[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGES FACING
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-094 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DAVE CAMP, Michigan
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota
RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts SAM JOHNSON, Texas
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JERRY WELLER, Illinois
XAVIER BECERRA, California KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KEVIN BRADY, Texas
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
MIKE THOMPSON, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois JOHN LINDER, Georgia
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DEVIN NUNES, California
RON KIND, Wisconsin PAT TIBERI, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL JR., New Jersey JON PORTER, Nevada
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KENDRICK MEEK, Florida
ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Brett Loper, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JERRY WELLER, Illinois
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama WALLY HERGER, California
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia DAVE CAMP, Michigan
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York JON PORTER, Nevada
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KENDRICK MEEK, Florida
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 May 8, 2007, announcing the hearing.................. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Anne Holton, First Lady of The Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 6
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director of Education, Workforce and Income
Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office................ 17
William Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Casey Family
Programs....................................................... 34
Mary Nelson, Administrator, Division of Child and Family
Services, Iowa Department of Human Services.................... 38
Ed Cotton, Independent Consultant, Tallahassee, Florida.......... 9
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Child Welfare League of America, statement....................... 72
North American Council on Adoptable Children, Joe Kroll, St.
Paul, MN, statement............................................ 87
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, Monterey Park, CA,
statement...................................................... 97
County Welfare Directors Association of California, Sacramento,
CA, statement.................................................. 98
First Star, statement............................................ 102
Generations United, statement.................................... 103
GrandParents United, letter...................................... 107
Kimberly L. Blue, statement...................................... 113
Madeleine Green Wojciechowski, statement......................... 114
National Indian Child Welfare Association, statement............. 114
Public Justice Center, statement................................. 119
Robert Littlejohn, statement..................................... 126
Roma O. Amor, statement.......................................... 128
Voice for Adoption, statement.................................... 134
CHALLENGES FACING
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim McDermott
(Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
CONTACT: (202) 225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 08, 2007
ISFS-7
McDermott Announces Hearing on
Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System
Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Income Security, today announced a hearing on the challenges that State
child welfare agencies face in serving children under their
supervision. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at
10:00 a.m. in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and
for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 3.6 million children were the subject of child abuse
and neglect investigations in 2005 (the most recent year for which data
is available), of which nearly 900,000 children were found to be the
victims of substantiated cases of maltreatment. An estimated 317,000
children were not able to live safely in their homes and were placed in
foster care. On any given day during that year, over a half million
children were in the foster care system.
The primary goal of the child welfare system is to ensure the
safety and well-being of children who are victims of abuse or neglect,
or at-risk for such maltreatment. Child welfare caseworkers investigate
allegations of abuse or neglect and determine what services can be
offered to stabilize and strengthen a child's own home. If remaining in
the home is not in the best interest of a child, he or she may be
placed in foster care while efforts are made to either improve the
home, or find a safe and permanent home for the child.
According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), State
child welfare agencies identified three primary challenges as most
important to resolve to improve the outcomes for children under their
supervision: providing an adequate level of services for children and
families; recruiting and retaining caseworkers; and, finding
appropriate homes for certain children. Notably, most States were
dissatisfied with the level of mental health and substance abuse
services for both parents and children, large caseload sizes for their
child welfare workforce, and their ability to find permanent homes for
children with special needs. Others have identified additional
challenges, such as providing an adequate level of services to children
aging out of the foster care system, the over-representation of
children of color in the child welfare system, and limited access to
post-adoption services.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ``There are a
number of obstacles that undermine the ability of the child welfare
system to ensure safe, nurturing and permanent homes for children in
the foster care system. Overcoming these obstacles is critical to
achieving positive outcomes for our most vulnerable children. This
hearing will be the first step toward reviewing our Nation's child
welfare system, and its capacity to ensure the safety of children and
to provide necessary resources to families in crisis.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on factors that most negatively impact
States efforts to ensure the safety, well-being and permanency of
children under their supervision.
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
``110th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Hearing Archives'' (http:/
/waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). 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 May 29,
2007. 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 MCDERMOTT. Today we are very pleased to have this
panel of witnesses. The door in the nation's child welfare
system is usually opened when a parent fails to uphold their
most solemn responsibility: ensuring their child's safety and
well-being.
Once inside the system, a child becomes the responsibility
of the State. As their de facto parent, we cannot afford to
fail these children again. The consequence of such failure is
simply too high for these children, and for the Nation.
Now, this is a creed that dedicated caseworkers, juvenile
court judges, and foster parents live by, but too often, they
are stymied by a host of challenges: too few available
services; too few caseworkers; and too little attention by
government, really, at every level.
Today's hearing focuses on the obstacles that states
encounter in their efforts to achieve positive outcomes for our
Nation's most vulnerable children and families. The hearing
will seek to evaluate the factors that most negatively impact
the safety, well-being, and permanency of children under the
supervision of the child welfare system.
There should really be no political divide between the
Republicans and the Democrats, when it comes to providing for
vulnerable kids. In fact, this Subcommittee has demonstrated
success in this area in the past, by working together in a
bipartisan fashion.
Most recently, I worked with Mr. Herger, who is not yet
here, but who is the former Chairman of the Subcommittee, to
reauthorize the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.
In addition to reauthorizing funding for 5 years to support
activities designed to prevent child abuse and support family
preservation services, we also: required states to ensure
monthly casework visits for children in foster care, or make
progress toward that goal; provide new resources to improve the
recruitment, retention, and training of caseworkers; provided
funding for grants to combat the impact of substance abuse,
such as methamphetamine, in the child welfare system; and,
finally, required states to create disaster plans within their
child welfare programs, to ensure that the safety and well-
being of children during a natural disaster are met.
This legislation was a step in the right direction. It was
just one small step, but we really need to make a giant leap.
We need a system that focuses on preventing abuse, not just
responding to it. We need qualified and experienced caseworkers
who are not forced to oversee twice as many kids as are
recommended, and we need a Federal funding structure that
adequately supports children and families in crisis.
Now, these goals will not be fulfilled by the passage of a
single bill. They demand a full, long-term commitment to
careful and vigilant oversight, followed up with appropriate
action.
The problems of the child welfare system did not arise
overnight, and will not be addressed in that timeframe.
Nevertheless, progress is not only possible, but it's within
our reach if we work together. I hope this marks the beginning
of that journey. I now yield to Mr. Weller, the Ranking Member.
Mr. Weller?
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
conducting this hearing this morning.
Today, we will consider the challenges facing child welfare
systems around this Nation. As a dozen hearings in this
Subcommittee have established in recent years, those challenges
are many, and great, and often have multiple causes,
complicating efforts at reform.
Despite that complexity and need for reform, some argue
that key challenges facing child welfare systems all have to do
with underfunding. That ignores the fact that taxpayers spend
more than $23 billion per year for child protection and foster
care and adoption programs, according to the Child Welfare
League of America.
So, instead of asking whether we are spending enough, we
should consider whether we are spending taxpayer funds as well
as we can. In a number of ways, we can certainly do better.
For example, I have a longstanding interest in training the
child welfare workers. Today I will reintroduce legislation I
have authored in prior congresses, designed to address a
glaring flaw in current rules, by ensuring all child welfare
workers, whether they work for public or private agencies, have
access to the same training needed to protect children.
Take Will County Catholic Charities, in the district I
represent, which helps protect over 300 children in foster
care. There is simply no reason why a caseworker with Will
County Catholic Charities should have less access to training
than an equally dedicated caseworker who happens to be a public
employee, yet that is what current Federal rules promote.
We should fix this, and we should also address longstanding
concerns about Federal funding for Native American children,
and the services and supports designed to better protect them.
Our first Americans should be treated as full Americans,
including in child welfare programs.
Some of the witnesses before us today think we also could
do better when it comes to targeting efforts to better prevent
abuse and neglect from occurring in the first place. That would
result in fewer children needing foster care, freeing more
resources to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of
those who do.
Both goals are critical: better prevention and better
oversight. Some areas have shown progress, but they are all too
rare. Recent positive examples include Illinois and New York
City, which have dramatically reduced the number of children
who need foster care.
In the 2006 congress, led by members of this Subcommittee,
we took some modest steps in the right direction, by targeting
more funds for child abuse prevention, and holding states more
accountable for results.
Still, we will also hear today too many other areas, like
Clark County, Nevada, have continued to prove the risks for
children, when child welfare systems fail to protect them.
Joining us today is Ed Cotton, who has broad experience in
child welfare programs in my home State of Illinois, as well as
New Jersey and Nevada. Most recently, Mr. Cotton conducted a
top-to-bottom review of Clark County, Nevada's child welfare
program in the wake of recent tragedies there. As this review
and Mr. Cotton's testimony relates, in Clark County and too
many other places, this system has a very long way to go to
ensure that children are adequately protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Any other members who have
statements certainly can put them in the record, without
objection.
