[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO EXAMINE CHILD WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-680 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
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 6, 2004, announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Hon. William Frenzel.. 16
Utah Department of Human Services, Robin Arnold-Williams, on
behalf of the American Public Human Services Association....... 22
Child Welfare League of America, Southern Regional Office,
Patricia Wilson................................................ 27
Lutheran Social Services of the South, Samuel Sipes.............. 33
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Alliance for Children and Families, Carmen Delgado Votaw,
statement...................................................... 56
Child Protection Reform, Minneapolis, MN, J. Holderbaum,
statement...................................................... 59
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, Monterey Park, CA, Miriam
Aroni Krinsky, statement....................................... 60
Children's Rights, New York, NY, Marcia Robinson Lowry, statement 66
County Welfare Directors Association of California, Frank J.
Mecca, Sacramento, CA, statement............................... 72
Duranceau, Paula, Benton City, WA, statement..................... 78
Huckelberry, Cynthia, Redlands, CA, and Sushanna Khamis, Yucaipa,
CA, statement and attachment................................... 78
Institute for Human Services Management, Baltimore, MD, Tracey
Feild, statement............................................... 82
National Center for Youth Law, Oakland, CA, William Grimm,
statement...................................................... 89
National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland, OR, Terry L.
Cross, statement............................................... 95
New York State Office of Children and Family Services,
Rensselaer, NY, John A. Johnson, statement..................... 99
Seita, John R., Battle Creek, MI, statement and attachment....... 102
Volunteers of America, Alexandria, VA, statement................. 107
HEARING TO EXAMINE CHILD WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:06 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 06, 2004
No. HR-12
Herger Announces Hearing to Examine
Child Welfare Reform Proposals
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 to examine child welfare reform
proposals. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, in
room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 1:00 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 State officials and other individuals familiar
with child welfare issues. However, any individual or organization not
scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for
consideration by the Subcommittee for inclusion in the printed record
of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The Subcommittee recently held several hearings to examine high-
profile cases involving failures to protect children in New Jersey and
Maryland, as well as reporting and oversight issues that reflect on
broader program trends and child welfare concerns. These hearings
provided a detailed review of Federal and State efforts to ensure that
children are in safe, permanent, loving homes. Some reviews noted that
Federal foster care and adoption programs provide $7 billion in funding
to the States for foster care and adoption needs, but only
approximately $700 million for services designed to prevent abuse and
neglect of children in or at risk of foster care; recent proposals have
suggested changes in Federal funding patterns to ensure services are
available to support families and better protect children, thereby
minimizing the need for more expensive foster care placement. Other
proposals would expedite placements for children across State lines to
prevent lengthy stays in foster care and move children to permanent
homes.
In announcing the hearing, Herger stated, ``Efforts to better
protect children and strengthen families are needed to prevent abuse
and neglect occurring within the child welfare system. Witnesses at our
hearings have called for Federal action to correct the current
disparity in funding available for children once they are removed from
their families as compared to funding to support families and hopefully
prevent any disruption. This hearing will explore specific proposals to
correct the inequity--changing child welfare's focus to better support
families and protect children.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The focus of the hearing is to explore recent proposals to reform
child welfare financing and move children more quickly into safe,
permanent homes.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``108th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http:/
/waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=16). Select the hearing
for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled,
``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Once you have
followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms
and clicking ``submit'' on the final page, an email will be sent to the
address which you supply confirming your interest in providing a
submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email and ATTACH your
submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the
formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Tuesday,
July 27, 2004. Finally, please note that due to the change in House
mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package
deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you
encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies 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. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
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
hearings. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay, who is very
interested in child welfare issues is here with us today. I
welcome Mr. DeLay and I thank you for the work that you have
done to improve the lives of vulnerable children. Based on the
precedent set when Mr. Payne of New Jersey, who is not a Member
of our Committee, joined us on the dais at our November 6,
2003, child welfare-related hearing, without objection, Mr.
DeLay is allowed to sit on the dais and may question the
witnesses.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just join you in welcoming
our distinguished leader. He has been the leader in this
Congress on foster care issues and it is a real pleasure to
have his wisdom with us today on the Subcommittee.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you. Without objection. Today, we
will review proposals to reform our Nation's child welfare
programs because the status quo isn't adequately protecting our
most vulnerable children. Since November, this Subcommittee has
held five hearings on this topic. Two of these hearings focused
on specific failures to protect child safety in New Jersey and
Maryland. The other hearings examined how State and Federal
officials monitor programs that protect children and whether
these programs adequately ensure the safety of vulnerable
children. We have heard from 41 witnesses, plus more than 60
other individuals and organizations provided input about
problems with our Nation's child welfare system.
No one thinks the status quo is acceptable. Every week,
stories of children lost, abused, or worse yet, killed appear
in newspapers across America. We owe it to them and to the
half-million children in foster care to improve this system.
The Federal Government provides more than $7 billion in foster
care and adoption funds every year to the States. In
comparison, as Mr. McDermott noted in our last hearing, funding
for prevention and support services is only about $700 million.
As a result, rather than focusing on the prevention of abuse
and neglect, today's funding structure encourages the removal
of children and break-up of families. That is unacceptable.
In May, the nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in
Foster Care offered recommendations to overhaul the financing
of child welfare programs. I am pleased that former Congressman
Bill Frenzel, Chairman of the Commission, has joined us today
to outline this proposal. I thank him, another former
colleague, Vice Chairman Bill Gray, and the other members of
the Commission for their outstanding work in this area.
The Commission's report argues that additional resources
and flexibility are critical to ensure that children are
protected and families stay together. As we have heard, the
Administration has proposed changes that also would provide
more resources and flexibility for States to provide additional
services. Several of our colleagues have introduced legislation
that would increase funding for certain activities within the
child welfare system.
Today's witnesses will discuss these proposals. I also have
provided our witnesses and the minority a copy of draft
legislation I am developing that builds on the Pew Commission's
recommendations and the Administration's proposal. This
legislation has three main principles. First, it would provide
adoption assistance for all children adopted from the public
child welfare system regardless of their family's income.
Second, it likewise would provide foster care assistance for
all children regardless of income, while at the same time
providing new incentives to keep children from languishing in
foster care. Third, it would give States more flexibility and
more resources to protect children and strengthen families,
encourage greater accountability, and reward improved
performance in protecting children.
In all, this legislation increases funding and flexibility
for States to operate improved programs that do a better job
protecting children. We welcome comments on this proposal, as
well. I have received the testimony of our witnesses and I
expect that as the hearing progresses today, we will clarify
how the draft bill would prevent children from needlessly
lingering in foster care for extended periods of time. I hope
to introduce this legislation shortly, including with the
addition of helpful suggestions proposed today.
[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.
Today we will review proposals to reform our nation's child welfare
programs because the status quo isn't adequately protecting our most
vulnerable children.
Since November, this Subcommittee has held five hearings on this
topic. Two of these hearings focused on specific failures to protect
child safety in New Jersey and Maryland. The other hearings examined
how state and federal officials monitor programs that protect children,
and whether these programs adequately ensure the safety of vulnerable
children.
We have heard from 41 witnesses. Plus more than 60 other
individuals and organizations provided input about problems with our
nation's child welfare system.
No one thinks the status quo is acceptable. Every week, stories of
children lost, abused--or worse yet, killed appear in newspapers across
America. We owe it to them, and to the half million children in foster
care, to improve this system.
The federal government provides more than $7 billion in foster care
and adoption funds every year to the states. In comparison, as Mr.
McDermott noted in our last hearing, funding for prevention and support
services is only about $700 million. As a result, rather than focusing
on the prevention of abuse and neglect, today's funding structure
encourages the removal of children and breakup of families. That is
unacceptable.
In May, the nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
offered recommendations to overhaul the financing of child welfare
programs. I'm pleased that former Congressman Bill Frenzel, Chairman of
the Commission, has joined us today to outline this proposal. I thank
him, another former colleague Vice Chairman Bill Gray, and the other
members of the Commission for their outstanding work in this area.
The Commission's report argues that additional resources and
flexibility are critical to ensure that children are protected and
families stay together. As we have heard, the Administration has
proposed changes that also would provide more resources and flexibility
for states to provide additional services. And several of our
colleagues have introduced legislation that would increase funding for
certain activities within the child welfare system.
Today's witnesses will discuss these proposals.
I also have provided our witnesses and the minority a copy of draft
legislation I am developing that builds on the Pew Commission's
recommendations and the Administration's proposal.
This legislation has three main principles.
First, it would provide adoption assistance for all children
adopted from the public child welfare system, regardless of their
family's income.
Second, it likewise would provide foster care assistance for all
children regardless of income, while at the same time providing new
incentives to keep children from languishing in foster care.
Third, it would give states more flexibility and more resources to
protect children and strengthen families, encourage greater
accountability, and reward improved performance in protecting children.
In all, this legislation increases funding and flexibility for
states to operate improved programs that do a better job protecting
children.
We welcome comments on this proposal as well. I have reviewed the
testimony of our witnesses, and I expect that as the hearing progresses
today we will clarify how the draft bill wouldprevent children from
needlessly lingering in foster care for extended periods of time. I
hope to introduce this legislation shortly, including with the addition
of helpful suggestions proposed today. Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Johnson and I
have met to discuss this legislation, and I remain hopeful we can
proceed in a bipartisan way.
Another proposal we will explore today is H.R. 4504, the Orderly
and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004. This
bill is sponsored by our distinguished Majority Leader, Tom DeLay and I
am pleased to join him and our colleagues Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Lewis, and Mr. Cantor in cosponsoring this important legislation.
On average, it takes a full year longer for a child to be adopted
through an interstate placement, compared with a placement within the
same state. We must do more to ensure that all children are not
lingering in foster care when a loving home is readily available for
them. This proposed legislation we're discussing today takes an
important step in that direction.
I thank all our witnesses for joining us today and for their
dedication and work to ensure a safe, permanent, loving home for
vulnerable children.
Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Johnson and I have met to discuss this legislation
and I remain hopeful we can proceed in a bipartisan way. Another
proposal we will explore today is H.R. 4504, the Orderly and Timely
Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004. This bill is
sponsored by our distinguished Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and I am
pleased to join him and our colleagues, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Camp, Mr.
Lewis, and Mr. Cantor, in cosponsoring this important legislation.
On average, it takes a full year longer for a child to be adopted
through an interstate placement compared with a placement within the
same State. We must do more to ensure that all children are not
lingering in foster care when a loving home is readily available for
them. This proposed legislation we are discussing today takes an
important step in that direction. Again, we welcome the Majority
Leader, who has joined us today to hear testimony on this important
legislation and I commend him for his dedication and commitment to
improving our Nation's child welfare programs. I thank all of our
witnesses for joining us today and for their dedication and work to
ensure safe, permanent, loving homes for vulnerable children. Without
objection, each Member will have the opportunity to submit a written
statement and have it included in the record at this point. Mr. Cardin,
would you like to make an opening statement?
Mr. CARDIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you
for conducting this hearing in regards to the adoption issues.
I just want to applaud the efforts that have been made in this
Congress to advance the issue. The Majority Leader has
certainly been a true leader on this issue and we very much
appreciate the continued progress that we can make in this
regard. In regards to the foster care system, Mr. Chairman, let
me point out I thank you for holding this hearing and thank you
for the other hearings that we have held. We have put a
national spotlight on our foster care system because we know
that we need to change it. We know that there hasn't been the
leadership in this Nation to deal with our most vulnerable
children, and you and the Majority Leader and others have said
we can do a lot better.
We have held a lot of hearings to try to understand the
problem and we have seen firsthand the problem in our foster
care system. We have seen that the Attorney General of Texas,
when he said that in many cases, we take children out of abused
homes and we put them into foster care that is no better than
the homes that we took them out of. We saw that firsthand with
the Jackson children in New Jersey, who were malnourished for
years and developed at one-half of their normal size. No one
took action to change that.
We saw firsthand the problems in Maryland, where a foster
child had a child that was abused and taken away from her. She
then had twins and showed up in the emergency room as the
children were being delivered, no prenatal care. The hospital
had all the red flags going up why those twins should not have
been returned to that child, and yet they were and they were
killed. We have seen firsthand the problems in our foster care
system with the inadequate attention paid to our most difficult
children and not paying attention to red flags that go up, and
we know that we can do better and we must do better and we
wonder whether if we have reformed our system here at the
Federal level, we could have prevented some of these tragedies.
We need to do things differently here in Washington, as my
good friend from Connecticut continues to remind us, that we
just can't continue to put money into the current system, that
we need to change the way that we do business here in
Washington and our expectations of what will happen at the
State level. We have got to change the way we do business at
the State level. Literally, the lives of our children are at
stake.
Chairman Herger, I congratulate you for submitting a draft
bill. We need to do things differently here in Washington and
you give us a bill on which we hopefully can work together in
order to move forward. I think it is constructive. You provide
more resources and you modernize the eligibility system. I hope
it is still a work in progress, Mr. Chairman. You pointed out
in your opening statement that you wanted helpful suggestions
and I will make some helpful suggestions and I hope that we
will be able to continue to make changes in this legislation.
The first point I would point out is that the proposed cap
on the foster care payments to me changes the fundamental
responsibility at the national level to be a safety net in
regards to the children who enter our foster care system, and
let me remind you that we have not been very good historically
in projecting baseline expenditures. I know that you have
intended this to be a proposal that actually would put more
money into the child welfare system, but let me remind you that
we have projected a 19-percent growth in foster care between
1988 and 1993 and, in fact, it was a 163-percent increase. We
didn't recognize the epidemic of the crack cocaine babies, and
that could obviously happen again. That is one area that I hope
that we can modify. I find that to be a fundamental issue that
needs to be included.
Secondly, improving the workforce issues. We have seen over
and over again that the caseworkers, the people who have the
most important responsibility of dealing directly with our
children--if they were pediatricians, we would demand that they
have certain training. Yet as caseworkers, we put them out
there with a minimal amount of training. The turnover is less
than 2 years for people who are actually in the field providing
the services. The caseloads in some cases are two to three
times the national standards. We need to have in our
legislation here ways that we reward workforce improvement, and
I would hope that we could work in the legislation that we
develop to include that.
Then we need to help relatives of children that can't be
returned to their home, the subsidized guardianship issue. You
have suggested that in a revenue neutral way. I don't think
that works, because we are trying to increase the number of
children actually who are going to be receiving services, and I
would hope that we could work to improve your legislation in
that regard. Mr. Chairman, I could be so bold as to suggest
that we just adopt the bill that I filed earlier that reformed
the child welfare system. I thought that was a very good bill--
--
[Laughter.]
It helps States correct deficiencies identified in the
Federal review. It improved the child welfare workforce. It
addressed the connection between substance abuse and child
abuse. It increased resources for preventive activities. It
provided assistance for legal guardianship, and it updated the
foster care eligibility standards, a pretty good bill. Let me
just suggest that the experiences that we went through on
welfare reform might serve us well as we look at child welfare
reform. We passed reform in 1996 that was truly bipartisan. Yet
in the last 3 years, we have been unable to pass a bipartisan
bill in the House of Representatives. As a result, no
legislation has been enacted and our States are really
suffering under short-term extensions when we all know we need
long-term extensions. If I could be so bold to suggest that I
think that my legislation that I would like to see move has
virtually no chance of enactment. I understand that.
[Laughter.]
I want to get bills passed. I think the Pew Foundation has
brought forward a proposal that can be passed in both the House
and the Senate and enacted into law and it is something that we
should take a very serious look at. The Pew Foundation
maintains the guaranteed payment within the foster care payment
structure, which to me is fundamental in reaching a bipartisan
agreement. There are other issues I hope that we can address,
but if we want to get a bill enacted this year with the current
membership of this Congress and the White House, then I think
when you get Bill Frenzel and Bill Gray to agree on a bill, we
should take very serious consideration of it. Both of these
individuals are giants in the Congress of the United States on
fiscal responsibility and on the right role that the Federal
Government should play in critical issues. There is no more
distinguished person I served with in the Congress than Bill
Frenzel, nor a more conservative Member of the Congress that I
served with than Bill Frenzel, and I think he has given us good
guidance for a way that we really could get something
accomplished and to the President's desk and signed into law,
and I think we should take that good advice.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that in foster care,
we are the parents. We have the responsibility. We made the
decision that we are going to intercede in the care of a child,
and that is an awesome responsibility. We are not carrying that
out today and we need to do better and I think it starts with
legislation here in Washington, and we have a responsibility to
those children to figure out a bipartisan bill that can be
enacted into law with the current membership of our government,
and I think the Pew Foundation has given us a way to get that
done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Before we move on
to our testimony, I want to remind our witnesses to limit your
oral statement to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all
the written testimony will be made a part of the permanent
record. This afternoon, we will hear from the Honorable Bill
Frenzel, Chairman of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster
Care; Dr. Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director of the Utah
Department of Human Services on behalf of the American Public
Human Services Association (APHSA); Patricia Wilson, Director
of the Southern Regional Office for the Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA); and since we have someone from the State of
Texas, would the Majority Leader like to introduce our final
witness?
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Cardin, and Members of the Subcommittee, I greatly appreciate
your courtesy in allowing me to sit on this dais to hear
testimony on the very important bills, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for calling this hearing today to discuss important
reforms in the child protection system. I appreciate the
comments made by both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Cardin.
With all States failing the Child and Family Services
reviews and the increase in child fatalities, it is time to
closely examine the system. There is a general agreement that
the way we fund child protection is perverse. We pay for more
beds and we get more kids in care, not more kids cared for. It
is time to change all of that. I am especially thankful that
today we are going to hear testimony on my bill, cosponsored by
the Chairman and many Members of this Subcommittee, to reform
the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
This legislation is designed to help children find the
loving families they need so that they can grow up able to
love. Mr. Chairman, we keep track of chickens going across
State lines. It is time we started doing the same for children.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a sampling
of the letters of support for H.R. 4504. These are letters that
indicate broad support for this bill from organizations like
the National Foster Care Association and the National
Association of Psychiatric Health Systems and others.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection, they will be included.
[The information follows:]
National Foster Parent Association
Gig Harbor, Washington 98335
June 14, 2004
Congressman Tom DeLay
242 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
On behalf of the Board of Directors for the National Foster Parent
Association. I am writing to express the heartfelt thanks of the
hundreds of foster to mifies who care for our most vulnerable children
for your leadership in introducing H.R. 4504, ti,e Orderly and Timely
Interstate Pfacemert of Foster Children Act of 2004. This legislation
will ensure that children waiting to be placed in safe, loving homes in
other states do not experience unnecessary bureaucratic delays that rob
tnem of the opportunity to establish nurturing connections with
relative care givers or adoptive parents in a timely manner. Moreover,
the legislation will ensure that a child's foster or kinship parents
(including preadoptive parents) have the right to be heard at the
juvenile court proceedings that determine the future of our Nation's
neediest children. As the individuals with the most day-to-day contact
with foster children and the most likely candidates to provide
permanent homes for children who cannot return to their families of
origin, we value the opportunity to participate in the court
proceedings that affect them. Research studies show that inclusion of
children's care givers can have a positive affect on court
decisionmaking and we appreciate your leadership in ensuring that
juvenile court judges throughout the country have the benefit of our
perceptions.
Our organization, the National Foster Parent Association, works to
strengthen foster families through nationally focused legislative
advocacy, training and education, publications, and networking among
foster parents, state and local foster parent associations, and child
welfare organizations. We fufiy support. H.R. 4504 and look forward to
its passage.
Sincerely,
Karen Jorgenson
Administrator
______
Legal Advocates for Permanent Parenting
San Mateo, California 94404
June 17, 2004
Congressman Tom DeLay
Majority Leader
United States House of Representatives
242 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
I am writing in support of H.R.4504, the Orderly and Timely
Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004. As an organization
of attorneys, law professors and other legal professionals, most of
whom have both personal and professional experience with foster care
and/or adoption, we believe the legislation will improve outcomes for
our Nation's most vulnerable children.
H.R. 4504 will encourage states to implement procedures to ensure
that foster children waiting to be placed in safe, nurturing homes in
other states do not experience unnecessary delays. Fiscal incentives to
states for the completion of timely home studies will result in many
children finding permanency in a timely manner.
In addition, H.R. 4504 will ensure that those individuals providing
day-to-day care for foster children have a right to be heard at the
juvenile court proceedings affecting the children in their homes.
Research shows that inclusion of children's care givers in the judicial
process provides judges with important information on how children are
faring in out-of-home care. Participation in decisionmaking activities
is also related to recruitment and retention of quality families to
provide care for our Nation's 550,000 foster children. Data indicates
that foster families cite a lack of inclusion in the process as a prime
reason leading to their decision to discontinue fostering children.
Finally, children who are unable to return to their families of origin
but who nevertheless find permanent, loving homes overwhelmingly do so
in the homes of their foster or kinship parents.
In light of the important issues H.R. 4504 addresses, our
organization supports urges its passage.
Very truly yours,
Regina Deihl
Executive Director
______
Straight from the Heart, Inc.
Vista, California 92083
June 17, 2004
Congressman Tom DeLay
Majority Leader
United States House of Representatives
242 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
I am writing in support of H.R. 4504 and thank you for your
attention to the important issues contained in this bill.
My husband and I have been foster/adoptive parents for over 26
years in Vista, California. We have cared for over 100 foster children
and had the honor of adopting 8 wonderful children through the foster
care system. I currently am the director of Straight From The Heart,
Inc., a non-profit resource center for foster children and the families
that care for them. In my capacity as a mentor for other foster
parents, I regularly encounter frustrated families who are waiting and
waiting for ICPC's to be completed so that their foster children may
have permanence. A child can wait as long as 9 months before getting on
a plane to their permanent families. This is so difficult for the
children and families and I am pleased that you are taking action to
speed up this process of permanence for our children.
On a more personal note, I wanted to let you know how very
important it is for foster parents to have a voice in court for the
children they foster. Our eighth adopted child came to us as a newborn
with Down Syndrome, heart surgery, endocrine imbalances, high heart
rate, breathing difficulties, blindness, deafness, low muscle tone and
of course drug exposure. She lived her first 34 days in intensive care
unit at a Children's Hospital. She required early intervention in the
form of Occupational, Physical and Developmental Therapies, and has
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Speech and Language, and Vision Consultants
to meet her needs. We are entrusted with responsibilities of meeting
the medical, physical, emotional needs of this special child, working
with the birth parents, social workers, attorneys, doctors, therapists
and so forth--and yet are not considered important enough to truly be a
member of the ``team''.
I assure you that no one member of the team knows more about the
child than the caretaker. We are there for the nightmares, the
bedwetting, the panic attacks, the acting out behaviors, the depression
and the grief they suffer due to their abuses. We do the therapies,
doctor appointments, homework, little league and the visitation with
the birth parents. It makes no sense to ignore the caretaker as a vital
member of the team, yet that is so often the reality for foster parents
across this nation. Vital information is kept from us that hinders us
from doing our jobs under the guise of ``confidentiality''. Foster
parents struggle to have a voice in court. Some court rights have been
given to us but need to be strengthened so that we can have our voices
heard by the judge who makes life changing decisions for these
children. The foster care system will improve with openness and
inclusion of all members of the team who impact the life of the
children we serve. There is no social worker, attorney, judge or doctor
who impacts the lives of these children more than the foster parents
who nurture them day in and day out.
Thank you for caring about our children and caretakers and for
putting that concern into action in H.R. 4504. Your efforts are truly
appreciated.
P.S. I have included a copy of our daughters court report that I
submitted to the judge during one of her hearings as an example of the
types of information foster parents can share with the court concerning
the children in our care.
Sincerely,
Patty Boles
Director
______
Alexandria Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
July 8, 2004
Majority Leader Tom Delay
H 107 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
I am pleased to write this letter in support of H.R. 4504, entitled
the ``Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Children Act of
20O4''. The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC or
the Compact) is vital to the safe movement of certain at risk children
from one state to another. While the ICPC is involved in a variety of
case types, the primary area of concern with the Compact isthe movement
of children in foster care between states. While assisting in
protecting children, the ICPC also helps assurethat they receive
necessary services once they arrive at their new place of residence.
For too many years, however, the process involved in the movement
of these vulnerable children who are in foster care has taken too long
thus delaying permanency for them. Despite repeated studies of problems
inherent in the ICPC, very little progress has been made to make it
work more effectively since it came into use over 40 years ago.
During the summer of 2003, The National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the American Bar Association passed.
Resolutions supporting the need for improvements in the ICPC. Over the
past few years I have been, involved in efforts to improve the ICPC,
including the drafting and passage of the Resolutions mentioned above.
In addition NCTFCT will be considering the attached Resolution,
that I have drafted at its upcoming Annual Meeting later this month.
When the proposed Resolution passes, I will he pleased to provide you
with a signed copy of it.
While the proposed Federal legislation will not and cannot solve
all of the problems inherent in the ICPC, it addresses as much as it
reasonably should, given that the ICPC is a state compact. If the
improvements offered through this legislation and the funding mentioned
in the legislation i states will have every reason to ensure that the
process is done expeditiously and that delays in movement of children
are sharply reduced.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Rideout
Chief Judge
______
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the INTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC)
has been adopted by all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands; and
WHEREAS, the ICPC has been found in many cases to cause delay in
the placement of children with family member's who live in another
state from where the child currently resides, interstate adoptions, and
placement in residential facilities in these other states; and
WHEREAS, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
on July 17, 1996, adopted a Resolution that supported improvements in
the ICPC; and
WHEREAS, since the passing of that Resolution, problems continued
to exist with the effective implementation of the ICPC and the
understanding of the ICPC by judges, lawyers, and social workers who
are involved with these cases; and
WHEREAS, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
and the American Bar Association, at their Annual Conferences in July
and August 2003 adopted Resolutions supporting improvements in regard
to the ICPC; and
WHEREAS, proposed Federal legislation entitled the ``Orderly and
Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004'' has been
introduced, which seeks to improve the ICPC process; that the proposed
legislation, which is attached hereto, among other things (1) seeks to
have the states expeditiously revise the ICPC to better serve the
interests of children and reduce mnecessary paperwork (2) seeks to have
ICPC home studies completed within 60 days of the receipt of the
request in the receiving state either by the state agency of private
provider (3) seeks to have the states make its decision concerning the
interstate movement of the child in a timely manner (4) provides
incentive moneys for timely ICPC home studies performed by the states
(5) provides mechanisms for timely registry checks for prospective
placements (6) requires states to provide health and education records
to any child who leaves foster care by reaching the age of majority
under state law (7) allows courts access to parent locator services to
locate parents in foster care or adoptive placement cases, and (S)
requires states to notify foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and
relative care givers of a child in foster care of any proceedings to be
held with respect to the child; and
WHEREAS, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
approves of the proposed legislation and encourages its passage by the
Congress of the United States and enactment into Iaw:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
RESOLVED, That the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges supports the proposed legislation and encourages its passage by
the Congress of the United States and enactment into law.
______
National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems
Washington, DC 20004
July 8, 2004
Representative Tom DeLay
House Majority Leader
H-107 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Majority Leader DeLay,
The National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems (NAPHS) is
pleased to support H. R. 4504, a bill that will improve protections for
children and hold states accountable for the orderly and timely
placement of children across state lines. This measure will improve and
streamline the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPG).
NAPHS represents provider systems that are committed to the
delivery of responsive, accountable, and clinically effective treatment
for children, youth, and adults with mental and substance use
disorders. Members are behavioral healthcare provider organizations,
including 500 specialty hospitals, general hospital psychiatric and
addiction treatment units, and mental health residential treatment
centers.
NAPHS strongly supports the limitation of the applicability of the
Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (1CPC) to children in
foster care under the responsibility of the state except those seeking
placement in a residential facility or hospital primarily to access
clinical mental health services.
Article II of the current ICPG clearly states that ``placement''
means the arrangement for the care of a child in a family home or a
child caring agency or institution but does not include any institution
caring for the mentally ill or any hospital or other medical facility.
Unfortunately, regulations later adopted are contradictory and
difficult to interpret--leading to confusion for States and providers,
The inappropriate application of the ICPG to mental health
residential placements has caused significant delay and harm to
children and youth with serious mental health disorders without
providing any additional protections or benefits.
Mental health residential care and hospital programs differ from
out-of-state adoptions or foster care placements in every way. Mental
health residential treatment programs, like hospitals, are temporary
and operate under an array of State and federal laws and regulations
aswell as accrediting standards.
Such placements are designed to provide active treatment in a
therapeutic environment so that the child will be able, in the
foreseeable future, to achieve treatment goals and be returned to
thestate for follow through on next steps.
Children needing such placement are in crisis and cannot wait for
the ICPC process that could take an extended period of time. An
unintended consequence of such delays is that children may deteriorate
further or be held in inappropriate settings such as juvenile detention
while waiting. Last, the placing state agency utilizes contracts or
similar documents that detail, assure, and monitor treatment and
services. Contracts are time limited and ensure that payment is
reasonable and made according to state standards. (Further information
on why the ICPC should not cover such placements is attached for your
use and inclusion in the record as appropriate.)
H.R. 4504 would eliminate confusion caused by the current ICPC and
assure that public or private placements of children and youth made to
residential care and hospitalsare not subject to the ICPC when the
programs provide 24-hour care approved by the State for the purpose of
providing clinical mental health services Again, thank you for your
leadership on this issue. We are committed to working with you and are
very supportive of H. R. 4504.
Sincerely,
Mark Covall
Executive Director
______
Consortium for Children
San Rafael, California 94901
July 9, 2004
Congressman Tom DeLay
242 Cannon 11013
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
Consortium for Children would like to express our support for your
bill H.R. 4504 titled ``Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of
Children Act of 2004''.
Placement across jurisdictions (states and counties) is a last
choicefor most public agency adoption practioneers. Home Studies take
an inordinate amount of time, the paperwork for interstate placement of
children is burdensome and the timeframes lengthy. Interstate placement
of children, as it currently exists, does not serve children or their
prospective permanent families well.
Due to the cumbersome and lengthy nature of inter jurisdictional
placements public child wel f are agencies go to great length to
identify permanent families within their own.jurisdiction before
looking outside their purview. This practice can and does limit choices
for children as well as extend their stay in the foster care system,
Children who are waiting for permanent families should be viewed as
``citizens cif the nation'' and all potential families be equally
considered as a resource for a child no matter where they reside.
H.R. 4504 will go a long way in ameliorating many of the issues
mentioned above. The specified time frarnes flor home study completion,
involving the judiciary, and Federal incentives mentioned in your hill
should help ease the process as well as the perceptions about the
inter-state placement cif children and, as a result, shorten their stay
in foster care.
For the above reasons the Hoard of Directors of`Consortium for
Children supports H.R. 4504.
Sincerely,
Kate Cleary
Executive Director
______
KidsPeace
Orefield, Pennsylvania 18069
July 9, 2004
Representative Tom DeLay
House Majority Leader
H-107 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Majority Leader DeLay,
KidsPeace is pleased to support H.R. 4504, a bill that will improve
protections for children and hold states accountable for the orderly
and timely placement of children across state lines. This measure will
improve and streamline the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children (ICPC).
KidsPeace is a private charity dedicated to serving the critical
behavioral and mental health needs of children, preadolescents and
teens. Founded in 1882, KidsPeace provides specialized residential
treatment services and a comprehensive range of treatment programs and
educational services to give hope, help and healing to children facing
crisis.
KidsPeace strongly supports the limitation of the applicability of
the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) to children
in foster care under the responsibility of the state except those
seeking placement in a residential facility or hospital primarily to
access clinical mental health services.
Article II of the current ICPC clearly states that ``placement''
means the arrangement for the care of a child in a family home or a
child caring agency or institution but does not include any institution
caring for the mentally ill or any hospital or other medical facility.
Unfortunately, regulations later adopted are contradictory and
difficult to interpret--leading to confusion for States and providers.
The inappropriate application of the ICPC to mental health
residential placements has caused significant delay and harm to
children and youth with serious mental health disorders without
providing any additional protections or benefits.
Mental health residential care and hospital programs differ from
out-of-state adoptions or foster care placements in every way. Mental
health residential treatment programs, like hospitals, are temporary
and operate under an array of State and federal laws and regulations as
well as accrediting standards.
Such placements are designed to provide active treatment in a
therapeutic environment so that the child will be able, in the
foreseeable future, to achieve treatment goals and be returned to the
state for follow through on next steps.
Children needing such placement are in crisis and cannot wait for
the ICPC process that could take an extended period of time. An
unintended consequence of such delays is that children may deteriorate
further or be held in inappropriate settings such as juvenile detention
while waiting. Last, the placing state agency utilizes contracts or
similar documents that detail, assure, and monitor treatment and
services. Contracts are time limited and ensurethat payment is
reasonable and made accordingto state standards. (Further information
on why the ICPC should not cover such placements is attached for your
use and inclusion in the record as appropriate.)
H.R. 4504 would eliminate confusion caused by the current ICPC and
assure that public or private placements of children and youth made to
residential care and hospitals are not subject to the ICPC when the
programs provide 24-hour care approved by the State for the purpose of
providing clinical mental health services. Again, thank you for your
leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
C.T. O'Donnell, II
President and Chief Executive Officer
______
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
Reno, Nevada 89507
July 8, 2004
Majority Leader Tom DeLay
H 107 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman DeLay:
On behalf of the Executive Committee of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), I am pleased to write this
letter in support of H.R. 4504, entitled the ``Orderly and Timely
Interstate Placement of Children Act of 2004''. As our organization
will not hold its meeting to approve the attached Resolution until
later this month, I am unable at this time to provide you with any
other documentation of support from our organization. When the
Resolution is passed, I will be happy to provide you with a signed copy
of it.
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC or the
Compact) is vital to the safe movement of certain at risk children from
one state to another. While the ICPC is involved in a variety of case
types, the primary area of concern with the Compact is the movement of
children in foster care between states. While assisting in protecting
children, the ICPC also helps assure that they receive necessary
services once they arrive at their new place of residence.
For too many years, however, the process involved in the movement
of these vulnerable children, who are in foster care, has taken too
long thus delaying permanency for them. Despite repeated studies of the
problems inherent in the ICPC process, very little progress has been
made to make it work more effectively since it came into use over 40
years ago.
Over the past few years our organization through the Advisory
Committee of the Permanency Planning Department has supported efforts
to improve the ICPC. During the summer of 2003, NCJFCJ and the American
Bar Association passed Resolutions supporting the need for improvements
in the ICPC.
While the proposed Federal legislation will not and cannot solve
all of the problems inherent in the ICPC, it addresses as much as it
reasonably should, given that the ICPC is a state compact. If the
improvements offered through this legislation are put in place and the
funding mentioned in the legislation is appropriated, states will have
every reason to ensure that the ICPC Home Study process is done
expeditiously and that delays in the interstate movement of children
are sharply reduced.
Sincerely,
James A. Ray
President
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
welcome my old colleague, Mr. Frenzel, who I had also the
distinctive pleasure of serving with such a distinguished
gentleman over the years and really appreciate the work that he
has done in this area with the Pew Foundation. I also would
like to welcome Sam Sipes to the hearing. In the interest of
full disclosure, Sam is actually a personal friend of mine. I
don't know if that helps him or hurts him, but he also is
working with my wife and myself in trying to find new ways of
providing safe, permanent, and loving homes for foster children
by creating a community of foster homes in my district. His
organization is helping us. In fact, it may be a partner in
that.
Sam is President and Chief Operating Officer of the
Lutheran Social Services of the South (LSS), which is a
nonprofit organization that each year serves more than 25,000
of the children, elderly, and poor in Texas and Louisiana
Protection Services, LSS has a 123-year history of serving the
State of Texas, my home State. Sam holds a master's degree in
social work from the University of Texas at Austin and I am
just very thankful that he is here today representing LSS and I
am very grateful for his support of H.R. 4504. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the time.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. DeLay. With that, our first
witness is the Honorable Bill Frenzel, Chairman of the Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WILLIAM FRENZEL, CHAIRMAN,
PEW COMMISSION ON CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, ladies and gentlemen
of the Subcommittee, Majority Leader DeLay, thank you very much
for inviting me. After all those nice words, I will probably
ascend directly into heaven before your very eyes.
[Laughter.]
I thank you for uttering them. My statement has been
submitted. It is a little longer than the Iliad and somewhat
shorter than the Clinton biography----
[Laughter.]
So, I am not going to read it. I will proceed, if I may.
Probably while I was recognizing Congressman DeLay, I ought to
say that our commission, of course, was not aware of his bill
or the details of his bill as we were going forward, but we
agree that that is an important field that has to be reformed
and we are very glad that he has submitted a bill and that many
of you seem to be interested in it. I am also speaking for Bill
Gray, which you have already noted, and let the record state I
am not trying to claim an extra 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Bill has been a great performer on our commission and he
wishes he could be with us today. I am not going to repeat the
words of our report except to say that our commission started
and ended every session that it held with an examination of
what we called our child-centered principles, and while we
started with about 16 and worked our way down to probably half
that number, in shorthand, we used the phrase on the first page
of my testimony, and that is that every child needs a safe,
permanent, loving family.
This was the centerpiece of our deliberation. Each time we
took on a tough chore and had to reach a compromise where
certain of our members had to give, we always reverted to our
principles. We also had some special goals besides that. We
wanted to be sure that we got the incentives right in the
financing system, that is that States didn't have an incentive
to keep children within the foster care system, that the
incentives were to get out, that there was an incentive to
improve workforce performance, that other incentives were
included. One of our goals was flexibility. We wanted to be
sure that the operators of the system who knew what they needed
in their own areas had the opportunity to make choices in
relation to the work that confronted them. Finally, we wanted
to improve the accountability for the operators of the system
because we think that is very important, too.
Mr. Chairman, our bills are very similar, that is, the Pew
Commission's recommendation and the so-called Herger draft. We
congratulate you for that. I don't know if you are brilliant or
we are. I think, rather, it is that the same kinds of subjects
come up whenever improvement of the foster care system is
discussed and so perhaps we stumbled down the same alleys
together and came to similar conclusions. There are a few
places where I would like to make some of those suggestions
that you have invited from us and I think you will find them
quite similar to some of the suggestions Mr. Cardin has already
made.
In the first place, we suggested that an entitlement be
retained for the foster care maintenance costs. We debated this
very heavily, because we talked about full grant, retaining
entitlements, capping entitlements, having entitlements
decline, and so forth. We came to the conclusion as a matter of
compromise that financing of these expenses is a shared
Federal-State responsibility for which the States need some
kind of a guarantee and some kind of a safety net, and I do not
denigrate the safety net that you have put in your bill. It
seemed to us that the operators really had to be on board and
they were very strongly believing that they needed this
continuing entitlement. The crack cocaine epidemic already
mentioned is still green in their memories and they have their
worries. They are also always nervous about grants being cut
back or eliminated.
The other suggestion, main suggestion that we have with
respect to your bill, Mr. Chairman, is our suggestion for
subsidized guardianship. Thirty States have some form of
guardianship which they support. The incentives in the system
today build an over-reliance on foster care, and a State that
is paying foster care, is being paid foster care by the Federal
Government, has little incentive other than the adoption
incentive to move children out.
We believe a subsidized guardianship payment will really
help achieve permanence and these safe homes that we want for
children. Now, we have taken great care to structure our
recommendation so that there are very strong lines, deep lines
drawn in the sand, which include, of course, that the child has
to be in the system already, has to be in the system for a
fairly long time, and that the court has to make a
determination that neither reunification nor adoption are
options, and that there has to be some kind of demonstrated
attachment between the child and the guardian.
We do note that in the State of Illinois, a pioneer in the
guardianship system, adoptions continued to rise. We don't look
on them as competitive, but rather guardianship is an extra leg
of the stool of permanence for these children. Now, we also
included in our bill a permanence incentive and a workforce
performance incentive. We hope that as you and the Committee
leadership work on improving this bill--it seems impossible to
think it could be improved.
[Laughter.]
We hope you will look at maybe changing the bill. We hope
you will look at those particular items. Mr. Chairman, I can't
say enough for your leadership in producing this draft and
moving forward. The Commission, I am sure, is just delighted
that you are taking this tack. We like what you are doing. Of
course, as a Commission, we are stuck with our own
recommendation. Naturally, we are going to be for us, but it
doesn't mean we are not for you. We are very proud of you and
we look forward to working with every Member of your
Subcommittee and other Members of Congress, like Mr. DeLay, in
moving a bill, and as has been suggested twice, we hope that it
is a bipartisan bill because that is the history in this field.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frenzel follows:]
Statement of The Honorable William Frenzel, Chairman,
Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
Chairman Herger, Mr. Cardin and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am testifying on
behalf of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. In particular,
I am joined in my testimony by the Commission's Vice Chair, former
Congressman Bill Gray, whose schedule did not permit him to attend
today.
On behalf of the Commission, we thank the Members of the
Subcommittee for their continued commitment to improving outcomes for
children in foster care. We also thank the staff, both majority and
minority, for their dedicated work on this issue.
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care shares this
Committee's desire to protect children from abuse and neglect, and
ensure that they all have safe, permanent families. Efforts to help
children who have suffered abuse and neglect have traditionally
benefited from strong bipartisan support, and today's hearing embodies
the ongoing efforts of leaders from both parties and all branches and
levels of government to ensure that the nation does a better job of
caring for children in foster care.
Supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Commission
examined two key aspects of the foster care system: Federal child
welfare financing and court oversight of child welfare cases. Our
charge was to develop far-reaching, yet achievable recommendations to
improve outcomes for children in the foster care system. On May 18 of
this year, the Commission released its final report and
recommendations. Our full report, ``Fostering the Future: Safety,
Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care'' and all
supporting materials can be found on the Commission's web site at
www.pewfostercare.org.
Throughout an intensive year of work, we were guided by the
principle that every child needs a safe, permanent family. This was the
starting point for the Pew Commission and a steady compass throughout
our deliberations. We revisited this principle at every meeting to
ensure that our final recommendations were totally focused on producing
better outcomes for children.
Federal financing and court oversight are at the root of many of
the problems that frustrate child welfare administrators, case workers
and judges as they seek to move children quickly from foster care to
safe, permanent homes--or to avoid the need to put them in foster care
in the first place. Indeed, reform in these two areas could pave the
way for significant improvements in how the nation cares for children
who have been abused or neglected.
