have
experienced abuse and neglect and provide them with the safe and
permanent homes that all children deserve. While changes in financing
won't solve every problem in child welfare, thoughtful change could
enable every state and community to do a better job of supporting the
healthy development of these very vulnerable children.
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care is committed to
developing--quickly--a set of practical, evidence-based
recommendations. Our work has been greeted with interest and excitement
across the policy and political spectrum. This enthusiasm reflects
consensus in the policy and practice communities that the current
financing structure does not effectively promote the Adoption and Safe
Families Act's (AFSA's) goals of safety, permanence, and well-being for
children, as well as widespread interest in the development of
thoughtful, new recommendations for reform. The Commission will
therefore carefully examine a broad array of financing options to
develop recommendations that will promote good outcomes for children.
In doing so, we intend to learn from information that is just now
emerging from states and communities that have experimented with
different financing structures, including those with federal waivers.
States and communities clearly differ in their circumstances and
approaches, and the Commission's recommendations will take these
differences into account. We welcome input and suggestions and will be
posting information for submitting ideas to the Commission on our web
site shortly.
Every member of the Pew Commission is committed to developing
recommendations that have a strong likelihood of adoption. We share
Congress' frustration over the current child welfare system and its
urgency to do a better job for children and families. We also know that
progress in this arena occurs only when there is strong bipartisan
agreement. That is the experience of ASFA and the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Act. Our goal, therefore, is to develop practical,
evidence-based recommendations that will earn broad, bipartisan support
among policy makers and will improve outcomes for children.
About the Commission
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care will focus its
recommendations in two targeted areas:
Improving existing federal financing mechanisms to
facilitate faster movement of children from foster care into safe,
permanent families and to reduce the need to place children in foster
care.
Improving court oversight of child welfare cases to
facilitate better and more timely decisions affecting children's
safety, permanence, and well-being.
Timeline and Process. The Commission will report recommendations by
summer 2004--sooner, if possible. The Commission held its first meeting
in May 2003. It will meet again in September and November 2003, and as
often as necessary in the first several months of 2004.
In light of this short timeline, we will request that interested
parties submit suggestions or ideas this summer for consideration by
the Commission. Guidelines for these submissions will be posted on the
Commission's website, www.pewfostercare.org.
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care is committed to
developing recommendations that will earn the support of Congress,
federal agencies, states, courts, and communities. The Commission will
therefore consult closely with representatives of the Administration,
members of Congress, the Governors, state legislators, the major
judicial associations, state and local child welfare directors, and
major professional associations. These contacts are already underway.
Funding for the Commission. The Commission is supported by a grant
from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the Georgetown University Public
Policy Institute.
Statement of Prevent Child Abuse America, Chicago, Illinois
Prevent Child Abuse (PCA) America appreciates this opportunity to
submit testimony on the title IV-E funding proposal put forth by the
Bush Administration in its FY 2004 budget plan. We hope this testimony
will be of assistance to the Subcommittee as it considers improvements
and reforms to the child welfare system over the coming weeks and
months.
PCA America is the leading organization working at the national,
state and local levels to prevent the abuse and neglect of our nation's
children. By valuing children, strengthening families and engaging
communities, PCA America works with its chapters in 36 states and the
District of Columbia to prevent child maltreatment before it occurs.
As you are well aware, each year approximately three million
children are reported to be abused and neglected; about one million of
these reports are ultimately substantiated. We also know that abuse and
neglect exacts an enormous toll on children. In addition to the
physical and emotional harm inflicted, children who are maltreated
suffer higher rates of school failure, feelings of worthlessness,
aggressive behavior, detention, and incarceration. It is also known
that child abuse and neglect causes a substantial drain on resources
and services. In a landmark study released in 2001, PCA America
discovered that today child abuse and neglect costs American taxpayers
$258 million per day, or more than $94 billion per year. Put another
way, the consequences of child abuse and neglect cost every American
family more than $1,400 each year.
Since the Administration has yet to release a detailed description
of its title IV-E proposal, this testimony reflects our general
thoughts on the objectives, rather than the specifics,of the flexible
funding option.
Increased Flexibility
As we understand the Administration's proposal, states will be able
to choose between continuing to receive title IV-E foster care funds as
an uncapped entitlement or opting into a five-year, fixed-sum block
grant. The block grant option would give states greater discretion on
the use of title IV-E funds, so that states would no longer be obliged
to spend all of the dollars on out of home care. Instead, states could
use title IV-E to fund up-front efforts to prevent child abuse and
neglect from occurring in the first place.