We are lucky today to have a very distinguished panel of
witnesses. You have all submitted testimony, which will be
entered into the record. We would like you to summarize those
things you think are most important, and perhaps you can add
more to it, beyond what you have actually written.
So, I will begin with Ms. Anne Holton, who is the First
Lady of Virginia. That's not what brings her here. What brings
her here is that she was, in 1998, appointed a judge of the
Juvenile Domestic Relations District Court of Richmond, and we
welcome you, Judge Holton.
STATEMENT OF ANNE HOLTON, FIRST LADY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA
Ms. HOLTON. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, Congressman
Weller, other members, Committee members, and staff. Good
morning, and thank you for the opportunity to talk with you
today.
Before my husband became Virginia's Governor, as
Congressman McDermott said, I served as a J&DR judge in
Richmond, Virginia, a mid-sized urban jurisdiction with a large
foster care population. In that role, I got to know some
remarkable foster kids, who were striving mightily to become
independent, successful adults, but were finding out just how
hard that is to do without family support.
In my years on the bench, I watched ASFA, the Adoption Safe
Families Act 1997, take hold in our community. I'm proud to say
the results were impressive. We worked together across agency
lines to ensure that no child remained in care longer than
necessary. Our foster care population and our lengths of stay
in care, declined by 30 percent. Our adoptions increased,
literally, tenfold, without risking child safety and well-
being.
One of the lessons I took from this is that change can
happen, and that you, at the Federal level, can be important
instruments of change.
In my time on the bench, however, I saw that, while we were
making progress, primarily with the younger children, we were
less successful with older kids. They have often had some
horrific experiences in their short lives, and not
surprisingly, some of them have behavioral challenges. As a
parent, I am aware that teenagers are almost, by definition,
challenging. They are still children, and they still need, and
deserve, families.
Studies show that young people who age out of care at 18 or
older without a family, as almost 25,000 kids do every year,
will likely become homeless, incarcerated, or on welfare rolls
within a few short years. They are less educated, less able to
support themselves, and have no family safety net.
The good news is that we can help these young people make
permanent family connections. In my role as first lady, I have
launched an initiative called, ``For Keeps,'' to improve
Virginia's systems for finding and strengthening permanent
families for older kids in care, or at risk of coming into
care. As part of that effort, I have been traveling around our
commonwealth, meeting and listening to hundreds of young
people, families, and professionals involved in child welfare.
I met, for instance, a social worker who was recruiting
adoptive families for difficult-to-place children, such as a
16-year-old girl with severe cerebral palsy and initially,
severe behavioral problems, as well. Her new mom, whom I met,
is a nurse, adopting her with the support of an extraordinary
extended family.
I learned about families who have successfully adopted 14-
year-old and 15-year-old boys, direct from residential
treatment facilities. These young people now have much better
prospects. Incidentally, are no longer costing the State
$100,000 annually for their care.
Another lesson I have learned is that we can and must do
better in providing support for young adults in or formerly in
foster care. One couple told me of their struggles to pay for
college for the two older boys they recently adopted, not
having had a lifetime to save for that college expense.
I heard from older students, who had lost their Medicaid
when they got part-time jobs, or who needed more help with
employment and other independent living skills. On average,
young people in intact families do not move finally out of the
family home--a slightly frightening fact, again, as a parent--
until age 26, long past when we effectively cut loose our
foster kids.
Before I close, I would like briefly to touch on some
Federal policy issues in child welfare--and you all know this.
First, Title IV-E resources have dwindled over the past decade.
More foster children are excluded each year, due to the look-
back provisions that tie eligibility to their family's
qualifications under 1996 AFDC income limits. Such Byzantine
requirements serve no useful purpose, and take social worker
time away from real services to children.
Second, Federal support for preserving families, and
preventing a child's entry into foster care is limited, leaving
agencies sometimes to place children into care who might have
safely remained with their families with more support. This is
a worse option for the child and taxpayers.
Finally, the Federal Government has an opportunity to
encourage more effective research to guide the states in
improving child welfare. Good research is scarce, and much
needed in this area.
My written testimony mentioned some other Federal policy
concerns. I have also attached a national Governors Association
policy statement on child welfare, which summarizes the
Governors' collective experience, and recommendations in this
area.
I thank you for your work on behalf of our nation's foster
youth, and stand ready to assist in any way I can, as we all
work together to best serve our neediest young people.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Holton follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Anne Holton,
First Lady of The Commonwealth of Virginia
Chairman McDermott, Congressman Weller, other Members of the
Committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to
participate in this important hearing. I'm honored to be here and
grateful for the opportunity to talk with you today about something
close to my heart, America's foster care children.
Before my husband became Virginia's governor, I served as a
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge in Richmond, Virginia, a
mid-size urban jurisdiction with a large foster care population. In
that role I got to know some remarkable young people in foster care.
They were striving mightily to become independent successful adults,
but were finding out just how hard that is to do without strong family
support.
In my years on the bench, I watched the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 take hold in our community, and the results were
impressive. We worked together across agency lines to ensure that no
child should be in foster care longer than necessary. From 1998-2005,
our foster care population declined by 30%, our lengths of stay in care
shortened also by 30%, and our adoptions from foster care increased
literally tenfold--all without risking child safety and well-being.
One of the lessons I took from this is that change can happen, and
that you at the federal level can be important instruments of change.
In my time on the bench, however, I saw that while we were making
progress primarily with younger children, we were less successful in
helping older kids in foster care. The older kids often have had some
horrific experiences in their short lives and have behavioral
challenges as a result. As a mother of teenagers, I can say with
authority that teenagers are almost by definition challenging. People
who are willing to open their hearts and homes to other children often
are wary of taking on an older child.
But they are still children, and they still need and deserve
families. Studies show that young people who age out of care at 18 or
older without family--almost 25,000 kids do every year in America--will
likely become homeless, incarcerated, or on welfare rolls within a few
short years. They are less educated and less able to support themselves
than their peers. And they have no family safety net to support them
when--inevitably--they need it.
The good news is that these young people can be successful in
families, and that government can be successful in finding and
supporting permanent families for them. In my role as First Lady, I
have recently launched an initiative called ``For Keeps,'' to work
collaboratively to improve Virginia's systems for finding and
strengthening permanent families for older children in care or at risk
of entering care.
As part of that effort, I have traveled around our Commonwealth
meeting and listening to hundreds of young people, families and
professionals involved in the child welfare system. I celebrated
Adoption Day last fall in Danville, one of our rural communities, where
a social worker supported by a state grant is successfully recruiting
adoptive families for difficult-to-place children. I met there the new
family of a 16 year old girl who had cerebral palsy and, when she first
came to them, severe behavioral problems. The adoptive mother is a
nurse, but in reality her whole extended family is adopting this girl.
I learned about families who have adopted 14 and 15 year old boys who
had previously been confined to residential treatment facilities--it
took a lot of support and patience, but it is working. These young
people now have much better prospects of successful adulthoods, and
incidentally are no longer costing the state $100,000 plus annually for
their care.
Another lesson I have learned traveling across Virginia is that we
can and must do better in providing supports for young people aging out
of foster care. One consistent theme was the inadequacy of the support
we give to 18-plus year olds in or formerly in foster care. One couple
who had adopted two older boys told me of their concern that they
wouldn't be able to pay for college for them--they had saved for many
years to provide for their biological children, but they now have an
extra teenager aspiring to higher education for whom they had not
planned. I heard of other young people who had lost their Medicaid when
they got part-time jobs while they completed their schooling. Others
talked of the need for more help with employment, transportation, and
independent living skills. We know from sociological studies that young
people in intact families do not magically become fully independent at
age 18--in fact, the average age at which a young person typically last
moves out of the family home in the United States is 26--8 years beyond
when we effectively declare our foster kids able to care for
themselves.
Before I close, I'd like briefly to suggest a few federal
implications from my observations of our state child welfare systems.
First, Title IV-E foster care resources have dwindled
over the last decade because each year more foster children are
excluded due to the look-back provisions that tie eligibility to
whether their family would have qualified for AFDC under 1996 criteria!
Verifying such Byzantine requirements also takes significant social
worker time away from providing real services to children and families.
Second, federal support for older children who can live
permanently with relatives is currently prohibited, in spite of
evidence of the cost effectiveness of subsidized guardianships.
Third, federal support for the full range of services
that could be provided to preserve families and prevent a child's entry
into foster care is severely limited. Because of this, agencies
sometimes are forced to place children into care who might safely
remain with their families with better support.