As a Commission, we sought to craft practical recommendations that
could win the support of Congress, the Administration, State officials,
State court leadership, and the children and families involved with the
child welfare system. We are encouraged by the positive responses we
have received thus far from these key audiences, and we are honored to
have the opportunity to share our recommendations with this
Subcommittee today.
Financing Child Welfare
As you know, current Federal funding mechanisms for child welfare
encourage an over-reliance on foster care, at the expense of other
services to keep families safely together and move children swiftly and
safely from foster care to permanent families. Toward this end, the
Commission proposes a fundamental restructuring of existing financial
resources, as well as targeted new investments that will provide real
returns to our children and our nation. We call for strong incentives
for States to focus on permanency, a secure and reliable Federal-State
funding partnership, greater flexibility for States in how they can use
Federal dollars to respond to the needs of children and families, and
greater accountability for improving outcomes for children.
Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciated the opportunity to review your
very thoughtful discussion draft. Many of its provisions are consistent
with the recommendations of the Pew Commission. Your draft is a very
positive step forward, and we commend you for that. We also thank you
for this opportunity to suggest some changes and additional provisions
that reflect our recommendations and that we believe would enhance your
legislative efforts to improve outcomes for children.
Let me begin with the Commission's financing recommendations.
We call for preserving both foster care maintenance and adoption
assistance as an uncapped Federal entitlement to the States--but with
some improvements, based on our strong conviction that all children who
are abused or neglected deserve the joint protection of their State and
the Federal government. Specifically, we call for eliminating income
requirements for Federal foster care and adoption assistance--or ``de-
linking'' from the 1996 AFDC income standards--and for treating Indian
tribes and U.S. Territories as States when it comes to administering
child welfare programs for their children. We were pleased that you
include both of these provisions in your draft legislation.
We also called for the de-link to be cost-neutral to both the
Federal government and the States and to be structured in such a way
that it avoids creating fiscal winners and losers among the States.
Our recommendation of cost neutrality in this provision was one of
many difficult choices we had to make as a Commission. We were very
cognizant of the Federal deficit and of the difficult budgetary climate
in the States. We worried about creating the potential for States to
supplant existing State foster care dollars with new Federal dollars,
in essence shifting costs from the States to the Federal government
without any net increase in child welfare funding. In the end, we
decided that we wanted new investments in child welfare to go to
preventing the need to place children in foster care and to services
that will help children leave foster care quickly and safely.
Your draft currently caps foster care maintenance payments. We
recommend maintaining that entitlement without a cap. The members of
the Pew Commission feel strongly that protecting children who cannot
stay safely in their own homes is a shared Federal-State
responsibility--and that the Federal government should maintain its
responsibility, especially if the need for foster care increases
dramatically for reasons beyond the control of State policymakers, as
was the case in the early 1990s.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that you designate the TANF Contingency
Fund as a safety net for States that experience severe increases in
foster care. In a capped system, a contingency fund is essential. But
in our deliberations, we concluded that an uncapped system was a better
approach, in part because the Contingency Fund is hard for States to
access in a timely manner and may not contain sufficient funds to
respond to a nationwide surge in the need for foster care.
Nevertheless, we share your goal of reducing the over-reliance on
foster care that the current funding structure encourages--we just
differ in how to do so. The Pew Commission recommends options and
incentives that together provide very powerful encouragement to the
States to seek out safe alternatives to foster care. These include an
additional route to permanency through subsidized guardianship,
increased flexibility in how States can use Federal child welfare
dollars to meet children's needs, the opportunity for States that
reduce their foster care use to reinvest the Federal dollars saved in
services to children, and the provision of bonuses to States that
increase all forms of safe permanence. The experience of the very
successful Adoption Incentive Program clearly demonstrates that, when
the Federal government provides incentives to States to achieve certain
goals, States will respond.
Mr. Chairman, you include two of these incentives in your
discussion draft--creating a flexible Safe Children, Strong Families
Grant and allowing States to reinvest unused foster care funds in that
grant. We hope that you will also include our other two provisions as
well, so that States have every opportunity and every reason to put
their energy into reducing the need for foster care.
In particular, we strongly urge you to include our recommendation
to provide Federal guardianship assistance to children who leave foster
care to live with a permanent legal guardian. This would provide an
additional route to permanence for some children in foster care. In
developing this recommendation, we were particularly sensitive that it
not adversely affect adoptions from foster care. We were therefore
careful to draw ``bright lines'' that clearly define when a court could
determine that guardianship would be appropriate for an individual
child. Specifically, we say that guardianship assistance should be
available only when all of the following circumstances exist:
When a child has been removed from his or her home and
the State child welfare agency has responsibility for placement and
care of the child;
When a child has been under the care of the State agency
for a given period of time, to be determined by the State;
When a court has explicitly determined that neither
reunification nor adoption are viable permanency options for a
particular child; and
When a strong attachment exists between a child and a
potential guardian who is committed to caring permanently for the
child.
We further recommend that Federal requirements related to
guardianship assistance be consistent with Federal requirements related
to foster care and adoption. For example, States would have to conduct
a criminal record check before a guardianship is approved.
Under the Title IV-E waiver program, several States have obtained
waivers to test subsidized guardianship programs as part of an overall
effort to increase permanence for children involved in the child
welfare system. One of these States, Illinois, has completed an
extensive evaluation of its guardianship program. The evaluation found
that over five years, subsidized guardianship provided permanence for
more than 6,800 children who had been in foster care, and that
discussing all permanency options helped to increase the number of
adoptions. In fact, during that same period, Illinois experienced
increases in both guardianships and adoptions from foster care.
We were pleased that your draft bill includes a flexible grant that
combines Title IV-E Administration and Training and Title IV-B and
includes guaranteed funding increases every year. This is consistent
with the Commission's recommended Safe Children, Strong Families Grant.
States need both flexibility and additional funds to build a continuum
of child welfare services. They also need the assurance that those
funds will grow at a predictable rate. The Commission recommends that
these funds grow according to an index--specifically, 2 percent plus
the CPI. Your draft legislation calls for annual growth of $200 million
for 10 years.
We further recommend that, when States safely reduce the use of
foster care, they be permitted to reinvest the Federal dollars they
would have expended into their Safe Children, Strong Families Grant--so
long as they also reinvest the State dollars that are saved from
reducing foster care. This provides another incentive for States to
focus on permanence and provides an additional potential source of
funding for the Safe Children, Strong Families Grant. Your draft bill
includes a similar reinvestment provision. Because we recommend that
foster care maintenance remain an uncapped entitlement, we would not
allow these funds to be reserved for foster care maintenance in later
years.
To promote innovation and improved practice, we call for new
incentives for improvements in the child welfare workforce and for
promoting all types of safe permanency. For States that meet certain
workforce targets, the Federal government would provide a one
percentage point increase in the match rate for the Safe Children,
Strong Families Grant. The enhanced match rate would provide an
incentive for States to continue to make investments in two critical
areas: (1) improving the competence of the overall workforce and (2)
lowering caseloads. If we are going to demand better outcomes from
child welfare systems, then we must be prepared to invest in improving
the quality of the child welfare workforce. Mr. Chairman, we urge you
to consider adding these workforce incentives to your bill.
To help children move out of foster care and into safe, permanent
families as quickly as possible, we also recommend that Congress create
a new Permanence Incentive modeled on the successful Adoption
Incentives Program recently reauthorized by this Subcommittee. Under
our plan, States would receive incentive payments for increasing the
percentage of children who leave foster care through one of three paths
to safe permanence: adoption, guardianship, or reunification. To be
eligible for any payment, States would have to maintain or increase its
rates in all three areas.
Finally, we call for stronger accountability through improvements
to the current Child and Family Services Reviews process, which we hope
you will include in your bill. Specifically, we recommend that the
CFSR's include more and better measures of child well-being and use
longitudinal data to yield more accurate assessments of performance
over time. We call on Congress to direct the National Academy of
Sciences to convene an expert panel to recommend the best outcomes and
measures to use in data collection. In addition, we recommend that the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services direct a portion of any
penalties resulting from the review process into a State's Program
Improvement Plan.
Strengthening Courts
Let me turn now to the courts. The Commission recognized that when
effective financing reforms are coupled with important court reforms,
the result is better outcomes for children. Mr. Chairman, we were
delighted to see provisions in your draft that reflect this same
understanding.
For years, the courts have been the unseen partners in child
welfare--yet they are vested with enormous responsibility. No child
enters or leaves foster care without a judge's decision. Courts are
responsible for ensuring that public officials meet their legal
responsibilities to keep children safe, secure permanent homes for
them, and promote their well-being when they are under the State's
protection.
Despite this critical role, the dependency courts often lack
sufficient tools, information, and accountability to move children
swiftly and safely out of foster care and into permanent homes. The Pew
Commission's recommendations focus on ensuring that courts have what
they need to fulfill their responsibilities to children and to the
public trust.
First, we call on every dependency court to adopt performance
measures and use this information to improve their oversight of
children in foster care. When judges can track and analyze their
caseloads, they can identify and deal with sources of delay that keep
children in foster care longer than may be necessary. They can also
identify groups of children in their caseload who may require special
attention. Case tracking also provides critical information to Chief
Justices as they assess the needs and overall performance of the
dependency courts. We built our recommendation here on substantial work
done by the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law,
the NationalCenter for State Courts, and the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Your discussion draft includes provisions related to the Court
Improvement Program. In particular, it includes tracking court
performance measures as an important component of the program, which we
applaud. It also includes guaranteed funding for the Court Improvement
Program at a higher level than is currently projected--about $7 million
in new funds every year. We recommended $10 million in the first year
specifically to jump-start tracking of court performance measures and
such sums as necessary in future years. We commend you for guaranteeing
Court Improvement Program funding for 10 years, and hope you will
consider increasing the funding level and designating funds
specifically for tracking court performance measures. The success of
the Court Improvement Program is strong evidence of the value of
investing in improvements in the nation's dependency courts.
Second, although they share responsibility for these children,
courts and agencies often don't do a good job of communicating or
working together. We recommend incentives and requirements for
effective collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies on
behalf of children in foster care. These include new requirements that
States and courts describe this collaboration in their State plans and
Court Improvement Program plans, as well as joint training and the
establishment of State foster care commissions that can promote this
collaboration. Your discussion draft includes requirements for State
plans, and we urge you to add court-agency collaboration to that list.
We also urge you to consider additional funding to promote joint
training by courts and child welfare agencies. The Pew Commission
recommended an additional $10 million to courts, both for training
court personnel and for joint training of court and child welfare
staff.
Third, we recommend several measures to give children and parents a
stronger voice in court and more effective representation. For example,
we call on Congress to appropriate $5 million for expansion of the
Court Appointed Special Advocates program. We also call on State courts
to require training for attorneys practicing in this field and for
courts to be organized in a way that permits and encourages direct
participation by children in proceedings that affect their lives.
Conclusion
Children deserve more from our child welfare system than they are
getting now. For this to happen, those on the front lines of care--
caseworkers, foster parents, judges and others--need the support
necessary to do their jobs more effectively. And the public needs to
know that, with this support, every part of the chain of care--from the
Federal government to the States to the courts--can reasonably be held
to high standards of accountability for the well-being of children.
The Commission's firm resolve is to ensure that all of our
recommendations--taken together--promote greater safety, permanence,
and well-being for abused and neglected children, while also ensuring
greater public accountability for what happens to every child whose
life we touch. Our proposals are the result of hard choices and
difficult compromises. This Subcommittee faces similar challenges. We
hope our work can provide common ground for your discussions going
forward.
In closing, we would like to thank the Subcommittee again for the
opportunity to discuss our recommendations. On behalf of the Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care, we look forward to working with
every Member of this Subcommittee and their staff to implement reforms
to improve outcomes for children in foster care.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Frenzel. Again, I
want to thank you for your longtime work in the U.S. Congress
and specifically for your work in this area, which is so
important for those young people, those children most in need.
Thank you very much for your work, and the work of your
commission. Now, Dr. Arnold-Williams to testify.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION
Dr. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to testify on
behalf of the APHSA. The Child and Family Service Review (CFSR)
baseline results reveal the many challenges States face in
achieving safety, permanency, and well-being for children in
our care, but improvements are being made and we have achieved
noteworthy increases in adoptions and family reunifications.
State Administrators have focused efforts and resources on
implementing the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA) (P.L. 105-89), and developing program improvement
plans (PIPs) to achieve improved outcomes for children. At the
same time, fewer children are supported with Federal funds due
to the ``look back'' provision. In Utah, since 2002, our Title
IV-E penetration rate for foster care has dropped from 54 to 50
percent and adoption has fallen from 77 to 72 percent. The
APHSA has consistently supported a full Federal-State
partnership for every child in the child welfare system and we
commend you for proposing legislation that addresses that goal.
However, the draft legislation proposes to reduce all State
Federal medical assistance program (FMAP) rates by 35 percent
for foster care and by 15 percent for adoption. Under this
mandatory approach, States would be dissimilarly affected.
States that have a high Title IV-E penetration rate would be
more negatively impacted. We understand your fiscal
constraints. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to give States
the option to either retain current law or opt into the new
formula.
The draft legislation would impose an annual cap on funds
available for Title IV-E foster care maintenance. We commend
the Chairman for allowing the funding to increase over time and
for allowing State reinvestment of any savings. However, we
have several concerns. First, for States that have already
reduced their foster care caseloads, the potential for savings
and thus reinvestment is limited. Second, we believe each State
should have a baseline that reflects their projected annual
rate of growth, independent of an a national one. Third, we
applaud recognition that Title IV-E funds ought to be used for
services as well as for maintenance payments. However, crises,
such as the increasing use of methamphetamines in several
States, have resulted in caseload increases and limit the
savings for reinvestment.
Finally, the National Contingency Fund triggers may be set
so high that an individual State may never be able to access
them. Again, we recommend making the guaranteed payment level a
State option and not a mandate. We must strongly oppose the
provision capping Federal funding for caseworkers and training.
Child welfare staff courageously work in one of the most
challenging professions in this country and we struggle to
recruit, retain, and reward them. Capped Federal funding is a
step in the wrong direction. The base years for calculating the
administrative cap are problematic. For example, last year,
Utah added 51 caseworkers and trainers, but their funding would
not be reflected in the baseline.
Subsidized guardianship provides for stable and permanent
placements for children and APHSA believes that waiver
demonstrations have proved it is time to amend Title IV-E to
allow States to fund this option. Despite renewed emphasis on
accountability and program improvement through the CFSR
process, Title IV-E funds cannot be used to achieve many of the
mutually agreed-on goals in our PIPs. Given the large Federal
role in developing and approving PIPs, APHSA proposes States be
permitted to use Title IV-E funds for any purpose approved
under their PIP. We would agree to continued evaluation to
determine whether they make a difference in performance and
whether that should continue.
For example, in Utah's PIP, one of the primary areas for
which Title IV-E will not be able to be expended is child well-
being in in-home cases. We currently serve nearly twice as many
families with in-home services as we do out of home. Title IV-E
funds cannot be used for activities in those cases, like family
involvement in case planning, worker visits, and providing
physical and mental health care. Although we did well on other
portions of the CFSR, other States are struggling to find
resources on several safety outcomes, including services to
protect children, prevent removal, and reduce risk of harm.
With respect to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children (ICPC), APHSA has embarked on a comprehensive reform
and we commend Majority Leader DeLay on his leadership in this
area. House Resolution. 4504 would impose a 60-day limit on the
completion of home studies. States would be at risk of losing
their Title IV-E funds for noncompliance. While we understand
the goal of reducing the length of time to complete a home
study, we have no data to suggest the 60-day timeframe will, in
fact, expedite placements. We recommend adding a ``reasonable
cause'' exception for failure to meet the 60-day limit, such as
a delay in FBI background checks. Given that the ICPC is a
direct agreement between the States, we also urge inclusion of
language restricting the Secretary from regulating home study
definitions. In conclusion, we look forward to working with the
Subcommittee to devise a Federal financing construct that can
help States meet the needs of children and families we serve.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your leadership on this
important issue and I would be happy to answer any questions
when that time comes. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Arnold-Williams follows:]
Statement of Robin Arnold-Williams, Ph.D., Executive Director, Utah
Department of Human Services, Salt Lake City, Utah, on behalf of the
American Public Human Services Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Sub-Committee. I am
Robin Arnold-Williams, executive director of the Utah Department of
Human Services. I am pleased to join you today to testify on behalf of
the state of Utah and the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), a nonprofit, bipartisan organization representing state and
local human service professionals for more than 70 years. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on improving the financing of child welfare
in this country and the reform of the Interstate Compact on the
Placement of Children.
Commitment to Accountability and Achieving Positive Outcomes
APHSA would like to commend the subcommittee for dedicating a
significant amount of time to child welfare through the six hearings
that have been held within the last year. States realize that the
baseline results of the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)
revealed that we have many challenges to overcome to achieve positive
outcomes for children and families. Having said that, states are
focused on the goals of achieving safety, permanency and well being for
all children in our care. Over the past several years, we have achieved
noteworthy increases in the number of adoptions and family
reunifications.
APHSA and states have had a long-standing interest in moving the
child welfare system from one that is process-driven to one that is
outcomes-focused with success measured by positive outcomes for
children. States are committed to quality services for children and
families and rise to the challenge of being accountable for achieving
outcomes.
In order to continue on the path of improving outcomes for all
children and to attain positive results, the child welfare system must
have the necessary capacity to achieve those goals, i.e., sufficient
and appropriate financial and service resources and well-trained staff
with manageable workloads to implement appropriate and best practice
interventions that will yield positive results for children and
families.
Child Welfare Financing Reform Needed to Support the Achievement of
Positive Outcomes
De-Linking
Over the past several years, the demands on the child welfare
system have increased significantly. State administrators have focused
their efforts and resources on implementing the requirements of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act through the federal CFSR process and
developing program improvement plans (PIPs) in partnership with the
federal government 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 Title IV-E eligibility to the former AFDC
eligibility rules in effect as of July 16, 1996. In my own state of
Utah, our Title IV-E penetration rate for foster care has dropped from
54% in FY 2002 to 49.8% today; our adoption subsidy penetration rate
has fallen from 77% to 72% over that same two-year period.
The federal accountability measures under which states are reviewed
and the subsequent PIP goals apply to every child in the child welfare
system. However, federal financial participation for every child in the
child welfare system does not currently exist. We commend the Chairman
for proposing draft legislation that begins the dialogue on how best to
reform federal child welfare financing. APHSA has consistently
supported the idea of a full federal and state partnership for every
child in the child welfare system.
Reduction in Federal Matching Rate to Expand Eligibility
The draft legislation proposes to reduce all state FMAP rates by
35% for foster care maintenance and by 15% for adoption assistance and
allow all children to be covered under IV-E funding. Under this
mandatory change, states would be dissimilarly affected. States that
have worked hard to achieve a high IV-E penetration rate would be more
negatively impacted by the adjustment in the federal match rate and may
in fact face a situation of receiving less federal resources than under
the current system. 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 giving states the option to either retain current law or to
opt into the new formula.
Guaranteed Foster Care Maintenance Payment Levels
The draft legislation would impose an annual cap on the amount of
federal funds available for IV-E foster care maintenance payments based
on Congressional Budget Office projections. We commend the Chairman for
allowing the funding to increase over time and for allowing state
reinvestment of any savings. However, we have several concerns. First,
over the past few years, states have worked diligently to bring their
foster care caseloads down. Locking in the low caseload numbers from
these years as a baseline for assessing any savings would limit the
amount of funds that would be available for reinvestment in the future.
Second, we are concerned with the state baselines that would be derived
from the national baseline. Due to the differences among states, we
believe each state should have a baseline that reflects their projected
annual rate of growth over time. It is also important to note that the
projected national baseline in the draft legislation is reflective of
the IV-E eligible population alone. When states merge IV-E and non IV-E
caseload trends and expenditures, the baseline may be dramatically
adjusted upward. Third, we applaud the recognition that IV-E funding
ought to be used for services to children and families as well as for
maintenance payments. The ability to use savings resulting from
declining foster care caseloads is very positive. However, crises, such
as the increase in the use of methamphetamine in several states, have
resulted in an increase in caseloads. States that are contending with
such factors may not be able to take advantage of reinvesting any
savings from a reduction in caseload. Again, we recommend making the
guaranteed payment level proposal a state option and not a mandate.
Safe Children, Strong Families Programs
While we believe there are ways to address the de-linking and
guaranteed payment level provision of the draft legislation, we must
strongly oppose the Safe Children, Strong Families provision that would
cap federal funding for caseworkers and the training that supports
their work. Caseworkers are the crucial link to the services children
and families need. States must rely heavily on direct casework to
achieve goals set forth within PIPs, consent decrees and state
legislative requirements. Child welfare professionals courageously work
in one of the most challenging professions in this country. The jobs
performed by caseworkers have become more complicated as the challenges
faced by families in the child welfare system have become increasingly
complex. Child welfare systems throughout the country struggle to
recruit, retain, and reward these dedicated professionals. Caseworkers
face many barriers and constraints as they work to achieve safety,
permanency and well being for children.
According to a presentation by Children's Bureau staff at the June
2004 Biennial Child Welfare conference, preliminary findings from the
CFSRs indicate that strong correlations exist between caseworker visits
with families and timely reunification, placement stability, services
to protect children at home, relative placements, and meeting
educational, mental health, and physical health needs.
Under this proposal, the base years used for calculating fixed
administrative funding are problematic. Fiscal years 2001-2003 may be
the lowest years for expenditures in some states due to state budget
crises. In addition, states that provide training which is not
currently IV-E reimbursable to caseworkers with private agencies that
serve the same children, states that have added new caseworkers in 2004
and those that may add workers in subsequent years will not have the
resources included in this block grant. In light of future staffing
needs, training and salary increases over time, states would have to
choose between fewer trained caseworkers or funding for critical
services. Eliminating the federal financial partnership in the
recruitment and training of quality workers would be a step in the
wrong direction.
Subsidized Guardianship
We appreciate the inclusion of the H.R. 4 language to expand child
welfare waiver options for states. However, it is unclear why a state
would need a waiver under the Guaranteed Foster Care Maintenance
Payment provision. In addition, we urge the Committee to allow states
to use IV-E funds for subsidized guardianship; it provides for a stable
and permanent placement for many of the children in the child welfare
system. It is time to amend the IV-E statute to allow states to fund
this option.
Achieving Program Improvement Plan Goals
States must be able to access flexible funding streams to provide
the services that are the foundation of child welfare practice. APHSA
and states have been considering a proposal to fund the services needed
to improve outcomes for children and families.
Despite the federal government's renewed emphasis on accountability
andprogram improvement through the CFSR process, IV-E funds cannot be
used to achieve many of our mutually agreed-upon goals in our PIPs. It
is not enough to know what goals need to be achieved to help children
and families in the child welfare system; the resources must also be
available. For example, my state, Utah, has identified several areas in
our PIP where we are going to be held to expectations by HHS for which
we will not be able to access Title IV-E funds. One of the primary
areas for which a federal dollar cannot be expended to achieve Utah's
PIP goals is child well being as it pertains to in-home services cases.
Specific expectations include assessing and meeting needs through
services to children, parents and foster parents; family involvement in
case planning; worker visits to children and to parents; and providing
services to meet the physical and mental health needs of children.
Although Utah did well on other portions of the CFSR, we realize that
other states are struggling to find resources on several indicators in
the CFSR for which federal funds are not accessible. These indicators
include the safety outcomes related to services to families to protect
children in home and prevent removal and reduce risk of harm to the
child as well as the systemic factors related to quality assurance,
responsiveness to the community and foster and adoptive parent
licensing, recruitment and retention.
The federal government requires the development of a PIP for the
purpose of improving outcomes for all children in the foster care
system and HHS must approve the contents of the state's PIP. Given the
large federal role in developing the goals, APHSA proposes that states
should be permitted to use IV-E funds for any purpose approved under
the PIP. We could test over a period of time the extent to which these
new investments improve performance under the CFSR. States would agree
to continue to undertake evaluation based on the measures and methods
specified in their PIP, as under current federal regulations.The
research findings would be used to inform federal and state staff as to
whether the IV-E dollars might be used to continue to fund certain
initiatives under the PIP.
Reform of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children plays a
necessary role for ensuring that children placed across state lines
receive appropriate care and supervision. However, it has not been
sufficiently amended in its 44-year existence. APHSA, as the
Secretariat of the Association of Administrators of the ICPC, and based
on recommendations from its' ICPC reform task force, has embarked on a
comprehensive reform of the ICPC. A drafting and development team
comprised of a broad and diverse set of stakeholders representing state
commissioners, state and local child welfare directors, ICPC
administrators, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, court
administrators, the American Bar Association, Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, National Indian Child Welfare Association, Child Welfare League
of America, and the National CASA Association. We begin the work of
redrafting the compact next week and will complete the process by the
end of this year.
APHSA appreciates Majority Leader DeLay's commitment to the reform
of ICPC. H.R. 4504 would impose a 60-day time limit on the completion
of home studies and penalize states with the loss of all their IV-E
funding if they fail to meet this deadline. While we understand the
goal of reducing the length of time taken to complete a home study, we
have no data to suggest that the 60-day time limit will expedite
permanent placements. We are also concerned that there could be
practice implications if a promising placement was ignored, simply
because a caseworker did not believe that a home study could be
completed in time. Therefore, we recommend revising the proposed
legislation to have a reasonable cause exception for failure to meet
the 60-day limit. If, for example, all of the component parts of the
home study are complete, but the state has not yet received the FBI
background check information, then the state could continue the home
study beyond the 60-day and not face a state plan disallowance. Also,
we recommend that ACF dedicate research funding to study the impact of
the 60-day time limit and the other barriers that may impede timely
interstate placements. Finally, given that the Compact is a direct
agreement between states, we urge the inclusion of language that would
restrict the Secretary from overriding individual state definitions of
a home study through regulation.
Conclusion
When children are at risk and come to the attention of the child
welfare 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. The child welfare system has
the capacity to improve outcomes for children and families and the
federal government and states must be equal partners in serving all
children in all parts of the system. The child welfare financing
system, developed 24 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 federal financing construct that can help
states meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and families we
serve.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this important issue
and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Dr. Williams. Now to
testify, Ms. Patricia Wilson.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA WILSON, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL
OFFICE, CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Ms. WILSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the
Subcommittee, and Congressman DeLay, CWLA appreciates this
opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of our nearly 1,000
public and private nonprofit child-serving member agencies. We
especially are appreciative of the attention that this
Subcommittee has brought to this important issue of child
welfare reform. Child welfare financing reform is important to
the future of the 500,000-plus children in foster care, the
over 100,000 children awaiting adoptive placement, the 257,000-
plus families receiving adoption assistance, and the 1 million
children receiving child protective services in their own home.
Our testimony this afternoon highlights our understanding
of the draft legislation put forth by Congressman Herger and
the Pew Commission report. Both Pew and the draft legislation
would make all abused and neglected children in foster care and
adoptive placements eligible for Federal support at a reduced
reimbursement rate. We urge careful consideration, as too
severe a reduction in the rate of the Federal share could
create an increased and unacceptable burden on the States.
We strongly agree with the Pew recommendation to retain
Title IV-E foster care maintenance as an entitlement for
children in care. Maintenance, meaning food, clothing, shelter,
and supervision, is extremely important and critical to the
well-being of those children. The draft legislation caps the
amount of Federal funds available for maintenance. We are quite
concerned that with that proposal that all children become
eligible and the Federal share of every dollar spent be
reduced, the States are going to be also limited in the amount
of Federal assistance they can receive.
The draft legislation makes a provision for potential
relief for States experiencing a severe foster care crisis.
This is based on what would be a phenomenal growth in numbers
on an annual basis. It does not take into account the needs of
the children already in care. Both Pew and the legislation
allow for the transfer of unspent excess Federal funds to be
moved from maintenance into the services block grant. Based on
States' current struggle to adequately cover the care for the
children, the likelihood of excess funds seems remote. Unused
transferred foster care funds should not be relied on as a
primary source of funding for prevention and other services. An
opportunity to transfer must be constructed in a way that does
not create a disincentive for providing the care that children
in placement need.
One of the strongest recommendations of the Pew Commission
was the inclusion of Federal support for subsidized
guardianship and kinship placements. We support that. The draft
legislation provides this only as a waiver option. We support
the concept put forth by both the Pew Commission and the
Subcommittee bill that would allow tribes and territories
increased access to Title IV-E
funds. Both would create a new block grant for services
entitled, ``Safe Children, Strong Families.'' This would
combine current Title IV-E administrative and training funds as
well as the Title IV-E funds. These are not new funds. These
funds are being used today to support direct contact and work
with children and families.
Title IV-E administration pays for the face-to-face time
that caseworkers spend with children in foster care, making
case plans with them and for them, securing services for them,
preparing for judicial hearings, and not to mention recruiting
the foster parents and adoptive parents who serve them. Title
IV-E training funds prepares the workforce as well as the
foster and adoptive parents, while Title IV-B funds the
services that enable children to remain in their own homes and
to provide them with reunification services.
Pew recommends that a block grant be increased annually by
the Consumer Price Index plus 2 percent. In the confines of the
draft legislation, this annual increase would be--there would
be an annual increase, but it would not be tied to a specific
factor. The COLA has questions about potential impact of
including Title IV-E training funds in a block grant that is
designed to fund services. Training is so vital to our
workforce, also extremely important to the quality of decisions
that are made about our children. Combining it into a services
block grant could force States to make a decision between
funding a training program and direct service need.
We are pleased the Pew Commission recommended maintaining
separate Federal funding for States' information systems. In
summary, we believe that the basic safety net of foster care
and adoption assistance should remain an uncapped entitlement;
that all children in foster and adoptive placements, including
those under the auspices of tribes and territories, subsidize
guardianship and kinship placement should be eligible for
Federal support.
We should look to the States' PIPs to inform us about what
new investments are necessary to better care for our children.
Any reform proposal must always be sure to address workforce
issues, including practice standards for worker competence and
caseload size. We urge the Subcommittee to carefully consider
the impact of reducing the Federal matching rate for foster
care and adoption assistance as well as the impact of moving
the entitlements of Title IV-E administration and training into
a block grant. We encourage you also to take the time to fully
evaluate and hear from all those impacted by the pending
proposals, States, private agencies, and advocacy groups. We
thank you for this opportunity; CWLA offers our assistance and
participation in this most important endeavor.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
Statement of Patricia Wilson, Director, Southern Regional Office,
Child Welfare League of America
My name is Patricia Wilson. I am the Director of the Child Welfare
League of America's (CWLA) Southern Regional Office. CWLA welcomes the
opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of our nearly 1,000 public and
private nonprofit child-serving member agencies nationwide as part of
this hearing to examine child welfare reform.
I am going to speak to you today from a perspective that I have
gained from 30 years of working in child welfare. I have been fortunate
during my career to have worked as a:
National consultant during which time I have had in-depth
working relationships with a number of state child welfare programs and
have been engaged in numerous projects involving the financing of
states' child welfare systems;
State child welfare administrator in the Kentucky Cabinet
for Families and Children with responsibility for a broad range of
federally funded child welfare programs;
Child welfare program manager and supervisor at the
county level; and,
Caseworker, who investigated abuse and neglect
complaints, provided services to children in need of protection as well
as their families and managed foster care and adoption cases.
The Need for Reform
CWLA recognizes that the current child welfare system does not
protect all children adequately. Over the past several months the need
for reform of our child welfare system has gained some needed attention
nationwide. In part, this attention is the result of efforts this
Subcommittee has made through a series of hearings beginning last fall.
We appreciate these efforts and the attention of the members of this
Subcommittee, and in particular, the attention to this matter by
Chairman Herger and the Ranking Member, Representative Cardin. Through
their leadership in conducting a series of public hearings, Congress is
beginning to gain insight into what is needed to ensure that children
are protected. These hearings have also helped us all understand the
enormous complexities involving systems change.
While everyone understands the need for children to be protected
and to have a permanent home, it is more difficult to grasp the
complexities of child welfare financing. Why is child welfare financing
reform necessary? The answer lies in its importance to the future of
the 542,000 children in foster care, the 126,000 children in foster
care waiting for an adoptive placement, and the over one million
children receiving child protective services. In our current system,
states are left every day trying to cobble together a patchwork of
funding streams limited either in the number of children who can be
served or how they can be served. Children who enter into the child
welfare system have already suffered the trauma associated with abuse
or neglect. Their trauma should not be exacerbated by there being too
few caseworkers to adequately prepare them for a permanency placement;
underpaid foster parents or caregivers who are always stretching every
dollar to try to provide them the basic necessities; too few mental
health services to address their emotional or behavioral health needs;
or, the general lack of resources to treat the substance abuse,
domestic violence, or mental health issues of their parents which makes
reunification that much more difficult.
CWLA appreciates the interest and work of other members of Congress
and this Subcommittee. We were pleased to support legislation
spearheaded last year by Representative Camp to reauthorize the
Adoption Incentives Payments. We are also supportive of legislation
introduced by Representative Cardin, the Child Protective Services
Improvement Act (HR 1534) and legislation introduced by Representative
Stark, the Child Protection Services Workforce Improvement Act (H.R.
2437). Both of these measures make a down payment towards the
comprehensive reform that is needed.
CWLA hopes that the recommendations of the Pew Commission and the
work of the Subcommittee will result in a serious national debate and
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. To accomplish that
goal and to implement effective legislation will require a dialogue
that involves all the partners in this process. In addition to members
of the Congress and congressional staff, this includes state, local,
public and private agencies and officials, advocates and advocacy
groups representing all parts of the child welfare system and those
families and children most directly affected by our decisions.
The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care
In May, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a panel of
national experts, released a report that makes comprehensive
recommendations about ways to improve the financing of child welfare
services and to improve court performance in child welfare cases. CWLA
appreciates the work of the Commission and their recommendations, and
their willingness to engage CWLA and other partners in the child
welfare system as they developed their recommendations. We also
appreciate their continued efforts to focus the nation's attention on
this matter.
The recommendations of the Commission include some broad proposals
and principles that we believe are fundamental to reform and that can
serve as a starting point for such an effort:
The care of abused and neglected children needs to be a
shared partnership between the federal government and states.
Support offered through the Title IV-E program should be
maintained and serve as the cornerstone for building additional
supports.
New federal resources--in addition to the basic safety
net of federal support offered through the Title IV-E foster care
program--must be provided to states and communities to enable them to
make a greater investment in preventing child abuse and supporting
families.
The Federal government, along with the states, should
provide support for all abused and neglected children, regardless of
family income, including children who are members of Indian tribes and
children living in the U.S. territories.
The child welfare workforce needs better supports
including manageable caseloads and training.
Children living with their grandparents or other
relatives as an alternative to foster care should be afforded federal
support.
The courts need to be a part of any comprehensive reform.
House Ways and Means Human Resources subcommittee Draft Legislation
Based on our initial review, the key components of the Subcommittee
draft legislation include:
The basic safety net of federal support offered through
the Title IV-E program would be compromised by capping the amount of
assistance available to a state to provide for the maintenance of
children in foster care.
All abused and neglected children in foster care and
adoptive placements would be eligible for federal support, but at a
reduced federal reimbursement rate.
The rate for federal participation to support foster care
placements would be lower than the rates to support adoptions.
A new block grant for services, entitled Safe Children,
Strong Families, would be created by combining Title IV-E Foster Care
and Adoption Assistance administration and training funds with Title
IV-B Child Welfare and Promoting Safe and Stable Families funds.
Reforming the financing system is an extremely complex task.
Today's testimony focuses on our understanding of how both the Pew
Commission report and the Subcommittee draft legislation address
specific areas of utmost importance--eligibility, payments for the care
of children, i.e., maintenance; payment for face-to-face contact and
work with children and their families, i.e., the services block grant;
training of the workforce; and, data collection.
Title IV-E Maintenance
CWLA strongly agrees with the recommendation contained in the Pew
Commission report to retain the Title IV-E foster care maintenance
payments as a basic safety net for children who need care.
In the Title IV-E Foster Care program, the cost of providing
children in foster care the basic necessities--food, clothing, shelter,
school supplies--and supervision is referred to as maintenance. In
exchange for making all children eligible, both the draft legislation
and the Pew report recommend reducing the percentage of the federal
government's share of every dollar spent.
In contrast to the Pew Commission's recommendation that maintenance
be kept as an entitlement, meaning the states and federal government
would share the cost of providing care for all children, the draft
legislation places a cap on the amount of federal funds available for
maintenance. This is particularly troublesome as having now proposed
that all children become eligible and that the federal share of every
dollar spent be reduced, states are going to also be limited in the
amount of federal assistance they can receive. Eliminating the
guarantee of maintenance support could certainly impede the march
toward permanency and safety for children.
While the draft legislation makes a provision for potential relief
for states experiencing a severe foster care crisis, it is based only
on what would be a phenomenal annual growth in numbers and does not
take into account the needs of children in care. It is entirely
possible for the number of children in care to remain static or grow
minimally, yet the cost of caring for those children rise
significantly. In such a case, if the state has claimed its maximum
maintenance funding and the growth did not meet the definition of a
severe crisis, the state would be denied relief.
Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility
Both the draft legislation and the Pew report eliminate the
requirement that a child's eligibility for foster care and adoption
assistance benefits be linked to 1996 AFDC income standards. CWLA
heartily supports making all children in foster care and adoption
eligible as the first step in reform.
Both the Pew Commission and the Subcommittee draft legislation
propose some ways to achieve that goal. The Pew Commission offers
several options, some which involve new federal investments. The
Subcommittee draft caps federal funding for foster care while reducing
the federal foster care matching rate.
CWLA asks the Subcommittee to carefully consider any proposal that
involves a too severe reduction in the rate of the federal share. This
could create an increased and unacceptable burden for states that could
make it difficult for them to serve children.
Kinship Placements and Guardianship
CWLA believes that one of the strongest recommendations of the
Commission was the inclusion of federal support for subsidized
guardianship and kinship placements. Subsidized guardianships,
including placements with grandparents and other relatives, are an
important permanency option for many children. Currently, the federal
government does not provide specific funding to support that option.
The draft legislation permits subsidized guardianship only as a waiver
option for a state rather than automatically including it in
maintenance. It is critical that subsidized guardianship and kinship
programs be an option for all state and local child welfare systems if
our goal is to increase the rate of permanency for these children.
Tribes and Territories
Both the Pew Commission and the Subcommittee bill include proposals
that would allow tribes and territories increased access to Title IV-E
funds. The best way to assist tribes in addressing their foster care
and adoption needs is through direct access to these funds. CWLA
supports legislation pending before this Subcommittee introduced by
Representative Camp that would allow eligible tribes or consortia to
have direct access to Title IV-E funds.
Transferability
Both the Pew Commission and the draft legislation recommend states
be allowed to transfer ``excess'' federal foster care maintenance funds
into the services block grant for reinvestment into other child welfare
services. These ``excess'' funds would come from a state reducing its
foster care expenditures below a certain baseline. Based on states'
current struggle to adequately cover the cost of care for its children,
the likelihood of excess funds seems remote. ``Unused'' transferred
foster care funds should not be relied on as a primary source of new
funding for prevention and other services. CWLA supports rewarding
states for improving performance, however, any opportunity for transfer
must be constructed in a way that does not provide a disincentive to
provide the care that children in foster care need.
Block Grant for Services (Safe Children, Strong Families)
As this Subcommittee, the Pew Commission, CWLA and other advocates
have highlighted, there is a tremendous need to devote more federal
resources to prevention and early intervention efforts in child
welfare. Both the draft legislation and the Pew report propose to
initiate this effort by combining Title IV-E administration and
training funds with Title IV-B Child Welfare Services and Title IV-B
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program funds into a block grant to
be known as Safe Children, Strong Families.
The funds just listed are those that support direct contact and
work with children and families. IV-E administration pays for the face-
to-face time caseworkers spend with children in foster care, case
planning for children, securing services for them, preparing and
attending judicial hearings, and, recruiting foster parents, among
other activities. IV-E training funds are used not only to prepare the
workforce, but also to provide them ongoing training as well as
training foster and adoptive parents. Title IV-B funds services to
enable children to remain in their own homes or be reunified with
families.
The Pew Commission recommends automatically increasing this annual
block grant appropriation based on the consumer price index plus two
percent. The draft legislation proposes annual increases, but does not
tie those increases to a specific factor. While the draft legislation
does include an authorization of an additional $525 million a year, we
must caution that since a similar option was created in 2001 for the
Title IV-B Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, the history is
that these dollars have never been fully appropriated.
Training
CWLA has questions about the potential impact of including IV-E
training funds in a block grant that is designed to fund services. We
continue to view workforce issues, including training, as vital to
addressing problems in the child welfare field. By including training
funds in the block grant, states may have to choose what, if any,
portion of the allocation could be dedicated to training and staff
development; thereby, forcing training needs to compete with direct
service needs.
Workforce
CWLA commends the Pew Commission for its recognition of the
necessity to directly address the need for support of our child welfare
workforce. Pew recommends that the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) convene a collaborative working group of state
officials, professional organizations, and researchers to review
existing standards from a variety of sources and recommend a national
set of best practice standards for both worker competence and caseload
size. States that meet and maintain those standards would receive an
enhanced 1% federal match to their Safe Children and Strong Families
Grant funds.
Data
CWLA endorses the Pew Commission's recommendation that funding for
SACWIS (States Automated Child Welfare Information System) be continued
as a separate federally supported activity. Measuring and tracking
outcomes, maintaining useful client records, and collecting data about
service need and use are all essential to determining how well we are
doing in child welfare. Over the last decade, states have been able to
receive discrete funding support for developing their automated data
systems. Even though this process has been cumbersome and is still
evolving, states are in a better position to answer questions about
their efforts than they would be absent those systems.
In Summary
CWLA believes that the basic safety net provided many
children and adoptive families through Title IV-E foster care and
adoption assistance should be maintained as an uncapped entitlement.