The move toward flexible funding addresses one of PCA America's
primary concerns with the way child welfare is currently financed--that
the overwhelming focus of the federal response to child maltreatment is
on out of home care. As you know, there is a tremendous imbalance
between what is invested to prevent abuse and neglect before it happens
and what is spent on care and services after abuse or neglect has
occurred. This is not to say that investments made in treating and
intervening on behalf of abused and neglected children are too high or
less vital to protecting children and families. On the contrary, the
incidence and nature of child abuse and neglect, coupled with
requirements put in place by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
and other recent reforms, can well exceed the financial capacity to
respond to, let alone prevent, child maltreatment.
The block grant option would allow foster care funds to support a
broader range of services to children and families, including front-end
prevention services intended to reduce the number of children coming
into the child welfare system in the first place--services, it should
be noted, that have historically been under funded. As the leading
national advocate for child abuse and neglect prevention, PCA America
fully supports a more flexible use of federal funds that allows for a
full continuum of services while emphasizing the value of prevention,
if this approach provides sufficient funding to support the full
continuum of services.
Whether or not states participating in the block grant option will
actually invest title IV-E funds in prevention services is quite
another matter. Cash-strapped states, in particular, may not have the
resources to do so over the long term. Because the Administration's
proposal is budget neutral, additional federal investments are not
anticipated under the plan. We are thus mindful of existing block
grants, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Comprehensive Community Development
Block Grant (CCDBG), which have not kept pace with inflation, resulting
over time in a considerable erosion of their financial value to the
states. If a similar block grant for title IV-E fails to keep pace with
inflation, the Administration's proposed policy will predictably
decrease the federal investment in title IV-E over time and thereby
increase the financial exposure of the states.
The prospect of a diminished federal commitment to child welfare is
particularly troublesome given the current demands on state child
welfare systems. Since passage of ASFA and implementation of Child and
Family Services (CFS) reviews, states have also been asked to address
child welfare shortfalls by making substantial and costly system
improvements. No additional resources have been provided to carry out
such improvements, although Representative Cardin has proposed state
grants for this purpose in H.R. 1534. Since the child welfare system is
generally under funded and the demands on state systems are increasing,
it is doubtful that the Administration's title IV-E proposal makes
sufficient provision for the necessary investments in child welfare
intervention, system reform, and child maltreatment prevention.
An additional issue addressed by the Administration's proposal is
the application of outdated AFDC standards to the determination of
title IV-E eligibility. Currently, title IV-E foster care funds cover
maintenance payments for just over half of the children in out of home
care. This is because eligibility for title IV-E is tied to AFDC
standards which predate the 1997 welfare reform law. The elimination of
the AFDC look-back requirement will increase the number of children
determined eligible for title IV-E services. Still, without new federal
investments and faced with increasing financial pressures, states may
not have enough resources to support front-end services even if they
are allowed by law to do so. That said, we applaud the Bush
Administration as well as Representative Cardin for eliminating the
AFDC look-back requirement in their respective proposals.
Finally, the efficacy of child maltreatment prevention is
demonstrated, but its economic value is realized only over the long-
run. So, it is unlikely that increased investment in child maltreatment
prevention will result in immediate and commensurate cost savings in
out of home care. Indeed, it is more likely that increased prevention
and early intervention services will have a case-finding effect in the
near-term, possibly enabling earlier and more effective intervention.
Hence, the Administration's proposal neither ensures increased
investment in funding for child maltreatment prevention services or
sufficient time for states to realize the economic benefits of such
investment were they to make them.
Capped Funding
Our general concern with the Administration's proposal stems from
the financial risk transferred to states electing to participate in the
block grant option. While enjoying greater flexibility to use title IV-
E funds for a broader range of services including up-front prevention,
these states would also relinquish the title IV-E entitlement status
and assume greater financial risk should foster care caseloads increase
in the future.
At a general level, block grants afford states increased discretion
in the use of federal funds, but also transfer primary financial risk
from the Federal Government to the states. In a period of stable or
decreased demand for child welfare services, a block grant option may
allow states greater latitude to redirect funding, possibly in support
of prevention services and other front-end investments. On the other
hand, in a period of increased demand and/or escalating costs for child
welfare services, the block grant option may expose participating
states to considerable financial risk. Even stable caseloads may result
in increased costs for states if the block grant is not structured to
keep pace with inflation.
Conclusion
Many important details of the Administration's proposal are not yet
known. How will state block grant allocations be determined? Will all
foster children continue to be Medicaid eligible? What criteria will
have to be met before states can access the TANF contingency fund? We
look forward to hearing more about proposed changes to title IV-E and
working with our networks to consider the merits of the
Administration's proposal.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of child welfare
improvements this session and its increased attention to the value of
prevention.