Fourth, when children age out of foster care, they lose
their health insurance coverage through Medicaid. Few are yet in a
position to be employed in jobs with health insurance, and unlike some
of their peers, they have no opportunity for coverage through their
families. Until the health insurance crisis is addressed more
generally, Medicaid coverage for youth aging out of foster care should
be extended to age 21 or higher.
Finally, the federal government has an opportunity to
encourage more effective research to guide the states in improving
child welfare. As a JDR judge I often benefited from some of the great
information on best practices programs generated as a result of
federally-sponsored research in delinquency prevention. Good research
in the foster care field is much scarcer--it can be hard to do well,
but it is not impossible, and the federal government can and should
play a more effective role in encouraging it.
Many of these and related federal policy concerns are effectively
addressed in a National Governor's Association policy position on child
welfare, which draws on the governors' considerable collective wisdom
and experience in this field and contains their recommendations on how
federal policies could better promote effective outcomes. I am
attaching a copy and commend it for your consideration.
I thank you most humbly for your work on behalf of our nation's
foster youth and for the opportunity to be with you here today.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. We encourage you
to go out there and experiment, and bring us back the results.
Ms. HOLTON. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We will next move to Mr. Cotton, who
has spent 31 years on the ground, doing various things in the
system. I think Mr. Porter would like to introduce him.
Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
whole panel for being here today, and especially my friend, Mr.
Cotton.
As the Chairman mentioned, Mr. Cotton has been in the
protection and advising and hands-on in the child protection
system for 31 years. He has seen every aspect, from caseworker
to child abuse investigator, hotline worker, child welfare
supervisor, child protection manager, deputy director and
director for State agencies in Illinois, Nevada, and New
Jersey.
Most recently, Mr. Cotton headed the administrative case
review project, investigating child welfare deaths in the State
of Nevada, in Clark County.
Having worked with the child welfare system myself for many
years, we had a challenge in Nevada, and that is we had a
bifurcated system, where the State and the counties had
separate systems. We combined those services a few years ago,
and I think there is probably no one with better expertise in
this field, and knowledge of what we can do to help our most
precious resource, our children.
Probably most importantly, he has been a foster parent for
27 children himself. So, welcome, Mr. Cotton. We appreciate you
being here.
STATEMENT OF ED COTTON, CONSULTANT, HORNBY ZELLER ASSOCIATES,
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. COTTON. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to address you. I will talk quickly.
I believe that, based on my reviews, plus my years of
experience, that the child welfare systems designed to protect
children from abuse and neglect, and assure that they attain
permanency, simply are not accomplishing that at an acceptable
rate right now.
This is despite some fairly stable funding over the past
few years, and years of significant improvements between 1995
and 2003, I think, have leveled out, and in some situations,
gone backward.
I do think that State agencies have a good core of workers,
who need good leadership, and need good support from the
legislature to move forward. I don't think it's just a funding
issue, as you will see from reading my document.
I do want to talk about four different areas very quickly.
There is much more detail in my document, but I want to talk
about each part of the system, starting with hotlines.
Calls come into the hotline, they need to be staffed. When
we called Nevada's hotline several times, or Clark County's, we
found waits as long as 50 minutes. At no time did we wait less
than 7 minutes. Many neighbors and others concerned about
reporting child abuse are not going to sit in line 7 minutes.
They're going to hang up, and may never report, and the kids
could be hurt. So, hotlines need to be adequately staffed.
Caseworkers. Caseworkers and investigators go into homes
that police consider to be the highest level of risk, domestic
violence, family situations, police go in there armed. Our
workers go in there, armed with their expertise and their
social work skills, that's all. Hotlines can help, because if
they know about criminal background activities in that home, it
can make them decide to take a policeman along, or take other
precautions.
Florida recently became the first State to require both
State and national criminal background checks on every family
that is being investigated--on the adults--before somebody goes
out. Those are difficult negotiations, because that information
is very confidential. I think the Federal Government could help
make those negotiations easier for child welfare, by providing
some strength, and knowing that information is necessary.
When we move beyond the hotline, initiation, going out to
see families. When an investigation starts, kids need to be
seen right away. What we found in Clark County, when we looked
at are these kids being seen soon enough to make sure that
they're safe, 31 percent of the cases we decided yes; 69
percent, nobody was out soon enough to even know if they were
safe. We found death cases where a child was killed in a home,
and nobody saw the siblings for lengthy periods of time, if
ever, to make sure that they were safe.
Ten percent of the kids that were reported for abuse, a
finding was made, the investigation was completed, and the kid
is not ever being seen at all, which is very difficult to
understand how that happened.
Over 60 percent of the kids were never interviewed
privately, meaning they were asked if they were abused by mom,
while they were sitting on the couch, next to mom, which is, of
course, absolutely unacceptable.
Other issues around investigations, collateral contacts.
Well, this means talking to a child's teacher, talking to other
people involved, whether it be a day care person, neighbors or
others. Again, even the person who made the report, what we
found in our investigative review was 57 percent of the people
who took the time to call the hotline to report a child were
never interviewed, were never asked what happened.
Given that there were delays in seeing the kids, when the
investigator got there, bruises that were there were often gone
and faded. They didn't bother to talk to the reporter to find
out what it looked like when they saw them, and I think that's
absolutely critical.
In only 17 percent of the cases we looked at, did we
determine that they actually talk to enough people to even know
whether the child had been abused or not, 17 percent. In 42
percent of the cases, no collateral was talked to at all; they
simply made the finding, talking to the parent, and sometimes
the child.
Other issues around the investigative process, it is also
very difficult to find alternatives to removing children when
we go out on cases because of the focus on funds for foster
care, and some focus on investigations, there are few
alternatives. We found workers taking kids into custody who
could have been placed--or left home, with other services.
As mentioned earlier, Illinois went from over 50,000
children in care to about 23,000 in a matter of a couple of
years, primarily because we gave investigators at the start of
the investigation, access to immediate services to put in the
home, to keep the children safe while they were at home.
The government demands reasonable efforts to prevent kids
from placement, to access IV-E funds, but there aren't really
any funds to do that. States and child welfare agencies are
just told, ``Do these placement prevention efforts,'' but there
is not a lot of funds available to do that, and when there are,
they're generally State funds.
I want to talk very quickly about substitute care, kids
going into foster care. That was mentioned earlier. I think--
and we're getting to the ``Me Too'' society, where there are
fewer and fewer people willing to take care of other people's
kids. I do think targeted recruiting is talked about a lot,
particularly around the needs of kids, which I think is
important, but I think there are large groups that could also
be focused on. This includes empty nesters, who did a good job
raising their own kids. Those haven't been adequately
recruited.
Given that I'm out of time, I will mention one other thing.
Workers--I let the workers speak. You will see--and we can
provide information--I asked workers, ``If you had $1 million,
what services would you buy that would help your caseload,''
and I have 85 of those. So, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cotton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Cotton,
Independent Consultant, Tallahassee, Florida
Good morning Chairman McDermott and members of the Committee on
Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. I
appreciate the opportunity to address this committee regarding the
challenges facing the child welfare system.
My name is Edward E. Cotton. I have worked in the child welfare/
child protection system for 31 years. I have been a caseworker, a child
abuse investigator, a hotline worker, a child welfare supervisor, a
child protection manager, a Deputy Director, and a Director for state
agencies in Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey. I have also worked as a
caseworker and program manager for a private child welfare agency.
Additionally, I have served as a foster parent for 27 children,
learning first hand how maltreatment devastates children and how
inadequate system responses add to that devastation. I am currently
doing consulting work for Hornby Zeller Associates.
The child welfare systems designed to protect children from child
abuse and neglect, and to ensure that they attain a safe, permanent
living situation are not accomplishing that task at an acceptable rate.
After years of significant improvements between 1995 and 2003, progress
has, for the most part, slowed. In some areas the situation for victims
of child maltreatment has gone the other direction, despite several
years of stable funding and much additional research identifying
practices and policies that work. I believe that the systems need fixed
in all areas, from the first call to an intake hotline through
adoption. I base this opinion upon my experiences of being actively
involved in directing child protection agencies in three states and
providing consultation in three others. I also worked with the State
Liaison Officers on child protection for several years. Additionally, I
recently managed a case review of 1352 child welfare cases and 148
child protection investigations in Clark County, Nevada.
My remarks are organized around the major functions of a child
welfare system--hotline/intake, investigations, in-home services, out-
of-home care and services. I have not addressed adoption in this
document. Improvements are needed in each of these areas. Too often
reforms occur only as the result of a lawsuit. Since the lawsuits
generally request changes that everyone would agree are essential to a
well-functioning system, state child welfare agencies should be making
these changes before going through costly and time-consuming lawsuits.