CWLA believes all children in foster care and adoptive
placements, including those children under the auspices of tribes and
territories, should be eligible for federal support,
Today, only slightly more than half the children in foster care are
IV-E eligible due to the link with outdated income standards. For those
children not eligible, states are spending Social Services Block Grant
dollars, state dollars and local funds to provide their care. All are
funds that could be used to support vital prevention, support and
follow-up services if they were not being used to support foster care.
CWLA suggests that this Subcommittee carefully consider
the impact of reducing the federal matching rate for foster care and
adoption assistance. Given that expanding eligibility is a desired
outcome, the Subcommittee should consider other alternatives such as
the provision contained in H.R. 1534 offered by Representative Cardin
that removes income eligibility for Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
while allowing states to align the Title IV-E match rate with a state's
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance matching
rate. Senators DeWine and Rockefeller also have introduced legislation
(S. 862) that begins to address this issue by eliminating the income
eligibility assistance for adoption assistance without reducing the
federal match rate.
CWLA believes that federal support should be extended for
subsidized guardianship and kinship placements in order to increase the
rate of permanency for children.
CWLA wholeheartedly supports the need for new investments
for services. Providing necessary resources is one way that the federal
government can better partner with the states to help achieve the goals
of increased safety, permanency and well being for children. The
magnitude of that need has been demonstrated in the PIPs that the
states are beginning to implement. A recent GAO report found that the
most common challenges affecting states' implementation are
insufficient funding, insufficient numbers of staff and high caseloads.
Our review of thirty-three PIPs found that twenty-seven states
specifically referenced the need for mental health and substance abuse
services. Two-thirds of the states describe needing to increase the
availability of foster and adoptive parents. Not only does this mean
more staff time to recruit these parents, it means additional training
will be needed.
CWLA has questions about the impact of including Title
IV-E administration and training into a services block grant.
Administration
Title IV-E administration provides funding for activities directly
related to achieving safety and permanency for children in foster care.
Capping the amount of federal funding a state can receive for that
activity could make it more difficult to achieve those outcomes.
Training
Training resources, which are so vital to the quality of decisions
made on behalf of children, should be assured.
Equitable Distribution of Funds
Should there be an effort to include administration and training
into a services block grant, it would be difficult to develop a formula
that fairly represents the varied ways in which states have claimed
Title IV-E funds. Any formula for how much a state would get from a
block grant that included these programs would be skewed since states'
historical Title IV-E claims may vary widely depending on the
availability of other funding streams. A block grant based on
historical spending could create winners and losers among states.
For example, according to Congressional Research Service data for
fiscal year 2000, two states received over 70 percent of their IV-E
foster care funds from the administrative category. For the states of
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia and Washington, more than
50 percent of their total IV-E funding came from the administrative
category. For Louisiana and Kentucky that amount was less than 35
percent while the amounts for Maryland, Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania were between 35 and 50 percent.
CWLA believes that any discussion of financing reform
should encompass the many other funding streams that support child
welfare services. Although they help frame the discussion, neither the
Pew Commission report nor the draft Subcommittee legislation go far
enough in this regard. True child welfare financing reform will involve
more than changes to Titles IV-E and IV-B. Many states look to the
Social Services Block Grant, TANF, Medicaid and other funding streams
to finance needed services. These programs should be safeguarded and
improved in order to provide support for child welfare.
Conclusion
CWLA urges the Subcommittee to take the time to fully evaluate and
hear from all those most impacted by the pending proposals. It will
also be important to evaluate how these proposals address the problems
that have surfaced in the recent hearings held by this Subcommittee
including the lack of services, insufficient workforce supports, lack
of adequate funding for prevention, improved data collection, increased
accountability and PIP implementation. It will be important for states,
private agencies, advocates and others to fully understand, analyze and
become engaged toward building a consensus reform plan.
This Subcommittee is now armed with a tremendous amount of
evidence, through the Child and Family Service Reviews, the PIPs
submitted to HHS, and the testimony you have taken to date, to now take
the meaningful steps toward reform that will provide for the safety,
permanency, and well-being our most vulnerable children deserve. CWLA
offers our assistance and participation in this important endeavor.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson. Now to
testify, Mr. Samuel Sipes.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL M. SIPES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC., AUSTIN,
TEXAS
Mr. SIPES. Good afternoon, Chairman Herger, Members of the
Subcommittee, and Majority Leader DeLay. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today. I am glad to be here today to address two
critical issues, the movement of children across State lines to
find appropriate and permanent homes, and the movement of
dollars from Washington to States in order to fund child
welfare services. First, I would like to speak about reforms
needed to facilitate the timely placement of children into
loving homes across State lines. Approximately 4 percent of
foster children in the United States, nearly 20,000 children,
are placed across State lines each year. The ICPC was developed
in the sixties to ensure that children placed in homes across
State lines were protected by the receiving State. It took 30
years to get the basic provisions of the ICPC agreed to by all
50 States, and unfortunately, many of those provisions have
begun to show their age.
Recent studies have shown that children placed across State
lines end up waiting 1 year longer to find permanent homes than
children placed in-State. Red tape resulting from the
differences in home study requirements, State laws, and
administrative policies are causing much of the delay. In fact,
it wasn't until just 4 years ago that the ICPC was amended to
allow information to be transmitted via fax and overnight mail.
Very often, the waiting families are biological relatives of
the child in question, and while they work their way through
the red tape of the ICPC process, the child waits in child
welfare.
The challenges created by interjurisdictional barriers to
adoption across State lines are similar to those across
national borders. The LSS performs international adoptions and
maintains offices in several foreign countries. In Russia, for
example, we have to constantly deal with the changing laws and
regulations and remnants of Communist-era bureaucratic
mindsets. However, our Russian adoption program can usually
facilitate the placement of a child into a waiting Texas family
in about 9 months. What does it say about the ICPC process when
it is sometimes easier to work through the bureaucracy of the
former Soviet Union and adopt a child out of a Russian
orphanage than it is for a child's aunt and uncle to adopt him
or her from a neighboring State? Advocates generally agree that
the system is broken. Addressing the issues in Congress will
avoid the decades-long process to reach agreement in all States
and affected jurisdictions.
I commend House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for introducing
the Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children
Act of 2004. This Federal legislation will lower the barriers
that currently prevent children from being placed in safe,
loving families. These are important and timely reforms.
Initiatives such as Adopt U.S. Kids along with the lowering of
barriers to interstate placement of children will likely
increase the number of children placed across State lines. The
bill also reinforces the need for States to partner with
private faith and community-based child placing agencies in
order to accomplish the goal of timely placements of children.
Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Herger and the
Subcommittee for your work in drafting for discussion the Child
SAFE Act of 2004 dealing with Federal funding of child welfare
programs. The current system places rigid restrictions on
States that often prevent them from using Federal funds in
creative ways to address the needs of children and families.
The proposed legislation will give States more flexibility to
fund other needed activities that currently fall through the
cracks while at the same time preserving protections for
children. It will allow flexibility for funds to be used for
prevention programs, recruitment and training foster parents
who will then dedicate their lives to caring for abused and
neglected children, and a safety net for children who age out
of the child welfare system.
In conclusion, we have a child welfare system that too
often places policies and programs ahead of the urgent needs of
children. Just ask any one of the 20,000 or so children every
year who have to wait an extra year for a permanent home
because the bureaucrats in one State are so tangled up in red
tape that they can't come to an agreement with the bureaucrats
in another State. The reforms outlined in these two pieces of
legislation begin to put things back in proper perspective and
to place the needs of children at the center of the equation. I
would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any
questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sipes follows:]
Statement of Samuel Sipes, President and Chief Operating Officer,
Lutheran Social Services of the South, Austin, Texas
Good afternoon Chairman Herger and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am president and chief
operating officer of Lutheran Social Services of the South\1\, a non-
profit, faith-based organization with a 123 year history of providing
child welfare services. Lutheran Social Services is the largest
provider of children's residential services in the state of Texas and
we serve more than 25,000 children, elderly and poor throughout Texas
and Louisiana each year. I am glad to be here today to address two
critical issues; the movement of children across state lines to find
appropriate and permanent homes, and the movement of dollars from
Washington to states in order to fund child welfare services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information on Lutheran Social Services of the South,
see their website http://www.lsss.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past 25 years, I have worked in a variety of child and
family service settings and have seen firsthand the effect that a
broken system has on foster children who were removed from abusive and
neglectful environments for their own protection. It is a system that
all too often subjects these children who have already suffered at the
hands of adults to uncertainty, instability and lack of permanence.
Interstate Placement of Children
First, I'd like to speak to the Interstate Compact on the Placement
of Children (ICPC) and reforms needed to facilitate the timely
placement of children into loving homes across state lines.
Approximately 4 percent of foster children in the United States, nearly
20,000 children are placed across state lines each year. The ICPC was
developed in the 1960s to ensure that children placed in homes across
state lines are protected by the receiving state. It took 30 years to
get the basic provisions of the compact agreed to by all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and unfortunately, many of
those provisions have begun to show their age. Recent studies have
shown that children placed across state lines end up waiting one year
longer to find permanent homes than children placed in-state.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These and other findings regarding interstate placement were
published in a recent edition of The Roundtable, a newsletter from the
National Resource Center for Special Needs Adoption http://
www.nrcadoption.org/resource/roundtable/v17n2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red tape resulting from differences in home study requirements,
state laws, and administrative policies are causing much of the delay.
In fact, it wasn't until just four years ago that the ICPC was amended
to allow information to be transmitted via fax and overnight mail.
Interstate disputes over financial responsibility slow down the process
and background checks that can be completed in days for people who want
to purchase a handgun, can take months for people who want to adopt a
child. Many of the provisions originally developed to protect and meet
the needs of abused and neglected children have grown so rigid and
outdated that they have become as much a part of the problem as the
solution.
Everyone who has had experience with placing children across state
lines can tell you countless stories of red tape and delays. One case I
remember is a loving family that wanted to adopt a special needs child
from another state that had the same medical condition as their own
biological child. The placement of the child was delayed months because
the receiving state had returned their file to the sending state
because the receiving state required a particular form that was
inadvertently omitted. Meanwhile, the child languished in an
institution. Very often the waiting families are biological relatives
of the child in question, and while they work their way through the red
tape of the ICPC process, the child waits in foster care.
The challenges created by inter jurisdictional barriers to adoption
across state lines are similar to those across national borders.
Lutheran Social Services performs international adoptions and maintains
offices in several foreign countries. In Russia, for example we have to
constantly deal with changing laws and regulations and remnants of
communist-era bureaucratic mindsets. However, our Russian adoption
program can usually facilitate the placement of a child into a waiting
Texas family (a placement which is not subject to the ICPC) in about
nine months. What does it say about the ICPC process, when it is easier
to work through the bureaucracy of the former Soviet Union and adopt a
child out of a Russian orphanage, than it is for a child's aunt and
uncle to adopt him or her from a neighboring state?
I have heard numerous reports that some jurisdictions have become
so frustrated with the ICPC process that they are making placements
across state lines without ICPC coordination. While this may be
expedient, it creates a potentially dangerous situation where a child
is placed into an unmonitored and unsupported home.
Despite the best efforts of advocacy groups and dedicated people at
every level of government, the process has gotten progressively worse.
Congress recognized some of these issues in 2001 when it called for the
establishment of a border agreement among the District of Columbia,
Maryland and Virginia to improve interstate placements. Just this past
year efforts to reform the ICPC have included:
The American Public Human Services Association appointed
a task force to introduce reforms;
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
passed a resolution recognizing the need for reform;
The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys passed a
resolution acknowledging the need for reform;
The Steering Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of
Children of the American Bar Association has called for reform; and
The Children's Bureau convened a workgroup to develop
recommendations for changes in the ICPC process.
Advocates generally agree that the system is broken. Addressing
these issues in Congress will avoid the decades-long process to reach
agreement in all states and affected jurisdictions.
Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004
I commend House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for introducing the
``Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of
2004.'' This federal legislation will lower the barriers that currently
prevent children from being placed in safe, loving families and homes.
The bill will:
Protect the safety of children who are placed across
state lines for foster care, adoption, or residential care;
Ensure informed placement decisions, including a full
exchange of information between sending and receiving states;
Set and enforce specific timelines for permanent
placements;
Defend the rights of all parties involved: the
biological, foster, and adoptive parents, and especially the children;
And create federal incentives to help foster children
find safe and permanent homes.
This legislation will resolve financial barriers, address confusion
on which children are covered by the compact and link enforcement of
the compact to money that states receive for foster children. These are
important and timely reforms. Initiatives such as Adopt US Kids\3\
along with the lowering of barriers to interstate placement of children
will likely increase the number of children placed across state lines.
The bill also reinforces the need for states to partner with private
faith and community-based child placing agencies in order to accomplish
the goal of timely placements of children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more information about the Adopt US Kids initiative to
facilitate interstate as well as intrastate placements of children see
their website, www.adoptuskids.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Safety, Adoption, and Family Enhancement (Child SAFE) Act of 2004
Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Herger and the
Subcommittee for your work in drafting for discussion the ``Child SAFE
Act of 2004'' dealing with federal funding of child welfare programs.
The current system places rigid restrictions on states that often
prevent them from using federal funds in creative ways to address the
needs of children and families. In general, money is earmarked to fund
specific services and is not available to fund other activities that
might produce positive outcomes for children and families. Very little
funding is available for proactive prevention programs or measures that
allow authorities to step in and offer assistance at the first sign of
potential trouble. All too often we wait for a child to be harmed and
then we send the posse in to ``rescue'' the child. Once the child is
placed in ``the system'' it may take years to sort out the family's
problems and come up with solutions. Instead of investing a little on
the front end to strengthen families and prevent abuse, all too often
government only gets involved when things are at their worst. In
essence, this is a deferred maintenance program gone bad.
The proposed legislation will give states more flexibility to fund
other needed activities that currently fall through the cracks while at
the same time preserving protections for children. It will allow
flexibility for funds to be used for:
Prevention programs rather than being tied to the number
of children we failed to protect;
Recruitment and training foster parents who will then
dedicate their lives to caring for abused and neglected children;
A safety net for children who age out of the child
welfare system so they won't become trapped in the adult welfare system
for the homeless, the mentally ill, and the unemployed.
The reforms in this bill would give states, along with their faith
and community based partners, more opportunity to come up with creative
and effective ways to interrupt the cycle of abuse, neglect and
dependence that propels more than a half million of our most vulnerable
citizens into the child welfare system.
Conclusion
We have a child welfare system that too often places policies and
programs ahead of the urgent needs of children. Just ask any of the
20,000 or so children who every year has to wait an extra year for a
permanent home because the bureaucrats in one state are so tangled up
in red tape that they can't come to an agreement with the bureaucrats
in another state.
The needs of children have become secondary to the system. However,
that system only exists to serve the needs of children. The reforms
outlined in these two pieces of legislation begin to put things back in
proper perspective and to place the needs of children at the center of
the equation.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you might have.
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Sipes. Now we will turn to
questions. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis, to inquire.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my time
to Majority Leader DeLay.
Chairman HERGER. Without objection.
Mr. DELAY. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Lewis.
I won't take long, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I have a
meeting at 2:00 p.m. Just very briefly, Mr. Sipes, we have
received a tremendous support from foster parents on the right
to be heard in court. Could you talk about the importance of
this provision to foster parents and the children in their
care?
Mr. SIPES. This is a huge issue in that foster parents are
not universally afforded the opportunity to be present at
proceedings affecting the children that they have been caring
for. These are individuals who have opened up their homes and
their hearts to these kids. Oftentimes, they are the people
that know the children the best and certainly the ones that
care about the children the most within the system, they love
them. They are acting as their parents. All too often, we have
heard stories from our own foster parents as well as people
that foster for other agencies that they are informed after the
fact that a legal proceeding has taken place and a decision has
been made that, quite frankly, they have grave concerns over
and they just weren't afforded the opportunity to be heard.
This is a huge issue to foster parents.
Mr. DELAY. Thank you. Mr. Frenzel, I appreciate the great
work that the Pew Commission has done. I do believe that abused
and neglected children will benefit from Pew's thoughtful
examination of the problems. I don't agree with all your
findings, but I think the Commission has worked very hard and
produced a product that is really useful in the debate about
funding child protection. I see that Pew is recommending $5
million for expansion of the Court-Appointed Special Advocates
(CASA) program. My wife is a CASA, so I am very familiar with
this program. Would this money go to the national CASA or who
would it go to and what is it for?
Mr. FRENZEL. The anticipation is that the money would be
given to individual CASA units, particularly in those areas
where they either don't exist or where they need to be
strengthened. I think the CASA people tell us across the board
they don't want to be Federalized.
Mr. DELAY. Commendable.
Mr. FRENZEL. They have got enough other problems without
having the Federal Government in their face, but many of them
have been started, at least, with start-up funds such as we are
suggesting, and that is our intention. We do not--we expect
that this will result in the creation or the building of
stronger CASA units in the field.
Mr. DELAY. I think that is wise. Dr. Arnold-Williams, your
testimony seemed to take issue with H.R. 4504 on mandating that
home studies be conducted, completed, and returned in 60 days.
I understand the reasoning, if something unforeseen went wrong,
like background checks. Maybe you could give us an idea of what
is causing the problem with criminal background checks. Your
testimony is silent on the $1,000 that a receiving State would
receive should the paperwork be completed in 30 days. What is
your organization's opinion on the incentive payment? Isn't it
the case now that sending States can claim Federal dollars but
receiving States, which are required to do the work, are not
given any help in turning around the paperwork for the study,
for home study?
Dr. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Yes, that is absolutely true and that
is one of the issues, is the lack of financing for the
receiving State which has to do the work to get that done. Just
to speak maybe to the other reasons, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) checks, I am not sure why they take too
long. In our State, we chose not to request them on anyone
unless they hadn't been in our State for at least 5 years for
that reason. I should tell you that 77 percent of our ICPC
requests are done within 30 days. We try to meet those time
lines in my State and we take that very seriously.
With respect to the $1,000 incentive, obviously, we would
like incentives there for States to be able to do that or some
financing mechanism for the receiving State. I think there are
concerns about the 30 days, again because of things like
background checks, training requirements. We require 32 hours
of training for foster parents in our State. We have very high
standards. There is some concern about can you fit all of that
in within 30 days. Part of it hinges on what is a home study.
Getting the basic health and safety things in place, I think
you can do that within 30 days. It is some of the others, like
background checks, training, some of those things that we would
like to have some flexibility in meeting that standard.
Mr. DELAY. I understand that. Last, Mr. Chairman, for Mr.
Sipes, H.R. 4504 encourages private sector support in
conducting, completing, and returning these interstate home
studies. Can you comment on the role that private agencies
could play in helping children find permanency across State
lines?
Mr. SIPES. Yes, sir, I could. I was a participant in a
guidance work group that was put together by the Children's
Bureau earlier this year to look at the ICPC process. There
were a number of State ICPC coordinators present, and one of
the issues that came up was that when they get a request for a
home study, they have caseworkers in the field that are dealing
with child protection issues, children that are in eminent
danger, high caseloads, and quite frankly, oftentimes, those
requests don't get elevated to a priority and that is one of
the reasons for delays.
At the same time, in virtually all States, there are very
strong private nonprofit child placing agencies, many of whom
have the capacity to send people out. In fact, we have done
that. We have partnerships with a number of States around the
country. When they have a child that they are sending to Texas,
they contact us and we do the home studies and we typically
turn those around within 30 days at the longest, sometimes a
couple of weeks, because our staff know. They are in the field
and they know that time is of the essence in this particular
matter. I really think that there is an untapped resource right
now in the private sector that could really help achieve the
time lines outlined in this legislation.
Mr. DELAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have other questions
I will submit for the record, but I really appreciate the
Committee's courtesy and thank you, panel, for your testimony
and answers to the questions.
[The information was not received at the time of printing.]
Chairman HERGER. Thank you, and again, thank you very much
for your strong, longtime involvement in this area that is so
important to the lives of so many young people. Thank you very
much, Mr. DeLay. With that, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Levin, to inquire.
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cardin,
for letting me go before you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
everybody, for this hearing and all of the witnesses and all of
you who are here who are not witnesses. We have been wrestling
with this problem for a long time. It at least goes back as far
as when I first joined the Subcommittee, which is now 17 years,
and we have been trying to find better answers. Mr. Frenzel,
let me start off by asking you as an old teammate and friend,
if you had to name one major change, improvement that would be
brought about if the Pew Commission recommendations were
adopted, what would be that major change?
Mr. FRENZEL. Well, unfortunately, our commission made a
report which is sort of a coherent whole. When I start picking
things out and nominating them for stardom, I----
Mr. LEVIN. How about improved----
Mr. FRENZEL. We really, we want the whole package. I
suppose the most important thing to me probably is the core
financing business, where we take the totality of Federal
funds, establish a place for the entitlement or the
maintenance, and then we have the administrative and training
funds in a grant that is escalated. In that whole evolution, of
course, we de-link, much in the way that the Chairman's draft
suggests it, and that is probably the core financing bit of our
recommendation.
Mr. LEVIN. Great, let me ask you and everybody else, as I
understand the draft bill, and it is just that, in terms of the
funding core, what it would do at least in part would be to
provide a cap. It would expand eligibility, and it would reduce
the foster care payments for each of the eligible. I think I
understand that. Each of you quickly, because I only have 5
minutes, what is the potential impact of that structure along
with the provision that Mr. Frenzel has mentioned in terms of
putting other funds into an entitlement with greater
flexibility? If you expand eligibility but reduce the payment
per person and you cap the overall expenditures, what is likely
to result? Maybe somebody else wants to go first. Ms. Wilson,
do you want to respond?
Ms. WILSON. I would be glad to. One of the concerns about
just what you described is that States are left to care for the
children they have in care, and when we have expanded
eligibility, which is something that is needed, and we have
reduced Federal share along with a cap on the amount a State
can receive, that certainly leaves States at a disadvantage if
costs rise, if the number of children rise.
Children, the number of children in care can remain static
or just show a minimal increase, yet a State can have
significant increases in the cost of providing for those
children. I think one of the things we have to be most cautious
of is not doing something that creates a disincentive to take
care of the children that are in care and that need to be in
care and to cover the services that they require.
Dr. ARNOLD-WILLIAMS. Maybe I would just add to that that
you have to think about this in the context of your overall
State budget. For instance, this fiscal year in my State, Title
IV-E financing is only 20 percent of the $130 million budget I
have for child welfare; it interplays with all of your funds
there. We are a State that has reduced our foster care
caseload. Since 1999, the number of children I serve in a given
year in foster care has been decreased by 19 percent. We have
done that by investing in up-front services. We believe the
concept works in terms of taking the resources you have, reduce
foster care by using up-front resources.
That is why we argue for an individual baseline, so that--
rather than tied to the national baseline, so that you can
actually not penalize States like ours that have already made
some investments and actually look at specific factors in your
State. We believe it can be done because we have done it by
infusing additional Social Services block grant or general
funds or other funds into that. Again, it is an entire
financing mix within your child welfare budget.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Frenzel answer briefly?
Mr. FRENZEL. The same number of children are involved. The
only difference is the States have to take care of them without
Federal money. The same amount of money goes to the same
States, so we try to keep things even. The biggest gain here is
that the States don't have to mess around figuring out who
qualifies for Federal money and who doesn't with this Mickey
Mouse 1996 law that adds a huge administrative burden to the
States. Rationalizing through a de-link, the biggest advantage
is it is going to save the States a lot of administrative
money.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman. We do have three
votes coming up and we will try to wrap up our questioning. The
gentlelady from Connecticut to inquire.
Mrs. JOHNSON. I think in view of the fact that neither the
Chairman nor the Ranking Member have had a chance to question,
I am going to limit myself to just a couple of statements
because they demand much too much time. First of all, I am very
impressed that by freezing welfare and now going through a 50-
percent caseload cut, we have increased the money available for
day care, for services, more than this Congress ever, under
Republicans or Democrats or whatever, have increased it.
You look at the conditions of participation grants. Now, I
personally was very sorry to see them go, but what they did for
5 years--they were 5-year grants--they allowed my local police
department to completely turn itself into a community-based
system by giving the money to provide the officers to go out in
the community and giving the whole police department time to
reorganize its administrative load and who answers the phone
and things like that. I think we need money to front load, to
help you change, and maybe we shouldn't exercise a cap right
away. I do think reducing your payments for foster care is
really--that concerns me a lot.
I am more interested in transitional assistance with a cap
to follow, a cap will give you a guarantee that I think has
some merit. I think the fact that you will get rewarded if the
States, everybody needs to put money back in so that there is
some escalation. I am discouraged that there is such a
consistent rejection of the cap issue. If you had adopted this
cap concept in the year I first proposed it, in 1989 or
something, you would have tons more money than you have now.
I urge you to look at what is the real issue here, which is
getting in place the community-based services so that you can
cut the foster care. I think the subsidized guardianship is
extremely important. We just have to get over this issue that
children would be better out of their larger family than in
their larger family, and so on. I think this financing issue is
a big issue. I feel your feeling that fears of the past more
than you are looking at the opportunities of the future.
The second thing--this is harder--we are not assessing
these children when they come into foster care the way we need
to. We have got to figure out what is that assessment. Now, not
a whole psychological assessment, but there are ways of looking
at what is the developmental state of this child? Is this child
5 years behind their developmental state or are they doing all
right developmentally? Are they having special reactions to the
trauma of being taken out of their homes? I have talked to
people who are leaders in this, nationwide trainers and so on
and so forth. There is a simple assessment, but if you did it,
you would enhance the opportunity for this child to do well,
whether in reunification or in placement, in a way that we are
not now. I just put those two ideas out there. Those are two
ideas that I want to see this develop, and I congratulate the
Chairman and the Ranking Member for their dedication to working
together, because we have got to do something. When we have a
hearing like we had recently where everybody failed after 12
years, that is just simply unacceptable. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman, the
Ranking Member from Maryland, Mr. Cardin to inquire.
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just throw out
a couple of questions. I don't mean to burden you by written
responses, but I would like to get responses and at the hearing
today, obviously, we are not going to have the time, but I
think it is important for our work. I have serious problems, as
I expressed earlier, about capping the entitlement. There are
who claim that by capping the entitlement, we remove a perverse
incentive that encourages States to put people in out-of-home
placement. I don't understand that because States save money if
they don't have to do out-of-home placement and it seems to me
that that is not true, but I would like to get your views as to
whether there is a perverse incentive under the current system.
Secondly, as we have pointed out, the Pew Commission is
recommending capping the entitlement status currently for
administration and training, putting it into a broader block
grant with some additional resources. Particularly to Ms.
Wilson, but also to Dr. Arnold-Williams, I would like to know
whether you think that is a good compromise with maintaining
the entitlement in the administrative side that the Pew
Foundation does. Would that be an adequate protection to the
resources going to local governments in the event that there
was a significant increase in caseload? I just wanted to know
whether you think you are adequately protected.
The third question would be, if we do cap the
administrative maintenance payments, as suggested by the
Chairman's draft, is there a contingency fund arrangement that
could be developed that would adequately protect the States in
the event of a caseload increase that you can conceive? I know
the Chairman has a provision in his bill, but I would prefer to
get Ms. Wilson and Dr. Arnold-Williams, and perhaps even the
Pew Commission's thoughts as to whether there are alternatives
that could deal with it.
I have a question whether you can develop an alternative. I
strongly believe that the entitlement is important for the
maintenance program and have concern over capping, quite
frankly, the administrative and training dollars. I have a
concern about that. I look at what happened, again, the late
eighties with the crack cocaine babies and wonder whether there
is anything we could put in Federal law that could protect the
States if that were to occur.
Mr. Chairman, they are questions that I have. I don't think
we have adequate time to get responses because of the pending
votes on the floor of the House, but if our witnesses could
provide that information, certainly I think it would be helpful
for the full Committee.
Chairman HERGER. I thank the gentleman from Maryland. If
our witnesses could provide us with that information, I would
appreciate it. As a matter of fact, I would like to also
request--I have a question of you, Mr. Frenzel. The States
'agencies' testimony says that they, quote, ``strongly oppose
the Safe Children, Strong Families provisions that would cap
Federal funding for caseworkers and training,'' which is what
the gentleman from Maryland was referring to, even though that
amount would grow every year. Could you explain, perhaps in a
letter to us, why the Pew Commission thought it was important
to include these funds in the Safe Children, Strong Families
grant and why capping it at a high and rising level makes
sense, and maybe just briefly----
Mr. FRENZEL. I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. I don't know if you would like to, just
very quickly if you----
Mr. FRENZEL. Sure.
Chairman HERGER. Then extend that.
Mr. FRENZEL. We believe that whatever our euphemism is,
Strong Families--anyway, nice people grant really provides the
flexibility that States and local operating units need. Some of
them will be up to snuff in training and will be investing
enough in training. Some of them won't be doing enough
training. Some of them will want to put that money into other
child welfare measures. It may be preventative in nature. It
may save us a lot of money over the long haul. We thought it
was very important to make a big pot of that money flexible so
that the States could do the things they were telling us they
knew how to do very well. I suppose there are a lot of
administrators who would take the safe course and not want to
lead off of first base, but I think that there are some out
there who would like the flexibility and can perform well given
it. I will make this more coherent and comprehensible in a
letter, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HERGER. I appreciate that. Mr. Sipes, would you
like to respond to that?
Mr. SIPES. I can do that in a letter, as well, if you would
like.
Chairman HERGER. Would you like to briefly respond now?
Mr. SIPES. Actually, let me do it in writing. I would like
to really sit down and give you a more complete----
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I assume the record will remain
open for the responses to our questions?
Chairman HERGER. Absolutely. Without objection. Again, we
do have votes coming up. I would like to thank each of our
distinguished panel members for taking the time to appear today
to help us review these child welfare reform proposals. I
appreciate your comments on these proposals as well as the
draft legislation. As I indicated earlier, it is my intention
to work with other Members to incorporate helpful suggestions
and introduce this legislation shortly.
However, as we all know, it is important that we do
everything possible to agree on one common principle. We must
do more to protect these children. We also should keep in mind
that the budgetary climate in the future is likely to look much
different, making it more difficult to find additional
resources the longer we wait. I encourage our witnesses and
other interested parties to submit comments and engage with us
throughout this process. I would hope that we could take this
opportunity to reach common ground on the best ways to improve
how to protect children. With that, this hearing stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Questions submitted by Chairman Herger and Representative
Cardin to Hon. Frenzel, Dr. Arnold-Williams, Ms. Wilson, and
Mr. Sipes, and their responses follow:]
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to the Honorable William Frenzel
Question: The State agencies' testimony says that they ``strongly
oppose the Safe Children, Strong Families provision that would cap
Federal funding for caseworkers and training'' even though that amount
would grow every year. Can you explain why the Pew Commission thought
it was important to include these funds in the Safe Children, Strong
Families grant, and why capping it makes sense?
Answer: In the course of our deliberations, the Pew Commission
heard repeatedly from state officials, child welfare professionals, and
advocates that children would benefit if states--and specifically
caseworkers--could use a greater proportion of Federal funds more
flexibly to tailor their casework to meet the needs of the individual
children and families they serve. The current Federal financing
structure makes this very difficult, since caseworkers can only use a
small portion of Federal dollars (Title IV-B) flexibly.
The Commission was also concerned that, because ``admin'' dollars
are tied to foster care caseloads, as caseloads decline, Federal funds
for casework would also diminish. The indexed Safe Children, Strong
Families grant that we propose, with additional funds in its first
year, is intended to protect and grow funds for casework and other
services to children and families.
Many states and advocates have expressed concern that flexibility
might come at a what they consider an unacceptable cost--a cap on the
total amount of Federal money available to states that may prove
inadequate to meet children's needs. The Safe Children, Strong Families
Grant proposed by the Pew Commission tries to address states' need for
flexibility, while also providing additional resources, and reliable
funding in future years. Specifically, it would:
give states greater flexibility in how they can use
nearly half of Federal child welfare funds (about $3.1 billion in FY
2004);
provide additional resources in the first year for states
to increase their capacity to meet a wide array of needs; and
ensure that the grant grows in future years so that
states have a reliable, mandatory source of Federal dollars to meet
children's needs in a timely and appropriate way.
The grant extends the flexibility of Title IV-B to the
administration and training components of IV-E. This new flexibility
would allow states to use a significant share of their Federal child
welfare funding for any child welfare purposes currently allowed under
IV-B, except for foster care maintenance payments. It would also give
states broad flexibility to use their funds to train any personnel who
are responsible for administering child welfare services. Thus,
training funds could be used to provide training for public and private
child welfare employees and court personnel, guardians ad litem, or
other court-appointed advocates.
Question: The Pew Commission report includes the following
statement: ``We also believe that the primary focus of new Federal
spending should be on helping States develop the capacity to reduce an
over-reliance on foster care use--rather than on foster care itself.''
What led the Commission to conclude that States ``over-rely'' on foster
care? What you're basically saying is that States are putting some
children into foster care who with the proper supports and services do
not need to not be in foster care, correct?
Answer: At the beginning of our work, the Pew Commission sought
input from a wide and diverse array of experts and stakeholders ranging
from former foster youth and foster parents to academics and
statisticians, from lawyers and judges to frontline caseworkers and
agency administrators. To gather this input, we conducted focus groups,
met with various organizations and put out a public ``call for input''
on our website. We also examined the data available through the
Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS), the National Survey
of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, the National Foster Care Data
Archive and other sources.
The Commission recognized that children must first and foremost be
safe. Foster care provides this basic protection to children who cannot
live safely in their own homes, and it should therefore always be
available when there is no other way to keep a child safe. For this
reason, the Pew Commission recommended keeping foster care maintenance
as an open-ended entitlement.
But we also heard time and time again that some children are in
foster care who could be safely cared for in their own homes if the
proper services and supports were available. The data also clearly
indicated that many children were spending multiple years in foster
care, often in many different foster homes, group homes, or
institutions because states lack the financial capacity to provide
services and supports necessary to secure for them safe, permanent
families. The current Federal financing structure--which conditions
states' access to the great majority of Federal dollars on the use of
foster care and provides only relatively small amounts for other
services--is a major contributor to this over-reliance on foster care.
The Commission concluded that continuing the current open-ended
safety net of foster care maintenance, with new dollars and incentives
for other services and supports to vulnerable children, was the
approach most likely to lead to reduced utilization of foster care
while ensuring foster care remained an option when it is needed.
Question: What incentives does the Federal government provide today
to move kids from foster care, or prevent their placement in foster
care in the first place?
Answer: Currently, the only Federal financial incentive to move
children from foster care safely to permanent families is the Adoption
Incentive bonuses ushered in as part of the Adoption and Safe Families
Act in 1997 and reauthorized this year. This program rewards states for
increasing adoptions of children from foster care above specific
baselines. There are no comparable incentives to prevent the placement
of children into foster care in the first place or to move them into
other permanent settings, including returning home to their parents.
The Adoption Incentive program clearly demonstrates what can happen
when the Federal government aligns financial incentives with desired
outcomes-- ``child welfare systems and communities can [and do]
deliver.''\1\ The success of the Adoption Incentive program was a
significant factor in the Commission's decision to recommend several
strategies for incentivizing the desired outcomes, including the
reinvestment of saved foster care dollars, making subsidized
guardianship available as a permanency option, creating a broader
permanency incentive, and creating a workforce incentive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fostering Results, Nation's Child Welfare System Doubles Number
of Adoptions from Foster Care, October 2003, Child and Family Research
Center, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Has there been any reaction to your report from the
Senate? Have you been meeting with the Senate? Do you have any sense
that the other body is looking to act?
Answer: The Commission kept interested members of both the Senate
and House informed of our work. We believe there is strong interest in
the Senate, but we are not privy to the specific plans of individual
members or Committees.
Question: In Ms. Williams' testimony, she urges us to consider
making the changes proposed an option for the States. That is, if a
State felt the current system better met their needs, they could keep
the status quo. In your report on page 19, you say ``the Pew Commission
decided from the beginning that it was not interested in `tweaking' the
system.'' Do you think giving States the option to change these
programs is the way for us to proceed?
Answer: The Pew Commission considered a wide range of approaches to
reforming Federal child welfare financing to better meet the needs of
children who have experienced abuse or neglect. Because the fundamental
problems and limitations in the current financing system applied to
virtually every state, we recommended a comprehensive national approach
to reforming Federal financing.
At the same time, we were very cognizant of differences across
states that might well lead different states to employ different policy
responses. For that reason, our proposal seeks to give states much
greater flexibility in how they can use Federal dollars, the option of
subsidized guardianship as an additional route to permanency, and an
expanded child welfare waiver program.
Question: Please comment about why the Pew Commission felt it
important to broaden eligibility for Federal payments, and also to pay
for that broadened eligibility by lowering the Federal rate. I note Ms.
Wilson expressed concern about ``any proposal that involves a too
severe reduction in the rate of the Federal share.'' Could you address
that concern and how the Pew proposal--and the draft bill--handles
this?
Answer: The Pew Commission's recommendation to ``de-link'' Federal
payments from any income eligibility standard reflects the Commission's
principle that every child who experiences abuse or neglect--not just
every poor child--deserves the protection of both the Federal and state
governments. The current ``look back'' to the 1996 AFDC income standard
is unfair to children who need the protection of foster care; it is
administratively burdensome and costly to states; and it results over
time in a diminishing pool of children for whom states can claim
Federal reimbursement.
The Commission further concluded that, in a time of record federal
deficits, new Federal investments should be directed to preventing the
need to put children in foster care and to helping children leave
foster care as soon as they safely can. For this reason, the Commission
recommended a de-link approach that is cost neutral to both the Federal
government and the states, paired with a recommendation of new funding
for the Safe Children, Strong Families Grant, subsidized guardianship,
and new incentives for workforce improvements and permanence.
There are a variety of ways to de-link in a cost-neutral way. The
Commission report offers one such way. Under our suggested approach to
de-linking, states would receive the same amount of Federal funding
under a de-link as they would under the old system. Thus, each state
will have the same amount of combined Federal and state dollars to care
for the same number of children; the only difference is that both the
Federal and state government will share in the cost of care for each
child.
To remain cost-neutral, the mathematical effect is a reduction in
Federal reimbursement rates of about 35 percent. However, because we
also wanted to avoid creating fiscal winners and losers among the
states through a delink, we recommended that every state receive
exactly what it would have received under the current system--no less,
no more. The practical effect of our proposal is therefore that states
receive the same amount of money they would have received under the
linked system, while allowing states to realize significant savings in
administrative costs related to eligibility determinations.
______
Questions from Representative Benjamin L. Cardin to the
Honorable William Frenzel
Question: During your testimony, you specifically expressed
concerns about capping Federal foster care maintenance payments.
Are you concerned that a cap reduces the ability of the
foster care system to respond to spikes in the caseload for reasons
beyond a State's control?
Do you believe a contingency fund can adequately address
this concern? If so, how would you design it?
Furthermore, are you worried that a cap may reduce the
Federal government's financial commitment to vulnerable children over
time? In other words, even if the cap is designed to grow, does it
present a bigger target for future budget cuts than an open-ended
entitlement?
Answer: The Commission stated strongly its conviction that every
child who experiences abuse or neglect deserves the protection of both
the federal and state governments. Keeping foster care maintenance
open-ended ensures such protection in the face of unexpected increases
in the need for foster care stemming from circumstances beyond a
State's control. A quick look at the percentages by which foster care
use rose during the ``crack epidemic'' of the nineties demonstrates
both the unpredictable nature of crises that threaten children's
safety, as well as the great variability across states in factors that
cause foster care use to increase.
At the same time, the Commission wanted to reduce foster care use
whenever safely possible. We concluded that incentives and an
additional route to permanence (subsidized guardianship) are a more
effective way to induce states to lessen their reliance on foster care
than capping the amount of Federal dollars available.
We had concerns about both the adequacy of the TANF contingency
fund as well as whether it could be accessed by states in a timely
enough manner to help them respond to a child welfare crisis. One
possible alternative to the Chairman's proposed cap and contingency
fund approach was discussed in our report:
Some observers of the child welfare system are concerned that
incentives alone will not be sufficient to drive policy changes in some
states. If this proves to be the case after the incentives have been in
place for a reasonable period of time, Congress may wish to consider a
penalty in the form of a lower reimbursement rate for the marginal
foster care expenditures that exceed projections. Such a penalty would
not be based on expenditures for any individual child--for example,
based on the individual's length of time in care--but rather on the
state's aggregate foster care use. The decision to apply such a penalty
would take into consideration whether factors beyond the control of
child welfare policy makers--such as a sudden upsurge in drug use--were
driving the increase in foster care use. (Fostering the Future, p. 26.)
As the question suggests, concerns about the possible vulnerability
to future budget cuts of a capped foster care program were among
several of the reasons that the Commission recommended a combination of
keeping IV-E foster care maintenance open-ended while putting IV-E
Administration and Training in a capped grant that grows according to a
formula. We believed this was a reasonable compromise, providing states
with a large, flexible and reliable pot of money for casework, services
to children and training, while also providing the ``safety net'' of
Federal reimbursement for a portion of the cost of maintaining a child
in foster care.
Question: There is a broad consensus that more resources are needed
for prevention and family support services to reduce the need for
foster care. However, some have gone even further to suggest that the
current child welfare financing system creates a perverse financial
incentive to keep children in out-of-home care (because open-ended
Federal matching payments are available for foster care).
Do you agree with this sentiment?
Doesn't every State actually save money when a child
leaves foster care because they are required to pay for at least part
of that care?
More importantly, do you believe individual caseworkers
are making placement decisions for children based on whether that child
is eligible for Federal maintenance payments?
Answer: The Pew Commission members did, indeed, see the current
federal financing structure as creating ``perverse incentives'' that
favor foster care over other services. While it is true that states do
pay for a portion of foster care, and thus can save money when a child
leaves care, it is also true that states have an obligation to keep
vulnerable children safe. When the vast majority of Federal dollars are
directed to out-of-home care, and state matching dollars are also
targeted in this direction, the result is to limit the options
available to a state for ensuring the safety and well-being of
vulnerable children.