Statement of Dean Jesse J. Harris, University of Maryland School of
Social Work, Baltimore, Maryland
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony
regarding the Bush Administration's Foster Care Flexible Funding
Proposal. The purpose of this letter is to urge Congress to closely
examine the specifics of the Bush Administration proposal, and, and
avoid the rush to ``do something'' without the type of scrutiny that is
necessary to bring about true reform. I am writing from my perspective
as Dean of the University of Maryland School of Social Work and a
social work educator in one of the largest schools of social work in
the nation. Our faculty members have national reputations as
practitioners, researchers, and educators in child welfare practice and
policy. In addition, our School has developed a highly successful
partnership with the Maryland Department of Human Resources, with
federal financial assistance through Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act to educate the next generation of public child welfare
professionals, who are the backbone of any child welfare system, and
ultimately responsible for producing the outcomes of child welfare
programs identified in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA).
Although the Administration has not yet submitted specific
statutory proposals, I have had the opportunity to review a number of
the features of the Administration's proposals circulated in press
releases. It is commendable that the Bush Administration seeks to
streamline federal financing for foster care. The current system, based
on foster children's eligibility for AFDC, is cumbersome and costly for
the states and Federal Government to administer. A review of this
method for calculating federal financial assistance to provide care and
planning for a permanent, safe, and healthy family situation for abused
children in state custody is long overdue. I am, however, deeply
concerned that the cornerstone of the Federal Government's
responsibility for abused, abandoned, and neglected children is being
dismantled without an opportunity to thoroughly examine how its
replacement will impact vulnerable children, their families, and state
agencies responsible for providing services to this population.
Analyses that have examined alternative funding proposals over the
past 10 years, (Improving Child Welfare Agency Performance through
Fiscal Reforms: An Assessment of Recent Proposals; Geen, The Urban
Institute, 2003) have concluded that any fiscal reform must be
understood from the perspective that the current system is chronically
under funded: ``Experts agree that child welfare agencies are severely
under funded given the ever expanding scope of their responsibilities''
(Courtney 1997, Myers, 1994, Primus 2000; Schorr 1997). Thus, reform
proposals should not seek to drastically reduce federal expenditures
needed to protect our nation's children and seek permanent homes for
children in state custody.
Flexibility of funding, while desirable, will not, in itself,
address the complex needs of children in foster care. In fact, most
states, including Maryland, already have funding flexibility for the
majority of child welfare programs. This has not diminished the number
of children entering care, due in part, from growing substance abuse
problems among the child-bearing population, and the inadequacy of
community based substance abuse and mental health treatment programs.
Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that federal child welfare
financing strategies have any effect on decision making on the case
level. Therefore, a proposal that encourages states to draw down future
child welfare dollars on the promise that funding flexibility will
decrease funding needs in the future, may be seriously flawed and may
result in a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions for child
welfare programs in the future.
Of great concern to me is the unanswered question of how the
current proposal would address child welfare workforce issues. The
primary resource need for the child welfare system is its workforce.
Yet, a recent GAO report (March, 2003), notes that child welfare
agencies suffer from chronic high turnover and staff shortages. In this
report, the GAO's analysis of HHS's state child welfare agency reviews
in 27 states showed that large caseloads and worker turnover delay the
timeliness of investigations of child maltreatment, limit the frequency
and quality of worker visits, and hamper attainment of other key
federal safety and permanency outcomes. The GAO concludes, ``A stable
and highly skilled child welfare workforce is necessary to provide
child welfare services that meet federal goals.'' The GAO recommended
that HHS take action that helps child welfare agencies address
recruitment and retention challenges through University Training
Partnerships, accreditation of state & local child welfare agencies,
and leadership and mentoring programs. Research has indicated that
State-University Partnerships, such as our Title IV-E Education for
Public Child Welfare Program, produce a highly trained, competent
workforce prepared to carry out the missions of child safety,
permanence, and well-being, outlined in ASFA. Any proposals to reform
federal financing strategies should include set asides for this
critical purpose.
Historically, the Federal Government has provided leadership in
setting standards for the provision of child welfare services,
oversight, and accountability measures that have resulted in improved
services to children and families across the nation. The nation's
children and families continue to need this level of leadership from
Washington.
Thank you for your consideration.
Statement of Voice For Adoption
Voice for Adoption (VFA), a nationwide, not-for-profit, membership
organization dedicated to speaking out for our nation's waiting
children, appreciates the opportunity to share our concerns with the
Committee about the Bush Administration's foster care proposal. VFA
believes that the child welfare system is in great need of real reform;
however, we are waiting to take a position until a formal proposal is
introduced as legislation.