Most state and county agencies have a strong core of dedicated
caseworkers and child protection service workers, as well as a group of
nurturing foster parents. The leadership of these agencies must build
on that to accomplish the worthy goals of safety, permanency, and well-
being.
HOTLINE / INTAKE
Most states have a centralized point of intake, usually through a
child abuse hotline. These hotlines must be adequately staffed in order
to ensure that every caller concerned about the abuse of a child is
able to relate those concerns to an intake worker immediately. This is
not occurring. Typically hotlines have an abandoned rate of 5-10%, but
in some systems it is much higher. When a national panel of experts was
brought together to study child deaths in Nevada, we heard many
complaints about not being able to get through to the Hotline. This
panel attempted to call the Hotline several times during the week, and
the results were frightening. The quickest any call got answered was 7
minutes. Most calls took about 25 minutes to get answered, while the
longest wait was about 50 minutes. My fear is that most neighbors,
friends, and concerned citizens will not wait seven minutes on the
phone (and certainly not 50 minutes); therefore, children remain at
risk. Teachers cannot leave the classroom for 50 minutes to call in a
report. In an attempt to address this issue, some states have
implemented a message taking system. This means a staff person answers
the call, but informs the caller that a message will be taken and the
call will be returned later. This is not an acceptable response for a
``Hotline''.
An additional issue with the hotlines is that there are no national
standards as to who should be served by the CPS systems. Every state
and, in some cases, individual counties, can decide what to
investigate. Given the transience of families today, it can be very
confusing when expectations are different from state-to-state. Callers
providing information that does not meet the criteria for an
investigation also leads to inconsistency around the country. These
situations are often related to families in crisis, but maltreatment
has not yet occurred. Some states screen these out and take no action
at all, while others send a caseworker out to assess the situation and
offer voluntary services. The latter is an excellent outlet for
preventing child abuse before it happens, but there are no consistent
funding streams for this activity.
Finally, the Hotline can help in keeping the child protection
service workers safe. These workers go into highly volatile situations
with nothing more than their professional skills. These are the same
domestic/family violence situations that armed police officers find the
most dangerous to intervene. Knowing whether the family members have a
history of violent criminal behavior is essential in determining how to
respond. Few states can access that information at the Hotline. The
Florida Abuse Hotline recently became the first entity in the nation
that conducts both state and national criminal background checks on
every alleged perpetrator of child abuse before the report is sent to a
local office for investigation. When a child protection services worker
receives a new report, that worker is aware of the complete criminal
history of the adults in the family.
Recommendations
1. Establish national standards for abandonment rates at hotlines
so that states are required to adequately staff them.
2. Provide guidelines to states regarding what situations should
be investigated and which should be screened out.
3. Identify situations that don't meet the criteria for an
investigation, but contain elements that usually result in future
maltreatment. Design interventions and programs to address these
situations, then fund them.
4. Mandate criminal background checks for all adult subjects of
new reports. This will make it easier for state child welfare agencies
to negotiate agreements with law enforcement agencies.
INVESTIGATIONS / IN-HOME SERVICES
Once the Hotline accepts a report for investigation, what happens
next varies greatly from state-to-state. In some states, including
Nevada, the local office has the authority to decide that no
investigation is warranted, so none is conducted. In others states the
local office must complete an investigation on every report received
from the Hotline; Illinois and New Jersey are in this category. This is
an issue, as other factors may influence these determinations, such as
current workload or the availability of an intake worker. The decision
as to whether the state should intervene should be solely based on
established criteria.
There are three primary areas of concern regarding investigations:
Initiation: This term refers to the time frame for a Child
Protection Services (CPS) team to first make contact with the alleged
victim of child abuse/neglect in order to make an assessment of the
level of risk and to determine whether immediate protective actions are
necessary. Around the country this can vary from ``immediate'' to
``within 24 hours'' to ``within 3-10 days''. Clearly if a child has
been alleged to have suffered abuse to the extent that government
intervention is necessary, delays of more than 24 hours are
unacceptable. But there are no federal repercussions for states that
have policies that do not require a first contact within 24 hours or
less. I propose that DHHS establish a national standard that CPS teams
must attempt an initial contact with all alleged victims of child
abuse/neglect within 24 hours of the call to the Hotline. Certain
situations demand a more immediate response. A national workgroup
should be formed to delineate which types of reports must require an
immediate contact from CPS. Additionally, there must be mandates to
interview the alleged victims privately (infants can be privately
observed and checked for injuries). In Clark County, only 31.8% of the
child abuse/neglect reports reviewed were appropriately initiated--this
means that a CPS investigator saw the victim quickly enough to
accurately assess safety. Nearly 10% of the alleged victims were never
seen by CPS during the investigation and over 60% were never
interviewed privately before the investigation was closed. Frequently
the victim was interviewed while sitting next to the parent/alleged
perpetrator.
Investigative Process: There is no mandated standard for collateral
contacts that must occur before an investigation can be concluded.
Collaterals include the reporter, the child's teacher or day care
provider, the pediatrician, hospital staff, neighbors, and other family
members. In the Clark County review, 57% of the people making the call
to the Hotline were never contacted during the investigation. Teachers
who saw bruises on children were never given the opportunity to
describe them or recount the child's statements to a CPS worker. This
is tragic because, as noted above, in many cases the late responses by
CPS meant that the marks had faded or were gone altogether. In only 17%
of the investigations reviewed did the CPS worker contact a sufficient
number of collaterals to make accurate risk and safety assessments of
the situations. Even more alarming is the finding that 42% of the
investigations contained no collateral contacts at all--no one was
interviewed to support or contradict the statements of the alleged
perpetrator. When the lack of private interviews with the child victims
(noted above) is paired with this information, it is clear that many
investigations consisted of asking the alleged perpetrator what
happened and accepting that as fact. Interestingly, 40% of the reports
that were ``Substantiated'' had sufficient collateral contacts, while
only 10% of the ``Unsubstantiated'' reports did. This leads one to
believe that more reports would have been ``Substantiated'' if more
collateral interviews had occurred, and more children would have been
kept safe from subsequent abuse.
Safety Assessments and Risk Assessments are research-validated
protocols that have been useful in assessing the immediate safety and
long term risk to children. For these instruments to be effective,
however, the CPS worker must gather enough information to accurately
complete them. In the Clark County study, the vast majority of CPS
workers completed the safety assessment, and most completed a risk
assessment. However, these forms were not of much value since the
review determined that over 67% of the investigations did not contain
sufficient information to make an accurate risk assessment; 54% of
these investigations did not document enough information to complete
valid safety assessments.
In-home Protective Services: When a CPS worker has determined that
a child has been abused or neglected and is at risk of further
maltreatment, there must be immediate access to in-home services to
prevent removal. In Clark County, CPS workers saw few alternatives to
moving children from their parents when abuse or neglect had occurred.
This is common throughout the country, as most services are related to
children who have been placed in substitute care situations, such as
foster care. However, in the late 1990's, the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services managed to reduce the number of children
placed outside their parents' home from over 50,000 to about 23,000
without an increase in subsequent maltreatment to these children. A
major factor in this success was that CPS workers were given access to
a variety of placement prevention services--homemakers, intense family
preservation, in-home parent training, family support workers, early
childhood education, in-home substance abuse counseling and monitoring,
and protective day care. There must be many ``eyes watching'' if abused
children are left with their parents, but it can be done. Federal
requirements mandate that reasonable efforts to prevent placement must
occur in order for states to access IV-E funds, but funding for
placement prevention programs has not been forthcoming.
In non-emergency situations, the CPS worker often passes the family
to child welfare worker to provide in-home services. What happens at
that point varies greatly. States have various standards for requiring
visitation, service provision, and comprehensive assessments. Many
times these are arbitrary--a 12 year old with minor neglect issues must
be seen as frequently as an infant at high-risk. Even when standards
exist, there is often a lack of monitoring. In Clark County, we found
that 51% of the children who were victims of abuse but had not been
removed from their home had not been seen within the past 30 days, and
more than 17% had not been seen for more than 2 months. Frequency of
contacts by the caseworker was also a major concern. Nearly 30% of
these children had been seen fewer than 6 times in the preceding year,
and only 42% had been seen at least 9 times during that year, despite
the fact that a requirement for monthly contacts existed. There are
many studies that document that the frequency of caseworker contact is
the most important factor in preventing re-abuse of children.
Recommendations
1. Establish a national mandate that, whenever a child abuse/
neglect report is received, the CPS investigative team must attempt to
contact the alleged victim and assess for safety within 24 hours of the
call.