Individual caseworkers make decisions based on keeping children
safe within the context of the resources available and accessible in
their community. Thus, an individual caseworker is unlikely to be
thinking about a child's eligibility for Federal foster care
maintenance payments. Nevertheless this payment structure drives the
allocation of resources when funds for services are limited, as they
are in the current financing structure, and this can indirectly
influence casework decisions.
Additionally, it is important to recognize that dependency courts
bear the ultimate responsibility and authority for decisionmaking
related to each child's individual case. Judges, too, need to focus on
the needs of the child and the available community resources, and not
be limited by a child's Federal eligibility status. This is one of
several reasons that the Commissions' court and financing
recommendations are integrally linked.
Question: The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that high
turnover rates among caseworkers, inadequate training, low salaries,
and large caseloads all undermine the capacity of a State to respond to
children and families in crisis.
In its current form, do you believe the Chairman's draft
proposal does enough to improve the quality of the child welfare
workforce?
If not, what additional steps would you suggest?
Answer: Chairman Herger's draft legislation would enable states to
use the Safe Children, Strong Families Grant to provide training to a
wide range of professionals in the child welfare workforce, should they
choose to do so. The Commission's recommendations would do the same.
In addition, the Commission recommends incentive payments to states
that make improvements in their child welfare workforce. For states
that meet and maintain certain workforce targets, the Federal
government would provide a 1-percentage point increase in the match
rate for the Safe Children, Strong Families Grant. The enhanced match
rate would provide an incentive for states to continue to make
investments in two critical areas: (1) improving the competence of the
overall workforce and (2) lowering caseloads. The Commission recommends
that HHS convene a collaborative working group of state officials,
professional organizations and researchers to review existing standards
and recommend national standards for both worker competence and
caseload size.
It is our sincere hope that these important incentives, together
with the other significant changes we have recommended including
subsidized guardianship and continuing the open-ended entitlement for
foster care maintenance, will find their way into the Chairman's bill.
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Dr. Robin Arnold-Williams
Question: On p. 2 of your testimony, you say ``States that have
worked hard to achieve a high IV-E penetration rate would be more
negatively impacted by the adjustment in the Federal match rate and may
in fact face a situation of receiving less Federal resources than under
the current system.''
This statement suggests that States are spending their
time determining how to maximize Federal dollars as opposed to
protecting children and providing services. Haven't States been asking
for years for the Federal government to stop forcing them to determine
eligibility based on outdated income requirements? Wouldn't ``de-
linking'' as proposed by Pew and the draft bill free more caseworker
time and resources to monitor children and ensure they are being
properly cared for? Isn't that the point of all this--better protecting
children?
Answer: APHSA and states have consistently supported an extension
of the federal government's commitment for foster care and adoption to
all children in out-of-home care, not just those from AFDC-eligible
families. Although an administrative burden is inherent in having to
establish eligibility, the more important issue is that an equitable
state and Federal commitment would acknowledge that children come to
the attention of the child welfare system due to the circumstances of
abuse and/or neglect regardless of the income of their parents.
Additionally, states are required to achieve the same positive outcomes
for all children, provide the same federally mandated protections, and
are at risk of losses of Federal funding, whether or not the Federal
government has participated financially in that child's case. Given
these factors, it is only reasonable that Federal funds be provided for
the care of all children in foster care.
Question: At several points in your testimony you suggest that
States would prefer a number of the changes suggested in our draft
legislation, if only they were options for States, instead of a package
deal together. Isn't that what the Administration has been
recommending? What was the States' response to that?
Answer: As APHSA understands the Administration's flexible funding
proposal, it would be a state option. 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,
states should be able to opt out of the plan given that the protection
of children is the paramount concern. However, it is important to note
that APHSA has not taken a formal position on the Administration's
proposal to date pending specific legislation.
State 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 any child welfare financing reform
proposal or continue to operate under the entitlement structure.
Question: What incentives does the Federal government provide today
to move kids from foster care, or prevent their placement in foster
care in the first place? Under the Pew proposal and the draft bill, if
States succeed in keeping kids out of foster care, they could reinvest
these funds in more services to families. Do you believe that States
will not benefit from these types of incentives?
Answer: The federal government currently provides few incentives to
move children from foster care (adoption incentive bonuses, waiver
demonstration projects for subsidized guardianship) and relatively few
prevention dollars. State and local dollars are currently the primary
source for services to prevent removal, provide in-home services and to
move children to permanency once they enter foster care. States have
supported the idea of having the option to redirect federal revenue for
maintenance payments into other child welfare services whenever foster
care is reduced. However, any legislation that does not provide for
additional up front funding to help states reduce foster care caseloads
enough to realize savings will not help achieve this reinvestment
strategy. Additionally, states that have made this up front investment
already should not be penalized financially for having done so. These
states would reflect lower foster care expenditures during the years
covered in the current baseline formula in H.R. 4856 and therefore, a
lower baseline amount. States are noting the increasing needs of the
children that are in foster care, therefore, the rising costs of care
for these children should also be taken into account.
There is also concern that combining service dollars with
administrative and training dollars may result in less funds available
for services. States that begin with a lower than current
administrative and training amount due to the baseline formula, and
factors such as routine and renegotiated salary increases, legal
agreements to increase the number of staff and legislative requirements
on child welfare staffing will require that states first use these
grant funds to attend to those pressing factors which would decrease
the amount available for funding services. The current structure of the
Safe Children, Strong Families would leave states in the same bind of
having fewer than needed federal resources for prevention and
transition to permanency.
Question: In the APHSA document Crossroads: New Directions in
Social Policy, APHSA embraces two fundamental goals for child welfare
financing reform. 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 Title
IV-E funds. The draft bill accomplishes both of these goals. Given
that, why would States want the option to continue to operate the
current child welfare program?
Answer: As outlined in Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy,
APHSA does support Federal financial participation for all children in
the child welfare system and increased flexibility in the use of Title
IV-E funds. Additionally, Crossroads highlights APHSA's support for the
maintenance of the open-ended entitlement under Title IV-E and
categorical eligibility under Medicaid for all children in foster care,
both of which are currently not provisions in H.R. 4856.
States are in very different places with respect to child welfare
financing and a cap on funding may affect them differentially. In some
instances, current law may be preferable. In preliminary analysis of
the funding reforms proposed under H.R. 4856, a state that currently
has a 75% penetration rate and a 50% FMAP rate for a population of 5000
children in foster care would receive a 5% reduction in Federal match
than if they were to continue to access Federal funds under the current
entitlement structure. States need additional resources to meet the
demands of the child welfare system and should not lose federal funding
in order to eliminate the eligibility link to AFDC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
No. of Children 50% FMAP match for Difference between
eligible for IV-E foster care 32.5% match rate matching at 50%
No. of Children in Foster Care with a 75% maintenance for all children for 1875 children
penetration rate payments for AFDC in foster care versus 32.5% for
eligible children 1625 children
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5000............................ 3750.............. 1875.............. 1625.............. -5.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions from Representative Benjamin L. Cardin to
Dr. Robin Arnold-Williams
Question: During your testimony, you specifically expressed
concerns about capping Federal foster care maintenance payments.
Are you concerned that a cap reduces the ability of the
foster care system to respond to spikes in the caseload for reasons
beyond a State's control?
Do you believe a contingency fund can adequately address
this concern? If so, how would you design it?
Furthermore, are you worried that a cap may reduce the
Federal government's financial commitment to vulnerable children over
time? In other words, even if the cap is designed to grow, does it
present a bigger target for future budget cuts than an open-ended
entitlement?
Answer: Any projections made on the foster care caseload trends and
expenditures must include both IV-E and non IV-E children. Our reading
of H.R. 4856 indicates that the projected national baseline for the cap
is reflective of the IV-E eligible population alone. This would be of
concern given that when states merge IV-E and non IV-E caseload trends
and expenditures, the baseline may be dramatically adjusted upward. A
cap on the amount of Federal funds would limit the ability of some
states to access Federal funding for children currently in their child
welfare system if the financial ceiling was surpassed, regardless of
any spikes that may occur due to unforeseen circumstances.
Given that the safety and care of every child in foster care is of
greatest concern to both states and the Federal government, a
contingency fund should not be necessary. The federal commitment should
continue to support any increase in caseloads experienced by states.
APHSA has consistently supported an open-ended entitlement under Title
IV-E to ensure the protections needed by all children in the child
welfare system. States do have some concerns that any capping of these
critical funds may be susceptible to future budget cuts.
Question: There is a broad consensus that more resources are needed
for prevention and family support services to reduce the need for
foster care. However, some have gone even further to suggest that the
current child welfare financing system creates a perverse financial
incentive to keep children in out-of-home care (because open-ended
Federal matching payments are available for foster care).
Do you agree with this sentiment?
Doesn't every State actually save money when a child
leaves foster care because they are required to pay for at least part
of that care?
More importantly, do you believe individual caseworkers
are making placement decisions for children based on whether that child
is eligible for Federal maintenance payments?
Answer: Timeframes in ASFA and in state public policy as well as
the overall mission of child welfare overrule any perceived incentive
to keep kids in foster care. Federal IV-E funding covers only a portion
of foster care costs and the state bears the bigger share of the
overall costs. Therefore, states do realize some cost savings when
children are moved onto permanency.
Question: The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that high
turnover rates among caseworkers, inadequate training, low salaries,
and large caseloads all undermine the capacity of a State to respond to
children and families in crisis.
In its current form, do you believe the Chairman's draft
proposal does enough to improve the quality of the child welfare
workforce?
If not, what additional steps would you suggest?
Answer: APHSA has serious concerns with the provisions in H.R. 4856
to limit the amount of Federal support available for caseworkers and
the training needed to support their work. Given the structure of the
Safe Children, Strong Families grant as outlined in the bill, the need
for resources to ensure a quality workforce may negatively affect the
amount of funding available for the needed services to children and
families. Additional steps should include federal financial
participation for private agency casework staff. In some states,
private agency staff account for a large portion of professionals
providing services for children in foster care. These professionals
require the same administrative and training supports in order to
effectively serve the same population of children that their
counterparts in state positions serve.
______
Questions from Chairman Wally Herger to Ms. Patricia Wilson
Question: How many children are in foster care today, compared with
1980? Is the Child Welfare League of America committed to helping
States reduce the number of children in foster care? What specific
efforts are you pursuing toward that goal?
Answer: In 1980, there were 302,000, children in foster care. That
actually represented a decline from 10 years earlier when 326,000 were
in foster care. As you know, there were some dramatic caseload
increases in the 19eighties due to the impact and spread of the crack
cocaine epidemic. In the three most recent years, however, the trend
has been declining. In 1999, 567,000 children were in foster care. The
2000, 542,939 children were in foster care, and in 2001 the number of
children in foster care declined even further to 540,563.
CWLA has many ongoing efforts aimed at reducing the number of
children in foster care. We assist our nearly 1,000 member agencies
across the country in addressing the issue of foster care, as well as
all other child welfare services.
Through its training, technical assistance, and development and
dissemination of practice tools to member agencies who provide child
welfare services, CWLA supports efforts to help states reduce the
foster care population. CWLA also engages in strategic coalitions to
aid in the reduction of the number of children and youth in foster
care. These efforts include but are not limited to:
Community Support and Family Stabilization
To prevent placement into the child welfare system, CWLA works with
communities in advocating for:
Increased funding for family preservation and family
support.
Funding for comprehensive family substance abuse
treatment.
Securing additional services for families receiving
public assistance.
The creation of the Parenting-Rich Community Initiative
so parents have the resources they need to support optimal development
of their children.
The extension of grants to support innovations in state
child protective services and community-based preventive services.
Improved mental health services to children and families.
In addition to working with communities, CWLA has provided:
Educational sessions for homeless families in
collaboration with member agencies in various cities.
Trained professionals to develop local partnerships
between child welfare agencies and public housing authorities.
Care of Children in Child Welfare
While children are placed in the child welfare system, CWLA
advocates for:
Collaboration of national organizations, individuals,
youth, families and other stakeholders to address the mental health and
substance abuse needs of children and families involved in the child
welfare system.
Funding of comprehensive family substance abuse
treatment.
The continued bonuses to states that increase the number
of children adopted from foster care, with an emphasis on older
children.
The increase of adoptions from the foster care system,
through collaboration with the AdopUSKids campaign.
The identification of promising program models that focus
on permanency.
Funding Federal grants for demonstration projects that
eliminate the barriers to adoption facing children with special needs.
Permanency Options for Children and Youth
CWLA seeks permanency options for children and youth involved in
the child welfare system by:
Developing kinship care resources, such as the
development and dissemination of a resource booklet covering the
complicated financial issues facing kinship care givers.
Placing practice emphasis on youth in the foster care
system. Addressing permanency for older children and youth in care.
Convening meetings of the National Foster Youth Advisory
Council to support youth leadership among youth in the child welfare
system.
Reunification and Post Placement Services
CWLA advocates for increased funding to prevent re-entry into the
foster care system.
CWLA worked with the New York City Housing authority to
develop and maintain employment, youth development, housing, child care
services, and other community supports for families.
CWLA trained professionals to develop local partnerships
between child welfare agencies and public housing authorities.CWLA
formed partnerships with member agencies to provide information to
communities that serve children and families.
CWLA advocates and supports funding for services to
families who have adopted children from the foster care system or are
kinship care givers of children from the child welfare system. Funding
to sustain and support these families is critical.
Workforce Issues
CWLA has addressed the workforce issues in the child welfare system
by:
Presenting teleconferences to members on the workforce
issues.
Advancing research on the issue of workforce.
Offers practical recruitment and retention strategies for
public and nonprofit agencies.
Advocating for new Federal funding for states to help
relieve a shortfall in many state budgets.
Publishing and disseminating program and practice
resources for professionals in the field.
Overrepresentation
CWLA is addressing the overrepresentation of children of color in
the child welfare system by:
Creating CWLA'S Statement on Children of Color in the
Child Welfare System, which provided a set of proposed action steps.
Providing technical assistance to agencies on cultural
competence of their workforce.
Works in partnership with other coalitions to develop an
action agenda addressing the disproportionate representation of
children of color in the system.
Standards of Practice
Throughout the years, CWLA has established standards of practice,
including caseload standards, in the following areas:
Adoption Services
Child Day Care Services
Family Foster Care Services
Health Care Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care
In-Home Aide Services for Children and Their Families
Kinship Care Services
Management and Governance of Child Welfare Organizations
Residential Services
Services for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention, Pregnant
Adolescents, and Young Parents
Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their
Families
Services to Strengthen and Preserve Families with
Children
Transition, Independent Living, and Self Sufficiency
Services
Question: You contend that ``the basic safety net of Federal
support offered through the Title IV-E program would be compromised by
capping the amount of assistance available to States'' as proposed in
our draft legislation. For the record, how does the current system---
which provides no incentives to move children from foster care more
quickly because of unlimited funding--better protect these children?
All the States have failed their child welfare reviews, which shows
they are not adequately protecting children. Why would allowing States
to collect additional Federal money for each added child do anything to
encourage States to avoid more foster care placements?
Answer: CWLA shares with you the goal to reduce the number of
children who are abused and neglected and thereby also reducing the
need for foster care.
Merely capping Federal funding for foster care, however, will not
achieve that goal. We believe that the best way to reduce the need for
foster care is to adequately fund prevention and other supportive and
family strengthening services and to address the key components of the
child welfare system, such as workforce competencies, training, and
caseloads.
Title IV-E foster care assistance, as currently structured, does
not offer states an incentive to place more children in out-of-home
care. We offer several observations that underscore this point:
Due to the current income eligibility restrictions, many
children in foster care currently receive no Federal assistance and are
supported by state funds only.
The number of children in out-of-home care between 1999 through
2001 has decreased by a total of approximately 24,000 children, while
children in foster care covered by Federal funding under the Title IV-E
program declined by approximately 38,000. That is a decline of 4.3% in
overall placements compared to a 12.5% decline in federally subsidized
placements. That reveals a cost shift that has reduced Federal support
for foster care and has resulted in an increase in foster care costs to
state and local governments.
Title IV-E Federal foster care funds represent less than
half the federal funds being used for foster care. For example, a
review of states' use of the Federal funds they receive from the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) over the past several years demonstrates
that states continue to use SSBG funds for foster care. States make
this choice despite the ability to use the same funds for prevention
and other supportive services. Approximately 37 states spent more than
$270 million annually in SSBG funding over the past few years to pay
for foster care. A recent GAO report also found that despite Federal
restrictions, some states were also using their Title IV-B Child
Welfare Services funds for foster care. As current eligibility
standards become more outdated and eroded by inflation, the pressure to
use more flexible funding sources for such basic services as foster
care maintenance and adoption assistance payments will place greater
pressure not to use flexible funds for prevention or other services,
but for out-of-home care.
Avoiding foster care placements saves the states funds,
as well as the Federal government, since Federal funds provided to
states for Federal foster care assistance through Title IV-E must be
matched by a commitment of state funds. For California, Maryland and
New York, that share is fifty percent.
The issues that need to be tackled in order to reduce the need for
foster care are complex. They include adequate child welfare staffing
and caseload sizes, training and the need for on-going training, access
to services such as mental health and substance abuse--both in at home
and out-of-home settings, prevention and intervention, and a number of
other elements that make up the entire child welfare system.
The Child and Family Services Review process has highlighted many
of these issues. A review of 33 state Program Improvement Plans (PIP)
submitted to HHS show that states are facing a number of common
challenges. Of the 33 PIPs reviewed, 13 states specifically addressed
the need to reduce caseload sizes for their workers. Thirty of the 33
addressed the need to improve training. Other states cited turnover
rates as an issue to be addressed and over half of the PIPS reviewed
cited management issues as a need for improvement.
All of the PIPS reviewed addressed the need to improve the
availability of services in some way, including mental health services,
substance abuse treatment, general health care issues, and system
reforms. Nineteen states include the need to better address the needs
of those children who are ``aging out'' of the foster care system.
These are some of the issues that need to be addressed to reach the
goal of reducing the number of children in foster care.
Question: Your testimony does not mention that our draft
legislation is paid for, including through offsets included in the
House-passed welfare reform bill, which has failed to move in the
Senate. Do you have any comments on that? Are any of the other bills
you express support for in your testimony paid for?
Answer: CWLA appreciates the urgency to address the mounting
Federal deficit of more than $400 billion. Congress certainly faces a
challenging time in which to set its priorities and make budget
decisions.
We believe that it would not be fair to hold investments for
children hostage to future deficit reduction plans. Over the course of
next several months Congress may consider the extension of tax
deductions that will total $30 to $400 billion, a reauthorization of a
transportation bill, the creation of a fund to address the phase-out of
tobacco farming, needed increases in education funding, our growing
defense needs, the cost of military action overseas and many other
important proposals. Congress may decide to offset these costs or to
approve them without a specified source of funding. We would expect
that Congress also recognize that the needs of abused and neglected
children should also be a top priority.
The legislation we support in our testimony does not include
offsets as currently written. They do, however, address some of the
critical elements we have raised, including the need to assist states
in implementing their PIPs, the need for a national strategy on
workforce, correction of the current eligibility under Title IV-E, and
enhanced prevention and support services through a fully funded
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. Again, we highlight the
fact that ultimately Congress must set and act on national priorities.
We believe that addressing the needs of children should be one of those
top priorities.
______
Questions from Benjamin L. Cardin to Ms. Patricia Wilson
Question: During your testimony, you specifically expressed
concerns about capping Federal foster care maintenance payments.
Are you concerned that a cap reduces the ability of the
foster care system to respond to spikes in the caseload for reasons
beyond a State's control?
Do you believe a contingency fund can adequately address
this concern? If so, how would you design it?
Furthermore, are you worried that a cap may reduce the
Federal government's financial commitment to vulnerable children over
time? In other words, even if the cap is designed to grow, does it
present a bigger target for future budget cuts than an open-ended
entitlement?
Answer:
CWLA has serious concerns about the impact of a cap on
Title IV-E for foster care maintenance funds. We share the goal of the
Subcommittee to reduce the number of children in foster care, but
believe that this goal will not be achieved by simply limiting Federal
foster care assistance. As we responded in question two, what is needed
to reduce foster care caseloads is adequately funding for prevention
and other supportive and family strengthening services and addressing
the systems issues such as workforce competencies, training, and
caseloads.
CWLA believes that the proposed contingency fund will not
adequately address an unanticipated need. Many have highlighted the
dramatic increase in foster care caseloads during the late eighties and
early nineties as a result of the crack-cocaine epidemic. While we hope
a similar experience such as the spread of the methamphetamine would
not have a similar impact, it would be unwise to leave the nation
unprepared.
As proposed in the Chairman's bill, states would have the
option to draw from the existing Contingency Fund for State
Welfare Programs. This emergency fund was created to address
TANF cash assistance caseload increases. To qualify for this
additional funding, a state must have spent all of its Federal
foster care funds and meet the definition of ``severe foster
care crisis.'' There are two ways to meet the ``crisis''
definition: (1) a state must have experienced a statewide
average of 15% increase in its foster care caseload from the
previous year and national foster care caseloads must have
increased 10%; or (2) a state's foster care caseload increased
by 20%. To determine caseload increases, the state must compare
the most recent 6-month period to the corresponding 6-month
period in the previous year.
This formula does not address the need for increased Federal
foster care assistance if the increase is limited to a specific
urban area or single state. It also leaves out any
consideration of increased costs in care as opposed to
increased numbers of children in care.
In addition, a contingency fund that is designed to address
the needs of the TANF population may create some unappealing
choices for state human service programs. Any contingency fund
would have to be designed to respond to the needs of the child
and the number of children in need of protection. To adequately
protect these children this fund could not have an artificial
cap and could not be dependent on an annual appropriation.
CWLA is concerned about the stability of funding over
time for Federal block grants. It is unclear if Congress would sustain
even a level amount of funding for foster care over time. The history
of one of the largest and most flexible block grants--SSBG--is not
encouraging. SSBG was converted from an entitlement fund to a block
grant to the states and funding for SSBG has not kept pace. SSBG
funding was $2.8 billion in 1995, reduced several times from 1996
through 2000 and is currently funded at $1.7 billion. Congress reduced
funding for SSBG to offset other priorities, including overall deficit
reduction and to provide increased funding for transportation.
Question: There is a broad consensus that more resources are needed
for prevention and family support services to reduce the need for
foster care. However, some have gone even further to suggest that the
current child welfare financing system creates a perverse financial
incentive to keep children in out-of-home care (because open-ended
Federal matching payments are available for foster care).
Do you agree with this sentiment?
Doesn't every State actually save money when a child
leaves foster care because they are required to pay for at least part
of that care?
More importantly, do any of you believe individual
caseworkers are making placement decisions for children based on
whether that child is eligible for Federal maintenance payments?
Answer: This is an important question because it deals with a
strongly held belief by some that funding sources drives the decision
to remove children from their homes.
As we pointed out in question two, in the last 3 years the overall
number of children in out-of-home care subsidized by Federal Title IV-E
foster care funds has decreased by a higher percentage than the overall
reduction in out-of-home placements. A simple conclusion would suggest
that out-of-home placements funded through state dollars or flexible
Federal dollars would go down at a faster rate than Federal Title V-E
funded children. This is not what happened and it hasn't happened
because the decision to remove a child is much more complex and
effected by multiple factors.
Question: The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that high
turnover rates among caseworkers, inadequate training, low salaries,
and large caseloads all undermine the capacity of a State to respond to
children and families in crisis.
In its current form, do you believe the Chairman's draft
proposal does enough to improve the quality of the child welfare
workforce?
If not, what additional steps would you suggest?
Answer: CWLA believes that national leadership and support is
needed to truly address the current crisis in the child welfare
workforce. Better supports for the workforce need to be a critical
component of any comprehensive child welfare reform measure.
The Chairman's bill would cap Title IV-E training funds and place
those funds into a block grant to states to be used for administration,
training, and services. These funds are used to prepare social workers
for the job of working with the courts; working with other social
service providers; creating treatment plans for children and families;
and achieving permanency for children, ranging from reunification to
guardianship to adoption.
In the Chairman's proposal, no funding for training would be
guaranteed. While including these funds in a block grant would give
states more flexibility with the use of the funds, it also means that
states would be faced with pitting the training needs of staff with the
need to provide services to children and families. This is a choice
that no state should have to make.
CWLA feels that proposals included in H.R. 1534 and H.R. 2473, that
provide funding for a comprehensive strategy with outcomes and measures
tied to workforce development are a better solution. These bills also
provide loan forgiveness for workers and expand access to training
funds as part of this national strategy.
Last fall, the Subcommittee focused its hearings on the state of
New Jersey and the conditions in its child welfare system, which had
been highlighted in the national media. New Jersey has since adopted a
comprehensive reform plan. A major portion of that plan deals with
workforce improvements. New Jersey's experience offers an important
national perspective. As stated in New Jersey's reform proposal,
``Child welfare casework may not be rocket science or brain surgery--in
some cases it may be harder.''
New Jersey's plan indicates the need for adequate staffing. Over
the next 2 years New Jersey intends to hire an additional 416 child
protection and permanency workers, 48 casework supervisors, 136
adolescent specialists, and 191 new resource family support workers.
Through the end of last year New Jersey had already added an additional
253 workers bringing the workforce total to nearly 2,000 workers. In
order for New Jersey to implement its full plan, the state legislature
has just approved a funding increase of $125 million for fiscal year
2005. That is in addition to its current budget of $520 million. The
Governor has also proposed $180 million more in 2006. These proposals
stand in contrast to the level of new Federal investments included in
the Chairman's legislation.
Question: What is the Child Welfare League of America's position on
consolidating certain funding steams, including open-ended funds for
administration, into a new capped grant that includes additional
resources compared to CBO's baseline (as proposed by both the Pew
Commission and the Herger Draft)?
Answer: CWLA has serious concerns about the impact of including
Title IV-E administration into a block grant. Title IV-E administration
provides funding for activities directly related to achieving safety
and permanency for children in foster care. Capping the amount of
Federal funding a state can receive for that activity could make it
more difficult to achieve those outcomes. Any reform proposal that
moves forward, must ensure that funding that supports social work staff
and is used for case management are guaranteed.
______
Question from Chairman Wally Herger to Mr. Samuel Sipes
Question: What do you believe is the single biggest factor today
that prevents States from better protecting kids in care? Do you
believe the current child welfare system provides the proper
distribution of resources, in terms of services and out-of-home
placements, to protect children and strengthen families? What
incentives does the Federal government provide today to move kids from
foster care, or prevent placement in foster care in the first place?
Right now when the foster care caseload falls, it could mean fewer
Federal dollars for States. We know the caseload has been falling since
1999. However, the draft bill proposes a guaranteed and rising level of
funding for foster care for the next 10 years. If States succeed in
keeping kids out of foster care, they could reinvest these funds in
more services to families. Do you believe that States, and more
importantly children, will benefit from these types of incentives?
Answer: Money, by itself, will not solve the problem. The money has
to be spent on the right thing. Because Federal funding is mostly
provided to States for out-of-home care, States mostly offer out-of-
home care. I believe that there is inadequate emphasis placed on
prevention programs and services to reduce the likelihood that children
will need to be placed into foster care. While I do not believe that
Federal funding provides an incentive for States to inappropriately
remove children from their homes, it does not provide an adequate
financial incentive for States to prevent abuse and neglect. Assuming
that adequate funding is available, the flexibility to shift resources
in order to provide effective services to at-risk families, should
ultimately strengthen families and reduce foster care placements.
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Carmen Delgado Votaw, Alliance for Children and Families
Alliance for Children and Families' Recommendations for
Child Welfare Financing Reform
There is a growing consensus among national advocacy groups, child
welfare providers, as well as many state officials 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 funding for children in the foster care system who often
have severe physical and psychological needs has been woefully
inadequate for years. It is imperative that any proposed changes meet
the needs of children currently in the foster care system while
assuring that adequate resources are available for prevention and early
intervention services that decrease the number of out-of-home
placements over time. The Alliance for Children and Families agrees
with the Subcommittee that this issue merits consideration and ample
reflection before proposals for change are put into motion.
As the only national organization solely representing the interests
of private nonprofit organizations that deliver front-line services to
children and families, the Alliance for Children and Families has a
unique role in child welfare reform. The core values and
recommendations of our members, outlined in this testimony, have been
informed by years of providing human services to nearly 8 million
people each year in more than 6,700 communities across America.
Alliance Observation and Recommendations
Create a Continuum of Care
Children and families being served by the child welfare system
benefit more fully when they can receive comprehensive services. A true
continuum of care should be established by coordinating intersecting
funding streams. Funds from major federal programs affecting low-income
and vulnerable families such as TANF, Medicaid, the Social Services
Block Grant, and CAPTA should share accountability for the wellbeing of
children and support States in achieving Adoption and Safe Family Act
(ASFA) outcomes and performance improvement plans as required under the
Children and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). For instance, it is time
that Medicaid and the child welfare system work together in a concerted
way to assure that the unique physical and behavioral health needs of
children in the child welfare system are met.
The federal agencies that administer these respective funding
streams should share accountability for ASFA outcomes. Agencies would
be required to submit a yearly report detailing how these funding
streams are being used and coordinated to produce seamless systems of
care for children, and positively affect ASFA outcomes and national
standards.
To ensure accountability, state plans for all pertinent funding
streams should be responsible for child welfare outcomes. These plans
should demonstrate to the Federal Government how these funding streams
are being leveraged to affect measurable results for children served in
the child welfare system through policy, practice and innovation.
Finally, the CFSR process should be revised to include review of
these other interrelated funding streams, their coordination and
positive impact on State child welfare performance.
Assuring Quality Services to All Children
Any reform to the child welfare system should ensure that all
children in need of protection and support are eligible for federally
funded, State administered services, regardless of family income. By
eliminating the 1996 AFDC ``lookback'' provision of Title IV-E, states
would be relieved of the onerous administrative burden of determining
eligibility for every child in their care.
It should be noted by Congress that since 1996 there has been a
quiet erosion of state/federal partnership due to states being made to
use outdated 1996 criteria for determining IV-E eligibility. Any
proposal considered by Congress should include a clear fiscal analysis
of the impact on states and steps to remedy the situation to the
maximum extent possible. The human services field has had a negative
experience with block grants to date, highlighted by the example of
deep cuts to the Social Services Block Grant over time, despite
increased need for effective community services to benefit children and
families. Any funding mechanism of the child welfare system must be
consistent, reliable and able to modify and increase funding levels to
states based on risk and needs of children and their families. Current
legislative proposals consider a block grant strategy that places a cap
on available child welfare funding to states. The Alliance is hesitant
to support any form of block grant program that does not employ a clear
formula that recognizes demographics, the economy, inflation, and other
risk factors within the states.
The network of public child welfare agencies and private
organizations holding contracts for the provision of child welfare
services must be funded adequately to possess the internal capacities
for continuous quality assurance and improvement. For too long, changes
to the child welfare system have been externally driven by audits, high
profile cases and lawsuits. The federal government must build consensus
with states and child welfare providers and recognized national
accreditation bodies to define minimum standards of practice, a
consistent definition of child safety, and appropriate caseload and
supervisory ratios.
To provide support for youth aging out of the foster care system,
the Chafee Independent Living Program should continue to base funding
allocations on the number of children by age in out-of-home care. Clear
measurable outcomes should be sustained for children transitioning from
foster care to independence or individuals between the ages of 18-21
who have left foster care but still require supports and services.
Additionally, 1.5% of the total Chafee allocation should continue to be
committed to important research and evaluation efforts.
An important way to facilitate the current match program that
reinforces states in expanding the capacity and sophistication of their
State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) systems
should be upheld. By maintaining incentives to make improvements that
support practice and track system outcomes, states are able to make
strides towards meeting rigorous CFSR standards.
Permanency for Every Child
The Alliance supports maintaining IV-E Adoption Assistance as an
entitlement with the current match requirement, but advocates
broadening the scope of the financial assistance to include subsidized
guardianship when both reunification and adoption have been ruled out.
The Alliance suggests changing the program title to ``Permanency
Assistance'' to reflect inclusion of subsidized guardianship.
Currently, Adoption Assistance is based on IV-E eligibility. Under
our recommendation, there would no longer be an eligibility threshold
for children placed in out-of-home care, therefore no income/asset
tests should be administered in determining eligibility for
``Permanency Assistance''.
To provide incentives and encourage innovation in meeting
permanency outcomes unlimited cost-neutral waivers should be available
to states. Once waivers have demonstrated that they are achieving
success and cost-neutrality, States should be permitted to implement
these programs without waivers.
Additionally, the current Adoption Incentive bonus program should
be eliminated to create access to a new pool of bonus dollars for
states that show substantial improvement on all indicators from year to
year as evidenced in their Program Improvement Plans in measures of
safety, permanence and well-being of children. All bonus dollars
received by states must be spent within the state's child welfare
program with at least half of the bonus dollars being reinvested in
prevention or early intervention services to decrease out-of-home care
placements.
Quality Workforce At Risk
The deteriorating state of the child welfare workforce can no
longer be ignored, and in fact is at a crisis point needing both
federal and state responses. Adequate education and training, continued
competence, quality of supervision, pay and health benefits of critical
front-line staff must be addressed. To address these issues, the
Alliance recommends that a sufficient percentage of total child welfare
allocations to states be made available, under a matched incentive
program, to States, tribal governments, private agencies under child
welfare contracts, and educational and research institutions.This
program would be used to fund innovation in workforce development,
including training and professional development and research and
evaluation, agency accreditation, and court improvement projects.
To further stimulate interest in human service issues and attract
quality individuals to the child welfare workforce, all schools of
higher learning, public and private, should have access to these funds
for masters programs in fields related to child welfare (currently only
available to publicly funded schools of social work). Students eligible
for this funding should be required to commit to working at least two
years in the child welfare system--either in a public or private agency
under contract for child welfare services. A requirement for these
funds should be that all programs have a fully developed child welfare
curriculum.
In addition, training for staff of private child welfare agencies
under contract to provide child welfare services should be eligible for
Title IV-E reimbursement at the same 75 percent matching rate as that
for personnel employed by state or local public agencies.
Other programs that could be utilized to support staff working in
the child welfare system include preferred status for federal
homeownership programs, education loan forgiveness programs, or
expansion of affordable health benefits to those individuals who work
for non-profit service organizations.
To improve court proceedings involving children, families and
caseworkers, the Alliance recommends that all state and local courts
have access to these funds for the following:
Assuring the compliance of children's courts with ASFA,
state/federal laws and standards
Assuring sufficient capacity to meet caseload demands
Supporting efficiency of court operations
Increasing competencies of judges, court personnel,
district attorneys, corporation counsels, guardians ad litem, and CASA
volunteers.
Critical Need for Quality Information, Data, and Evaluation
The federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) is outdated. It is necessary to improve the AFCARS system to
assure its ability to track change over time relative to each state's
performance and to include data elements that would determine the
likelihood of adoption, reentry, reunification, and recurrence among
the foster care population. With changes to AFCARS, some modifications
to state/county SACWIS systems could be needed. States should be
required to assure that nonprofit agencies contracted for child welfare
services have access and use of state SACWIS systems.
Conclusion
As a nonprofit membership association representing child and family
serving organizations, the Alliance for Children and Families is
finding increasingly that our agencies' contracts with state and local
agencies do not provide adequate reimbursements for the expectations
they carry.
The Alliance for Children and Families would welcome the
opportunity to share the voices of America's nonprofit human service
providers with the Subcommittee as it shapes legislation that redesigns
the nation's child welfare system. It is our hope that the Subcommittee
can be persuaded to delay introduction of any legislation until there
is more opportunity to explore the state by state impact of provisions
that may cap funds for foster care, administration, training, and
services.
We share with you our resolve in assuring that all children and
families in need of protection and support are served with quality
services that achieve quality outcomes.
Statement of J. Holderbaum, Child Protection Reform,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The new proposed bill does not do enough to address the ongoing
problems in our system of child protection.
Hotline--The child abuse hotline must be eliminated. In the year
2002 alone, reports were filed affecting 4.5 million children. After
screening and investigating, less than 1 million children were found to
be in need of services. Clearly, the hotline is not an effective tool
to prevent child abuse, but serves only to clutter up an already
overburdened system with reports fueled by overzealousness, hysteria
and malice.
Mandated reporting--This process has degenerated into a fear-driven
system. Mandated reporters are not reporting responsibly. They are
reporting because they are afraid that if they don't, they will risk
losing their licenses. Their reports are used as evidence against
innocent families because they are licensed professionals. Mandated
reporting should be done responsibly and, if it is not, these reporters
should be sanctioned. No family should be traumatized by a false
report. Families and mandated reporters should not be adversaries.
These are our doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers. We have
created an atmosphere of hostility between families and these
professionals which will not serve our country positively in the years
to come.
Immunity--No immunity from prosecution should be given to anyone
working within child protection. This only serves to promote deception
and even perjury in civil court. If someone lies in court, violating
the law and their oath, they absolutely should be punished to set an
example to deter others from doing the same. Presently, deception and
perjury are common practice in all of our family and dependency courts
nationwide because of immunity from prosecution and many innocent
families are suffering because of it.
Federal Funding Stream--The criminality of taking children for the
money must come to an immediate end. Children do not exist to fill
state funding quotas. Child Protective Services caseworkers,
supervisors, commissioners, law guardians, prosecutors, court-appointed
attorneys, judges, psycho-therapists, counselors, contracted agencies
such as foster homes, group homes, institutions all benefit from taking
children away from their families. When a family was not in need of
services to begin with and has been forced into services regardless, it
constitutes fraud. Defrauding the federal government should not be
overlooked as it has been since CAPTA began. This very serious fraud
runs into millions of dollars annually, money which should be reserved
for those children genuinely in need of services.
Definition of Child Abuse--What is child abuse and neglect? Clarify
the definition of abuse and neglect on a federal level. Stop the
discrimination of families with ``at risk'' definitions which have no
foundation. Among those at risk are the poor, minorities, single
parents, large families, religious families, home-schooling families
and families with disabled children. These families are no more at risk
than the rest of the population. Child abuse knows no boundaries, yet
these are the families who are targeted repeatedly. Why, because they
are low-income. They have become a part of the statistics because they
were unable to defend themselves in court and had to agree to services
under the threat of losing their children. The overwhelming majority of
children taken into protective custody are poor children. WE MUST STOP
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE POOR. This is inhumane. We can help the poor
without taking away their children. Children are also being taken from
their parents and suffering terribly for reasons as trivial as having a
bruise that resulted from playing or an accidental fall, living in a
messy house or not having a refrigerator full of food. The list of
trivial reasons for removing a child is endless and has nothing to do
with abuse or neglect. Guidelines need to be clarified. Children should
only be taken into protective custody when they are at imminent risk of
harm, not speculative harm, or possible future harm, but real immediate
danger. Guessing and speculating have no place in this most important
system of protecting children. This is not a game we are playing with
families. Children do not recover from the trauma of separation, it
leaves a lifelong emotional scar.
Richard Wexler, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
states:
``In general, this appears to be a good bill. Changing financial
incentives is actually more important in achieving reform than any
narrowing of definitions of child maltreatment. No matter how much you
try, the definition always will leave room for a caseworker to remove a
child if s/he wants to.
On the matter of financial incentives, eliminating the link to AFDC
for foster child eligibility is not a problem because the bill
compensates by lowering the amount of reimbursement states receives for
each child.
The one big problem with the bill is this: FOSTER CARE
ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING MONEY IS NOW PUT IN THE SAME POT WITH
PREVENTION MONEY AND STATES WOULD BE FREE TO USE THIS MONEY ON ALL OF
THESE THINGS. WHENEVER MONEY FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING FOSTER CARE IS PUT
IN THE SAME POT AS PREVENTION, PREVENTION LOSES BECAUSE THE FOSTER-CARE
INTERESTS ARE SO GOOD AT GRABBING THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES.
I RECOMMEND ADDING A PROVISION TO THE BILL WHICH SAYS THAT, IN
CREATING THIS NEW POT OF MONEY, THE FOSTER CARE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR
PREVENTION, BUT THE PREVENTION FUNDS CAN'T BE USED FOR FOSTER CARE
ADMINISTRATION AND TRAINING.''
Please consider adding this provision to your bill. Please also
consider addressing the criminality of those who work within the system
of child protection. Until these issues are dealt with responsibly,
innocent families will continue to suffer and children who are
genuinely in need of protection will not receive the protection they
need.
Finally, please understand that unfortunately, there are always
going to be children who never make it onto CPS radar. There will
always be homicides in our world. These tragedies should not send us
running into the homes of every family to investigate, but should serve
to remind us that as a civilization we have far to go in becoming
educated, enriched, tolerant and compassionate. This has always been a
hard lesson, but one that we should continue to teach to all our fellow
men, women and children.
Thank you for your consideration.
Statement of Miriam Aroni Krinsky, Children's Law Center of Los
Angeles, Monterey Park, California
A. Introduction
There are more than half a million children in foster care
nationally, almost double the number from the 1980s. Some children
remain under child welfare jurisdiction for only a few months while
their parents get their lives back on track; thousands of others,
however, cannot safely be returned home and ``grow up'' in foster care
As this committee has noted, the Federal Government sends $7
billion annually to the States to ensure that all of America's children
are protected from abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, that financial
investment in children and families often doesn't do enough to change
for the better the young lives we undertake to protect and nurture.
Because the largest source of federal child abuse prevention and
treatment funds can only be accessed once a child is removed from the
home and brought into foster care, child welfare has little or no
resources to provide in-home or other preventive services that could
keep more families intact. Instead, social workers are forced to either
wait until a situation becomes serious enough to warrant removal, place
children in foster care at great expense both to the child and the
community, or do nothing and risk reading about any resulting tragedy
on the front page.
Once the State does intervene, life for too many youth in foster
care is characterized by movement from placement to placement,
disruption of schooling, and the severing of ties with all that is
familiar to the child, often including siblings and extended family. It
is thus not surprising that foster youth find it difficult to keep up--
75% of children in foster care are working below grade level in school,
almost half do not complete high school, and as few as 15% attend
college. Nor is it surprising that these troubled youth become troubled
adults; within two to four years after young people emancipate from
foster care, 51% are unemployed, 40% are on public assistance, 25%
become homeless, and one in five are incarcerated.