VFA appreciates that the Administration's proposal is optional and
does not force states to enroll in a five-year capped alternative
funding program. We believe that many states would choose to stay with
their current entitlement system if the proposal were enacted.
VFA is concerned that any attempt to cap a program that already has
limited resources will be detrimental to the children and youth in the
child welfare system.
Since the proposal has not been introduced in Congress, VFA sees an
opportunity to work with the Administration by offering suggestions for
the proposal that we believe would most benefit children and families.
Suggestions
Maintain current funding levels (with cost of living adjustments).
In the past Congress has taken resources from block grants to fund
other unrelated projects or reduced the funding levels of block grants.
A good example of this is the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), which
is a vital source of federal funding for child welfare services. States
have seen the funding levels for SSBG drop 31 percent, from $2.5
billion in 1997 to $1.725 billion in 2001. VFA is concerned that any
block grant or capped allotment for Title IV-E would experience a
similar reduction, further limiting the ability of states to meet the
needs of vulnerable children and families.
Completely delink Title IV-E eligibility from AFDC guidelines. VFA
applauds the fact that the Administration's proposal addresses the need
to de-link Title IV-E foster care eligibility from 1996 Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) eligibility standards. However, we are
concerned that the proposal would only de-link Title IV-E eligibility
for foster care, not for adoption assistance, and only for states that
opt into the new program. VFA urges the Committee to consider
eliminating the same eligibility for adoption assistance. All families
that adopt foster children meeting the state's definition of special
needs should receive financial support and services. De-linking
eligibility for foster care and not adoption assistance would create an
administrative nightmare for states.
In addition, having the funding formula for the five year allotment
be based on estimates of Title IV-E eligible children using the current
1996 AFDC requirements seemingly defeats the purpose of updating the
eligibility standards, as states will have less money to provide
services for a larger population of eligible children.
Mandate specific funds for vital services. Giving states
flexibility in how they spend their Title IV-E foster care funds should
not mean that states don't invest in keeping families together and
preventing children from entering into foster care. While states are
likely to come up with creative uses for the flexible funding, it is
still important to target resources to specific areas such as post-
adoption services, family recruitment, and other adoption activities.
VFA agrees that Title IV-E is restrictive and inhibits state
innovation. We urge Congress and the Administration to consider
expanding Title IV-E to include funding post-adoption services to help
families who adopt special needs children. Title IV-E money can be used
for case management for children in foster care, but once children are
adopted, there needs to be Title IV-E funds available for ongoing case
management to provide post-adoption services to families who adopt
children from foster care. Ongoing services to families and children
before, during and after adoption papers are signed are critical in
promoting the well-being of families and minimizing the possibility
that adoptions will fail. Comprehensive counseling, support groups,
case management and educational and advocacy services assist families
who have adopted with strengthening and preserving the family.
Create an independent, unmatched emergency fund. Under the
Administration's proposal, states that experience an increase in foster
care caseloads may access emergency TANF funds. The TANF emergency fund
would be the source of relief for two separate programs. Additionally,
there is a 50 percent match of state dollars to federal dollars. States
are experiencing the worst financial crisis in decades. Some states
will not attempt to access the emergency funds due to the matching
requirement. The triggers to use the emergency funds would not
necessarily reflect what is happening in a county or city where the
bulk of the foster care population might be found.
Offer a few opportunities to opt in and out of the program. Under
the Administration's proposal, states would have only one chance to opt
into the program. Once a state is in the program, it cannot opt out.
More flexibility to opt in or out would make the program more
attractive to states. VFA is also concerned that localities and
counties would not have input if their states decide to take the
flexible financing option.
Keep the Adoption Incentive Program independent. VFA supports and
applauds the Administration's efforts to reauthorize the Adoption
Incentive Program at $43 million, and to target incentives to place
older children in care. However, we also urge lawmakers not to attach
the reauthorization of the program to the flexible funding proposal.
The Adoption Incentive Program is considered one of the most innovative
provisions in AFSA. It encourages states to find adoptive homes for
waiting children who are legally free for adoption by granting a
financial incentive for each foster child that the state places in
adoption. During the past five years, states reinvested millions of
dollar in adoption incentive payments in adoption programs, including
post-adoption services, family recruitment, and adoption promotion and
support.
As Congress begins to review the Administration's Foster Care
Financing proposal, we hope that the above suggestions will be
considered. Also, it is important to remember that the bipartisan Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care was created recently, and will
recommend reforms to the foster care financing system in 2004. VFA
encourages Congress to also review the outcomes from Title IV-E waiver
recipients. These waivers demonstrate a variety of what does and does
not work. Using all available resources will aid lawmakers in their
efforts to address the crisis in foster care.