2. Form a national workgroup to better identify which situations
require an immediate CPS response.
3. Mandate collateral contacts on every investigation. The number
and type of contacts should be dependent upon the maltreatment type.
4. Provide specific funding for in-home services that can lead to
placement prevention.
CHILDREN PLACED IN SUBSTITUTE CARE (OUT OF PARENT HOME)
Once children are removed from their parents, there are three
primary options: kinship care, foster care, or shelter placements. Too
often children are first taken to a shelter where they remain for
anywhere from a few days to a year or more. In Clark County, children
are taken to the shelter even when foster homes have openings. This is
not uncommon throughout the country, as after hours workers often do
not have immediate access to foster home availability or information
regarding the type of children each home is appropriate for. Even well-
staffed, comfortable and safe shelters are not family settings, leading
to additional trauma for children already faced with separation from
their parents.
As more and more children need to be placed into state custody due
to parental abuse and neglect, it seems that fewer and fewer people are
willing to care for the children of others. Self actualization and
``me-first'' attitudes have greatly impacted the number of qualified
foster parent applicants. At the same time, the children are entering
the system with many more complex issues and problems than in past
years. Foster parents are often not trained to address severe
attachment disorder, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and many other
ailments that result from critical abuse and neglect and a lack of
parental nourishment at a young age. In a sense, it's a ``buyer's
market''--foster parents can give up on problem children and have them
removed because they know there are many more available. Although
raising foster care rates can have a positive effect, it also has
resulted in inappropriate people deciding to become foster parents for
the money. This negatively impacts the public's view of the good foster
parents and adds to the problem.
Many states have attempted to address this issue by making
extensive use of relative placements. This practice has met some
success in that the children often are placed with someone they already
know, so the separation from their parents is less traumatic. It also
makes visitation and continuity of relationships easier, thereby
increasing the likelihood that the children will be reunified with
their parents.
However, the use of relatives has resulted in several problems.
Similar to foster parents, most relatives are not equipped to handle
children with severe behavioral, physical, or emotional problems. Many
of these relatives are very resistant to training, feeling that they
already know how to parent. It is a great concern that many children
are placed with grandparents who receive no training at all. The issue
must be raised that often these grandparents, who avoid training
because they ``raised their own children'', have many times raised
children who are dysfunctional--substance abusers, perpetrators of
domestic violence, violent criminals, child abusers, or those who
abandon their babies. Child welfare agencies must ask this question--
why are we expecting a different outcome with the grandchildren? What
are the grandparents going to do differently with the grandchildren so
that they don't end up with the same problems as their parents? While
we can acknowledge that ``blood is thicker than water'', we must also
address the fact that often ``the apple doesn't fall far from the
tree''.
I am not saying that relative placements should be eliminated, but
rather that states should carefully assess each relative placement and
demand that the caregiver receive appropriate training and oversight.
We must ensure that these kids are not coming back into the child
welfare system at a later date, with many more problems related to
rejection and lack or nurturing. A great deal of state and federal
money is spent on relative placements, but the regulation of such
placements needs strengthening in order to make sure that every child
removed from his parents is given a healthy, stable living environment.
Foster parenting can be improved in two significant ways.
Extensive, targeted recruiting that identifies specific groups of
people for specific children. Older adults who have successfully raised
their children (empty nesters, for example) are not actively recruited
and could make a big difference in providing good role models and safe
homes. Competency-based training for foster parents that certifies each
home for the types of children that are appropriate is essential.
Substance exposed infants should not be placed with foster parents who
have not been trained on apnea monitors, the effects of withdrawal from
drugs or alcohol, and the appropriate techniques for calming and
assisting these children.
Tracking foster home competencies and availability is another issue
that needs addressing. In nearly every jurisdiction, there are foster
parents who have had available beds for months (or years) and no one
has contacted them even though they read media stories that the state
is desperate for foster homes. Although sometimes the available homes
don't fit the needs of the children needing placement, that explanation
can account for only a small portion of these situations. As a foster
parent, I was often called about children needing placement despite the
fact that I was at my maximum licensed capacity. At other times, I had
``vacancies'' for months and received no calls, despite children being
maintained in shelters and emergency placements. Foster parents across
the country repeat this same
The service provisions delivered through child welfare services are
often not conducive to obtaining permanency for children. Visitation
with their parents and siblings is sporadic. Services that do exist
often have long waiting lists or are inaccessible to parents without
transportation. Caseworkers with huge caseloads are forced to
prioritize and handle only the most high-risk cases. As low- and mid-
level risk cases deteriorate, the caseworker doesn't notice because
there has been inadequate contacts with the children and their
families.
In Clark County, more than a quarter of the children in substitute
care (who are the county's legal responsibility) had not been seen for
more than 60 days. Only 44% has been seen within the past 30 days as
required. The situation was even worse when the worker's contact with
the parents is analyzed. More than half of the parents had not been
seen for over 60 days. These are the people that the caseworker is
allegedly working with to attain reunification. Frequency of visits
with children was also a problem--nearly 40% of the children in care
had been seen fewer than 6 times during the preceding year, and only
33% had been seen 9 or more times. Private interviews between the
caseworker and the children had occurred in only 23% of the cases
reviewed. Many caseworkers expressed an attitude that the children in
foster homes or the shelter are safe and don't need to be seen
regularly. This conclusion is widespread, despite several recent high
profile foster parent abuse cases (including a death) and a situation
where a 3 year old foster child has been missing for 11 months.
Case plans are critical for outlining goals and tasks necessary to
safely return children home. There is no universally accepted format
for these. In Clark County, only 50% of the children in substitute care
had a current case plan. Many plans included children who had died (but
were still identified as ``safe''), parents who disappeared long ago,
and siblings who were already adopted and no longer part of the family.
Recommendations
1. Increase foster parent recruiting, including targeting people
who are skilled at working with children who have the types of issues
we see everyday. Also focus on categories of people noted above, who
have not been actively recruited in the past.
2. Ensure that the annual reviews of foster homes include analyses
of children who were ``kicked out'' by the foster parents so that
children with similar problems are not placed there in the future.
3. Require states to establish standards for kinship care
placements that include training and monitoring.
4. Reward good foster parents; increase rates based upon
successfully completing goals.
5. Reduce case loads to standards of 15 families per worker.
6. Require annual reviews to identify cases that should be closed.
CONCLUSIONS
Five big issues must be continually addressed if child welfare
systems are to live up to the expectations that led to their creation.
Accountability. Self-policing has not been particularly productive,
as the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) and several lawsuits
have identified problems that states either weren't aware of and took
no actions to resolve. Consistent external reviews, designed not to
harass states, but instead to help create improvements, are a must. The
CFSRs are a start, but we must move beyond them to focus more on
quality issues. The fact that child protection workers see a child
within 24 hours is important, but it is equally important to ensure
that these workers are gathering sufficient information to complete
safety and risk assessments. Supervisors must know whether there are
children in the system who have not been seen for months. In the Clark
County review, we asked 10 caseworkers that, if they had children on
their caseload who hadn't been seen for three months, would their
supervisor know. Everyone said ``no''.
Caseloads. Standards established by various child welfare groups
should be analyzed and a national standard created. However, these must
be monitored to ensure that cases are not being kept open without any
service or protective need. In Illinois, all in-home family cases were
reviewed and nearly 40% were determined to be no longer in need of
services. This is a tremendous waste of resources, as caseworkers were
still required to visit them regularly.
Quality Work. There must be minimum standards regarding all facets
of child welfare/protection work, and they must be enforced. This
includes collateral contacts for investigations, interviewing with the
reporters, visitations with children on open cases, private interviews
with children, and criminal background checks. DHHS should take the
lead in providing models for comprehensive assessments, safety
assessment protocols, and family risk assessments.
Performance Based Contracts. Private agencies providing services to
children in state custody must be paid based upon successful
performance. Those agencies that take many children, but rarely help
them attain permanency through adoption or reunification, must be
improved or their contracts must be revised or cancelled. Agencies that
perform well should be rewarded with better rates. These same standards
should be applied to state and county CPS teams to ensure that they are
providing quality care.
In-Home Services. As noted earlier, the best way to achieve
permanency for children is to never remove them from their parent's
home. In order to safely do this, in-home services must be greatly
increased. Federal funds for services must be flexible so that the
focus is not primarily on children already removed from their home.
We cannot let our state child welfare agencies become stagnant.
There has been a great deal of research and hard work to improve the
systems, but I believe the enthusiasm is starting to wane. Both the
state and federal government entities must ensure that child welfare
agencies don't lose their sense of urgency.