Searching for solutions and new approaches in no easy task. The
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles (``CLC'') has committed itself to
be part of that endeavor. CLC is a nonprofit, public interest law
corporation created over a decade ago and funded by the Los Angeles
County Superior Court to serve as appointed counsel for abused and
neglected youth in one of the largest child welfare systems in the
nation. We serve as the ``voice'' in the foster care system for the
vast majority (over 80%) of the 30,000 children under the jurisdiction
of the Los Angeles County dependency court.
CLC's dedicated and passionate185-person staff represent children
who are at risk of abuse or neglect in juvenile dependency proceedings
and advocate for the critical services and support these children so
desperately need. As court appointed counsel for the most vulnerable
children in our community, we experience on a daily basis the
tremendous challenges children and families involved with the child
welfare system encounter. On a broader level, CLC strives to identify
areas where systemic reforms are needed and to work to bring about
those more far-reaching changes. Given our organization's status as the
largest representative of foster youth in California, if not the
nation, we are uniquely positioned to help propel innovation and change
on a local, state, and national level.
There are a variety of areas where a new approach to our nation's
longstanding and less than successful way of doing business could
enhance our collective ability to address the needs of abused and
neglected youth in foster care. Given the mandate for reform resulting
from every State's failure to achieve expected standards set forth in
the recently completed federal child welfare system reviews, the time
is ripe for change. The most critical areas in need of attention are
discussed below.
B. The Need for New Approaches
1. Flexible and Adequate Federal Funding and Reform of the ``Front
Door'' of the System
Current restrictions on federal funding streams favor entry of
children into foster care rather than the development of supportive
prevention and diversion programs. In particular, under the Title IV-E
federal child welfare financing system there are inadequate resources
devoted to programs and services aimed at maintaining children at risk,
when appropriate, in the home. Indeed, there is a disincentive to serve
children within their home under existing federal funding eligibility
requirements that tie monetary allocations to the placement of children
in out of home care and the length of time a child spends in care.
Consequently, there are relatively few programs or child welfare
services --either long term or on an emergency basis--that a social
worker can access to provide immediate stabilization and maintenance of
a child at risk within his or her family of origin, even when it might
be safe and in the child's best interest, with outside support, to keep
the family intact.
Under the current funding structure, the lack of resources
available to children who would be best served within their existing
family results in early warning signs being effectively ignored. At the
time of a family's initial contact with child welfare, the risk may not
be serious enough to warrant the drastic step of removing the child
from his or her family home. The lack of funding for in-home services
or ongoing visitations by the social worker, coupled with long wait
lists at community based agencies, ultimately places the child and
family at greater risk for future abuse.
Child welfare officials should have the resources and ability to
offer the kind of social services that could give troubled but still
functioning families a fighting chance to stay together. Not until a
child is seriously hurt, placed in grave danger, or the family's
desperation otherwise becomes apparent, does the child welfare system
respond. And at that point the response becomes in and of itself
another in the long list of traumas that children are subjected to as
they journey through the child welfare system. Once a child is removed
from their family and placed in foster care, multiple placements,
instability, school failures and significant mental heath challenges
become the norm.
Federal child welfare funding can and should be restructured in a
manner that would enable local jurisdictions to fully fund child
welfare services, whenever and wherever those services are needed.
Specifically, as recommended in the recent report of the Pew Commission
on Children in Foster Care (FOSTERING THE FUTURE: Safety, Permanence
and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care, May 18, 2004),new
approaches should be developed to releasethe current federal funding
straitjacket and allow for use of the largest source of federal child
welfare funds in a manner that better attends to the needs of children
and families, without jeopardizing child safety.
A more flexible federal funding stream would allow for the creation
of effective and comprehensive methods of diverting families from the
foster care system, while also stimulating greater innovation aimed at
supporting families. By allowing child welfare agencies to implement
services aimed at serving families before tragedy strikes, the federal
government will ultimately realize the ability to serve more families
with greater success. Increased flexibility in the use of resources
would allow counties and states to develop and access a wide variety of
community resources to respond to the safety and permanency needs of
all children and families in the most timely, effective, efficient and
least intrusive manner. Such a restructuring of financing for child
welfare services would enable counties to develop a more effective and
fact-driven differential response at the front end of the foster care
system, based on a rational assessment of both risk to the child and
family strengths. This approach would also enable the more intensive
court supervised interventions to be focused on children and families
with the greatest need.
The Pew Commission recommended not simply greater flexibility in
the use of federal dollars, but also that we allow states to
``reinvest'' federal dollars that would have been expended on foster
care into other child welfare services, if those approaches safely
reduce the use of foster care. States should be allowed to use federal
funds proactively for services to keep children out of foster care or
to leave foster care safely. The Commission also recommended that the
federal government expand and streamline the child welfare waiver
program, devote resources to training, evaluation, and sharing of best
practices, and provide bonuses to states that make workforce
improvements and increase permanence for children in foster care. All
of these approaches warrant serious consideration.
2. Promoting Relative Placements
When a child at risk cannot be safely maintained with a parent, it
is preferable to place the child with a relative. While children placed
with relatives should be no less protected than children placed in
licensed foster homes, current regulations relating to approval of
relative placements are unduly restrictive, can result in the placement
of youth with costly private providers in lieu of relatives, and do not
allow for a case-by-case analysis with flexibility to consider each
child's best interest.
It is well settled that foster children who are placed with
relatives experience greater stability than foster youth placed in the
care of strangers. According to an Urban Institute report, foster
children raised by kin have been shown to have fewer behavioral and
academic difficulties and better physical and mental healthoutcomes
than children cared for by caregivers with whom they have no prior
relationship. ``[C]hildren in kinship foster care are significantly
less likely than children in non-kin foster care to experience multiple
placements.'' (Green, The Evolution of Kinship Care Policy and Practice
(2004) 14(1) The Future of Children 131, 143.) Children in relative
care also maintain greater community connections, are placed with their
siblings at higher levels than children with non-relatives, and
``maintain family continuity'' though greater contact with birth
families. (Ibid.) It is critical that artificial barriers to relative
caretakers not be erected. Losing relative placements because of a
failure to jump a procedural hurdle serves no one's interest,
especially not a child in need of a stable and caring caretaker.
Federal law has created barriers to placement with relatives that
do more harm than good. Specifically, the requirement that states use
the same set of standards for relative approval as they do for foster
care licensing of strangers has made placement with appropriate
relatives difficult or impossible in many cases.
Allowing for a less rigid and more individualized approach to
assessment of a relative's suitability to care for a child will reduce
the number of children in foster care, promote maintenance of children
within their extended family, and further both the physical and
emotional well-being of an already traumatized child. When a child must
be removed from the care of a parent, placement with a relative rather
than a stranger allows the child to cope with an already emotionally
fraught situation in a familiar and comfortable setting. Moreover,
relative placements often enable sibling groups to remain intact,
thereby providing a critical anchor for displaced children.
The Pew Commission also proposed reform of current laws to promote
permanence through legal guardianships when a close attachment exists
between a child and a potential guardian. As the Commission recognized,
establishing and supporting such guardianships can create a route for
youth out of foster care and into safe, permanent families. While
federal funds and incentives encourage families to adopt, inadequate
support exists for guardianships. This is a critical impediment for
relatives who may be reluctant to usurp a family member's parental
role, but who nonetheless are prepared to provide a permanent, safe
home for their abused and neglected family members. As the Commission
explained, ``When guardians are also relatives, guardianship can
promote healthy ties to a child's extended family, home community, and
culture.''
In sum, new approaches on a federal, state and local level are
needed to craft improved mechanisms for keeping youth with relatives
and supporting relative placements, whenever possible.
3. Adequate Support of the Dependency Judicial System
Priority must be given to initiatives designed to support and
enhance the functioning of the dependency judicial system. Qualified
hearing officers are an essential component of that system. We need to
adequately fund the third branch of government and support the
recruitment and retention of the highest caliber bench officers.
Dependency court hearing officers can and should play a meaningful
role in ensuring that children are not languishing in foster care, that
case specific services are provided in a timely fashion, that families
are reunited as quickly as possible, and that measurable outcomes and
indicators of child well-being (such as academic performance) are
tracked. Without this focused tracking of and attention to outcomes,
there will never be either an acceptable standard of accountability or
the types of outcomes these youth deserve.
Moreover, given the complex nature of the many issues children and
families face, collaborative multidisciplinary training must be
provided to hearing officers in conjunction with lawyers, social
workers and other parts of the system. Yet, the recently released
Fostering Results survey (VIEW FROM THE BENCH: Obstacles to Safety and
Permanency for Children in Foster Care) of over 2,200 judges who hear
dependency cases found that barely half (49%) of all judges received
any specialized training in child welfare issues prior to hearing child
abuse or neglect cases. A dependency court judge must have mastery of a
complicated set of federal and state laws, an awareness of available
community resources, as well the ability to identify and rule on issues
ranging from appropriate use of psychotropic medications to whether a
child's sibling relationship should be severed in order to facilitate
an adoption. Both substantive study areas and child welfare practice
should be included in curriculum development.
Finally, bench officers must be armed with outcome-focused data
tracking that enables the court to manage their cases and meaningfully
track the progress of children through the system. Communication
networks that enable stakeholders and data systems to ``talk'' to each
other need to be explored and developed.
4. Adequate and Effective Legal Representation for Every Child
While recent changes to CAPTA requiring that each child be
represented by either an attorney or a Guardian Ad Litem (``GAL'')
represent an important first step toward giving children a voice in
court, these provisions fail to ensure that all foster children have an
effective and capable voice in the legal process. Without adequate
legal representation, the child is not on an equal footing with the
other parties in a dependency case. The child welfare agency and
parents--including the alleged perpetrator--are generally represented
by attorneys. Yet in many states the child, if represented at all, is
represented by a lay GAL. A GAL may or may not have special expertise
or training in issues related to abuse and neglect. As a non-lawyer,
the GAL has little ability to use the process of the court to the
child's advantage. The end result is that the child is relegated to
second-class status. The agency, the non-offending parent, and the
abuser have a legal voice in court, while the child in some states has
no voice at all and in others has only limited access to the legal
process and protections. In short, children brought into the dependency
system should receive the benefit of effective legal counsel.
The goal of assuring effective legal counsel for children cannot be
achieved without minimum training, competency standards, and reasonable
caseloads. Appointed counsel in dependency cases should be expected to
have a working knowledge not only of the relevant law, but also of
related areas including child development, cultural competency, health,
mental health and education laws. Without mandates as to training and
reasonable caseload standards, the dedicated and passionate attorneys
who choose this work will continue to swim upstream against an ever
stronger current.
No matter how well trained, counsel who are forced to take on
hundreds of cases, either due to overly burdensome staffing levels or
because the rate paid per case is too low to afford an acceptable
standard of living, cannot perform optimally or even effectively.
Maximum caseload standards must be set by each jurisdiction within a
framework which takes into consideration the geographic size of the
area served, the type and quantity of support staff, and whether the
attorney is a sole practitioner or works within an organization or
agency. Federal funding should be used to reward and support
jurisdictions that seek to put in place standards relating to
reasonable caseloads, training, and minimum qualifications for
dependency counsel
5. Attracting and Retaining Quality Lawyers
If we wish to attract the best and the brightest to what many
believe is the most important work done in our legal and judicial
system, attorneys who choose this professional discipline must receive
reasonable and adequate compensation; they must be valued and
supported. Serving as legal counsel for abused and neglected children
is without a doubt rewarding and fulfilling, but it is also
emotionally, intellectually and physically draining, and at times
completely overwhelming. Creating standards for compensation--including
salaried payments for lawyers in this practice area rather than the
inherently problematic approach of payment per case--should be
encouraged. Unless and until attorneys are fairly compensated, this
specialized practice will continue to be viewed as less important and
less worthy than other areas of law.
Mechanisms including loan forgiveness for attracting and
maintaining committed attorneys should be developed and encouraged. The
benefit to be derived from such programs span many layers. Nonprofit
organizations and county agencies will be far better able to attract
the most qualified new lawyer. Moreover, there will be a greater
willingness and motivation to devote the necessary time and resources
to training when here is a greater likelihood of longevity of newly
hired staff. It is critical that any loan forgiveness initiative
include not just new attorneys entering this practice area, but also
existing attorneys who have developed irreplaceable relationships with
their clients and whose expertise over time should be supported and
needs to be retained. The cost of hash turnover can be measured not
only in dollars and cents, but in human costs as well. For an abused or
neglected child, building trusting relationships is no simple task.
Often the child's lawyer is the only stable and consistent person in
his or her life, the only person the child can confide in, and the one
person he or she trusts. With each abandonment and each severed
relationship the child finds it that much more difficult to trust
again, to move beyond his or her victimization, and to develop healthy
relationships in the future--whether it be with a caregiver, family
member, or his or her own child someday.
Cost saving measures that result in poorly compensated counsel and
excessive caseloads will result in greater expense over time through
poor quality representation, decreased efficiency, high turnover, and
poor outcomes for children.
6. Reinforcing and Empowering The Child's Voice in the System
Dependency court systems across the Country need to redouble their
efforts to ensure that the youth whose lives we seek to protect have
the opportunity to attend and be part of court proceedings in their own
cases. In too many jurisdictions, children are not made aware of or
encouraged to attend court proceedings and all parties (including the
bench officer) are stripped of the ability to hear from the youth whose
interests are at the core of the decision making.
For many youth, being present at their dependency case proceedings
enables them to understand and come to terms with decisions that will
impact the rest of their life. Inconvenience, a desire to keep cases
moving, and/or the view that we need to ``protect'' children from
hearing about the very events that they lived through, should not stand
in the way of involving youth of a requisite age--when they desire to
be present--in these court hearings. Even the most skilled judges and
attorneys with the best intentions cannot and should not be making life
changing decisions and recommendations about a child they have never
met or a family they know only as a case number. Youth should be
afforded the respect and be granted the dignity of expressing their own
views in regard to decisions that will alter their lives in the most
significant and lasting ways imaginable.
Children have keen insight and deep understanding of their own
families and their own challenges. Their view of the future is
essential to the development of meaningful, effective and functional
case planning. As the Pew Commission recognized, ``children, parents,
and caregivers all benefit when they have the opportunity to actively
participate in court proceedings, as does the quality of decisions when
judges hear from key parties.'' For all these reasons, federal law
should not only recognize, but also encourage, the presence of children
at their own hearings.
Similarly, advocates for children--whether they be CASAs, Guardians
Ad Litem or court appointed counsel--must meet with their young clients
face to face and must do so with enough frequency to ensure that the
advocate has current independent knowledge of the child's living
situation, educational and mental health status, general well-being,
and wishes and desires regarding the issues before the court at any
given hearing.
Federal funding should be tied to these requirements and should be
provided at a level sufficient to support the time and expense
associated with the building and reinforcement of these approaches.
7. Supporting the Child Welfare Workforce
Social workers cannot possibly be effective when they carry
caseloads as high as two and three times the recommended standard.
Without adequate time to assess a family, plan for the child's safety,
and most importantly develop trusting relationships, even the most
experienced and skilled social worker cannot ensure child safety.
A significant reduction in social worker caseloads is a critical
component of any reform of the child welfare system. Caseload reduction
can be accomplished, in part, through the implementation of the
flexible funding recommendations discussed above. Consider the Illinois
experience: using federally granted Title IV-E waiver authority
Illinois dramatically reduced the number of children in the foster care
system from 51,000 to 19,000 over five years. Social worker caseloads
consequently fell from an average of 45 to 60 cases to 14 to18 cases,
enabling those on the front lines to focus on children and families
most in need.
Caseload size, as well as caseworker education, all directly impact
outcomes for children in care. The Pew Commission noted significant
variation across the country in the level of training, education, and
experience of caseworkers and supervisors. A concerted effort must be
made to address these concerns.
8. Greater Support for the Educational Needs of Foster Youth
The educational progress and attainment of children in foster care
is a crucial factor in ensuring that no child is denied the opportunity
to reach his or her full potential. Attention paid to child safety must
go beyond concern for and attention to the child's physical well being.
Once we intervene to protect a child from abuse or neglect, we assume a
duty to parent the whole child. Educational attainment is one of the
essential responsibilities of parenting, but too often is overlooked or
taken for granted during a child's time in care. While a quality
education is a key component of every child's successful transition to
adulthood, a sound educational foundation is especially crucial for
children who spend long periods of their childhood in foster care.
A few States--including California--have begun to address some of
the barriers and challenges inhibiting educational attainment for
foster youth. Without the support of the Federal Government, however,
the steps taken by isolated States will be inadequate and foster
children throughout the country will continue to fall further and
further behind.
For children experiencing placement changes, either due to the
initial removal from their parents' care or due to disruptions in
foster placement, federal law must reinforce the need to maintain
school stability. Specifically, the law should enable these youth to
continue in, and be transported to, their school of origin during the
critical time in their life when they most need a stable school
environment. The law should also provide for immediate enrollment of
foster children in school when a change in school cannot be prevented,
thereby avoiding the all too common occurrence of foster youth being
out of school for days or even weeks at a time. These guarantees will
provide long overdue opportunities for academic success for children in
foster care.
Moreover, without enhanced accountability and tracking of school
attainment by all parts of the foster care system there will be no
ability to respond to changing educational needs of children in care.
Improved mechanisms for collaboration and information sharing among all
governmental bodies responsible for attending to these issues are
critical. Unless we commit ourselves collectively to these new
strategies and approaches, the unacceptable record of poor educational
performance for the youth we undertake to parent will remain unchanged
and the cycle of abuse, neglect and despair will perpetuate.
9. Addressing the Mental Health Needs of Foster Children and Their
Families
Not surprisingly, children in out-of-home placements
disproportionately suffer from mental health disorders. Experts
estimate that 30 to 85 percent of youngsters in out-of-home care suffer
significant emotional disturbance and report that adolescents living
with foster parents or in group homes have a four times higher rate of
serious psychiatric disorders than youth living with their own
families. (Ellen Battistelli, Child Welfare League of America,
Factsheet: The Health of Children in Out-of-Home Care (May 17, 2001).)
The mental health needs of foster children are often overlooked
until the child exhibits extreme and harmful behavior. Even then, the
lack of coordination between the child welfare, mental health and
school systems results in fragmented and disjointed provision of
services. Children are not properly assessed, no one provider is given
the clear responsibility of monitoring the mental health needs of these
children, and when mental health services are finally made available,
they are often either inadequate or too late to be of meaningful
benefit to the child.
Until all foster children receive prompt assessment and
individualized mental health services from the outset, we will continue
to see children who are either overlooked by the child welfare system
or who leave the dependency system more damaged than when they entered
care. Constant placement disruptions, placements with well meaning but
ill-equipped caregivers, and insufficient mental health services all
exacerbate the problems and challenges faced by these already fragile
children. With each failed placement and each delay in receiving
treatment, the child requires a higher and more restrictive level of
care. The resulting cost in both resources and human lives will
continue to grow exponentially until all of the involved agencies
develop meaningful ways to work together to address the mental health
needs of children in foster care.
The current piecemeal approach to providing mental health services
to children and their familiesis not working and must be reassessed.
Many children would never have to be placed in foster care if the
parents had access to supportive services from the outset. For those
children who must be placed in foster care or with extended family,
effective mental health treatment must include planning for the
treatment needs of the parents as well as the child. It is uncommon, at
best, to find a family where only the child or only the parent requires
treatment. Certainly in those cases where reunification is possible the
mental health needs of the family must be a priority, and any treatment
plan should include not only crisis intervention, but also transition
planning and aftercare as well.
10. Addressing the Needs of Teens Emancipating from Foster Care
While the goal of permanency for every child remains high on any
priority list, it is imperative that the child welfare system not
forget the thousands of older teens who remain in out of home care and
will likely remain in the foster care system through emancipation.
There are several areas where new approaches and better services should
be considered if these youth are to have a fighting chance for a stable
and successful adult future.
Recent findings regarding adolescent brain development highlight
the importance of paying attention to and recognizing the unique needs
of adolescents. Without proper stimulation, experiential learning,
direction, and guidance, these teens will experience far greater
challenges in negotiating the adult world, exercising sound judgment,
and planning for their future. The research makes clear that even the
best-prepared teen is not ready to be completely self sufficient at age
18. Yet, throughout the country, foster children automatically exit
from care on their 18th birthday or the day after high school
graduation ill-equipped for successful emancipation. These youth often
have no one to share Thanksgiving dinner with and no one to help them
prepare for their first job interview or secure their first apartment.
They commonly emancipate from foster care without any significant
connection to a responsible adult, have no home, no one to provide them
with desperately needed guidance, and no place to return to when they
falter. It is no wonder that so many emancipated foster youth are
either homeless or incarcerated within two years of exiting the system.
Moreover, services provided to dependent teens who are pregnant or
become parents are woefully inadequate. There are too few placements
available for these young parents and their children and the existing
placements often do little to provide the guidance and support that any
new parent needs. Similarly, targeted emancipation services for teen
parents are virtually non-existent. Teens parents who were themselves
abused and neglected present not only a great challenge to our child
welfare agencies, but also a great opportunity. If we can work in
partnership with them rather than merely waiting for them to fail, we
can ensure that the next generation won't need our services and create
a brighter future for these young families. Child welfare must rethink
the business as usual approach taken when a child is born to a mother
who is herself a dependent. Innovative approaches designed to reach the
young parent in a language she can hear, and assigning to this caseload
social workers adept at working with the unique needs of these clients,
are essential components of any effort to improve outcomes for teen
parents and their children.
C. Conclusion
Thank you for affording me the opportunity on behalf of the
Children's Law Center and the thousands of young clients we represent
to offer my perspectives in regard to ways our nation can better serve
our neediest and most vulnerable children. These are the children of
our community and our future. They deserve our very best efforts.
Statement of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Children's Rights,
New York, New York
On behalf of Children's Rights, I am pleased to provide this
written statement to the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
Committee on Ways and Means. I wish to thank Chairman Herger and the
members of their Subcommittee for their leadership in critically
examining recent proposals to reform child welfare financing and to
move children more expeditiously into safe, permanent homes.
Children's Rights is a national non-profit organization working in
partnership with advocates, experts, policy analysts and government
officials to address the needs of children dependent on child welfare
systems for protection and care. Our goals are to make sure vulnerable
children affected by child welfare systems are safe from abuse and
neglect, receive the care and services they need, return quickly and
safely to their families whenever possible, and if necessary, move
swiftly through the adoption process to permanent, loving families.
Children's Rights partners with experts and government officials,
including the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, to create
concrete solutions to reform child protection, foster care and adoption
services, upon which the lives of these children depend. Children's
Rights develops realistic solutions and, where necessary, uses the
power of the courts to make sure the rights of these children are
recognized and that reform takes place. A case in point is our federal
litigation against the New Jersey child welfare system--the very system
that infamously failed to protect 7-year old Faheem Williams in Newark
and the starving Jackson brothers in Collingswood, New Jersey. Our
settlement of that case last year mandates a sweeping reform of New
Jersey's failing child welfare system, and it has resulted in a
substantial increase in the state's investment in its child welfare
system--more than $300 million over the next two years.
My comments will focus on three imperatives for keeping children
safe and finding children permanent families as quickly as possible.
First, maintaining a federal open funding entitlement is critical if
children are to retain their right to judicially enforce the mandates
of federal child welfare laws. Second, imposing additional minimum
federal standards, such as on caseloads, job qualifications for
caseworkers and supervisors, training, and accountability, is necessary
to assure the basic functioning of child welfare systems. Third,
additional federal resources must be made available to support states
to meet their responsibilities to provide adequate levels of care and
protection. As we saw in New Jersey, reform of failing systems is
impossible without the money to back it up.
It is vital that traumatized and fragile children in foster care
retain access to the courts for the protection of their rights to
safety, well-being and permanency. Sadly, recent history has shown
states to be poor surrogate parents, often responsible for further
damaging the children in their care. Florida lost Rilya Wilson,
Washington, D.C. at one point required a federal receivership, and New
Jersey allowed four starved and stunted boys to be adopted and remain
for years with their duly certified foster parents. Every State has
been failing the recent federal audits. Children in foster care do not
vote, much less lobby on behalf of their interests, and the courts are
often the only institutions capable of providing these children a
degree of protection from the under-funded and mismanaged systems in
which they find themselves. If governmental custodians are insulated
against even the possibility of lawsuits seeking to compel them to meet
statutory standards, they are likely to dedicate even less attention
and fewer resources to meeting the needs of the children they have
taken into state foster care custody. Under those circumstances, the
intent of federal law will be thwarted and large amounts of federal
money will be wasted.
Child Welfare Financing
As the Subcommittee is well aware, the Pew Commission on Children
in Foster Care recently released its recommendations for the redesign
and strengthening of the current structure of federal child welfare
financing. In its report, the Pew Commission advanced a series of
interrelated recommendations concerning both Titles IV-B and IV-E of
the Social Security Act, with one of the critical recommendations being
the retention of the current open-ended entitlement of Title IV-E for
both foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance. The Pew
Commission recognized that it is essential that states continue to be
able to claim federal reimbursement on behalf of every eligible child
that the state places in a foster home or qualified institutional
setting. In connection with children's eligibility for Title IV-E
federal assistance, the Pew Commission also recommended that Title IV-E
be amended and that federal funding be made available for every child
who needs the protection of foster care regardless of family income
(thereby eliminating the current requirement that a child's family meet
the 1996 income eligibility standards for the now defunct Aid to
Families with Dependent Children program). These recommendations
recognize that states are obligated to provide protection to every
child who is abused and neglected, regardless of family income, and
that children are best protected when they have the protection of both
the federal and state government.
The retention of the open-ended entitlement is critical for another
reason: it ensures that children in foster care have the benefit of
essential legal protections. Children in foster care have had success
in obtaining judicial enforcement of Titles IV-B and IV-E requirements
imposed on the states as requirements for accepting federal child
welfare funds. Eliminating the open entitlement, however, would also
almost certainly eliminate that judicial right. Short of the outright
addition of an explicit statutory right of action allowing foster
children to sue to enforce the federal statutory terms, which we
support, we recommend continued use of an uncapped foster care
entitlement program with the addition of mandatory standards for the
benefit of individual children. Without recourse to the courts, abused
and neglected children cannot rely on the statutory promises of federal
protection.
Private Rights of Action Under Titles IV-B and IV-E
Just because Congress has enacted a law does not necessarily mean
that a citizen, or even an individual for whose benefit the law was
passed, can go to court and sue for being deprived of the benefits of
that law. There are two ways to determine whether such a lawsuit can be
brought for the violation of federal law: 1) the law contains an
explicit ``private right of action'' stating that an individual can
bring a lawsuit for violation of the statute; or 2) the right to bring
such a lawsuit can be implied through the application of certain tests
that the U.S. Supreme Court has been revisiting with relative frequency
over the last ten years.
Currently, the only child welfare statute for which Congress has
explicitly granted aggrieved parties the right to go to court for
violations is the Interethnic Adoption provisions of 1996, amending the
Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18)
(prohibiting the delay or denial of foster and adoptive placements for
children based on their race or ethnicity or that of their prospective
home).\1\ The Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended and currently
codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983, however, provides a right of action
against anyone who, under color of law, deprives a person ``of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'' Most
(but not all) courts have recognized an ``implied right of action''
under section 1983 to judicially enforce provisions of Titles IV-B and
IV-E where the statute sufficiently evidences Congressional intent to
create a federal ``right'' under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 42 U.S.C. 674(d)(3)(A) (``Any individual who is aggrieved
by a violation of 671(a)(18) by a State or other entity may bring an
action seeking relief from the State or other entity in any United
States district court.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For such a statutory right to be implied and enforceable under
section 1983, the Supreme Court has established a three-part test
commonly referred to as the Wilder/Blessing test. First, Congress must
have intended the invoked statutory provision to benefit the plaintiff.
Second, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation in
mandatory terms. Third, the statutory provision cannot be so vague and
amorphous that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. See
Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n., 496 U.S. 498, 509-511 (1990); Blessing v.
Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-341 (1997). Recently, the Supreme Court
clarified that Congress must have unambiguously intended to create a
federal ``right,'' not just a benefit. The first prong of the test thus
requires that the text of the statute be phrased in terms of the person
or class of persons benefited, and that such ``rights-creating
language'' must be individually focused and not system-wide or
``aggregate.'' Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 282-284, 287-
288 (2002). For example, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act's statutory language mandating that no federal funds be made
available to any ``educational agency or institution'' that has a
prohibited ``policy or practice'' of permitting the release of
educational records, does not create a private right of action for
individual violations of FERPA. Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 287-288, 290
(``FERPA's nondisclosure provisions contain no rights-creating
language, they have an aggregate, not individual, focus, and they serve
primarily to direct the Secretary of Education's distribution of public
funds to educational institutions.''). By contrast, language in the
Medicaid Act mandating ``reasonable and adequate [reimbursement]
rates'' to health care providers from participating states, explicitly
creates a monetary entitlement upon the providers that is judicially
enforceable. See Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 522-
523 (1990).
The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), as
amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), codified
in Titles IV-B and IV-E, requires a state accepting federal funds under
the statute to administer a state plan that meets federal requirements.
See 42 U.S.C. 620, et seq. & 670, et seq. In exchange for meeting
these requirements, states are then entitled to federal funding at
specified reimbursement levels. Many federal courts have recognized
that Title IV-B and IV-E provisions that require specific state actions
on behalf of foster children create a judicially enforceable right to
the mandated services for those foster children.\2\ For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the AACWA provision
at 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15) (requiring states to make ``reasonable
efforts'' to prevent children from being removed from their homes and
to facilitate returning children once removed) was too undefined to be
enforceable, it also suggested that spending statutes such as Title IV-
E are entirely unenforceable because they only require that the state
prepare and file a plan and that the inclusion of mandatory provisions
within such a plan does not create any entitlement to actual
implementation of those plan provisions. Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S.
347, 360-362 (1992). As a direct response to the Suter decision,
Congress amended the Social Security Act, explicitly stating its intent
that a provision of the Act ``is not to be deemed [judicially]
unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of the Act
requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State
plan'' and ``overturning any such grounds applied in Suter.'' 42 U.S.C.
1320a-2. The Suter decision has thus been limited to its narrow
holding that 671(a)(15) is unenforceable because the provision is too
vague.
Kenny A. v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277, 290-293 (N.D.Ga.
2003), recognized that 671(a)(10), (16) & (22), 675(1)(B) (D) & (E),
675(5)(D) & (E), and 622(b)(10)(B)(i-iii) create enforceable rights to
placement in foster homes and institutions that conform to national
professional standards; to case plans with mandated elements and
implementation of those case plans; to case reviews; to services that
protect foster children's health and safety; to services that
facilitate return home or a permanent placement; to independent living
services for foster children 16 years old and up; to adoption planning
and services if the goal is adoption; to have health and education
records reviewed, updated, and supplied to caretakers at the time of
placement; to have a timely petition to terminate parental rights (TPR)
filed; to receive services in a child welfare system that has an
information system adequate to permit the state to make fully informed
decisions concerning each foster child's best interests; and to
services to facilitate the child's permanency plan.
Jeanine B. v. McCallum, 2001 WL 748062 (E.D. Wis. June
19, 2001), held that 675(5)(E) creates an enforceable right to have
the state initiate a proceeding to terminate parental rights (TPR) for
children who have been in foster care custody for 15 of the most recent
22 months, unless certain documented exceptions apply.
Brian A. v. Sundquist, 149 F. Supp.2d 941, 945-949 (M.D.
Tenn. 2000), held that 671(a)(10) & (16), 675(1), 675(5) and
622(b)(10)(B)(i) & (ii) create enforceable rights to timely case plans
containing mandated elements; case plan reviews; and a statewide
information system to track every child's status and plan.
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662, 682-683
(S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997), held that
622(b)(9) and 671(a)(10) & (16) create enforceable rights to the
recruitment of foster and adoptive families that reflect the racial and
ethnic diversity of children needing homes; the implementation of
licensing standards for foster homes and residential facilities; and to
case plans and case reviews.
Central to the recognition of an enforceable federal right has been
Title IV-B and IV-E's language throughout ``focus[ing] on the needs of
individual foster children, rather than having a systemwide or
aggregate focus.'' Kenny A., 218 F.R.D. at 292. For example:
42 U.S.C. 622(b)(10)(B)(i) requires an information
system to track data on ``every child'' in foster care;
622(b)(10)(B)(ii) requires a case review system for
``each child receiving foster care;''
622(b)(10)(B)(iii) requires a service program designed
``to help children'' either return to their family or be placed in a
permanent home;
671(a)(16) requires a case plan ``for each child'' in
foster care, and a case review system ``for each such child;''
671(a)(22) requires the implementation of standards to
ensure that ``children in foster care'' are provided services that
protect the safety and health ``of the children;''
675(1) defines the mandatory ``case plan'' to include
required ``child specific'' information regarding each ``child;''
675(5) defines the mandatory ``case review system'' to
assure that ``each child'' has a case plan, is safe, and is in the most
appropriate setting.
Additional evidence can be found in the enacting language of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act, at 103(c), 11 Stat. at 2119, which
mandates the schedule for states coming into compliance with 42 U.S.C.
675(5)(E)'s TPR requirement ``with respect to the child'' entering
foster care or already in foster care. Such ``rights-creating
language'' confirms Congress' intent to create a federal right to such
child welfare services.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Because some federal courts have not found such language
sufficient to create an implied right to sue, we view any legislative
move to cut back on mandatory rights-creating language from Titles IV-B
and IV-E as an invitation to the courts to eliminate their
enforceability. See, e.g., 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255,
1268-1274 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 483 (2003) (42 U.S.C.
675(5)(B) & (E) do not provide enforceable rights under 1983 to
have health and education records reviewed, updated, and supplied to
caretakers at the time of placement, or to have the state initiate a
proceeding to terminate parental rights for children who have been in
foster care custody for 15 of the most recent 22 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those provisions of Titles IV-B and IV-E that require specific
actions for the explicit benefit of foster children have thus been
found to be judicially enforceable pursuant to 1983 and the Wilder/
Blessing test by many of the federal courts to decide this issue. Not
only is the text of the statute in terms clearly intended to benefit
individual statutorily-defined children, it is also mandatory and
specific as to the required actions on their behalf.
The Open Entitlement
The financing structure is further evidence that Congress intended
to confer an individual entitlement on foster children as opposed to
focusing in the aggregate on the performance of state child welfare
systems. The financing structure of Title IV-E ``imposes a binding
obligation by explicitly tying the creation of certain features of a
state plan to federal funding.'' Marisol A., 929 F. Supp. at 663; see,
e.g., 42 U.S.C. 671(a) (``In order for a State to be eligible for
payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the
Secretary which--provides . . .'') (emphasis added). For example,
states are eligible for IV-E foster care maintenance payment
reimbursements only for eligible children in care for whom the state
has secured the statutorily required judicial determination (regarding
removal from their home) and placement in a licensed foster home or
residential facility. See 42 U.S.C. 672(a)(1) & (3) and 674(a)(1)
(defining ``qualifying children'' for whom federal funding is available
for foster care maintenance payments). Moreover, the explicit purpose
of federal payment for foster care is to ``enabl[e] each State to
provide, in appropriate cases, foster care and transitional independent
living programs for children. . . .'' 42 U.S.C. 670 (emphasis added).
The elimination of the open entitlement funding structure based on
mandatory provisions for ``each child'' qualifying for federal
reimbursements would be an invitation to the courts to deny the
statute's enforceability.
Specifically, a capped entitlement would not be an individually
focused entitlement for private right of action purposes and would most
likely foreclose the recognition of such a right. Under a capped
entitlement, states that did not comply with Title IV-E requirements as
to ``each child'' could still qualify for the maximum allowable federal
reimbursement. Without a direct link between compliance with Title IV-E
as to ALL the ``qualifying children'' who are statutorily defined and
federal reimbursements as to those children, the Title IV-E
requirements would probably be found to ``serve primarily to direct the
Secretary of [Health and Human Services]' distribution of public funds
to [state child welfare programs].'' Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 287-288, 290.
Instead of creating individual rights, the statute would reflect more
the systemwide or ``aggregate'' focus that led the Supreme Court to
find FERPA judicially unenforceable in the recent Gonzaga case. Id.
The elimination of the current clear quid pro quo that specific
actions must be taken by the state on behalf of individual children or
federal reimbursements for those children can be forfeited would be
evidence of Congressional intent to focus on aggregate child welfare
purposes instead of on the needs of individual foster children. As a
result, any given provision would no longer be enforceable as a
statutory right if the entitlement were to be capped. Without
individually-focused mandatory language meant to benefit a discrete
class of children, no private right of action would be found on their
behalf pursuant to the Wilder/Blessing test as clarified by Gonzaga,
even if those rights had been recognized previously.
Protecting Private Rights of Action
As discussed earlier, it is critically important to ensure a
private right of action to safeguard the rights of abused and neglected
children to bring a lawsuit, if necessary, when a state is receiving
large amounts of federal money but not complying with federal law
enacted for the protection of these children. In the recent federal
audits conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), every state failed to meet federal standards--which were not
even co-extensive with federal law. Even were HHS to decide to impose
sanctions for such failures, it is limited to withholding federal money
from a state--not a measure tailored to help children. On the other
hand, lawsuits brought by these children have resulted in an increase
in state funds, reductions in caseloads, the creation of training
programs, an increase in services, and better and more effective
management practices.
The most straight-forward way to protect foster children's private
right of action regardless of any change to the financing structure is
to add an explicit right of action to Titles IV-B and IV-E. Congress
declined to do that when it passed the ``Suter fix'' in 1994. See
footnote 2. However, with the widespread recognition of the failures of
many states to protect children in need of child welfare services, the
time is right to revisit this issue.
Short of an explicit right to sue, what has allowed the continued
recognition of private rights of action (that Congress has protected in
the past against judicial elimination, see footnote 2) are the child-
focused state plan requirements and the open entitlement structure
tying those individual requirements to federal funding. Any legislative
change eliminating open entitlements will almost certainly be viewed as
eliminating private rights of action as to these state plan
requirements. To preserve private rights of action for foster children,
Titles IV-B and IV-E provisions must continue to be focused on
mandatory benefits for individual children that are specifically
defined and enumerated, and directly tied to open-ended federal funding
entitlements.
Minimum Federal Standards
As Congress considers how to best fund child welfare systems that
protect children and assure them a permanent home, attention should
also be given as to how to strengthen minimum standards and
accountability within these federally-funded systems. Congress has yet
to impose minimum standards in such areas as caseloads, job
qualifications for child welfare workers and supervisors, training, and
accountability. Such requirements should be established with statutory
text focusing on their direct impact on the safety and well-being of
individual children so as to create judicially enforceable rights to
these additional requirements. They should also be funded under an
entitlement structure to further support the judicial recognition of
such rights.
The benefit of such standards is obvious when viewed in the context
of a failing child welfare system such as New Jersey's. Before reform,
New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services could hire young
caseworkers without any educational or employment background in social
services, and then assign them caseloads of 80 to 100 children (over
five times professionally acceptable levels). Before Children's Rights
lawsuit, New Jersey also abolished the agency's Training Academy and
its Quality Assurance Unit, resulting in minimal ongoing training and
no system checks on basic case practice levels, including the
timeliness and frequency of worker visits with children, and the
provision of necessary medical and mental health services to children
in the agency's care. As we documented through extensive discovery in
New Jersey, this resulted in one out of 10 abused and neglected
children being further harmed while under the care and supervision of
the agency. The agency repeatedly failed to protect such children from
multiple instances of abuse and neglect, and shuffled them through
temporary foster care placements for years, all the while remaining
eligible for federal Title IV-B and E funding.
Resources
Sufficient resources must also be made available for states to be
able to comply with existing and any additional federal requirements.
Increasing child welfare funding by $200 million nationally, as has
been proposed in at least one of the child welfare financing proposals
which currently is being considered, is not sufficient to meet the
great need. In New Jersey alone, the State has committed an additional
$125 million for the first year of its reform plan as required by our
settlement, and an additional $180 million for year two. The settlement
and reform plan calls for limiting caseloads, training caseworkers,
increasing caseworker visits and ensuring timely investigations and
assessments, reducing children's moves from home to home, and when
children cannot be safely reunited with their birth families, finding
children permanent families through adoption without delay.
Without a substantial additional investment in such systems,
coupled with enforceable minimum standards and requirements, the
promises of the federal child welfare laws for effective protection of
abused and neglected children and promotion of their well-being and
permanence will continue to be an unfulfilled goal. These children
deserve a child welfare system that is adequately funded and that is
required to make good on its promises.
Conclusion
For the past 30 years I have represented abused and neglected
children who should have been protected by our country's child welfare
systems, but were not. I know all too well how harmful these systems
can be to children without adequate funding and oversight. Our
experience in New Jersey is but one example.
Capping Title IV-B and E funding would be a mistake. Not only would
it limit federal funding when more, not less, federal support is
necessary to fulfill the federal promises of child safety, well-being,
and permanence, but it will vitiate these very children's ability to
judicially enforce existing federal requirements. Instead of weakening
federal child welfare laws, we should be strengthening them. Congress
should require compliance with additional minimum standards for
critical system functions such as adequate staffing, training and
oversight. Only then, will maltreated children have a chance to be
protected by a well-trained caseworker who has time to properly
investigate their case and assure that they are properly cared for in a
loving home. We owe our most vulnerable citizens at least this.
Statement of Frank J. Mecca, County Welfare Directors Association of
California, Sacramento, California
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record
regarding child welfare reform proposals being considered by the
Subcommittee on Human Resources. The County Welfare Directors
Association of California (CWDA) has long advocated for changes to the
federal child welfare financing structure in order to better serve
abused and neglected children and their families. We appreciate your
support for changes that will help states and counties achieve better
results for these children and move them more quickly into safe,
permanent homes. We agree with the chairman and the committee that
federal funding reforms must be enacted if states and counties are to
achieve the improvements that we all seek. This testimony sets forth
our recommended changes at the federal level along with cautions
regarding some of the reform proposals we have seen in recent months
and in the chairman's draft bill, the Child Safety, Adoption, and
Family Enhancement Act (Child SAFE Act).
As you know, each of California's 58 counties operates a child
welfare program, with oversight from the state and federal governments.
In recent years, public scrutiny of child welfare has increased
significantly, both at the state and federal levels and also from the
courts, the media, and foster children and their families. This
increased attention has led to a multitude of ideas for reforming the
system, and California is no exception. Counties are partnering with
the state and with their communities in a number of ways to enhance the
services provided to children and families. Without reform at the
federal level, however, these efforts will be much more difficult to
implement and to achieve the desired results.
Why Federal Reforms Are Needed
The mismatch between the required services to achieve desired
outcomes for abused and neglected children and the adequacy of federal
funds to achieve those outcomes has never been more pronounced. The
Child and Family Services Reviews (CSFR) measure states against a set
of national standards for child safety, permanence, and well-being.
States, counties, and advocates for children welcomed this new focus on
outcomes rather than process, prevention and intervention rather than
foster care placement, and improving our services to children and
families across many facets of their lives.
While the measures of success for children have shifted toward
models that encourage preserving the child's family and seeking other
permanent alternatives to foster care, the federal funding rules have
not been adapted to facilitate achievement of these primary goals.
Instead, federal Title IV-E financing continues to focus on out-of-home
foster care placement rather than the provision of prevention and
reunification services to children and families. Further, IV-E dollars
are limited primarily to income-eligible children. Ironically, use of
federal Title IV-E funds is not allowable for most of the services and
supports that the Child and Family Services Reviews seek to increase.
As a result, states and counties must use their limited Title IV-B
funds and patch together funding from other inadequate sources. This
fragmented system means that thousands of families are unable to
receive the services they need, and children remain in foster care far
longer than they should--far longer than we want them to.
Specific Reform Recommendations
A number of reforms can be enacted at the federal level to ensure
that timely, appropriate, and quality services are received by every
child and family involved in the child welfare system. Such reforms
should ensure that states and counties will be better able to improve
their performance on the key federal outcome measures, by giving states
more flexibility in use of Title IV-E funds and by maintaining at least
the current level of federal support for the child welfare programs. We
believe that curtailing funding for any of the child welfare programs--
by capping funds or creating block grants or subjecting current
entitlements to annual appropriations--is counter-productive to the
shared goals of improving the child welfare and foster care system.
CWDA urges your consideration of the following recommendations:
1. Maintain entitlement funding for Title IV-E, including
administrative activities, services, and training.
2. Provide flexibility to use Title IV-E funds for a broader array
of services, not just foster care placement.
3. Provide an option for states to increase access to Title IV-B
funds by paying a higher state match for dollars above the basic IV-B
allocation.
4. Bring Title IV-E eligibility rules into the new century by de-
linking from the old AFDC program.
5. Provide federal funding for guardianships to enhance permanency
options for children.
We discuss each of these recommendations in greater detail below.
1. Maintain Entitlement Funding for Title IV-E
CWDA strongly urges that the IV-E entitlements be maintained.
Foster care maintenance, administration, training, and automation funds
should be kept as uncapped funding streams. Some reform proposals we
have seen would place new restrictions on the growth of certain
portions of Title IV-E, ranging from services to administration and
training. Without strong assurances that funding will grow as needed
rather than diminish over time, CWDA cannot endorse any proposal to cap
or restrict funding for any aspect of the child welfare program,
administration included.
We support the continuation of separate entitlement funding for the
States Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), and
appreciate that Representative Herger's draft bill does keep SACWIS
funding open ended. Measuring the improved outcomes over time will
continue to be an important element in reforming the child welfare
system.
At a time when all states, including California, are entering into
plans with the federal government to improve their child welfare
outcomes, funding must be available to implement these plans. However,
our mutual goals cannot be realized unless Title IV-E--in its
entirety--is continued as a stable, dependable funding source.
Eliminating the guaranteed federal funding for services and social work
activities would make states reluctant to invest in the very programs
that the Child and Family Services Reviews encourage them to create and
expand, and that child welfare experts say are needed to prevent abuse
and neglect, intervene appropriately in families where abuse and
neglect are occurring, and achieve timely, permanent solutions for
children.
CWDA's concerns about funding caps, block grants, or other limits
on growth of funds is based on the following factors, which we urge the
committee to consider in developing legislation to help states and
counties improve the child welfare system:
Administration is the Cornerstone of Services to Children
Capping the Title IV-E administration entitlement is a short-
sighted approach to the issue of improving outcomes for children and
families. ``Administration'' is not an expendable set of office
supplies; rather, it is the basic building block of services to
children and families--the social workers. Federal, state and county
(in California) administrative funds pay for the social work staff who
respond to abuse and neglect reports, make recommendations to the court
system, put together case plans for children and families, find foster
parents or relative caregivers, ensure that individuals can access
needed services, and work with parents and children to restore the
family or develop a permanency option. Contact between trained social
workers and the families and children involved in the child welfare
system is the key element that all else in our system follows. If these
most basic services and the primary staff resources were reduced
through a cap or other limits on funding growth, the children we are
charged with protecting would be in harm's way.
First, the social workers that states hire using Title IV-E
administrative funds are the cornerstone of our child welfare system;
if they continue to be overworked to the point of breaking, outcomes
for children and families will suffer. Second, California counties are
experiencing workload and funding shortages that would only be
exacerbated by a cap on funding growth. Finally, many states are
already under court order to enhance the services they provide to
children and families and to reduce staff workload. It is conceivable
that other states will be placed in similar situations in the future,
which would be extremely difficult to predict in the funding growth
formulas contemplated in the recent reform proposals.
While the word ``administration'' may connote expendable items like
photocopiers and desks, in the case of the child welfare program, the
primary element funded by the administration stream is the staff of
social workers, who are the very essence of services to children and
families. Case management--which includes comprehensive family and
child assessments; family involvement in case planning; regular visits
with children and families; referral, coordination, and monitoring of
service delivery; trips to court to discuss the progress of each
individual case; and other activities--is a critical part of how states
fund the social work activities that are the backbone of child welfare.
The federal outcomes being measured in the Child and Family Services
Review depend in large part on the ability of social workers to meet
with children and families, accurately assess their strengths and
needs, and ensure that they receive necessary services to achieve
safety, permanence, and well-being.
We note the inconsistency of organizations that oppose a cap on the
placement services entitlement, yet recommend a cap in administrative
funding, as the Pew Commission report does. In our view, to support
reduction of administrative funds signals a patent misunderstanding of
how the child welfare program operates, and how fundamentally
intertwined the two funding streams are.
Caseload Growth and Funding Needs Are Not Predictable
In social services programs in which costs are linked to caseloads,
growth in demand can be unpredictable and difficult to contain. In the
1980s, child welfare caseloads grew rapidly and unexpectedly due to a
sharp rise in the use of crack. We are now experiencing increased
service demand for children impacted by methamphetamine abuse.
Caseloads also fluctuate with the public's perception of child safety
needs, which swing between greater out-of-home placement and more
family maintenance services. While we believe that increased prevention
activities will help to reduce demand for foster care placement, we do
not know how long it will take to reap the benefits of increased
spending on upfront prevention. As your subcommittee heard from the
state of Ohio at last year's hearing on the Bush Administration's child
welfare proposal, even a five-year time horizon appears too short to
realize the full benefits of greater flexibility in the use of federal
funds.
While your bill would allow states to access the $2 billion
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program contingency fund under
certain circumstances, the criteria that must be met in order to access
the fund are so narrow that a state may not be able to receive funding
even when it is dire need. An individual state would need to experience
a caseload growth of at least 15 percent--in California, this would
require an increase of well over 10,000 children in foster care--at the
same time that the nation as a whole experience a 10 percent growth
rate.
Further, caseload growth is not the only driver of increased
funding needs. Court action may also drive funding needs in the future
for many states. Though it has not yet occurred in California, many
other states have been compelled by the courts to increase their
staffing levels and expenditures for child welfare, after they were
found to be severely inadequate. Given this precedent, other states are
certainly at risk of similar action in the absence of increased funding
for staff and services. We fear that it would be nearly impossible to
predict future court action, thus making it extremely difficult to
build this type of increase into any formula for growth in programs
that do not already have such court orders.
Workforce Improvement Needs Must Be Met
Training funds should not be capped or included in a block grant to
states. These funds are used to prepare social workers for the rigorous
jobs of responding to abuse and neglect reports; working with the
courts and other social service providers to create treatment plans for
children and families; and achieving permanent solutions for children,
ranging from reunification to guardianship to adoption. Including
training funds in a block grant would ultimately force states to choose
between services to children and training of staff--a choice that
states should not have to make.
California, like other states, is experiencing a severe workload
crisis. We face a shortage of trained social workers, inadequate
funding to hire enough workers, and increasing caseloads for those
workers who are on board. A comprehensive study of child welfare
workload in California counties released in 2000 confirmed what many
had long believed: Our child welfare workers carry caseloads that are
twice the recommended levels, making it difficult, if not impossible,
for them to provide services beyond the basic protections to children
and families.\1\ Since that time, expectations and requirements have
increased along with heightened public scrutiny of the system, while
funding and staffing levels have fallen further behind. Quality social
work is the stepping stone to good results for children and families.
Now is not the time to limit federal funding for child welfare services
in any way, especially in the administration of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ California Department of Social Services (April 2000). SB 2030
Child Welfare Services Workload Study: Final Report. Sacramento,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all of these reasons, it is essential for the federal
government to maintain its commitment to funding the most basic and
vital support for children and families in our system, the social work
staff who provide day-to-day services and case management.
2. Provide Flexibility to Use Title IV-E for Broader Services, Not Just
Foster Care Placement
Past efforts to increase and improve services for children and
families have been hampered by the ongoing lack of flexibility in the
federal child welfare financing structure. Services to children and
families in the child welfare system are funded through a patchwork of
program dollars from numerous sources; the substance abuse, mental
health, education, and medical care systems are major contributors.
Counties couple these resources with funding received through federal
Title IV-B, an allocation that is much smaller but more flexible than
Title IV-E. Title IV-B funding 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. Counties are then left scrambling to piece
together needed services for the remainder of the year.
The limited funding for preventive services and family supports
continues despite the federal focus on outcomes that require the
provision of these very services. The Child and Family Services Reviews
are measuring states' ability to provide safe, permanent homes for
children; provide preventative services to avoid the recurrence of
maltreatment; provide proper physical and mental health services for
foster children; and ensure appropriate educational services for
children in their care. Title IV-E funds cannot be used for the vast
majority of the services and supports that are necessary in order for
states to perform well on these outcome measures.
Enabling states and counties to use Title IV-E funds in a more
flexible manner would definitely lead to system improvements. If we
could use Title IV-E funding to pay for mental health services and
substance abuse treatment, for example, we could ensure faster access
to these oft-needed services. It is estimated that parental substance
abuse is a factor in two-thirds of the cases with children in foster
care.\2\ Similarly, as many as 85 percent of children in foster care
have significant mental health problems. The incidence of emotional,
behavioral, and developmental problems among foster children is three
to six times greater than among non-foster children.\3\ However, there
are not enough programs and services to ensure timely access to
services for children and their parents. When children and parents wait
for mental health services or substance abuse treatment, their
conditions worsen and become even more difficult to treat, making
reunification less likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (April 1999).
Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress
on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/subabuse99/subabuse.htm
\3\ Marsenich, L. (2002). Evidence-based practices in mental health
services for foster youth. Sacramento, CA: California Institute for
Mental Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Increase Access to Title IV-B Funds
Increasing access to the more flexible Title IV-B funds would
assist counties and states in providing the types of services allowable
under the existing rules for this funding source. As an example, the
Title IV-B allocation could be expanded for individual states by a
maximum percentage each year, for a prescribed number of years. States
opting into the increased mandatory allocations would agree to raise
their matching rate from the current 25 percent to 50 percent for the
additional federal funding. The result would be an expansion of the
investments of both the state and the federal government in providing
prevention, reunification and family support services. Each state would
describe in its federally approved Child Welfare Services Plan how the
additional IV-B funds would be spent. Participating states would be
able to flexibly spend the additional funds to address their most
pressing needs for family-based services.
From the federal perspective, an expanded IV-B program would
dramatically increase the leverage and impact of each additional
federal dollar expended on family and adoption support services, with
states matching the federal allocation dollar for dollar, rather than
providing one state/local dollar for each three federal dollars. From
the state and local perspectives, public child welfare agencies would
have increased flexibility to expand the delivery of family-centered
services, as long as they are willing to make a substantial additional
investment of non-federal funds. For California in particular, the IV-B
expansion would play a critical role in supporting its ongoing child
welfare system reform initiatives and facilitate implementation of the
state's Program Improvement Plan (PIP). Within California and across
the country, the IV-B expansion would be a win-win for state, local,
and federal governments dedicated to improving outcomes for children
and families.
4. Bring Title IV-E Eligibility Rules into the New Century
Currently, states receive federal financial participation only for
children who are removed from income-eligible homes, a calculation that
uses arcane and outdated eligibility rules from a program that no
longer exists. The cost of care and services for children whose parents
are poor yet don't meet the outdated criteria are the sole
responsibility of the states and, in California, the counties. Yet we
are federally required to provide the same services to these children
and meet the same outcomes, without any federal assistance. It is
widely believed that the receipt of federal funds should not be subject
to a means test, and that the federal government should share in the
cost of care for every child regardless of their parents' income. We
recommend eliminating the AFDC look-back requirement, which wastes
precious resources on the processing of unnecessary paperwork, so that
our limited funding and social worker time can be focused on direct
services to children and families.
To determine which children are eligible for federal Title IV-E
funding, county staff must evaluate every child who enters foster care,
using rules from the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program that was discontinued in 1996. Because the foster care
income eligibility rules have not been updated in almost a decade, the
number of eligible California children has dropped over the past
several years. Between 1999 and 2002, the number of foster children
receiving Title IV-E funds in California dropped by 24.9 percent, and
the proportion of the foster care caseload that was IV-E eligible was
reduced by 7.85 percent.\4\ This decline is expected to continue if
nothing is changed, with the state and counties paying 100 percent of
the costs for ineligible children. Other states are in a similar
situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
2004 Green Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal funding should be available to children in need of
protection regardless of their parents' income. The federal government
should share in all of the services that states and counties are
required to provide to abused and neglected children, not just children
from the poorest families. If counties could use Title IV-E funding
without ``looking back'' to outdated eligibility rules we would save
administrative costs and direct those funds toward a broader group of
families.
Proposals to eliminate the AFDC look-back in exchange for a lower
federal matching rate have some merit, but their state-by-state impact
must be fully analyzed. For example, each state has a different
percentage of children eligible for Title IV-E, due to demographic
factors that vary by state. Therefore, Congress should consider
calculating the FMAP reduction for each state that opts in, rather than
enacting one reduction for the entire nation. Additionally, we believe
that the FMAP should not be reduced for administrative services under
any circumstances. Given the significant financial crisis facing
California and many other states, reducing the FMAP for administrative
services would have the effect of eliminating social worker positions,
rather than allowing those positions to be redirected into direct
services for children and families. Depleting our underfunded and
overtaxed workforce would surely weaken our efforts to improve outcomes
in achieving required safety, permanence, and well-being for children.
5. Provide Federal Funding for Guardianships to Enhance Permanency
Options
CWDA recommends that children for whom guardianship is the
permanency plan retain Title IV-E eligibility, with maintenance subsidy
payable to the guardian.
Many foster parents, both relatives and non-relatives, are hesitant
to adopt because it requires the birth parent's rights to be
terminated. To encourage relatives to enter into permanent
guardianships for children as an alternative to adoption, the
California Legislature created the Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Payment Program, Kin-GAP, in 1998. Through Kin-GAP, juvenile dependency
can be dismissed with legal guardianship granted to the relative, and
the government no longer needs to intervene in the family's normal
life. Participants receive monthly subsidies equal to the amount they
would have received as foster parents, with a sliding scale based on
regional costs and the age of the child.
Kin-GAP has successfully achieved permanence for thousands of
California children who would have otherwise remained in foster care.
When a family enters Kin-GAP, however, they become ineligible for
federal funding under Title IV-E. This is inconsistent with the federal
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), which contained a number
of provisions aimed at promoting adoption and permanent placement for
children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect. Because the
federal TANF block grant has not received inflationary adjustments, the
overall purchasing power of these dollars has been substantially
eroded, and states like California will be re-evaluating their use of
TANF funds for programs like Kin-GAP, potentially jeopardizing their
continued success. Kin-GAP also cannot assist with non-relatives who
assume guardianship of children, because of TANF funding rules.
While ASFA and its implementing regulations made substantial
changes in state and local practices, the Act did not go far enough in
recognizing that permanent placement with a relative is the most
desirable outcome for many children, and that legal guardianship is a
legitimate--and often preferred--means of achieving this permanency.
The subcommittee draft released at the hearing would permit
subsidized guardianship as a waiver option for states. Our recommended
solution, to allow children placed into guardianships to retain IV-E
funding eligibility, is consistent with the recommendations of other
organizations, and we urge you to include federal Title IV-E
maintenance funding for guardianships in the committee legislation.
Conclusion
In summary, the County Welfare Directors Association of California
urges Congress to maintain the uncapped funding of services provided to
families and children through Title IV-E. In particular, we support the
preservation of administrative activities as an uncapped entitlement.
This funding stream is the basic building block of our child welfare
system, as it funds the social workers who meet with children and
families on a day-to-day basis, coordinate services among a patchwork
of systems, and work with the courts to ensure that children find
permanent homes in a timely manner. Training activities, automation,
and foster care maintenance funds should also be kept as uncapped
entitlement funding streams.
In order to meet the outcomes for children and families that we all
desire to achieve, the use of existing service dollars should be made
more flexible. This can be accomplished by opening the existing Title
IV-E funds to broader uses and making the allowable uses of Title IV-E
conform to the types of services and supports that states must fund in
order to achieve the Child and Family Services Reviews outcomes for
children and families. Another approach to provide flexibility is to
increase funding provided through Title IV-B, the more flexible but
more limited funding stream currently utilized for a range of needed
services for families and children. On an optional basis, states could
provide a higher matching rate, such as 50 percent instead of the
current 25 percent state/75 percent federal matching rate, and, in
turn, receive incremental funding increases.
We continue to encourage Congress to end the practice of paying
federal funds only for those children who are removed from poor
households, by de-linking eligibility. Regrettably, children from all
walks of life and all income brackets are abused and neglected every
day. The federal requirements for protecting and serving these children
do not change as the household's income grows. Nor should the federal
government's responsibility to pay its share of the services provided
be limited to only the poor families in the child welfare system.
Finally, we strongly advocate for federal financing of
guardianships, as we have seen the success of California's ground-
breaking Kin-GAP program. As it is financed with increasingly scarce
TANF dollars, the program's continued existence may be in jeopardy in
future years. Congress should enact legislation to include funding for
guardianships in the Title IV-E maintenance funding stream, and allow
children placed into guardianships to retain IV-E eligibility.
Thank you again for the opportunity to weigh in on these important
issues. The discussion of financing structures may seem arcane at
times, but thoughtful and well-structured reforms are vital to children
and families. States and counties need your help to improve the safety,
permanence, and well-being of those we serve on a daily basis. We
appreciate your continued attention to these matters and hope to work
with you to structure a reform package that we can support.
Statement of Paula Duranceau, Benton City, Washington
I would like to see some major changes in the Child Welfare system
of the United States! The system is destroying Families across America.
We need to see accountability for corrupt caseworkers, commissioners,
attorney generals, Gal=s Judges, etc. . . .
These people ``build a case'' based on LIES, and deception!!
We have been fighting for custody of our two nieces and nephew who
are stuck in the ``system'' We have spent over $53,000 fighting since
October of 2003. We had a VERY strong case and everything pointed to us
getting our nieces and nephew, yet the state chose to give them to a
foster family where the children have NOT done well!! My husband and I
are licensed foster parents with a STATE approved pre-adopt home study
that we had done to adopt these children. We proved we are willing,
ready and capable of caring for these children of who we are VERY
attached to. What more does it take???
Please take serious action, as our children and families are being
destroyed daily by the system.
Thank you.
Statement of Cynthia Huckelberry, Redlands, California, and
Sushanna Khamis, Yucaipa, California
OVERVIEW OF NEGATIVE IMPACT RELATED TO THE CURRENT CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE PROGRAM/REVISED:
Child Protective Services was designed to protect children and aid
families that are in need of assistance in order to maintain the family
unit. Unfortunately, today we are finding that C.P.S is targeting
specific families with limited set budgets, where child removal is
commonly practiced for personal financial gain. The lack of compassion
exhibited by C.P.S caseworkers towards the impoverished children that
they serve, further devalues their lives in the eyes of these
caseworkers. Thus indicating, that a lack of understanding and caring
related to the circumstances of these financially challenged families,
creates further dissention, prejudicing these C.P.S workers from the
very people they serve.
Within this document, the information provided will serve as an
insight into the true source of the problems that plagues C.P.S today.
Also, it will provide possible solutions that may be utilized to best
serve a new restructured Child Protective Service Agency.
HOW C.P.S LEGALLY REMOVES CHILDREN FROM PARENTAL CUSTODY
C.P.S systematically removes children from their families, whom do
not meet the criteria for removal, through vague and ambiguous
interpretation of their own codes and policy and procedures. They are
able to operate in this manner by selecting specific target groups.
The target groups that C.P.S has tagged are the poor, disabled,
elderly, and the undereducated. Parents/guardians unfamiliar with the
law, with limited or no financial means to secure impartial unbiased
legal representation, blindly trust the courts. Therefore Child
Protective Service is able to manipulate the court system to secure
foster care or adoption status of these children for profit.
Example: Each child placed in foster care has an annual value of
$30,000
More monies are available, up to $150,000 dollars per child, for
those that meet the special needs criteria. After 24 months--during the
concurrent foster care /adoption process, placement becomes final,
where upon an $8,000 dollar bonus is dispersed to the county from the
State. This bonus money is then divided amongst individuals that
enabled the adoption process to be completed. This is not necessarily a
positive solution for these children, but a personal financial gain to
workers. Thus, this leads us to believe that some of the decisions made
by C.P.S officials serve only as a means to enhance their personal
budgets.
Upon removal, C.P.S creates a plan for reunification that is
designed to promote the family's failure. These case plans do not allow
the families the time needed to comply nor do they have the financial
resources needed to meet the court assigned criteria. Unbeknownst to
the families, the courts, lawyers, and C.P.S workers falsely interject
foster care criteria when family criteria should be utilized. Workers
may also place long-term program demands on the parents that purposely
overrun the 24-month time period.
This then allows the state to complete the adoption process to
outside individuals.
In other cases, failure to protect--WIC 300b was cited to obtain
removal of the children, when the custodial parents acted protectively,
in accordance to the law, after a crime was committed against one of
their children. Currently all children from these cases remain in
``protective custody'' under the authority of C.P.S.
FAMILY COURT CUSTODY REMOVAL--PARENT ALIENATION SYNDROME
Let it be known, that Family Court officials regularly remove
custody of children from one parent to another (usually mother to
father), citing parent alienation syndrome. C.P.S agrees to serve as
the tool to enable custody transfer, a corrupt process observed by the
FBI. Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify in
family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible misuse
or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws. FBI
Agent/Lawyer Brenda Atkinson--San Francisco can verify this information
by calling her at (415) 553-7400.
Child Protective Service also submits false documentation so as to
provide a supportive basis necessary to substantiate their decisions.
Thus the truth is purposely obstructed altered or omitted to justify
case plans.
In many cases, C.P.S has failed to investigate additional outside
reports from various professionals and agencies such as children's
physicians, police agencies, school system, etc.
WHY DOES CPS SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND
PLACE THEM IN FOSTER CARE?
Since Clinton enacted the adoption and Safe Families act in 1997,
this has lead to widespread corruption within the child Protective
Services Agency and outlying neighboring agencies. By systematically
removing children from predominantly poor families, C.P.S is able to
secure foster care/ adoption status for these children with little or
no parental encumbrance.
Thus C.P.S victimizes those families that have no means available,
to properly investigate C.P.S corrupt activities directed at their
family.
Since Federal and state matching funds generate the budget for
C.P.S, the single means utilized to elevate the budget is to increase
foster care and adoption caseloads.
Bonus incentives for adoptions are currently $8,000 per child.
$4,000 is given to the foster parents and another $4,000 is placed in a
general fund, to reward workers for completing their job duties.
Workers in this county, state that they do not personally financially
benefit from this fund. Thus it leads us to believe, that other
neighboring agencies are benefiting form this fund, in return for
deceptive practices that support C.P.S decisions.
BABY TRAFFICKING
False Allegations of drug abuse have been logged against mothers
and their newborn infants as a means to place these infants into
protective custody. The hospital staff has allowed C.P.S to remove
infants (a hospital violation) prior to verification of blood and urine
drug screen tests. C.P.S is mandated to secure verification of drug
allegations via blood and urine results, prior to removing the newborn
infant from the hospital. All cases known to us resulted negative for
the mother and the newborn, but these infants were never returned, and
were adopted outside of kinship.
In the past year, the FBI has arrested and imprisoned C.P.S workers
who were actively involved in baby trafficking for profit. These C.P.S
workers knowingly abducted infants from the hospital where they in turn
networked them into legal adoption agencies. Augustus Fennerty, FBI
director for Crimes against Children (Washington D.C) can verify this
information. (202) 324-3000
CHILD SEX TRADE INDUSTRY
Southern California FBI District has videotape recorded CPS workers
placing foster care children onto planes via LAX, destination Europe
for child sex trade industry. This can be verified through Ted
Gunderson, (retired) FBI Director Southern California (310) 477-6565.
SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION IN FOSTER CARE
For the families in relation to our group in San BernardinoCounty,
it has come to our attention while comparing similarities, that
approximately half the children in foster care have been molested.
These children were not sexually abused by their parents, but by
the foster fathers or others in the foster home. It was also noted that
these foster homes are still operating in the same capacity prior to
complaints, without any investigation into these allegations. C.P.S
officials were made aware of these accusations by the children, but
failed to follow through with a criminal investigation.
In conclusion, Child Protective Service is nothing more than an
``oasis'' for child molesters, to make a profit, while at the same time
committing a crime, only to be protected by a malignant system that
delivers a never ending supply of victims
SYSTEMATIC FRAUDULENT MANEUVERS UTILIZED TO ENHANCE C.P.S BUDGET
C.P.S manufactures multiple nonexistent /fictitious abuse
case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.
C.P.S concurrently processes these children from foster
care to adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in
the form of bonuses.
C.P.S provides a market to neighboring agencies and the
courts (commissioners, psychologists, monitors, court mandated
behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel), in order
for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system.
C.P.S victimizes innocent impoverished families, draws
them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for
commerce.
MALICIOUS OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES
C.P.S is utilized by family court officials, as an
adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with
reference to ``parent alienation syndrome''.
Where, in truth, caseworkers are never allowed to testify
in family court under the cloak of C.P.S authority, due to possible
misuse or conflict of interest related to the right to privacy laws.
C.P.S utilizes coercive measures to persuade parents to
submit to statements of prior alleged abuse, when these actions were
nonexistent. In other words, forcing desperate parents to ``plea
bargain'' to a C.P.S fabricated crime, for the return of their children
from foster care.
C.P.S fabricates portions of investigations, where such
duties have never been physically performed, to purposely mislead or
direct a case.
C.P.S knowingly abandons children into foster care,
conscious of the fact that some foster care parents and or individuals
in the home physically and sexually abuse the children in their
protective custody.
C.P.S intentionally fails to prosecute parents accused of
child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been
committed.
C.P.S represents themselves in positive personas, by
omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the
public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby
publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for
the well being of children.
C.P.S ignores crimes committed in foster care, such as
the atrocious acts of unexplained deaths.
C.P.S fails to question these individuals for their
abusive conduct, whereby, if it were not a foster care parent, these
individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
SHOULD CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE BE RESTRUCTURED?
The police should determine if a child has a true need for
protection from his parents, since child abuse is a criminal offence.
Thus, C.P.S should be incorporated with Crimes against Children Units
that are currently located within police, sheriffs and FBI agencies.
The merging of the two would reduce the amount of false allegations
reported, since complaints made to a police unit is a criminal offence.
Also, the police have the training and resources needed to conduct a
thorough investigation. This allows them to determine that if a crime
has been committed that warrants the need for foster care.
A parent/guardian under the suspicion of the crime ``Child Abuse''
would meet the criteria for removal. This would activate the foster
care system. Only then would the foster care system be utilized as a
response to a possible or suspected crime.
Thus in turn, this would eliminate the unnecessary utilization of
the foster care system that has been grossly misused in the past.
Unwarranted victimization of children and their families would be
greatly reduced and soaring costs would be contained. This would
minimize the number of future cases that fall through the cracks and
get lost in the system.
WHAT ROLE SHOULD THE SOCIAL WORKERS PLAY IN THE NEW CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE?
All caseworkers must have a bachelor's degree in social
work from an accredited college.
All states must create bachelor level licensing for
social workers.
All workers must have a current license to work within
any state or county in the United States with reciprocity.
All social workers must have a preceptor for at least
three months prior to individual casework.
WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE TEAM WITHIN THE
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN UNITS?
Other members from various agencies should be inclusive to this
unit, since they bring their specific expertise to complete a proper
investigation. It is our opinion that the following individuals who
should comprise this team are as stated: Registered Nurse, School
Principal, Detective, and Social Worker.
SHOULD AN OUTSIDE AGENCY SYSTEMATICALLY REVIEW THE CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICE TEAM'S PERFORMANCE?
All agencies must have an outside quality control board that
monitors case investigations on a random basis and when requested by
the public. This Board must include members similar to the Child
Protective Service team, with the addition of an individual from the
public. No member may be employed more than three years, to maintain
the integrity of the boards' unbiased decisions.
SHOULD WE MAINTAIN A CHILD ABUSE INDEX LIST?
The child abuse index list shall be maintained only when an
individual has been prosecuted and convicted by a court of law for a
crime against a child. Today's said list shall be destroyed, so as to
prevent harm to those currently listed who have been accused of a crime
against a child, but that have never been prosecuted or convicted. And,
children should never be placed on any list that would categorize them
in an adverse manner, such as this.
SHOULD THERE BE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO FOSTER CARE?
There should be a limited number of children allowed to be placed
in any single home under foster care, including adoption. No single
family shall be allowed to adopt or provide foster care to more than
two children at any time. The only exception shall be when siblings
number more than two and are placed in the same single dwelling. This
will eliminate the financial incentive for monetary gain related to
housing foster children and adoptions.
______
Redlands, California 92373
Yucaipa, California 92399
July 12, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0542
To our Honorable U.S. House of Representatives,
It is unfortunate that Child Protective Service officials have
mislead the government into believing, that increased funding is
necessary to solve the multitude of problems that encompass C.P.S. This
agency is utilizing the funding issue as the scapegoat for their
problems, when in actuality the workers themselves, the lack of their
personal accountability, are the source of the problem. Further funding
will not solve C.P.S'S current crisis, only the restructuring of this
agency will provide a solution.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Huckelberry
Sushanna Khamis
Statement of Tracey Feild, Institute for Human Services Management,
Baltimore, Maryland
Reforming Child Welfare Financing\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This statement is excerpted from: Tracey Feild, ``Medicaid: The
Real Problem with Child Welfare Funding,'' Baltimore, MD: Institute for
Human Services Management, April 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The current debate on what is wrong with child welfare funding is
focused primarily on the lack of flexibility in the federal Title IV-E
program. State policy makers complain that Title IV-E reimburses states
for a portion of the cost of keeping a child in out-of-home care, while
excluding reimbursement for the cost of services to prevent removal
from the home or to expedite reunification. The interim report from the
Pew Commission on Foster Care stated that:
The vast majority of dedicated federal child welfare funds--Title
IV-E--can only be accessed by states once children have been removed
from their families of origin. . . . As a result, states' ability to
invest in prevention or in alternatives to foster care is limited.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ G. Hochman, A. Hochman, J. Miller, Foster Care: Voices from the
Inside, Washington, D.C.: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster
Care, March 2004, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This criticism of the Title IV-E program, however, is misguided.
The real problem with child welfare funding is the Medicaid program, or
to put it more precisely, state implementation of the Medicaid program.
This paper will argue that the real culprits in the child welfare
funding dilemma are state budget directors, and Medicaid and behavioral
health administrators and policies. The paper offers recommendations
for statutory change that could address the child welfare funding
problem within the context of both Title IV-E and the Medicaid program.
Federal Assistance for Child Welfare Costs
The Adoption Assistance and Foster Care Act of 1980, Title IV-E of
the Social Security Act, offers federal matching reimbursement for
foster care and adoption subsidy costs to assure that children from
low-income families, who must be removed from their homes, will have
federal support for board and care costs and case management services.
Other federal programs address the need for other services. These
programs include:
Medicaid: for health care and therapeutic services;
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG): for social services
to children and families;
Title IV-B: for a full range of child welfare services;
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF): used in
child welfare for emergency services, relative support, other family
stability services as defined by each state.
These four programs are the primary sources of federal funds used
by states to pay for services to abused and neglected children. Given
this range of federal programs, and the flexibility offered through the
Social Services Block Grant and Title IV-B, the question becomes: Why
would more flexibility be needed or desired? The simple answer is that
while Title IV-E and Medicaid are entitlement programs, meaning the
federal government guarantees it will share in the cost of allowable
services for eligible children regardless of spending levels, the SSBG,
Title IV-B, and TANF are not.
The SSBG, Title IV-B, and TANF have fixed allocations. The SSBG was
``capped'' in 1972, and Title IV-B has always had a fixed allocation.
Federal funding for the SSBG was $2.4 billion in 1982; in 2004, the
appropriation was $1.7 billion. Because it is a ``generic'' social
services program, available for a wide range of services (e.g., child
welfare services, services for the elderly, mental health services,
services for the developmentally disabled, etc.), it has been
particularly vulnerable to federal budget cuts.
Title IV-B funding, available for a wide range of child welfare
services, has had a three-fold increase over the same period, but the
total allocation in 2004 was only about $700 million federal, making it
a minor player in child welfare funding overall. Relative to Title IV-E
spending, at close to $7 billion federal in 2004, Title IV-B is little
more than a gap-filler.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Child Protection Report, Vol. 29, No. 25, December 18, 2003,
page 197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexibility and the Title IV-E Program
Several years ago, the Title IV-E waiver program was instituted by
Congress to allow states to experiment with using Title IV-E more
flexibly in order to test innovative approaches to child welfare
service delivery and financing. The states were allowed to design and
demonstrate a wide range of approaches to ``reform'' child welfare and
improve outcomes in the areas of safety, permanency and well-being. The
reason these waivers were instituted was because of state child welfare
administrators' concerns that Title IV-E was too categorical, and was
simply too rigid to allow for innovation in improving child welfare
outcomes. To date, some 25 demonstrations have been developed in 17
states.
Due to implementation problems, and problems with the various
program and research design efforts intended to test the effectiveness
of the innovations, results of these demonstrations have been somewhat
inconclusive. However, the Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services has successfully demonstrated through its Title IV-E waiver
that using Title IV-E funds to pay caregivers (primarily relatives)
monthly stipends to care for children as legal guardians in an
``assisted guardianship'' program, rather than as foster or adoptive
parents, has improved permanency beyond what would have been expected
without the program.\4\ Interestingly, the assisted guardianship
program uses Title IV-E funds to pay primarily for board and care, an
already allowable IV-E expense, but to a caregiver who is not currently
an allowable category of caregiver under the Title IV-E program.
Without a doubt, if Congress amended Title IV-E to include this
category of caregiver as an allowable expense within the program,
overall permanency for children would improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The evaluation found the permanency rate in the demonstration
group was 77.9%, while the permanency rate in the control group was
71.8%. a difference of 6.2%, which is significant at the 0.02 level.
See Children's Bureau website: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/
initiatives/cwwaiver/ill.htm for highlights of the evaluation findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other waiver demonstrations used waiver flexibility to provide and
fund services that are currently not allowable through the traditional
Title IV-E program, including demonstrations in California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
New Hampshire, and Washington. Among these states, all have used Title
IV-E waiver flexibility, in part, to provide and/or pay for services
that would prevent placement in out-of-home care, or would expedite
reunification. A portion of Title IV-E waiver funds has been used to
purchase therapeutic services that are allowable through the federal
Medicaid program for children who are Medicaid-eligible. State child
welfare agencies have been using waivers in order to pay for services
through the Title IV-E program that should be, but are not available
through the Medicaid program.
Child Welfare's Unmet Needs
Research undertaken in the last 20 years on the effect of abuse and
neglect on brain development, mental health, socialization, and school
performance demonstrates the negative impact of abuse and neglect on
child development and mental health. There is a substantial body of
evidence showing that children who have been abused or neglected are at
risk for a range of psychopathological outcomes.\5\ The fact is that
abused and neglected children, by virtue of being abused or neglected,
have a medical need for therapeutic services that is different from the
general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Cohen, P., et. al., ``Child Abuse and Neglect and the
Development of Mental Disorders in the General Population,''
Development and Psychopathology, 13, 2002, pp. 981-999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally children who enter foster care are more likely than
children in the general population to be in poor health. According to
the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, ``Compared with children from the
same socioeconomic background, [children in foster care] . . . suffer
much higher rates of serious emotional and behavioral problems, chronic
physical disabilities, birth defects, developmental delays, and poor
school achievement.''\6\ The U.S. General Accounting Office found that,
``Foster children are among the most vulnerable individuals in the
welfare population. As a group, they are sicker than homeless children
and children living in the poorest sections of inner cities.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Early Childhood,
Adoption, and Dependent Care. ``Health Care for Children in Foster Care
(Policy Statement RE9404),'' Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 2, 1994, pp. 335-
338.
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: Health Needs of
Many Young Children Are Unknown and Unmet. GAO/HES-95-114 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of mental health researchers concluded that:
The risk factors and high incidence rate of psychopathology among
children in foster care placements necessitate concurrent attention to
clinical needs and child welfare goals for permanency. This dual
directive suggests that the mental health needs of children in care may
be qualitatively and quantitatively different from the general
population of children and necessitate specialized service delivery.
(emphasis added)\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Berson, I., et.al. Mental Health Care for Child Welfare
Clients: Final Report, Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute, University of South Fl., 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the overwhelming mental health and rehabilitative needs of
the foster care population, a population that is 95 percent Medicaid
eligible, one would expect that Medicaid services, both behavioral
health and rehabilitative services, would be readily available to meet
the needs of children disadvantaged primarily by their parents' actions
or inactions. Remarkably, the Medicaid behavioral health system has
generally failed to meet the therapeutic needs of the child welfare
population.
Federal Medicaid Requirements
Federal Medicaid law supports, and even mandates the provision of
services to children to address their primary and behavioral health
care needs regardless of the preferences or constraints of the
individual states. The failure of states to address the therapeutic
needs of the child welfare population, in spite of federal law, is a
function of a combination of the low priority given to the child
welfare population and state Medicaid budget concerns.
One of the general principles of the Medicaid program is
``comparability'', meaning that all eligible clients must have equal
access to services based on the medical necessity criteria established
for each service. This principle is intended to insure that eligible
clients have equal access to medical services across each state. Access
to services can only be distinguished by a client's medical necessity
for each service, which each state specifically defines within its
Medicaid program. The concept of medical necessity is used to assure
that only clients with a defined medical need for a service have access
to that service. Unfortunately, the concept of medical necessity is
also used to limit access to services, by making medical necessity
standards for therapeutic services extremely narrow.
Narrowly-defined medical necessity criteria for therapeutic
services tend to disadvantage any high risk group. Typically services
are not available for risk of emotional problems or for non-severe
emotional problems. Even though the risk of poor outcomes for the child
welfare population is far greater than for the general Medicaid
population, states have generally kept all children needing services in
a single group for determining medical necessity. Services become
available when a child has finally met the criteria for severe
emotional disturbance. Even when services are available to a less
severe population, waiting lists delay access to services or even
access to evaluations needed to determine the level of need.
Furthermore, available services are often limited to traditional
office-based services that poorly suit the needs of the child welfare
population.
Historically, special access to Medicaid services for abused and
neglected children, or even the smaller subset of foster children, has
been impossible to obtain through state Medicaid systems based on the
inability of the child welfare system to produce any evidence that
abuse or neglect itself, or the need to place children in out-of-home
care, places children in a unique health risk category. Empirical
evidence, however, now exists as discussed briefly above.
The federal Medicaid program was designed to meet the health care
needs of low income individuals, and since 1989, was intended to meet
the specialized needs of children regardless of limitations imposed by
the individual states. Fifteen years ago, the Congress added language
to the provisions of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) Program to assure that children with health needs,
including mental health needs, receive treatment for those needs, even
if a state's Medicaid program did not cover those specific needs. The
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA'89) amended
Sections 1902(a)(43) and 1905(a)(4)(B) and created Section 1905(r) of
the Social Security Act setting forth the basic requirements of the
program. Under EPSDT:
The Act requires that any service which [states] are permitted to
cover under Medicaid that is necessary to treat or ameliorate a defect,
physical and mental illness, or a condition identified by a screen,
must be provided to EPSDT participants regardless of whether the
service or item is otherwise included in [a state's] Medicaid plan.\9\
(Emphasis added.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ From the State Medicaid Manual, Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, April 1990, page 5-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section of the Social Security Act make it clear that costly
therapeutic and rehabilitative services needed by Medicaid-eligible
children in the child welfare system should be available and provided
and federally reimbursed through the Medicaid program. But they are
not, in spite of the provisions of EPSDT and in spite of the federal
reimbursement available for those services.
State Medicaid Response to Child Welfare Needs
In any state, access to federal Medicaid funds is controlled
primarily by the availability of non-federal matching funds. Matching
funds can be comprised of state and/or local public revenue funds.
Because of the spiraling growth of state Medicaid budgets, access to
federal Medicaid funds, in spite of federal statutory language
guaranteeing access to needed services for children, is often limited
by the availability of matching funds.