Thank you for your time.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. What was that?
Mr. COTTON. I asked caseworkers in Clark County, during our
review, every one of them, ``If you had $1 million to spend for
services for the families on your caseload, to make you better
able to serve them, what would you spend it on?'' I got 85
different responses. Things that, normally, managers sitting
around a room would think of some of them, not others.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. We will now turn to Ms.
Ashby, who is a director of the education and workforce issues
at the General Accounting Office. We asked you to do a study
last year, and we would love to have you talk about it today.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Ms. ASHBY. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to present
information from our recent reports on the challenges facing
State child welfare agencies. My testimony this morning will
focus on the challenges that states reported as most important
to resolve to improve outcomes for children, State initiatives
addressing these challenges, and Federal efforts to assist
State child welfare disaster planning.
State child welfare agencies reported that inadequate
levels of mental health and substance abuse services for
children and families, high child welfare caseloads, and
difficulty finding homes for children were among the most
important challenges to resolve to improve outcomes for
children.
These agencies reported the underlying reasons for
inadequate services: funding constraints; and some caseworkers
and families' lack of awareness of existing services offered by
public and private providers.
In prioritizing funding needs, child welfare officials in
40 states reported the family support services, such as those
that could prevent removal of a child, or help with
reunification of a family, were the services most in need of
greater resources. State child welfare officials also cited the
need for additional information to help link children and
families with needed services.
High caseloads were most frequently reported by child
welfare officials in 34 states as an underlying source of
dissatisfaction that affects their ability to recruit and
retain caseworkers. Some states did not have caseload standards
to ensure that caseworkers had enough time to adequately serve
each child and family. Caseworkers, in some areas of most
states, often carried more than double the recommended maximum
caseload.
More than two-thirds of the State child welfare agencies
identified serving children with special needs, and recruiting
and retaining foster and adoptive parents as factors underlying
the challenge to find appropriate homes for children. Due to
the absence of high-quality, therapeutic settings, State child
welfare officials said that it has become increasingly
difficult to place children with special needs in homes that
can appropriately address their individual needs.
They also told us that recruiting and retaining foster and
adoptive parents has become increasingly difficult, in part,
because of a lack of a racially and ethnically diverse pool of
potential foster and adoptive parents, and inadequate financial
support.
In addition to these longstanding and continuing
challenges, State child welfare officials also identified three
emerging challenges that are likely to affect the well-being of
children in the child welfare system over the next 5 years:
changes in the type and location of drug abuse underlying
maltreatment cases; increasing demand to provide care for
special needs children; and changing demographic trends that
will require greater multi-cultural sensitivity in providing
services to some groups of children and their families.
While states reported implementing various initiatives to
improve child outcomes, these initiatives did not always
address those factors states reported as most challenging. For
example, states frequently reported that they were challenged
by the lack of mental health and substance abuse services for
children and families. Yet, only four states reported having
initiatives to improve the level of these services.
This may be because these services are typically provided
outside the child welfare system by other agencies. Similarly,
while almost all states reported implementing initiatives to
improve their ability to find homes for children, only four
states reported initiatives to find appropriate homes for
children with special needs.
With respect to State child welfare disaster planning, HHS
and the congress have taken several steps to ensure that states
develop plans to serve children and families displaced by
disaster. HHS has addressed states' reported need for Federal
planning assistance, as well as recommendations we made in our
July 2006 report, by updating disaster planning guidance,
providing technical assistance, and asking states to
voluntarily submit copies of their disaster plans for review.
Further, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of
2006 established a legislative requirement for states to submit
child welfare disaster plans to HHS that prepare for
displacement of children.
In conclusion, resolving states' child welfare challenges
has been difficult, in part, due to the child welfare system's
heavy reliance on various non-dedicated funding streams at the
Federal and State levels that require an inter-agency approach
to establish appropriate priority and funding for child welfare
families across different programs and populations.
As funding fluctuates or declines, full awareness of
resources outside the child welfare system become increasingly
important. Accordingly, we recommended in our October 2006
report that the Secretary of HHS improve awareness of and
access to various social services funded by the Federal
Government.
Although HHS disagreed with our recommendation, we continue
to believe that its implementation would allow caseworkers and
others to more easily identify services and service providers
funded by Federal agencies in closest proximity to the families
they serve.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director of Education,
Workforce and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to present information from our
recent reports on the challenges that state foster care systems face in
serving the more than half a million children under their care.\1\ For
fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated about $8 billion to support the
ability of state child welfare systems to provide services that protect
children from abuse and neglect, promote their physical and mental
well-being, find them permanent homes, and enable families to
successfully care for their children. State and local governments
contributed more than $12 billion for these purposes, according to
information available from 2004.\2\ Despite this substantial
investment, federal evaluations of state child welfare programs showed
that states continue to struggle to meet federal outcome goals
established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
ensure the safety, well-being, and permanency of children in foster
care. Ensuring these outcomes becomes even more difficult in the event
of disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for states that do not
have plans in place to continue child welfare services for children and
families who may become displaced within or across state lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training,
and Technical Assistance Would Help Address Longstanding Service-Level
and Workforce Challenges, GAO-07-75 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2006),
and GAO, Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have
Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by
Disasters, GAO-06-944 (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006).
\2\ The Urban Institute, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children
V: Understanding State Variation in Child Welfare Financing (Washington
D.C.: May 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State child welfare agencies are responsible for administering
their programs within federal policies established by the Children's
Bureau under the Administration for Children and Families within the
Department of Health and Human Services. This federal agency oversees
states' child welfare programs in part through its child and family
services reviews (CFSR), which measure states' performance in meeting
federal outcome goals. During its first round of CFSRs, completed in
the 3 year period ending March 2004, HHS reported that no state had
substantially conformed with all federal performance goals, and half or
more states did not meet performance indicators such as providing
adequate services for children and families, providing child welfare
staff with the ongoing training needed to fulfill their duties, and
ensuring the diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive homes.
Further, while HHS requested states to submit plans that address the
challenges of serving child welfare families in times of disaster, we
reported that as of July 2006, few states had comprehensive plans in
place. Since our reports, HHS and the Congress have taken action to
help states address some of these long-standing challenges and HHS has
begun its next round of CFSRs. My testimony today will focus on (1) the
issues that states reported as most important to resolve now and in the
future to improve outcomes for children under their supervision, (2)
initiatives states reported taking to address these issues and how
recent law provides support for additional state efforts, and (3)
federal action taken to assist states' efforts in developing child
welfare disaster plans. My testimony is based primarily on findings
from our July and October 2006 reports. Those findings were based on
multiple methodologies including a survey of child welfare directors on
challenges they face in improving outcomes for children and the extent
that they had developed child welfare disaster plans. We supplemented
these surveys by conducting multiple site visits to states and counties
and by interviewing child welfare experts and HHS child welfare
officials. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
In summary, states reported that inadequate levels of mental health
and substance abuse services, the high average number of child welfare
cases per worker, and the difficulty of finding homes for children with
special needs were the most important challenges to resolve in order to
improve outcomes for children under states' care. Child welfare
officials cited various reasons these challenges existed in their
states. One reason maintaining an adequate level of services is
difficult, for example, is that the funding for family support services
has not kept up with the need, which in turn may result in children
entering foster care and staying there longer. Some states did not have
caseload standards to ensure that caseworkers had enough time to
adequately serve each child and family, and caseworkers in some areas
of most states often carried more than double the caseload standard
established by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA).\3\ State
child welfare officials predict that these caseloads will continue to
become increasingly complex and culturally diverse. Growing challenges
for state child welfare systems in the next 5 years were cited as
serving the population of children with special needs or who have been
exposed to illegal drugs, and changing demographic trends that will
require greater multicultural sensitivity in providing services to some
groups of children and their families. States have some initiatives in
place to address challenges, but the frequency of initiatives states
reported did not always mirror the levels of dissatisfaction with the
major challenges. For example, 4 of 39 states dissatisfied with the
level of service in finding homes for children with developmental
disabilities or other needs reported initiatives in this area. Recently
enacted legislation, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of
2006, \4\ assists states in addressing some important challenges by
targeting funds to children affected by substance abuse and to
activities designed to recruit and retain caseworkers. Our October
report had recommended that HHS also take action to improve awareness
of and access to federal social services by such means as modifying the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. In its comments, however, HHS
disagreed with this recommendation, stating that it was insufficient to
address the problem and incorrectly implied that caseworkers were not
already aware of existing resources. We continue to support the
recommendation based on the results of our work. HHS has taken action
along with the Congress to better ensure that states are planning for
the challenges they will face in safeguarding children and families
displaced by disaster, per our July report recommendations. HHS has
updated its guidance and provided technical assistance. In addition,
the law now requires all states to submit child welfare disaster plans
to HHS. The deadline set by HHS for submission of these plans is June
30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CWLA is an association of nearly 800 public and private
nonprofit agencies with a mission to ensure the safety and well-being
of children and families. CWLA sets and promotes standards for best
practice and advocates for the advancement of public policy.