State budget directors, at the very least, typically view all
expansion of Medicaid services as cost increasing. Hence in some
states, the implementation of the EPSDT provisions beyond basic health
screening, immunizations, and primary health care has been perfunctory
at best. Screening processes that could identify the need for
therapeutic services have not been widely implemented. A recent study
found that ``23 states have no specialized behavioral health screening
tools and no behavioral health questions or prompts in their [EPSDT]
comprehensive screening tools.''\10\ Without specific behavioral health
screening tools, it is likely that most mental health problems,
particularly in young children, would not be identified in an EPSDT
screen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ R. Semansky, et.al. ``Behavioral Health Screening Policies in
Medicaid Programs Nationwide,'' Psychiatric Services, Vol. 54, No. 5,
May 2003, p. 737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of specific mental health screening tools seems to
represent an assumption that mental health problems not identified will
not have to be treated, and therefore, will not incur costs. The cost
saving nature of failing to install specific mental health screening
tools in order to identify mental health problems, however, ultimately
seems short-sighted and perhaps short-lived, since untreated mental
health problems may simply worsen until they become obvious and more
costly to treat.
State Medicaid administrators, like it or not, are often put in the
no-win position of trying to control spending, at the expense of
meeting eligible children's federally mandated behavioral health care
needs. For the general population, denying access to Medicaid for
needed behavioral health services means that eligible children likely
will not get the service. Some children will improve without the
service, some will get worse. Again, the untested assumption is that
waiting to serve just those clients who get worse would be less costly
than serving all clients with needs identified early. While this
assumption may or may not be true in general, it does not work for the
child welfare population.
The child welfare system has an obligation to provide needed
services for the child welfare population, particularly the custody
population, regardless of federal funding availability. If a child
needs costly residential treatment, the child welfare system is
obligated to provide it regardless of whether or not Medicaid
reimburses the cost. Therefore, preventing access to Medicaid for the
child welfare population means that the service will be paid from
capped federal funds, or state/local funds only.
What state elected officials and policy makers consistently fail to
recognize is that preventing child welfare access to federal Medicaid
reimbursement for services the system will pay for anyway, as part of
the custodial obligation, only serves to save federal dollars--the
state actually spends more general revenue funds by spending state or
local funds without benefit of federal reimbursement, or by spending
capped flexible federal funds that could be used for less costly
family-based social services. If the therapeutic services will be
provided to children in the child welfare caseload anyway, it makes
more sense to access federal Medicaid reimbursement for a portion of
the cost than to rely solely on state, local or limited flexible
federal funds.
Fundamental Differences between State Behavioral Health Goals and the
Child Welfare Mandate\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The term ``behavioral health'' is meant to include both mental
health and substance abuse services, which, depending on the state, can
be together in a single agency, or in separate agencies--one for mental
health and one for substance abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to behavioral health services is typically routed through a
state's behavioral health system. The goal of most state behavioral
health systems is to provide a level of services that can achieve an
acceptable standard of care for the most people, while keeping within
the agency's budget. And with this approach comes the trade-off between
access to services and limits on services. This goal, while reasonable
for the general population, is in direct opposition to the mandate of
the child welfare system, which is simply to meet the mental health
needs of the child welfare population. The child welfare system,
particularly when acting as parents to children in custody, cannot pick
and choose who will get therapeutic services and when, based on
diagnoses, based on the likelihood of treatment success, or based on
funding levels.
Behavioral health administrators, while recognizing that Medicaid
is a fundamental part of their statewide behavioral health program,
typically see their mission as serving those with behavioral health
needs regardless of Medicaid eligibility. Therefore the system is
automatically limited not only by availability of non-federal matching
funds for Medicaid-eligible clients, but by what the state/ local
government can afford without benefit of any federal reimbursement for
those who are not Medicaid-eligible.\12\ The behavioral health service
array and access to services are highly controlled by these funding
constraints. Programs are designed that include inpatient care and
outpatient counseling, with varying levels of service in between,
depending on available funds. Definition of medical necessity for each
service is carefully controlled, allowing limited access to basic
services for all with some level of need, but allowing access to
intensive services to only those most in need. Many child welfare
clients fall just short of the criteria that would allow them access to
intensive services, and are therefore left with the same limited access
to basic services, including long wait lists, as the general
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ State behavioral health agencies have federal Community Mental
Health Block Grant funds that total less than $500 million nationally,
may have access to federal SSBG funds, and have state and/or local
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often, for mental health services, intensive services are limited
to seriously mentally ill adults and severely emotionally disturbed
children; while those with lesser needs may only have access to
outpatient counseling. Services require Medicaid match for eligible
recipients, and use funds without benefit of federal reimbursement for
those who are not eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, some states have
passed on the obligation to provide and control behavioral health
services and costs to managed care contracting entities, which may give
limited attention to the contractors' performance in the area of at-
risk children.\13\ Finally, since the system is designed to meet the
behavioral health needs of all of the state's citizens, and because of
funding limitations, the systems typically are limited in how well they
can meet the needs of any one client. The result is that behavioral
health administrators are often forced to choose between adults and
children, and/or between the high need population, which includes the
child welfare population, and the general population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For more discussion of managed care impact on mental health
services for children and youth and the child welfare population, see:
I.R. Berson, et. al., Mental Health Care for Child Welfare Clients:
Final Report, Louis de la Parte, Florida Mental Health Institute,
University of South Florida, July 2002, and J. McCarthy and C.
Valentine, Tracking State Managed Care Reforms As They Affect Children
and Adolescents with Behavioral Health Disorders and Their Families,
National Technical Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health,
Center for Child Health and Mental Health Policy, Georgetown University
Child Development Center, December 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While OBRA'89 established an entitlement for services for Medicaid-
eligible children, most states are not willing to create separate
benefit packages for Medicaid-eligible and non-Medicaid-eligible
children. Therefore, behavioral health administrators create a single
array of services, with a single set of medical necessity standards.
Because many children needing behavioral health services are not
Medicaid-eligible, and may in fact, have inadequate private health
insurance, the state often cannot afford more than a very basic
behavioral health program. But this strategy makes sense from a
behavioral health system point of view: At least some behavioral health
services are available to all in need.
In order to address funding limitations, state and local behavioral
health agencies are forced to implement strategies that limit access to
services. Through these mechanisms, all children, both Medicaid-
eligible and non-Medicaid--eligible children are prevented from
accessing adequate and appropriate therapeutic services in a timely
way. The effect of limiting access to these services for the child
welfare population is that either Medicaid-eligible children do not get
the services they need (or do not get them timely), and/ or the child
welfare system is forced to pay for these Medicaid-allowable services
out of 100 percent state or local funds, or from their limited, capped,
flexible federal funds.
While some behavioral health administrators have embraced the child
welfare population, there are many who view the child welfare
population as an unwanted drain on their limited resources, rather than
the most needy and ``at risk'' target for their resources. Behavioral
health administrators encounter the same fiscal roadblocks to expanding
access to services as other agencies, and rarely find their needs are a
priority for Medicaid or other budgetary increases. When there is
support for increases in behavioral health budgets, community support
for such increases is often focused on the more visible, de-
institutionalized, seriously mentally ill adults, rather than children.
When there is pressure to increase services for children, behavioral
health administrators tend to rationalize a choice for serving the
general population of children rather than the child welfare
population, based on their understanding that the child welfare system
is obligated to meet the therapeutic needs of the child welfare
population. Therefore, the reasoning goes, behavioral health resources
can be spent on children who are not a part of the child welfare
system. Unfortunately, this choice can result in the elimination of
federal Medicaid reimbursement for at least a portion of the
substantial level of therapeutic services that is provided (or should
be provided) to the child welfare population.
Medicaid and behavioral health administrators tend to assume that
growth in behavioral health service utilization among child welfare
clients represents over-utilization of services rather than: (1)
increased need for therapeutic services, (2) increased recognition of
need for therapeutic services, or (3) increased understanding by child
welfare administrators and providers of how to access Medicaid
reimbursement for therapeutic services that previously had been
provided without benefit of Medicaid reimbursement. This erroneous
belief results in extra efforts to limit services to the child welfare
population. Examples of discriminatory attitudes toward the child
welfare population, and high need populations in general, are too
numerous to describe here. But all are effective strategies for
curtailing behavioral health and Medicaid costs (both federal and non-
federal). However, they also serve to restrict access to services
altogether. While these strategies may be a politically acceptable way
to ration scarce resources for the general population, a substantial
body of research documents that children in the child welfare system,
particularly those in custody, are at very high risk of poor mental
health and developmental outcomes. These cost containment strategies
only serve to exacerbate their already high risk of poor outcomes.
Particularly for children in custody, each state has an affirmative
obligation to meet children's therapeutic and rehabilitative needs.
Allowing these needs to go unmet because resources are scarce
represents a failure to fulfill the custodial obligation.
The federal government's Child and Family Service Reviews document
the failure of state behavioral health systems to meet the therapeutic
needs of the child welfare population. Of the 40 completed state
reviews, only two states (5%) met the federal standard of 90 percent of
children with mental health needs being adequately assessed and
provided needed mental health services.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For an indepth analysis of the states' performance through
2002, see J. McCarthy, A. Marshall, M. Irvine and B. Jay, An Analysis
of Mental Health Issues in States' Child and Family Service Reviews and
Program Improvement Plans, Washington, D.C.: National Technical
Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health, Georgetown University
Center for Child and Human Development, April 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had the reviews measured only access to, and receipt of Medicaid-
reimbursed behavioral health services for Medicaid-eligible children,
it is likely that a smaller percentage of cases would have achieved
``substantial compliance'' in many jurisdictions. Because of problems
accessing quality or timely services through Medicaid, many
jurisdictions use block grant funds, capped federal funds, all state
funds, local funds, or child welfare provider donations to cover the
cost of the therapeutic services. Medicaid-allowable therapeutic
services provided to Medicaid-eligible children funded with other than
Medicaid funds helped states achieve the compliance levels they did
achieve in the federal reviews.
Fixing the ``Child Welfare Funding Problem
Child welfare administrators, clamoring for more flexibility in
Title IV-E, do not understand that the Medicaid program, by federal
law, should be addressing the service needs they cannot figure out how
to meet within their existing fund sources. And because of their own
pressures, both state Medicaid and state behavioral health
administrators have not been helping them address their unmet needs.
To a state's behavioral health system, Medicaid is a service
program; to a state's child welfare system, Medicaid is a fund source.
The goal of the state child welfare system should be to maximize
federal revenues for services it will provide anyway because of the
custodial obligation; while the goal of the behavioral health system is
to scale the service system to its budget. As long as the behavioral
health system successfully achieves its goal, the child welfare
system's goal can never be met, because there will always be Medicaid-
allowable services for Medicaid-eligible clients that fall outside of
the program defined by the state behavioral health system's budget. The
only viable solution, given state budgetary limitations, is to separate
the child welfare therapeutic services program from the state
behavioral health service system. Separating therapeutic services in
the two systems would allow child welfare:
To maximize federal revenues for needed services, and
To use its non-federal funds to match either Medicaid for
therapeutic services or Title IV-E for board and care, or both as
needed.
The narrow vision of state child welfare administrators in
identifying the ``problem'' as a Title IV-E problem is understandable.
Title IV-E, along with its required non-federal match, is the most
significant fund source in the system. It is ``their'' program.
Medicaid is not their program; not a program in which their input is
sought or desired. Relative to nursing homes, hospitals, pharmaceutical
companies, and the like, child welfare is little more than Cinderella
asking permission to attend the ball. With few exceptions, the needs of
the child welfare population carry little weight or priority with state
Medicaid directors.
The solution to the ``child welfare funding problem'' involves two
minor corrections in the Title IV-E program, increases in the Title IV-
B program, and the creation of a new Medicaid program. Regarding Title
IV-E, two corrections should be made:
1. Federal reimbursement should be allowed for children placed
with legal guardians (assisted guardianships); and
2. Eligibility for Title IV-E should be de-linked from 1996 AFDC
eligibility standards, and shifted to annually-determined federal
poverty standards, or other related measure for each state.
The two recommended changes would update eligibility standards and
add a proven-successful permanency option, while maintaining the
categorical, and more importantly, the entitlement nature of the Title
IV-E program.
Of more significance to the overall well-being of children and
families served through the child welfare system are changes in the
federal Medicaid program. A separate sub-program of therapeutic and
rehabilitative services specific to the states' custody population, or
those at risk of custody due to abuse, neglect, dependency, or
delinquency should be created within each state. Given the unique
medical necessity of the children in this category, based on their
uniquely poor chances of having positive long-term developmental,
emotional and educational outcomes, this service program could be
created within Medicaid under current federal law. However, because of
child welfare's limited access/clout/priority with state Medicaid
systems, because of child welfare administrators' limited understanding
of federal Medicaid law, and because of state policy makers' overall
attitude toward any growth in the Medicaid budget (even if growth in
Medicaid saves state funds elsewhere), this has happened in only a few
states.
Under this proposal, the federal government would mandate that a
child welfare therapeutic and rehabilitative services program be
designed and defined by the Title IV-E single state agency, with input
from the state Medicaid and behavioral health administrators. Public
input from clients, providers, and advocates should be required and
documented as well. The service array, the medical necessity criteria
for each service, the provider qualifications for each service, the
units of service, the rate setting process, the payment levels for each
service, and the quality assurance and audit procedures would be
determined and undertaken by the Title IV-E single state agency. All of
these details would be submitted in an amendment to each state's
Medicaid plan, and would become part of the each state's Title IV-B
plan as well.
Under this plan, child welfare administrators could be assured
that:
The Medicaid service array met the needs of their
population, and included community-based, culturally-relevant, in-home
therapeutic and rehabilitative services for children and families;
Services were delivered by clinicians with expertise in
abuse/neglect issues;
Services would be reimbursed at levels adequate to
attract qualified providers;
Units of service were reasonable to require only
appropriate levels of documentation;
Audit procedures were designed to address problems and
control fraud, rather than simply to reduce utilization through
intimidation.
For those who believe that the cost of such a program would be
prohibitive, remember that non-federal matching funds in child welfare
systems are always limited. In fact, there are a number of states in
the south that do not fund all Title IV-E allowable services through
Title IV-E because they do not have enough matching funds available,
but the requirement for match is critical to their budget processes.
Each state's child welfare therapeutic program would be geared toward
its individual service needs. But growth in the non-federal match
included in each agency's budget could be funneled into board and care
(Title IV-E) or therapeutic services (Medicaid), both with federal
reimbursement, depending on the need. The intent of this program is to
allow states to use their non-federal matching funds to match either
Medicaid or Title IV-E, thus providing federal reimbursement for
therapeutic services to prevent placement, to expedite reunification,
or to reduce the level of substitute care to a more homelike setting.
Rather than use Title IV-E waiver funds to pay for Medicaid-
allowable services for Medicaid-eligible children, states would use
Medicaid funds to pay for these services, and use non-federal match
funds to match Medicaid rather than match Title IV-E. This step would
free flexible federal funds and state/local funds to pay the cost of
social services, and to pay for the cost of services for clients who
are ineligible for Title IV-E or Medicaid.
Title IV-B is the program intended to reimburse the cost of home-
based child welfare social services, and could be used to pay for
services to prevent placement and expedite reunification for children
and parents who are not eligible for Medicaid. But it cannot make a
dent in meeting these needs at current funding levels and should be
increase
Conclusions
Title IV-E is not the problem with child welfare funding; lack of
access to Medicaid services is the problem. If all of the federally
Medicaid-allowable services for Medicaid-eligible clients currently
funded by flexible but limited federal funds, or by 100 percent state/
local funds were shifted to Medicaid, flexible federal and state/local
funds would become available within child welfare budgets to pay for
the cost of social services, and for the cost of services for
federally-ineligible clients. Furthermore, increases in federal
spending in Medicaid due to this change would be controlled by the
availability of non-federal matching funds. While states would increase
their federal Medicaid revenues for the new child welfare services,
they would decrease their federal Title IV-E revenues for the
concomitant reduction in board and care costs. The overall bottom line
spending for child welfare would only increase through the usual state/
local budget processes. Child welfare systems would be able to leverage
federal funds to gain local match for badly-needed therapeutic and
rehabilitative services, which, because of limited access to Medicaid
services, are currently being supplemented through flexible federal and
all-state/local funds.
Statement of William Grimm, National Center for Youth Law,
Oakland, California
Chairman Herger and other Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee
on Human Resources: Thank you for consideration of our written
testimony on Mental Health Services for the printed record of the
Hearing to Examine Child Welfare Reform Proposals.
Founded in 1970, The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) is a non-
profit law center that through enforcement of federal and state laws
seeks to improve the lives of low-income children. NCYL attorneys and
support staff focus their work in four areas: safety and protection of
abused and neglected children, economic security, health and mental
health care, and juvenile justice. The Center has played a key role in
expanding access to federally funded health care services and other
public benefits for low-income children and families, addressing
deficiencies in the foster care system, improving child support
enforcement, and helping teenagers in the juvenile justice system. We
also have extensive experience in conducting trainings, providing
technical assistance, and publishing useful materials for foster
parents, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), legal services and
pro bono attorneys, and other child advocates.
I am currently counsel in Braam v. State of Washington, a case
challenging conditions for children and youth in foster care in the
State of Washington. Multiple placements of children in foster care,
the failure to provide mental health care to those children, and the
failure to provide foster parents with adequate support services are
some of the issues in Braam.
During the last year we have analyzed many of the Final Reports and
Program Improvement Plans completed as part of the federal Child and
Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). Our published articles on the Reviews
have included a critique of the process itself and detailed
examinations of the findings on placement stability, preservation of
sibling relationships, foster parent training, and foster parents'
right to notice and opportunity to be heard.\1\ Our most recent article
on the CFSRs examines findings on the provision of mental health
services to child abuse victims and foster children by child welfare
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bill Grimm & Isabelle Hurtubise, Child and Family Services
Reviews: An Ongoing Series, Part I: A Background to the Review Process,
Youth Law News, Jan.-Mar. 2003, at 1-11; Bill Grimm & Isabelle
Hurtubise, Child and Family Services Reviews: An Ongoing Series, Part
II: An Examination of Placement and Visitation, Youth Law News, Jan.-
Mar. 2003, at 14-30; Bill Grimm, Child & Family Services Reviews: Part
III in a Series, Foster Parent Training: What the CFS Reviews Do and
Don't Tell Us, Youth Law News, Apr.-Jun. 2003. For copies of our
quarterly journal Youth Law News, please contact the National Center
for Youth Law at 510-835-8098 or visit our website at www.youthlaw.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data provided by the Final Reports of the CFSRs lays bare the
abysmal performance of state agencies in ensuring that children who are
at risk of being removed from their homes and children placed out-of-
home receive appropriate mental health care to address the exceptional
psychological and behavioral problems these children experience. The
severe scarcity of mental health services results in turbulence and
uncertainty that has lasting consequences, for which children and
families pay the price.
Deficient Mental Health Services: A Long Documented Concern
For the most part, the information provided by the CFSRs is not new
or unprecedented. Problems highlighted by the Final Reports echo
concerns long documented in research literature and other published
materials. Without exception, studies of the health status of children
in care identify the pervasive presence of emotional disorders as the
most serious unmet health problem.\2\ Several studies indicate that
between 50 and 80 percent of children in foster care suffer from
moderate to severe mental health problems, including socio-emotional,
behavioral, and psychiatric problems warranting treatment.\3\ The
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) recently
indicated that nearly half of foster children have a clinical level of
behavioral and emotional problems: 47 percent of children ages 6 to 11,
and 40 percent of children ages 12 to 14.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Child Welfare League of America, Standards For Health Care
Service for Children in Out-of-Home Care, Child Welfare League of
America, Washington DC (1988). at 2.
\3\ DosReis, Zito, Safer, & Soeken, Mental Health Services for
Youths in Foster Care and Disabled Youths. American Journal of Public
Health. 91(7): 1094-99 (2001).
\4\ The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW)
is a longitudinal survey that collected information about a large
number of children under age 15 who have had contact with child welfare
services, including 1,279 children living in foster care homes in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The higher prevalence of mental health problems among children in
the child welfare system is the result of experiences and trauma
associated with high-risk and often dysfunctional family settings,
acute reactions to the trauma of being placed in foster care, and
separation from the biological parent. While many of these problems
likely have their roots in the underlying abuse or neglect that led a
child into foster care in the first place, long and uncertain periods
in foster care exacerbate poor outcomes.\5\ Emotional problems may
endanger successful placements, contribute to multiple placements, and
place demands on the mental health system for services that are often
not available.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Barbell & Freundlich, Foster Care Today. Casey Family Programs:
Washington DC, 2001.
\6\ CWLA Standards of Excellence for Health Care Services for
Children in Out-of-Home Care (1998) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, even with documented high rates of mental health
problems, it has been estimated that only about 25 percent of children
in foster care are receiving mental health services at any given
time.\7\ The use of evidence-based treatments for foster children is
very low, and the dominant focus of treatment is on sexual abuse and
somewhat on physical abuse.\8\ In spite of the clear evidence that the
long-term effects of neglect are equally damaging, there is very little
attention given to this issue. Data show that children with a history
of sexual abuse are three times more likely to receive mental health
services, while children with a history of neglect are only half as
likely to receive treatment.\9\ African-American and Hispanic children
are least likely to receive services, and they typically need to
display more pathology to be referred to mental health services.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Halfon N, Berkowitz G, Klee L, Mental Health Service
Utilization by Children in Foster Care in California. Pediatrics. 89 (6
Pt 2): 1238-44 (1992).
\8\ John Landsverk, Ph.D., Children's Hospital San Diego,
Proceedings based on the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's
Mental Health: Developing a National Action Agenda (September 18-19,
2000).
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, the lack of appropriate community mental health care
leads to high use of emergency and hospital care or unnecessary costs
to other systems. Children who need mental health treatment are not
getting it early enough to prevent a host of adverse outcomes. When a
child's behavioral and psychological problems go untreated, his/her
prospects of attaining a safe, stable, and permanent home progressively
diminish.
Children Receiving In-Home Services Least Likely to Obtain
Mental Health Treatment
Failure of state and county child welfare agencies to meet the
psychological and behavioral treatment needs of child abuse and neglect
victims was a recurrent conclusion of the CFSRs. Through on-site case
reviews, comprised of reading case files and interviewing children and
families engaged in services, reviewers were to determine whether the
mental health needs of children had been met. A meager four out of the
48 states for which final reports are publicly available achieved an
overall rating of strength in addressing mental health of the
child.\11\ For the majority of states, representing a staggering 91% of
child welfare agencies, mental health services were rated as an area
needing improvement.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Delaware Final Report at 45, Iowa Final Report at 51, Kansas
Final Report at 38, Utah Final Report at 42. Final Reports are
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/index.htm (last
visited July 23, 2004).
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining whether a child's mental health needs were met,
reviewers analyzed whether (1) mental health needs had been
appropriately addressed, and (2) appropriate services to address those
needs had been offered or provided. Reviewers rated mental health a
strength when they determined that the child's mental health needs were
significantly or partially assessed and mental health needs were
significantly addressed. When the agency failed to assess or address
the child's psychological or behavioral needs, mental health was rated
as an area needing improvement.
Our analysis of the CFSRs revealed that children at risk of removal
who are receiving in-home services are considerably less likely than
foster children to receive adequate psychological and behavioral
treatment for their mental health needs. Taking the state reports
together as a whole, mental health was rated a strength in 77.6 percent
of foster care cases compared to 62.8 percent of in-home service
cases.\13\ In many states, the discrepancy between foster care and in-
home cases is even more striking than this figure suggests. In New
Jersey, for example, federal reviewers determined that the agency met
the mental health needs of the child in 76 percent of foster care cases
compared to 26 percent of in-home cases.\14\ Similarly, California's
Final Report included a ``key finding'' that the agency ``did not pay
sufficient attention to mental health needs of children in in-home
cases.''\15\ Numerous Final Reports included comments from stakeholders
voicing concern over critical deficiencies or barriers in accessing
appropriate treatment for mentally ill children who were residing at
home with their biological families.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ These figures are calculated from data on the 48 states for
which final reports are publicly available as of July 23, 2004. 15
states do not provide information by case-type, preventing comparison
between in-home and foster care cases, including those for Arkansas,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont.
\14\ New Jersey Final Report at 73. See also Utah Final Report at
43 (``The item was rated as a strength in 97 percent of foster care
cases compared to 60 percent of in-home cases''); Washington Final
Report at 46 (``The item was rated as a strength in 82 percent of the
foster care cases compared to 45 percent of the in-home service
cases.).
\15\ California Final Report at 58.
\16\ Alaska Final Report at 71-2; Arkansas Final Report at 39-41;
District of Columbia Final Report at 55; Georgia Final Report at 33;
Hawaii Final Report at 55-7; Louisiana Final Report at 59; North
Carolina Final Report at 30; Oklahoma Final Report at 73; South
Carolina Report at 58; South Dakota Final Report at 3; Washington Final
Report at 46; Wyoming Final Report at 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other hearings before this subcommittee witnesses have expressed
concerns about the amount of federal funds available for foster care in
comparison to the much smaller amount for preventive services to
families. When children who remain at home do not receive needed mental
health services, their risk of entering the child welfare, mental
health or juvenile justice systems increases substantially. A child
welfare caseworker may encourage a family to voluntarily give up
custody of their child in order to obtain state-funded services that
are not available without the parent surrendering custody to a
government agency. Services to treat severe mental health disorders are
extremely expensive and private insurance tends to run out after a few
months. Affected children are often ineligible for Medicaid because
income or assets keep them ineligible. The US General Accounting Office
(GAO) documented that in the fiscal year 2001 alone, approximately
3,700 children were placed into child welfare systems so they could
access mental health services.\17\ Moreover, this estimate is
considered low because 31 states did not respond to the survey.
Increasing numbers of children with mental or emotional disorders are
unnecessarily and inappropriately dumped into the child welfare system.
This system is not well suited or equipped to deliver the kinds of
services these children need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ General Accounting Office Report, Child Welfare and Juvenile
Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States
Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health
Services, GAO-03-397, April 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the custody relinquishment tragedy is a symptom of a
much broader problem. The separation of children from their families,
whether voluntary or involuntary, that occurs when we fail to provide
mental health services almost always carries with it a host of negative
outcomes. What is more, entering the foster care system does not ensure
that appropriate mental health services will be provided to a child in
need.
Foster Children with Mental Health Needs Face Community Neglect
Once children are placed in foster care, the trauma of separation
from their families and the experience of multiple moves can increase
their vulnerability and compound their mental health problems. As
demonstrated by the CFSR findings in mental health, children in out-of-
home care frequently do not receive appropriate and individualized
mental health treatment. Mental health was rated as an area needing
improvement in 22.4 % of foster care cases.\18\ This figure suggests
that approximately one in four foster children are never assessed for
mental health needs and/or never provided with appropriate mental
health services to address their needs. When this statistic is
considered alongside information on state policies and practices,
caseworker anecdotes, and stakeholders' concerns over service gaps
discussed in the final reports, a dismal picture of the provision of
mental health services to children in foster care emerges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See supra, note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, our discovery in Braam v. State of Washington
uncovered that child welfare agencies often purchase mental health
services for which there is little evidence of effectiveness. Much
money, including federal Medicaid and Title IV-E dollars, is spent on
these services. Meanwhile, many states fail to provide services that
have a proven success addressing mental health and behavior needs of
children. A recent report of the Washington State Institute for Public
Policy provides an overview of many such services.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Steve Aos, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, Annie
Pennucci. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention
Programs for Youth (July. 2004)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While all children are dependent on others for their care and well-
being, children who are taken into the custody of the state are
uniquely dependant upon government agencies. More than 15 years ago,
the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) issued standards for the
provision of mental health services for children in foster care.\20\
These were followed by similar standards put forward by the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1994 that were re-affirmed in 2002.\21\
Similar recommendations on the delivery of mental health services for
children in foster care were made by the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP).\22\ The CWLA, AAP, and AACAP recommend
that all children should receive a mental health screening when placed
in foster care and receive a comprehensive mental health assessment by
a mental health professional as part of a comprehensive evaluation
within a month of being placed in foster care. The standards also
emphasize the need for a systematic, coordinated approach to the
delivery of services to meet children's ongoing mental health needs. A
report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health
corroborates these recommendations by suggesting that all children
entering care should receive comprehensive mental health assessments
and that public funding streams should be expanded to improve the use
of evidence-based treatment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Child Welfare League of America, Standards For Health Care
Service for Children in Out-of-Home Care, Child Welfare League of
America, Washington DC (1988).
\21\ American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Early
Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care. Health Care of Children in
Foster Care. Pediatrics 93:335-338 (1994); AAP Committee on Early
Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care. Health Care Needs of Young
Children in Foster Care, Pediatrics 109:536-541 (2002).
\22\ American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP)
Policy Statement Psychiatric Care of Children in the Foster Care
System, available at http://www.aacap,org/publications/policy/ps445htm
(2001).
\23\ John Landsverk, Ph.D, Children's Hospital San Diego,
Proceedings based on the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's
Mental Health: Developing a National Action Agenda (September 18-19,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CFSR findings suggest that many states are falling far short of
meeting these standards. For example, a few states appear to have no
statewide policy for conducting any form of mental health screening for
children entering out-of-home care.\24\ For example, while Iowa was one
of the four states rated as achieving ``strength'' in meeting the
mental health needs of the child, there are no guidelines for
identifying mental health needs for children who may require mental
health treatment.\25\ Instead, a caseworker ``may issue'' temporary
orders for treatment or evaluation.\26\ Most state policies appear to
rely on a child's caseworker to identify mental health problems
warranting treatment.\27\ The widespread endorsement of this approach
is troubling given that caseworkers are unlikely to have expertise in
identifying children's mental health issues. The Colorado Final Report
featured a child who entered foster care and received no mental health
assessment because the caseworker indicated that there were no needs.
However, reviewers who studied the case noted that the child had been
exposed to domestic violence and substance abuse by the mother, had
separation issues with the father and mother, and had, at one time,
been kidnapped by relatives while walking home from school.\28\ This
history suggests that a mental health evaluation by a professional is
warranted. In some states, Alabama and California, for example, the
agency provides specialized training for workers to enhance their
ability to identify a child's underlying issues.\29\ Nevertheless, the
reliance on a caseworker to pick up on a child's behavioral and
emotional issues during short, infrequent meetings may explain why many
foster children's mental health issues go undocumented or untreated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Idaho Final Report at 48 (``There is no requirement for a
mental health assessment of children in foster care.''); Iowa Final
Report at 51; Michigan Final Report at 59-60.
\25\ Iowa Final Report at 51.
\26\ Iowa Code Anon. 232.98: Physical & Mental Evaluations.
\27\ See, e.g., Alabama Final Report at 54; Alaska Final Report at
55; California Final Report at 57; Colorado Final Report at 48;
Delaware Final Report; Massachusetts Final Report at 27; Montana Final
Report at 55; Missouri Final Report; Missouri Child Welfare Manual,
Section 4.4.3.1: Child Assessment Guideline; New Mexico Final Report at
47; New Jersey Final Report at 74; Pennsylvania Final Report at 59.
\28\ Colorado Final Report at 48.
\29\ Alabama Final Report at 54; California Statewide Assessment at
191 (June 18, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if a child is properly identified as having behavioral or
psychological issues warranting treatment, lack of follow-up appears to
be a widespread and pervasive problem.\30\ For example, a case reviewed
in the District of Columbia featured a child who was professionally
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome, yet who received no
mental health services or follow-up whatsoever.\31\ The root cause of
this common problem may be that children with mental health issues are
typically involved with both mental health and child welfare agencies.
The roles and responsibilities of these agencies are rarely clearly
defined, which makes it difficult for foster parents, caseworkers, and
therapists to navigate the systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., Arizona Final Report at 41; Arkansas Final Report
at 40; Georgia Final Report at 33; Illinois Final Report at 35.
\31\ District of Columbia Final Report at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another frequently mentioned problem was a lack of individualized
mental health services. The treatment of children with behavioral or
psychological issues appears to be frequently driven by what is readily
available rather than what is appropriate. Numerous Final Reports
described case plans as ``boiler plate,'' ``cookie cutter,'' or
``generic.''\32\ The Final Reports revealed severe service gaps in the
following areas: lack of therapeutic foster homes for children with
serious emotional and behavioral issues, long waiting lists for mental
health services that can take up to nine months, a need for more
psychologists and psychiatrists, high turnover in Medicaid-funded
therapists and counselors, lack of culturally appropriate services,
absence of services in rural areas or prohibitively high transportation
costs, lack of substance abuse services for adolescents, and a lack of
high-end services for seriously emotionally disturbed children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See, e.g., Arkansas Final Report at 67; Hawaii Final Report at
75; Iowa Final Report at 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997\33\ established
the goals of safety, permanency, and well-being for all children
involved with child welfare agencies. This Act, and parallel child
welfare reforms in many states and local communities, have increased
the pressure on child welfare agencies to achieve permanency for
children more quickly and to be held accountable for better outcomes
for children and their families. But more remains to be done. Our
analysis of the CFSR findings on mental health services provide some
important lessons for Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Public Law 105-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Federal Child Welfare Reviews Should Guide Federal Child
Welfare Reform
On May 13, 2004 the Subcommittee on Human Resources held its
hearing on state efforts to comply with the CFSRs. Wade Horn, Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human
Services, testified briefly, emphasizing the critical role the Federal
Review process plays in engaging states in assessing the quality of
their child welfare systems and in undertaking the process of
improvement. While this Committee has heard from the Pew Commission and
state child welfare administrators, we believe that the importance of
the CFSR data has been largely overlooked in driving federal reform
efforts.
The CFSRs represent a huge undertaking with the potential to become
one of the most important initiatives embarked upon to improve child
welfare services across the nation. The Reviews contain a wealth of
information on all areas of child welfare services, from child
protection and family preservation, to foster care, family
reunification and adoption services. The Reviews examine caseworker
practice in the field, review the state agency's capacity to serve
children and families effectively, and assess the relationships between
state agencies serving the child welfare population.
Congress should rigorously examine the CFSR findings and draw upon
this information in order to create federal programs or reforms that
will address the most widespread and pervasive problems facing our
nation's most vulnerable population.
2. Congress Should Create Incentives to Encourage Greater Coordination
Between Child Welfare and Mental Health Service Agencies
Whether we focus our attention on the provision of in-home or out-
of-home services, obtaining mental health services frequently requires
interaction with multiple state agencies, which results in the creation
of unique challenges. Many of the programs and systems that serve
families have their own eligibility criteria, regulations, and case
tracking and management systems, including Medicaid, mental health, and
substance abuse programs. This means that children and families
involved in multiple systems typically have many caseworkers,
therapists, and psychologists or psychiatrists who may not be in
communication with one another.
What's more, the roles and responsibilities of agencies are not
clearly delineated, resulting in inter-agency disputes that can delay
or deny services to children and families. Fiscal constraints can lead
families to seek services from agencies that are not suited to meet
their children's needs, but might have funding available. Many final
reports included comments from stakeholders voicing concern over the
lack of coordination between child welfare and mental health
agencies.\34\ In describing the lack of integration and coordination
between child welfare and mental health agencies, stakeholders
frequently used such words as ``barriers,'' ``gate-keeping,''
``conflict,'' and ``logjam.''\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See, e.g., Alabama Final Report at 74; Colorado Final Report
at 65; District of Columbia Final Report at 73; Georgia Final Report at
50; Florida Final Report at 60; Iowa Final Report at 71.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuring child well-being requires more coordination across
publicly-financed systems. One way Congress could address this problem
is to give priority to Title IV-E waiver demonstration projects that
encourage or facilitate coordination between agencies. Collaboration
between mental health and child welfare agencies at a system level can
be done in a variety of ways, including co-location of staff, sharing
of financial resources, cross-system training, designation of special
liaisons, interagency collaboration teams, and interagency agreements.
3. Congress Should Enact The Keeping Families Together Act to Improve
Access to Children's Mental Health Services
Pending before Congress is the Keeping Families Together Act,\36\
which would address, in part, the scarcity of available in-home mental
health services discussed above. This proposed legislation represents
an important step toward meeting the needs of these children and
promotes an alternative to the closed doors and fragmented systems that
parents and caseworkers face when they seek help for children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ H.R. 3242, 108th Cong. (2003); S. 1704, 108th Cong. (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill would increase the availability of home and community-
based services and give states an incentive to continue to support such
services. New York, Vermont and Kansas, for example, have all improved
outcomes and reduced costs in their child mental health systems since
adopting a Medicaid waiver that helps fund home and community-based
services for children with mental health needs. By promoting a
coordinated system of care, this bill also recognizes the critical need
to address fragmentation between the various agencies responsible for
serving children, including education, mental health, juvenile justice,
and child welfare. Collaboration between federal, state, and local
agencies is absolutely essential to getting children the services they
need. We encourage Congress to move towards enactment of this important
legislation.
We appreciate this opportunity to share our findings and
recommendations with the Subcommittee.
Statement of Terry L. Cross, National Indian Child Welfare Association,
Portland, Oregon
The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits this
statement on current proposals to reform federal child welfare
financing and the potential impacts upon Indian children, families, and
tribal governments. Attached is a brief description of our organization
and our work.
We are pleased that the subcommittee is studying ways to improve
services and financing of child welfare services for this nation's
children and families. Our constituency, American Indian and Alaska
Native tribal governments and their children and families, have not
always benefited from the federal government's programs in child
welfare and we are glad that the subcommittee is taking steps to make
sure any new proposals reach this very vulnerable population. Your
proposal, as well as the Pew Commission's recommendations, acknowledges
the great injustice done to Indian children by proposing that tribal
governments be able to provide the services and protections of the
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Act to the children under their
jurisdiction.
Representative Frenzel, in his testimony before this subcommittee
last week said that the Pew Commission began and ended every meeting by
judging their work to see if it met the goal of every child having a
safe, permanent home. Chairman Herger has asked the public to make
recommendations on child welfare legislation that is premised on the
goal of doing more to protect our children. If one truly takes these
principles to heart, then you must make real efforts with regard to
tribal governments and the children under their jurisdiction.
Legislation to accomplish this must take into account the sovereign
nature of tribal governments, the fact that they have not been able to
access the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs (nor
the Title XX Social Services Block Grant nor, until very recently, the
Title IV-D child Support Enforcement program) and their economic and
cultural circumstances.
Background
The subcommittee's draft proposal would change the requirements and
funding system for the Title IV-E and IV-B programs. We understand and
support the need to make changes to improve services leading to
improved outcomes for children. Indian children have been and continue
to be disproportionately represented in state foster care systems.
Where improvements have occurred, tribes were always critical players
in providing services or identifying permanent placements. The primary
barrier to Indian children receiving more timely and lasting
permanency, in our view, has been the lack of funding and opportunities
to serve their children and families living on tribal lands and provide
resources and expertise to states that have Indian children and
families in their jurisdiction. Where tribal governments have been
empowered through funding and opportunities to serve their members,
Indian children have faired better (Red Horse, Martinez, & Day, 2001).
Below we have provided a brief description of tribal access to Title
IV-E and Title IV-B.
Title IV-E serves very few American Indian or Alaska Native
children living on tribal lands, because of a statutory oversight that
only allowed tribal governments to access the program if they could
develop an agreement with the state they reside in. These tribal/state
agreements are not mandated and both states and tribes have experienced
difficulty in trying to develop agreements (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, 1994 and Brown, Limb,
Munoz, R., and Clifford, 2000). This has resulted in American Indian
and Alaska Native children being ineligible for a federal entitlement
that all other children are guaranteed. Currently, there are only about
70 tribes that have agreements with states on Title IV-E, and some of
these agreements do not provide access to all program components
(administration, training, and maintenance funds).
Under Title IV-B, tribal governments are eligible for direct
funding. However, the amounts and number of tribes eligible to apply
are very small. Title IV-B, Subpart 1, Child Welfare Services is
formula driven based upon the number of children under age 21. This
formula is expected to allocate $5.2 million in FY 2004 for tribal
governments, with 477 of the 560 eligible tribal governments receiving
less than a $10,000 grant. Half of the 477 tribal grantees will receive
a grant of less than $5,000. Under Title IV-B, Subpart 2, Promoting
Safe and Stable Families, the statute contains a formula that
determines tribal allocations and eligibility. To be eligible to
receive funding a tribal government must receive a grant of $10,000 or
more under the formula. In FY 2004, this provides eligibility to
approximately 66 tribes to share in $5.05 million (1% of the mandatory
funding = $3.05 million and 2% of the discretionary funding = $2.0
million).
While tribal child welfare funding from federal and state sources
has been limited in most cases, tribal governments have made
exceptional strides in developing services that are responsive to their
communities and reforming service delivery systems when needed. The use
of volunteers, leveraging multiple funding sources, and developing
partnerships with other private and public entities are nothing new to
tribal governments and share a common thread with the values that we
see forming the foundation of reforms now being considered. Other
supporting services for children, such as mental health, are also being
reviewed and new approaches are being developed to serve American
Indian and Alaska Native children. These efforts are increasing
coordination between service providers in many child related service
arenas and utilizing the strengths of families and community more
effectively to deliver treatment in less restrictive settings and with
greater impact (Cross, Earle, Echo-Hawk Solie, and Manness, 2000).
Financing Child Welfare
As we indicated earlier, we view the subcommittee's efforts to
reform federal child welfare financing as an important goal. How
American Indian and Alaska Native children and the tribal governments
that serve them fit into these efforts is a discussion that is
important to continue and is acknowledged in the subcommittee's draft
proposal by making tribal governments eligible. In addition,
Congressman Camp has demonstrated his support for helping tribal
governments secure Title IV-E funding by co-sponsoring H.R. 443,
legislation under the subcommittee's jurisdiction that makes tribal
governments eligible to apply for and administer the existing Title IV-
E foster care and adoption assistance program. The President's flexible
funding proposal also acknowledges the need to include tribal
governments in any funding reform too, as does the Pew Commission
Report. Some of these proposals need improvement, and we have shared
our comments to that end with the subcommittee both in writing and in
meetings with staff.