\4\ Pub. L. No. 109-288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The well-being of children and families has traditionally been
understood as a primary duty of state governments, and state and local
governments are the primary administrators of child welfare programs
designed to protect children from abuse or neglect. Child welfare
caseworkers investigate allegations of child maltreatment and determine
what services can be offered to stabilize and strengthen a child's own
home. If remaining in the home is not a safe option for the child, he
or she may be placed in foster care while efforts to improve the home
are made. In these circumstances, foster care may be provided by a
family member (this is known as kinship care), caregivers previously
unknown to the child, or a group home or institution. In those
instances in which reuniting the child with his or her parents is found
not to be in the best interest of the child, caseworkers must seek a
new permanent home for the child, such as an adoptive home or
guardianship. Some children remain in foster care until they ``age
out'' of the child welfare system. Such children are transitioned to
independent living, generally at the age of 18 years.
States use both dedicated and nondedicated federal funds for
operating their child welfare programs and providing services to
children and families. In fiscal year 2006, the federal government
provided states with about $8 billion in dedicated child welfare funds,
primarily authorized under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act. Nearly all of this funding is provided under Title IV-E,
which provides matching funds to states for maintaining eligible
children in foster care, \5\ providing subsidies to families adopting
children with special needs, and for related administrative and
training costs.\6\ About 9 percent of funding is provided under Title
IV-B, which provides grants to states primarily for improving child
welfare services and requires that most funds be spent on services to
preserve and support families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ States are entitled to Title IV-E reimbursement on behalf of
children who would have been eligible for Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) (as AFDC existed on July 16, 1996), but for
the fact that they were removed from the home of certain specified
relatives. While the AFDC program was replaced by the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program in 1996, eligibility for Title
IV-E payments remains tied to the income eligibility requirements of
the now defunct AFDC program. In addition, certain judicial findings
must be present, and all other requirements included in section 472 (a)
and (b) of the Social Security Act must be met, in order for the child
to be eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
\6\ Title IV-E also provides grants to states for providing
independent living services to youth who are expected to age out of
foster care or who have already aged out of care. Grants are also
provided to states for providing education and training vouchers for
youth aging out of care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant amount of federal funding for child welfare services
also comes from federal funds not specifically dedicated to child
welfare--including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant, Medicaid, and the Social Services Block Grant. These and
hundreds of other federal assistance programs for children and
families, including many that serve low-income populations, are listed
in a centralized database administered by the General Services
Administration that has a search feature by type of assistance and
eligible population. The Congressional Research Service conservatively
estimated that the median share of total federal child welfare spending
derived from nondedicated federal funding equaled nearly half of all
the federal dollars (47 percent) expended by state child welfare
agencies, \7\ based on state child welfare agency data reported to the
Urban Institute for state fiscal year 2002.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ States' use of nondedicated federal funding varied considerably
from a high of 75 percent of total federal child welfare funds expended
in Alabama to less than 2 percent of total federal child welfare funds
expended in North Carolina.
\8\ The Congressional Research Service reported that this is likely
an understatement of nondedicated federal funding states used for their
child welfare programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress has authorized funds for state child welfare programs
and required states to enact policies and meet certain standards
related to those programs. HHS evaluates how well state child welfare
systems achieve federal standards for children through its child and
family services reviews. The CFSR process begins with a state
assessment of its efforts, followed by an on-site review by an HHS team
that interviews various stakeholders in the child welfare system and
usually reviews a total of 50 child welfare case files for compliance
with federal requirements. After receiving the team's assessment and
findings, the state develops a program improvement plan (PIP) to
address any areas identified as not in substantial conformity with
federal requirements. Once HHS approves the PIP, states are required to
submit quarterly progress reports. Pursuant to CFSR regulations,
federal child welfare funds can be withheld if states do not show
adequate PIP progress, but these penalties are suspended during the 2-
year PIP implementation term. HHS conducted its first round of CFSRs
for all states from March 2001 through March 2004 and began the second
round of CFSRs in March 2007.
States must also meet a set of program requirements that are
described in their 5-year Child and Family Services Plans to receive
federal child welfare funds.\9\ Until recently, however, there were no
federal requirements for states to develop plans that address the needs
of children during disasters. In 2005, 29 states and Puerto Rico
experienced federally declared disasters--most commonly severe storms
and flooding. However, a disaster can affect states that do not
directly experience the disaster when they receive children evacuated
from affected states. For example, two 2005 disasters--Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita--resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare
services and the dispersion of thousands of Louisiana's child welfare
recipients to 19 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ States were required to develop and submit a 5 year Child and
Family Services Plan for fiscal years 2005-2009, by June 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and Future Issues That Challenge States' Ability to Improve
Child Outcomes
States reported that their ability to improve child outcomes was
challenged most by inadequate levels of mental health and substance
abuse services available to children and families, too few caseworkers
for too many child welfare cases, and a lack of homes that can meet the
needs of certain children, such as those with developmental
disabilities. Challenges are expected to grow in future years related
to serving children with special needs or who have been exposed to
illegal drugs, and changing demographic trends that will require
greater multicultural sensitivity in providing services to an
increasingly diverse child welfare population.
Inadequate Levels of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Other Services
Challenge States' Ability to Meet the Needs of Children and
Families
State child welfare agencies identified specific services
underlying their challenge to serve children and families, citing
constraints on federal funding, service gaps, and limited awareness of
services outside the child welfare system as contributing factors.
Regarding services provided to children, more than half of states
reported that they were dissatisfied with the level of mental health
services, substance abuse services, housing for foster youth
transitioning to independence, and dental care. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1. States Reporting Dissatisfaction with the Level of Services
Provided to Children in the Child Welfare System
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.001
States also reported that they were dissatisfied with the level of
services provided to at-risk families in the child welfare system.
These services are needed to help prevent the removal of children from
their homes or to help facilitate the reunification of children with
their parents after removal. Specifically, more than half of states
responded that they were dissatisfied with mental health services,
substance abuse services, transportation services, and housing for
parents in at-risk families. (See fig. 2.)
States we visited reported that funding constraints were among the
reasons maintaining an adequate level of services was difficult. For
example, while maintenance payments to foster families for children
under state care are provided as an open-ended entitlement for federal
funding under Title IV-E, federal funding for family support services
is capped at a much lower level under Title IV-B. In addition, many
states experienced budget deficits that adversely affected overall
funding for social services. In prioritizing funding needs, child
welfare officials in 40 states responding to our survey reported that
family support services, such as those that could prevent removal of a
child or help with reunification of a family, were the services most in
need of greater federal, state, or local resources. Officials from 29
states responded that child protective services such as investigation,
assessment of the need for services, and monitoring were next in need
of additional resources.
Figure 2. States Reporting Dissatisfaction with the Level of Services
Provided to Parents in At-Risk Families in the Child Welfare System
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.002
Another reason providing services may be challenging in some states
or areas is that some caseworkers and families may be unaware of the
array of existing services offered by numerous public and private
providers. In North Carolina, for example, state officials reported
that about 70 percent of children and families in the child welfare
system received services from multiple public agencies, and the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)--a repository of information on
all federal assistance programs that is periodically updated--lists
over 300 federal programs that provide youth and family services.
However, caseworkers and families are not always aware of the range of
services that are available to support children and families, and child
welfare officials cited the need for additional information to help
link children and families with needed services. In October 2003, the
White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth recommended that the
CFDA be modified to provide a search feature that can be used to
identify locations where federally funded programs were operating.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A similar model may be found on an HHS Web link, http://
ask.hrsa.gov/pc/, where users can enter a ZIP code to find the closest
community health center locations offering medical, mental, dental, and
other health services on a sliding fee scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Caseloads and Other Factors Challenge the Ability of Child Welfare
Staff to Adequately Serve Children and Families
State child welfare officials most frequently reported
dissatisfaction with the current status of three underlying factors
that affect the state's ability to recruit and retain caseworkers to
serve children and families in the child welfare system. Specifically,
more than half of the states reported dissatisfaction with the average
number of cases per worker, administrative responsibilities of
caseworkers, and effectiveness of caseworker supervision. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3. States Reporting Dissatisfaction with Factors That Could
Affect the State's Ability to Recruit and Retain Caseworkers
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.003
Child welfare officials in each of the states we visited reported
having trouble recruiting and retaining caseworkers because many
caseworkers are overwhelmed by large caseloads. According to the Child
Welfare League of America, some child welfare programs lack caseload
standards that reflect time needed to investigate allegations of child
maltreatment, visit children and families, and perform administrative
responsibilities. CWLA set caseload standards of no more than 12 cases
per caseworker investigating allegations of child maltreatment, and no
more than 15 cases for caseworkers responsible for children in foster
care. However, according to CWLA, in most states, average caseloads in
some areas are often more than double the CWLA standards.