Given that tribal governments have not been afforded the
opportunity to operate the Title IV-E program and therefore have not
been able to establish historical data on their needs or trends in
relation to foster care and adoption assistance, our first choice would
be the enactment of H.R. 443. Providing tribes with an opportunity to
operate the current foster care entitlement program, which by a
Congressional Budget Office score reaches only $54 million at it's
peak, will ensure that future reform efforts will have data and are
well informed and that American Indian and Alaska Native children are
not unintentionally left without foster care support in the immediate
future, as is now the case. We are heartened that the subcommittee did
review H.R. 443 and incorporated some of its provisions in their draft
proposal.
Should Congress decide to cap the appropriations for the foster
care program and/or make changes similar to the subcommittee's
proposal, we have the following comments, recommendations, and
questions.
Adoption Assistance. We appreciate that the subcommittee's draft
proposal keeps the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program as an open-
ended entitlement and that tribes will be eligible to administer those
funds. Adoption practice in Indian Country has been evolving, even
without federal funds, to incorporate support for customary adoption
practices and policies. The National Indian Child Welfare Association
has been at the forefront of promoting this evolving practice and now
has a manual with a model code that is being used in many tribal
communities. Customary adoption is helping improve support for adoption
in Indian Country and increasing the number of permanent placement
options for American Indian and Alaska Native children.
Foster Care Maintenance. We are supportive of the provisions under
the proposal that would make tribal governments eligible to receive
funding under this program, including tribal consortium and the
development of agreements with states. As stated above, however, we
feel strongly that the best policy is to keep the foster care
maintenance program as an open-ended entitlement, especially in light
of the bill eliminating the income requirement for the program. We also
support the waiver authority for the Secretary of DHHS with regards to
program requirements and data reporting. These provisions acknowledge
the unique circumstances of tribal communities and service delivery
systems while still protecting children and yielding important data. We
also see that the proposal provides that a tribe that elects to operate
this program must do so in the same manner as a state. Our
understanding of this draft is that tribes will be developing their own
codes and standards consistent with Title IV-E and IV-B. We agree with
this approach, and many tribes have already developed codes, program
policies, and foster care standards of this nature, which makes us
confident that other tribes will also be able to do this. This approach
will ensure that tribal codes and standards reflect tribal realities
and help improve protections and outcomes for Indian children.
The subcommittee proposes that tribes would be eligible to receive
0.9% of the overall appropriation, which starts in year one at
approximately $16.2 million. As stated earlier, the Congressional
Budget Office score for H.R. 443 reaches $54 million at its peak after
ten years. This considers full implementation of the program
(maintenance, administration, and training) with an increase in the
number of tribes coming into the program over several years. The
subcommittee proposal only includes foster care maintenance funding,
which currently makes up about 50% of the federal Title IV-E foster
care dollar. Using these numbers and the available data that show
Indian children are over-represented in the foster care system, it
makes sense to increase the reserved amount to 2% of the overall
appropriation for tribes. This would ease fears that the tribal
children in different tribal areas would be left without any foster
care support and that tribes would have to drain off other child
welfare funds that could be used to prevent children from entering the
foster care system in the first place.
The rollover provision in the Foster Care Maintenance section is
another important provision for tribal governments, especially
considering their lack of access to foster care funding historically.
Being able to roll over funding would be very helpful as tribes work to
fine tune their services and establish a foundation in foster care
services.
Subsidized Guardianship and Child Welfare Waivers. The subcommittee
has addressed subsidized guardianships by expanding the state waivers
program. Tribes view guardianship as an important permanency option, as
do many states that are currently supporting guardianship through state
funds or have waivers targeting this permanency option. Unfortunately,
tribes do not have funding to support guardianship and are not eligible
to apply for waivers. Efforts to include tribes in state waiver
projects have been very difficult and unsuccessful in most cases. We
recommend that you consider support for guardianships in a manner
similar to how the Pew Commission has recommended. If this is not
possible, we would recommend that you make tribal governments eligible
for the federal waiver program.
Match Requirements. With regard to the federal match requirements,
we are in support of the subcommittee's proposal to develop tribal
medical assistant rates used in calculating the federal and tribal
match rates for the foster care maintenance and adoption assistance
programs. H.R. 443 included additional language that would have
provided the Secretary of DHHS with authority to modify match rates for
IV-E administration and training to take into consideration the extreme
poverty that exists for most tribes and contributes to an inability to
generate significant general revenues. Language in H.R. 443 would also
allow tribes to utilize other related federal and state funding to
satisfy their match, which is commonly done with other federal
programs. This provision also considers the economic conditions of most
tribes by recognizing that the only tribal income they may have comes
from federal or state sources. Allowing federal and state sources for
tribal match can also be done without supplanting funds. The
subcommittee's proposal reduces the federal match for the Foster Care
Maintenance, Adoption Assistance, Safe Children, Strong Families
program and Foster Care Crisis program under their proposal, which
could have the effect of dramatically reducing the number of tribal
applicants. Our recommendation would be to include the provisions under
H.R. 443, mentioned above, and not to subject tribes to the reductions
in federal match in the programs related to this in the proposal.
Safe Children, Strong Families Program. We are pleased that you
included tribes as eligible for this program in the subcommittee's
proposal. As you know, tribal governments have been eligible for both
of the Title IV-B programs (see description of tribal access in
Background section). We like the flexibility that states and tribal
governments are given to use this funding and the purposes for the
grant program. We also like the waiver authority you have provided the
Secretary of DHHS to examine plan requirements and determine if they
are appropriate for tribal application and the ability of the Secretary
to use a broader source of data to calculate the number of children in
a tribe for determining funding allocations.
The subcommittee proposal would reserve for tribes up to 0.45% of
the overall appropriation from the mandatory funding and 0.5% of the
discretionary funding. In year one this would amount to approximately
$17.5 million in mandatory funding and $2.6 million in discretionary
funding. Under the current Title IV-B, Subpart 1 program, tribes
receive approximately 1.75% of the overall appropriation. Under the
current Title IV-B, Subpart 2 program, tribes receive 1% of the
mandatory funding and 2% of the discretionary funding. To bring tribal
programs up to the same level in service capacity that states are, we
would recommend that the Safe Children, Strong Families grant program
increase the amounts reserved for tribes to 1.5% for both the mandatory
and discretionary programs. This would also be consistent with the need
of tribal children for these services based upon the disproportionate
number of these children in care and the minimal level of access tribal
governments have had to these programs.
We are, however, very concerned about the bill's required 32% match
rate for tribes and know it would effectively eliminate many, many
tribes from applying for this program. The 2000 Census reports a 25.7%
poverty rate nationally for Indians and Alaska Natives, and, of course,
in some reservation areas, the poverty rate is much higher than that.
Foster Care Crisis and Challenge Grants. We support the concept of
providing a contingency fund for states that have unexpected and
unpreventable increases in foster care placements. Because of the
variability of factors that can contribute to a spike in foster care
placements, it is essential that there is a protective net to help
vulnerable children. We noticed that tribes are not included in the
Foster Care Crisis funding program and would recommend that you also
make them eligible. We would also recommend making tribes eligible for
the Challenge Grants authorized in this proposal. The draft bill should
be amended to allow tribal governments to share in the rewards and
incentives for improving outcomes for Indian children in the child
welfare system in the same way that states are.
Regulations. H.R. 443 includes a provision that would ensure that
DHHS consults with tribes and tribal organizations in the development
of regulations. We did not see this language in the subcommittee's
draft but think it would be a valuable addition.
Definition of Tribe, Tribal Organization, and Reservation. The
definition of tribes in the subcommittee's proposal only includes
tribes with a reservation and Alaska Native tribes. This should be
modified, because tribes can exercise authority over non-reservation
children, particularly through transfers from state court under current
federal law and because tribes without a land base sometimes can join
in consortia with tribes with a land base to provide services to their
children. In addition, tribes without a land base have entered into
agreements with states to define services and jurisdiction that have
served Indian children, tribes, and states very well and this
definition would create conflicts for those states and tribes. The best
way to address this issue is to use the application process where a
tribe includes information about its service area (federally
designated) and not by excluding them from the definition itself.
If a reservation requirement is to be included, we recommend doing
it outside the definition of tribe and defining reservation using the
standardized definition within the Indian Child Welfare Act. The ICWA
definition is:
Reservation is defined in ICWA as Indian Country as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151 (that definition defines Indian Country as ``(a) all land
within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of
the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation,
(b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United
States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory
thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c)
all Indian allotments, the Indian titles of which have not been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same) and any
lands, not covered under such section, title to which is either held by
the United States in trust for the benefit of any Indian tribe or
individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to a
restriction by the United States against alienation.
If this approach is taken, however, we would recommend including
the former reservations' in Oklahoma language currently in the draft
bill in addition to the Indian Child Welfare Act definition.
Court Oversight
We are glad that you acknowledge the critical role of court systems
in ensuring permanency for children. In Indian Country, tribal juvenile
courts also have an important role and are constantly working to
improve their processes and outcomes even with little federal support.
The court improvement projects that have been supported by Title IV-B
funds have been very beneficial to states improving their outcomes for
children in the child welfare system; however, tribes have not been
eligible to receive these funds in the past. Improving tribal program
support is very important, but tribal courts are integral partners in
this effort too. We recommend that you make tribal courts eligible to
share in the court enhancement funding under the subcommittee's
proposal.
Conclusion
We are very appreciative of the subcommittee's efforts to include
tribal governments in its proposal. Your support for increasing tribal
capacity in child welfare is what is needed if we are to improve child
welfare outcomes for American Indian and Alaska Native Children in this
country. We understand that this is a draft proposal and that there
will be more discussion, and welcome the opportunity to be part of this
discussion. Indeed, the draft bill does need improvements with regard
to its tribal provisions. The National Indian Child Welfare Association
works closely with tribal governments across the country and national
organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians, so
we have the ability to be able to bring the issues in Indian Country to
the subcommittee process. Thank you for your effort, and we look
forward to working with you soon.
REFERENCES
Brown, E., Whitaker, L.S., Clifford, C., Limb, G., and Munoz, R.
(2000). Tribal/state Title IV-E intergrovernmental agreements:
Facilitating tribal access to federal resources. Seattle: Casey Family
Programs.
Cross, T., Earle, K., Echo-Hawk Solie, H., & Manness, K. (2000).
Cultural strengths and challenges in implementing a system of care
model in American Indian communities. Systems of Care: Promising
Practices in Children's Mental Health, 2000 Series, Volume I.
Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice,
American Institutes for Research.
Red Horse, J. G., Martinez, C., & Day, P. (2001). Family
Preservation: A case study of Indian tribal policy. Seattle, WA: Casey
Family Programs.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General. (1994). OEI-01-93-00110, Opportunities for ACF to improve
child welfare services and protections for Native American children.
August, 1994. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
The National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a
national, private non-profit organization dedicated to the well-being
of American Indian children and families. We are the most comprehensive
source of information on American Indian child welfare and work on
behalf of Indian children and families. NICWA services include (1)
professional training for tribal and urban Indian child welfare and
mental health professionals; (2) consultation on child welfare and
mental health program development; (3) facilitation of child abuse
prevention efforts in tribal communities; (4) analysis and
dissemination of public policy information that impacts Indian children
and families; (5) development and dissemination of contemporary
research specific to Native populations; and (6) assisting state,
federal, and private agencies to improve the effectiveness of their
services to Indian children and families.
In order to provide the best services possible to Indian children
and families, NICWA has established mutually beneficial partnerships
with agencies that promote effective child welfare and mental health
services for children (e.g., Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Indian Health Services, Administration for Children,
Youth and Families, National Congress of American Indians, Federation
of Families for Children's Mental Health, and the Child Welfare League
of America).
Statement of John A. Johnson, New York State Office of Children and
Family Services, Rensselaer, New York
The nation's investment in services to its abused and neglected
children has long served as fodder for national discussion and debate.
Yet, in the swirl of concern about the safety, permanency and well
being, little substantive change in federal funding has occurred in
more than two decades. Uncapped federal funding remains available for
care and maintenance of the poorest children entering care--and then
only when compliance has been achieved with a myriad of rules that only
marginally relate to achieving pivotal outcomes. Federal spending on
services to prevent out-of-home placements or to reunite children with
their families remains a negligible proportion of the federal child
welfare spending.
In short, federal funding appears to reward separation of
vulnerable children from their families, rather than exhaustion of
services to maintain them safely at home or to return them home if they
are already in placement. This investment strategy would be suspect
under any circumstances, and judges faced with ordering separation of
families have expressed wariness about expectations placed upon them
given the federal focus on foster care in funding and in publication of
rules and guidelines.
The renewed discussion of instituting a federal block grant for
foster care seems well timed for New York State. The number of children
in foster care has decreased steadily for almost a decade. Governor
Pataki and the Legislature have demonstrated a commitment to supporting
a continuation of this decrease by investing in services to prevent
placements and, where unavoidable, to shortening lengths of stay by
funding an array of services. The guarantee of continued funding at
current level, would allow New York State to serve vulnerable children
in the context of their families, and their families in the context of
their communities.
In considering an alternative to foster care financing, New York
has advocated the following:
De-Link from 1996 AFDC standards. All children in foster
care would be eligible for title IV-E assistance and presumed eligible
for Adoption Assistance. Child welfare relies on an eight-year-old
means test to determine financial eligibility for services provided by
all states regardless of income. Elimination of this means test for
foster care and adoption services is both sensible and cost efficient.
The amount of federal participation in setting a block grant for foster
care would, as noted above, be based on historical spending. Adoption
services could be reimbursed based on either: (1) the percent of
federal expenditures in relation to state spending going forward in
time towards future claims and continuing reimbursement at that level
or (2) the use of the current rates of eligibility for Title IV-E
Adoption Subsidies in establishing federal participation for future
year claims. This is consistent with the recommendations made to this
committee by the Pew Commission, the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA), and the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA).
Make participation optional and provide states sufficient
time to opt-in. Lead time will be important to states to allow for
calculations to determine the benefits of participating, to make any
needed regulatory, statutory and systems changes, to involve
stakeholders in improving services and to instruct the field of
practice changes. Two years following enactment seems to be the minimum
time required to structure funding changes to succeed.
Make sure the states' baseline for establishing
spending levels remains certain, as it is in TANF. To set the
level of annual federal funding for a state on anything other
than spending for a recent year seems disingenuous and would
obviate most the incentives for participation in the program.
While the number of foster care days used by New York State has
declined, the children and youth entering care present unique
challenges to mental health, educational and other special
needs. To successfully meet these needs has proven costly in
two arenas. The cost of care days has risen and the cost of
establishing and of maintaining a comprehensive mix of
community-based services also has grown.
Finally, this baseline must remain at a constant level once set,
not be impacted by audits for at least five years with no retroactive
audits, and must provide for growth over the duration of the capped
entitlement to permit states confidence in budgeting over the life of
the financing.
Equitably calculate states' baseline. For purposes of
implementing a child welfare finance alternative, calculate the
baseline as the sum of a State's Title IV-B allotment and its title IV-
E administrative and training expenditures.
Declare all foster children in a class for the purpose of
Medicaid eligibility determination in all facilities. New York State
recommends that children in a foster care facility continue to receive
funding for medical care should they, for example, be transferred to a
hospital. This investment has a short and long term pay-off to the
child, state and federal governments. In other words, Medicaid
eligibility cannot be tied to a facility, but must be tied exclusively
to the foster child, regardless of setting.
Eliminate federal title IV-E Reviews and other
administrative requirements. These reviews have been viewed as
``paper reviews'' to establish case eligibility for federal
funding. A capped entitlement would obviate the need for such a
case-by-case review and allow for increased focus and use of
funds for outcomes.
Prohibit the creation of new data reporting
requirements for child welfare services. States have struggled
with meeting the evolving federal data requirements, at a high
cost to accomplish required changes. New YorkState has found
requirements that differ from federally specified data to
provide more information for accountability, planning and
research. To ignore state-specific data designs retards
meaningful use of data in making sorely needed program
improvements.
Prohibit the unfair treatment of kinship foster care.
Subsidized guardianships, including placements with
grandparents and other relatives, are an important permanency
option for many children. Currently, the federal government
does not provide specific funding to support that option. The
draft legislation permits subsidized guardianship only as a
waiver option for a state rather than automatically including
it in maintenance. It is critical that subsidized guardianship
and kinship programs be an option for all state and local child
welfare systems if our goal is to increase the rate of
permanency for these children.
Encourage the engagement of families by adequately
funding preventive service dollars. The safety and permanence
of children in foster care depends upon funding for services
and supports to avoid and/or reduce the length of stay in out-
of-home placements. Engaging families in casework involves a
heavy financial burden and the states are encouraged to support
this practice through the recommendations of the Pew Report and
CFSR PIP approved plans. Federal participation should
substantiate these federal findings.
Provide for true transferability of funding. Both the
Pew Commission and the subcommittee's draft legislation
recommend states be allowed to transfer ``excess'' federal
foster care maintenance funds into the services block grant for
reinvestment into other child welfare services. These
``excess'' funds would come from a state reducing its foster
care expenditures below a certain baseline. Based on states'
current struggle to adequately cover the cost of care for its
children, the likelihood of excess funds seems remote.
``Unused'' transferred foster care funds should not be relied
on as a primary source of new funding for prevention and other
services. I support rewarding states for improving performance.
However, any opportunity for transfer must be constructed in a
way that does not provide a disincentive to provide the care
that children in foster care need.
Incentive dollars should be a reward for good
practice. Providing ongoing funding as a reward for programs
that demonstrate elements of success is a positive step in
developing best practice standards. Instead, federal dollars
for planning and preventive care are capped and distributed in
a competitive manner on demonstration programs.
Support the national priority of adoption. Adoption
assistance should neither be capped nor support reductions in
funding or FMAP.
Prohibit the establishment of national standards as
part of this finance option mandate. The CFSR is still a work
in progress. Many states have yet to have the Program
Implementation Plans (PIPs) approved. The Administration for
Children and Families has yet to make decisions concerning the
next round of the CFSR. Because of this, it would be
precipitous to legislate any national standards.
Directly relate Maintenance of Effort Requirements
(MOE) to states title IV-E match for title IV-E and allow for
flexible use of the matching funds. Flexibility would enable
states to adapt evidence-based practices from child welfare and
other fields to help children remain safely in their own homes
and communities.
Make available contingency funds to states that
experience significant increases in foster care. As New York
discovered with the crack epidemic in the 80's, states may
experience unique circumstances that result in caseload growth.
For states with a caseload growth of, for example 10% or more
over a two-year period, a provision for a 50% state match of
federal contingency funds would provide some relief from
unanticipated costs while discouraging state abuse of funding.
Because caseload shifts seem related directly to unique state
circumstances, New York recommends that any growth be measured
within the state and not against national trends.
Allow for an inflationary increase in funding. As
recommended by The Pew Commission, APHSA and CWLA, the annual
appropriation for title IV-E should be increased by the CPI
plus 2%.
Do not complicate the issue of child welfare
financing by adding legislation that affects the Interstate
Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). The proposals made
by the White House and the Subcommittee pertain to federal
funding mandates. ICPC is a procedural issue that concerns
children placed beyond a state's border. ICPC legislation
should remain separate from this funding process.
Allow for states to use federal funding to reward
court performance that enhances outcomes for foster children.
Currently, federal rules limit federal child welfare funding to
the courts to federal court improvement funds. Courts have
little incentive to join with child welfare services
administrators and providers as partners in achieving safety
and permanency of children.
By allowing states to establish outcome indicators for courts and
to provide funding to courts that work to achieve such indicators,
partnerships would be fostered. Family treatment courts in New York
provide a model for collaboration For example-family treatment courts
hold biweekly hearings with substance abusing parents, the child
welfare agency, substance abuse treatment provider, and legal
representatives for the parties to review progress in treatment and
activities toward effecting reuniting foster children with their
parents. Despite the increased court costs and the success of the
model, no federal child welfare funding may be invested in offsetting
court costs. Assigning state child welfare administrators some voice in
the use of federal court improvement funding and federal title IV-E to
advance child welfare-court collaborative promises continued
improvements in outcomes for vulnerable children and their families.
In addition, the bill language should permit certain court expenses
such as monitoring orders, judicial training, mediation as well as
other identifiable court activities related to permanency and better
outcomes for foster care children to be allowable as Title IV-E costs.
Naturally, because families who come to the attention of the child
welfare system typically face the challenge of substance abuse,
domestic violence, poverty, overcrowded housing and unstable
relationships between parents, continued funding to meet these multiple
and complex needs remains critical to improving permanency, safety and
well-being of the nations' most vulnerable children. In the face of
current economic conditions, federal leadership and funding underpins
the success of states' efforts to achieve shared outcomes for our
children and their families.
As Commissioner of New York's agency that oversees child welfare, I
am encouraged by the serious attention given to the critical issues
arising from child welfare by Congress and this committee. I thank the
Members for their attention and look forward to the full committee's
proposal as well as positive progress in this arena.
Statement of John R. Seita, Battle Creek, Michigan
The foster care system is broken and needs substantial overhaul.
That much is evident. It's also clear that most of the recommendations
over the years about how to improve that system have failed.
Which brings us to the latest effort, from the Pew Commission on
Children in Foster Care.
The commission released a report last month recommending
significant changes in foster care financing and ways to strengthen
courts in order to better help foster children. As a former foster
child, my concern is not about how many of the recommendations will
become policy or if they would work--both impossible to predict.
What disturbs me is the composition of the commission.
I agree that improving foster care must be a priority. I lived in
more than 15 foster homes. I understand the misery of feeling alone,
unwanted and unloved. I've experienced the difficulties of life both in
and after foster care.
The 15-member commission includes one foster care alumna. In the
old days, people of color called this kind of representation
``tokenism.''
The commission lacks the alumni participation to be credible. The
participation of alumni at the table of power is essential to the
design of foster care policy, practice and resource allocation. Yet the
views of foster care alumni are barely included, if at all.
Instead, a cartel of the usual suspects has commandeered the
process, which will result in the same old sorry ``reforms'' being
rained upon foster kids--without the input of those in care or formerly
in care, who are the real experts.
Few of us would endorse the findings of a civil rights commission
comprised of 14 Caucasians and one person of color. Few would embrace
the conclusions of a women's commission comprised of 14 men and one
woman. Why would anyone embrace the views of a foster care commission
that systemically denies the importance of a representative alumni role
and partnership?
In my communications with the Pew Commission over a year ago, I
urged that more alumni be included on the commission. The commission
staff informed me that ``focus groups'' would gather the input of
alumni and that views from those currently and formerly in care would
be collected through the Internet. Therefore, there was no need for
increased alumni participation on the commission.
The commission apparently doesn't realize that for many alumni,
this patronizing approach renders its findings suspect. The composition
of the commission cannot reflect the views of the population it
purports to represent. Rather, its elitism and exclusion continue a
pattern of stifling participation, denying empowerment and
marginalizing its consumers.
If the Pew Commission were a business, millions of former foster
kids would boycott it.
While consumer inclusion might seem radical to the Pew Commission,
the involvement of consumers on boards and commissions is not uncommon
in other fields. The United States Commission on Civil Rights, for
instance, is a diverse and balanced group of eight people comprised of
Caucasians, African-Americans, a Native American and a person with a
disability. The Michigan Council on Developmental Disabilities includes
people with developmental disabilities, family members of people with
such disabilities, and professionals from agencies charged improving
opportunities for developmentally disabled people.
Similarly, former foster children must be an integral part of the
decision-making process for improving foster care policy and practice.
Clearly, those in charge of foster care have not done a good job on
their own. One thousand ``blue ribbon'' panels made up of non-consumers
on their own cannot fully know how to improve the foster care system.
I urge Congress to take no action on the Pew recommendations until
a commission of foster care alumni reviews the report and issues its
own findings. We cannot continue to harm foster children through
ignorance and arrogance. Otherwise, we risk following the adage, ``If
you want more of the same, keep doing what you're doing.''
Strength-Based Approaches Expand into Leadership
A Michigan study of children's agencies found that very few had any
former youth in care either in leadership or board roles. The author,
himself a product of the child welfare system, suggests that quality
services will require perspectives of these former consumers of care.
The Strength-Based Revolution
Exciting new practices have emerged in the field of youth
development and have been widely documented and practiced. Positive
youth development, positive psychology (Larson, 2000; Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), asset building, and the strength-based
approach are slowly replacing the historical practices of deficit
reduction, labeling, and ``fault fixing.'' This swing of the pendulum
away from looking for deficits, diseases, disorders, and dysfunctions
not only feels good and seems intuitively proper, but also is supported
by recent research on resilience (Werner & Smith, 1992; Werner & Smith,
1977; Garmezy,1981; Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998; Wolin & Wolin,
1993), asset building (Benson, 1997), positive youth development
(Pittman & Irby, 1996), and seminal ideas, such as the Circle of
Courage (Brendtro, Brokenleg, & Van Bockern, 2002) and family privilege
(Seita & Brendtro, 2002). A logical extension of the strengths movement
is to involve ``former consumers of children's services in the
leadership and governance of these organizations.
Youth are the best experts on themselves. Young people who are in
care and in other alternative settings have a variety of strengths that
can be identified, tapped, shaped, strengthened, and utilized to create
and support powerful caring environments that can reclaim all young
people and that represent the best of positive youth development (Seita
& Brendtro, 2002; Brendtro, Ness, & Mitchell, 2001).
These same youth who age out of the system and into adulthood may
possess leadership skills and personal insight that could contribute to
the leadership and governance of the child welfare system. Perspectives
from former youth in care strongly suggest that child welfare often
fails those whom it is designed to serve (Raychaba, 1992).
System Failures
At any given point there are over 600,000 children within the child
welfare system who are placed in out-of-home status; most survive to
adulthood, although a few die at the hands of caregivers and abusive
parents. Over 25,000 children transition out of foster care and other
dependent settings every year as young adults. Children in foster care
constitute less than.003% of the nation's population. However, 17% of
state prisoners are former foster-care children, 40% of foster children
leave the system to go on the nation's welfare rolls, and 39% of the
homeless youth in Los AngelesCounty are former foster-care children
(Connolly & McKenzie, 1999). In an evaluation of foster care
independent living programs, Cook (1990, 1992) found:
66% of 18 year olds had not completed high school or
obtained a GED;
61% had no job experience;
38% had been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed;
7% had a drug abuse problem;
90% had a health problem;
17% of the females were pregnant;
40% had held a job for at least one year;
among the females, 60% had given birth;
25% had been homeless for at least one night, and fewer
than 1 in 5 were completely self-supporting.
In a 1998 study of Wisconsin youths 12-18 months after they
emancipated from foster care in 1995, Courtney and Piliavin (1995,
1998) found that 37% had still not completed high school, and 18% of
the youths had been incarcerated at some point since their discharge.
Nevada KIDS COUNT (2001) interviewed 100 youth who had aged out of
foster care at least six months previously. While 63% were employed at
the time of the interviews, 55% had lost at least one job since leaving
care. About two-thirds had earned less than $10,000 annually, and 41%
did not have enough money to cover basic living expenses. Nearly a
quarter of them had supported themselves at some time by dealing drugs,
and 11% had had sexual intercourse in exchange for money.
The outcomes of the child welfare system are appalling; yet, there
seem to be few remedies and even fewer effective and concrete
strategies to fix what we have unleashed in the child welfare system.
The number of children being placed in out-of-home placements, such as
foster care homes and other settings, has shown a steady increase over
the last two decades, according to statistics provided by the
Administration for Children and Families, a division of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (1999).
Efforts such as family preservation programs--programs that provide
intensive in-home support services--have emerged as one attempt to keep
families together and to keep children out of the child welfare system.
Typically, family preservation provides counseling, transportation
support, and occasional tangible support, such as washers and dryers--
all in the name of keeping a family intact and reducing out-of-home
placements.Wrap-around is another attempt to reform child welfare,
functioning in a manner similar to family preservation, and provides
intensive family support. Wrap-around programs work with families to
establish family goals. A wrap-around worker is often assigned to work
with the family to help the family reach its goals. In the spirit of
maintaining families, other efforts include kinship care, where a child
at risk is placed with extended family. Related efforts include the
Community Action Agency and its foster grandparent programs for youth
who have limited extended family. In spite of these efforts, the child
welfare system continues to limp along at best. Perhaps it is time to
consider two new approaches: applying the strength-based practices
represented by positive youth development and including those who have
actually experienced the system as youth to advise and lead the system.
Overview
Clearly, common practice across America demonstrates that it is
appropriate, and even desirable, for constituents to play a leadership
role in the agencies and organizations that are designed to serve them.
A recent example of constituency-led activism occurred when students at
GallaudetUniversity for the hearing impaired demanded that one of their
own, I. King Jordan, become the next president of the university,
overruling the Gallaudet Board of Directors' original choice of a
person of hearing.
Formal leadership access for disenfranchised persons is important
since those who are in formal leadership positions have access to
decision makers, influence on budget disbursement, policy, and
practice, and the power and the respect to make decisions influencing
direction for its constituency. However, there seems to be little
institutional will to integrate child welfare alumni into leadership
roles. A first study conducted in Michigan by the author, a child
welfare alumnus, paints a dismal picture of the participation levels of
child welfare in any formal leadership roles in child welfare agencies.
The Michigan Study
The purpose of this research was to conduct a status study of how
many child welfare alumni are in leadership positions in child welfare
agencies across the state of Michigan. The study sought to determine
how many board members of Michigan child welfare agencies are child
welfare alumni. Related interests include the number of child welfare
alumni in leadership roles, such as chief executive officer, chief
operating officer, or another executive level within Michigan child
welfare agencies.
The School of Social Work at Michigan State University conducted
this study in partnership with the Michigan Federation for Children and
Families. The Michigan Federation is a statewide membership
organization comprised of private, nonprofit child and family serving
agencies, regional and local child and family advocacy organizations,
and individuals who are interested in protecting children, building
families, and strengthening families.
The population for this study included the 104 child welfare
agencies within the database of the Michigan Federation of Children and
Families. Since the entire database was surveyed, there was no use of
inferential statistics, and simple descriptive statistics were
reported.
The final return rate after several contacts was 59%. Only six
agencies, or about one out of ten, reported having board members who
were child welfare alumni. No agencies reported having either a chief
executive officer or any executive staff who were a child welfare
alumnus.
New Leadership Roles
The Michigan survey suggests that perhaps 90% of child-serving
organizations have no policy input from former youth who were consumers
of such services. Ideally, child welfare alumni should be a part of
policy and legislative change and integral in the leadership and
governance of child welfare services going forward. Considering the
documented outcomes of the child welfare system, the terrible price
paid by child welfare alumni, and the lack of formal participation in
child welfare system leadership by child welfare alumni, it seems
reasonable to enact policy, legislative, and practice changes in the
child welfare system to repair the wrongs that have been perpetrated by
the system.
Part of the problem with the child welfare system may be that few
of those administering and leading the system have experienced the
system as a consumer of services or have formally partnered with those
who have experienced the system as consumers.
You're an orphan, right? Do you think I'd know the first thing
about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I
read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? (Damon, Affleck, & Van
Sant, 1997).
The foregoing quote from the movie Good Will Hunting was part of a
conversation between a therapist and a bitter child welfare alumnus.
This exchange poignantly captures the difference between living as an
orphan and merely studying the experience. Both scholarship and
experience are necessary to form a new child welfare partnership. Based
upon anecdotal evidence, there is no reason to suspect that results
from across the nation will be much different.
A national study is planned to determine if the results from
Michigan reflect national trends. The dismal outcomes demonstrated by
the child welfare system as presently operated suggest that using
alumni in board and leadership roles could provide fresh perspective to
improve outcomes.
It is perhaps a vestige of the deficit perspective of ``youth at
risk'' that we fail to involve them in the very mission of serving such
youth. Would it even be thinkable that white persons were leading the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or the Urban
League? Men do not lead the National Organization for Women,
heterosexuals do not lead the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, and young 20-
something-year-olds do not lead the American Association of Retired
Persons. Is it any more appropriate for the child welfare system to be
led solely by the same people who initially caused the child welfare
debacle?
``Uncle'' Floyd Starr founded StarrCommonwealth, a home for boys at
Albion, Michigan, in 1913. Starr, as we called it, was my last stop
along the child-welfare trail. Mr. Starr was regarded as a visionary
with unusual wisdom and energy. One of ``Uncle's'' dreams was to
someday have one of his boys become the president of StarrCommonwealth.
That dream was nearly realized when one of his boys, Gordon Langley,
directed Starr's Ohio campus in the 1950s. Sadly, Mr. Langley died
before he was able to assume the leadership of Starr Commonwealth.
Were we to follow Mr. Starr's dream today with an integration of
child welfare alumni as agency and policy leaders, we would create an
innovative new partnership necessary to reform the child welfare
system. Any new partnership should be collaborative and must not
exclude all existing parties within the child welfare system. Rather,
this should be a partnership that empowers child welfare alumni to
guide, direct, change, and evaluate the child welfare system.
We will never develop quality systems and organizations of care if
we ignore the perspectives of consumers. This has been widely
recognized concerning families of disabled and troubled children. While
young people in care must also be given a voice, it seems appropriate
that with greater maturity they could provide unique expertise in
guiding program and policy of youth-serving organizations. The evidence
to date suggests that, in all likelihood, unless child welfare alumni
are included in genuine decision-making, advising, and leading child
welfare agencies, a crucial body of expertise is being ignored.
Letter to Pew Commission Members
This letter is to express our concerns about the Pew Commission on
Foster Care, of which you are a member. Let us note, however, that
while we appreciate your efforts on this very important issue, the
composition of the commission is inappropriate.
Enclosed is an editorial entitled The Fatal Flaw in Pew's Foster
Panel published in Youth Today that explains our point of view. Also
enclosed is a recent journal article published in 2004 on foster care
leadership entitled Strength Based Approaches Expand into Leadership
from the journal Reclaiming Youth. Finally there is an article from the
Lansing State Journal entitled Ex-Foster Kids Needed in Leadership
Positions.
There are many foster care alumni who combine the experience of
growing up in foster care placements with the professional expertise of
working in the field. For some reason, however, those formerly in care
are seldom included in the process of determining policy, practice,
setting funding priorities and fund distribution. This systemic
exclusion is what we call ``Pew's Fatal Flaw.''
Excluding the insights of those formerly in care is tantamount to
1) minimizing the value of insight gained through their experiences and
2) denying them a voice in shaping policy and practice. This exclusion
thereby limits, indeed, damages the potential of foster care
commissions to accurately shape policy regarding the foster care
system. Therefore, we seek to work with those who serve foster care
youth in a manner that will allow our insights to promote positive
changes in the foster care system.
Let us note that there is a proud history in our nation with
respect to the fight for civil rights and access to power and
opportunity. People of color, women, those with disabilities, gays and
lesbians, and other disenfranchised groups have fought hard for
recognition, acceptance and representation. There are many foster care
alumni across this country that lack access and recognition. The
composition of the Pew Commission on Foster Care perpetuates denial of
access and opportunity. Thus, excluding foster care alumni from the
commission and like processes is not unlike the barriers historically
faced by other, disadvantaged groups.
Like other historically disadvantaged groups, foster care alumni
are not being afforded the systematic opportunity to use their voices,
experiences and knowledge to shape policy and practice. Therefore, our
mission is to create opportunities for foster care alumni to be a part
of system improvement and advocacy through formal channels.
Recently, we convened a summit at the Michigan State University
School of Social Work to explore ways to create pathways in child
welfare leadership for foster care alumni. Nine of the eighteen
attendees were those formerly in care, most of who have earned advanced
degrees, and are committed to improving the foster care system.
We ask you to ponder two questions. Have you experienced the
loneliness, fear, confusion, sense of abandonment and futility of
living in and surviving the foster care system? If you were a foster
child, who would you want to represent your needs and viewpoints?
We hope that you will think about these questions and help us to
have our voices heard. We believe that another commission on foster
care should be convened which would be populated by foster care alumni,
in order to address the same questions and issues addressed by the Pew
Commission and to review the Pew report.
This would set an example for future foster care commissions,
provide a unique perspective of how to improve the delivery of services
to foster kids and promote more positive outcomes of the foster care
system.
We welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with you on our views
and hope that you will share our views with Carol Emig and others with
the Pew Commission staff. Thank you for your commitment to the many
children in the foster care system.
______
Ex-Foster kids needed in leadership positions
By Tim Martin
Lansing State Journal
John Seita couldn't imagine the NAACP with white leadership. Or the
National Organization for Women with a male president. Or the AARP led
by a 25-year-old. So why, the Michigan State University professor asks,
is the state's foster care system virtually devoid of alumni in its
leadership positions?
``The system is a mess, and it won't be fixed until people most
experienced with it are involved,'' Seita said. Seita's credentials
include bachelors, master's and doctorate degrees from Western Michigan
University in topics ranging from sociology to education. But his
street credibility comes from living in at least 15 different foster,
group and detention homes after being removed from his abusive
biological home.
His anger started with his mother. But he shared it by fighting
with caseworkers, teachers or anyone else who crossed his path while
growing up in Ohio. It eventually landed him at Starr Commonwealth, a
home for troubled children in Albion, about 50 miles south of Lansing.
Seita harnessed his rage into a productive career. He's counseled
kids, directed programs at Battle Creek's W.K. Kellogg Foundation and
is now an assistant professor of social work at MSU He's helped
research private Michigan child welfare agencies and found that none of
the more than 100 responding agencies had foster care alumni in
leadership roles. Now he's backing legislation that would establish
focus groups of foster care youth to help shape Michigan's child
welfare strategy. ``It would be very valuable to get input from foster
care alumni,'' said Bill Long, executive director of the Michigan
Federation for Children and Families. ``Their voices should be heard.''
Statement of Volunteers of America, Alexandria, Virginia
Volunteers of America appreciates the opportunity to provide
written testimony on the subject of child welfare reform. We commend
the subcommittee for taking such interest in improving the system
serving our nation's most vulnerable children and youth. Volunteers of
America, a national nonprofit, faith-based human service organization,
is driven by our mission to provide services to promote healthy
development of children, adolescents and their families through a
continuum of services from early prevention to intensive intervention
approaches. Bonded by a commitment to faith, human dignity, and social
justice, we have served children and families for over 100 years. Our
experience has taught us that the faith community and federal and state
governments are inseparable partners in this mission.
As a complete overhaul of the child welfare financing system is
considered, Volunteers of America recommends the following:
1. Maintain foster care maintenance and adoption assistance as an
open-ended entitlement, and expand support to all children in foster
care.
All children and youth that come to the attention of the child
welfare system are equally deserving of federal support. The current
method of providing federal reimbursement only for children who meet
restrictive income qualifications is no longer acceptable. Capping the
IV-E entitlement may put states at risk of not being able to serve all
children equally that have to be removed from their homes.
Children should have the same access to services regardless of the
income of their birth family and regardless of the financial
circumstances of their state. State systems must have the funding
flexibility of an open entitlement in order to respond to increases in
need for services that may come unexpectedly, such as the crack cocaine
epidemic of the early 1990s.
2. Allow the Title VI-E entitlement to fund family strengthening
services.
Family strengthening services promote the optimum functioning and
maintenance of the family to best support the well being of the
children within the family. Prevention and family strengthening
services need to be incentivized within the child welfare financing
system. We have found through our experience in serving families that
children are better served when we can work with them in the context of
their family, rather than once they have been removed. Families can
often stay intact when intensive supports are placed around them at the
first signs of trouble.
The Nurse Home Visitation model is a well evaluated and time tested
example of an effective family strengthening program. Nurse Home
Visitation strives to improve the health and social functioning of low-
income first-time mothers and their babies by having nurses work to
improve environmental contexts by enhancing informal support and by
linking families with needed health and human services. The
quantifiable results of this model are impressive: 80% reduction in
rates of child maltreatment among at-risk families from birth through
the child's second year; 56% reduction in the rates of children's
health-care encounters for injuries and ingestions from birth through
child's second birthday; 43% reduction in subsequent pregnancy among
low-income, unmarried women by child's first birthday; and an 83%
increase in the rates of labor force participation by first child's
fourth birthday (Kempe Prevention Research Ctr. for Family & Child
Health).
Other services that strengthen families and should be allowable
uses if Title IV-E include:
Identification and treatment of mental health problems
Identification and treatment of substance abuse
Identification of domestic violence and appropriate
services
Parenting education
Parent support groups
Respite services
3. Open Title IV-E subsidies to allow for guardianship and kinship
placements, and allow eligibility for all services available for
traditional foster families.
More than six million children--approximately one in 12--are living
in households headed by grandparents or other relatives. In many of
these homes, grandparents and other relatives have become the primary
caregivers, or kinship caregivers, for children whose parents cannot or
will not care for them due to substance abuse, illness, child abuse and
neglect, economic hardship, incarceration, divorce, domestic violence,
or other serious problems. New 2000 U.S. Census Data indicates that 2.4
million grandparents are taking on primary responsibility for their
grandchildren's basic needs.
The use of kinship placements is an invaluable permanency option
for many children and youth who are in formal foster care, as well as
those in informal care. Kinship placements allow a child to stay within
the context of their family network, even if their immediate family is
not an appropriate placement. This is a particularly important option
for older youth who are not likely to be adopted or fair well in a
traditional foster family situation.
In addition, kinship families are in particular need of family
strengthening and support programs available to traditional foster
families when the primary care giver is a grandparent or older
relative. Respite services and support groups are important to helping
a grandparent, who may be dealing with their own health and other
challenges, maintain a stable home.
4. Increase support for youth ``aging out'' of the foster care
system.
It is estimated that each year 20,000 young people leave the foster
care system at age 18 without being reunified with their families or
adopted. These youth are at enormous risk of not transitioning into
adulthood successfully. The Annie E. Casey Foundation reports that two
to four years after aging out of foster care: 25 percent of the youth
had experienced homelessness, nearly 50 percent had been arrested, more
than 50 percent of the young women had given birth, only 50 percent of
the youth were regularly employed, and a significant number were
dependent on welfare.
Increased resources need to be focused on this segment of foster
care youth to ensure that when they leave the foster care system they
enter into a stable housing situation, have an education or employment
plan, financial literacy skills, and a support system. Few youth who
live in families are fully self-sufficient at age 18; it is
unreasonable to expect that foster youth will be able to succeed
without intensive services and supports.