State child welfare officials we interviewed also reported that
increasing amounts of time spent on administrative duties made it
difficult to recruit and retain staff and limited the amount of time
caseworkers could spend visiting families. For example, child welfare
officials in three states we visited estimated that some caseworkers
spent a significant amount of time on administrative duties such as
entering case data in automated systems, completing forms, and
providing informational reports to other agencies. This administrative
burden has limited caseworker ability to ensure timely investigations
of child maltreatment and to make related decisions concerning the
removal of children from their homes, according to officials, and
influenced caseworker decisions to seek other types of employment.
Some states we visited reported that the lack of effective
supervision also adversely affected staff retention and sometimes
resulted in delays providing appropriate services to children and
families. Lack of supervisory support was cited as a problem in terms
of supervisor inexperience and inaccessibility. For example, a Texas
state official said that because of high turnover, caseworkers are
quickly promoted to supervisory positions, with the result that the
caseworkers they supervise complain of poor management and insufficient
support. In Arizona, caseworkers have also expressed dissatisfaction
with the support they received from their supervisors, and this has
negatively affected recruitment and retention. Child welfare officials
reported that lack of access to supervisors was frustrating to
caseworkers because it delayed their ability to specify appropriate
permanency goals for children and to develop case plans to meet the
needs of children and families in their care.
Serving Children with Special Needs Is among Factors Challenging
States' Ability to Place Children in Appropriate Homes
State child welfare officials most frequently identified four
factors underlying the challenge to find appropriate homes for
children. (See fig. 4.) More than half of the states reported that
finding homes for children with special needs, recruiting and retaining
foster and adoptive parents, serving older youth and youth
transitioning into independent living, and finding and supporting
kinship or guardianship homes were among their greatest concerns.
Figure 4. States Reporting Factors of Greatest Concern in Making
Appropriate Placements for Children
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.004
Child welfare officials in two states we visited said that the lack
of therapeutic foster care homes that can properly care for children
who have significant physical, mental, or emotional needs makes it
challenging to find them an appropriate home. In addition, these
officials said that some of the existing facilities are inappropriate
for child placement because they are old and in poor condition or
provide outmoded treatment services. Because of the absence of high-
quality therapeutic settings, child welfare officials said that it has
become increasingly difficult to place children in homes that can
appropriately address their individual needs.
Recruiting and retaining foster and adoptive parents has become an
increasingly difficult aspect of placement for a variety of reasons,
such as the lack of a racially and ethnically diverse pool of potential
foster and adoptive parents, and inadequate financial support. For
example, child welfare officials said that some locations have
relatively small populations of certain races and ethnicities, making
it difficult to recruit diverse foster and adoptive parents.\11\
Inadequate financial support also hinders recruiting and retaining
foster and adoptive families. Financial support for foster and adoptive
families varies widely among states and local areas, and may not keep
up with inflation. According to a California child advocacy
organization, for example, the state's payments to foster parents of
$450 per month per child have not been adjusted for inflation since
2001. As a result, according to the organization, the supply of foster
care providers has not increased markedly during this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Generally, states and other entities that receive federal
financial assistance and are involved in adoption or foster care are
prohibited from delaying or denying the placement of a child for
adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or
national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child,
involved. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a)(18). However, HHS guidance recognizes
that some children may have specific needs based on the child's race or
ethnicity, and HHS has required that states put in place a process for
ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive
families that reflects the ethnic and racial diversity of children
needing homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obtaining permanent homes for older youth and for youth aging out
of foster care is a continuing placement challenge for states. For
example, Texas child welfare officials said that it is difficult to
place adolescents with adoptive parents because older youth can choose
not to be adopted. Finding housing for youth transitioning into
independence also can be difficult in high-cost areas or in areas where
special arrangements have not been made with housing agencies and
landlords that typically require a cosigner on the rental application
or a large deposit before moving in.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See GAO, Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination
of Services and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs, GAO-
05-25 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than half of the states also reported that limitations in
their ability to identify and support placements with family members or
legal guardians limited opportunities to place children in appropriate
homes. For example, child welfare officials in Ohio reported a lack of
resources to conduct outreach to family members that may be able to
provide a stable home for children in foster care with less disruption
to the child. Michigan officials also reported that the lack of
financial resources made it difficult for the state to meet its
placement goals for those children who had been removed from their home
and who had been directed by the court to be placed with other family
members.
Increasing Complexity and Diversity of Child Welfare Population
Expected to Challenge States in the Future
While states have experienced child welfare challenges for many
years, states identified several emerging issues that are of increasing
concern because of their impact on the well-being of children in the
child welfare system. Most states reported a high likelihood that three
issues will affect their systems over the next 5 years: children's
exposure to illegal drugs, caring for special or high-needs children,
and changing demographics and cultural sensitivities. (See fig. 5.)
Figure 5. State-Reported Emerging Issues That Are Likely to Affect
Children in the Child Welfare System over the Next 5 Years
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.005
Although the overall percentage of drug-related child welfare cases
has not increased, officials in the states we visited reported that the
type and location of drug abuse underlying maltreatment cases is
changing, requiring increased attention by child welfare agencies in
certain areas. For example, child welfare officials reported an
increasing number of children entering state care as a result of
methamphetamine use by parents, primarily in rural areas. Child welfare
agencies in these areas may need to train caseworkers on how this drug
is likely to affect parents or caregivers who use it in order to safely
investigate and remove children from homes, as well as assess the
service needs of affected families to develop an appropriate case
plan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Methamphetamine users often exhibit poor judgment, confusion,
irritability, paranoia, and increased violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State child welfare officials in all five states we visited said
that finding homes for special needs children is a growing issue
because it is hard to find parents who are willing to foster or adopt
these children and who live near the types of services required to meet
the children's needs. For example, child welfare officials in Texas
reported that the state does not have a sufficient number of adoptive
homes for children with special needs. As a result, these children
generally stay in foster care for longer periods of time.
Child welfare officials we interviewed also said that the growing
cultural diversity of the families who come in contact with the child
welfare system has prompted the need for states to reevaluate how they
investigate allegations of maltreatment and the basis on which they
make decisions that could result in the removal of children from their
homes. Child welfare officials in several states reported that the
current protocols for investigating and removing children from their
homes do not necessarily reflect the cultural norms of some immigrant
and other minority families. These differences include limitations in
family functioning that may be caused by poverty, the environment, or
culture as opposed to those that may be due to unhealthy family
conditions or behaviors. In response to growing cultural diversity,
several states we visited stated that they are revising their protocols
to account for religious and language differences among families who
come in contact with the child welfare system.
Initiatives to Resolve Challenges
States reported implementing various initiatives to improve child
outcomes, but these initiatives did not always mirror those factors
states reported as most necessary to address in overcoming their
primary challenges. For example, with respect to services, states most
frequently reported that they were challenged by the lack of mental
health and substance abuse services for children and families, yet only
four states reported having initiatives to improve the level of these
services. (See fig. 6.) This may be because these services are
typically provided outside the child welfare system by other
agencies.\14\ Recent legislation supports states' efforts to improve
substance abuse services. For each fiscal year from 2007 through 2011,
the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 reserves funds
under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program for competitive
grants to improve outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker
abuse of methamphetamine or another substance.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We previously reported on how problems requiring interagency
solutions often go unaddressed in such areas as transportation and
housing. See GAO-05-25 and GAO, Child Welfare: Improved Federal
Oversight Could Assist States in Overcoming Key Challenges, GAO-04-418T
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2004).
\15\ The law reserves $40 million for fiscal year 2007, $35 million
for fiscal year 2008, $30 million for fiscal year 2009, and $20 million
for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states also reported that they had implemented initiatives to
improve recruitment and retention of child welfare caseworkers, but few
states reported initiatives to address two of the most frequently
reported factors underlying this challenge--the administrative burden
on caseworkers and effective supervision. (See fig. 7.) Recent law
supports states' efforts in this area as well. For fiscal years 2008
through 2011, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act reserves
funds to support monthly caseworker visits to children who are in
foster care with an emphasis on activities designed to improve
caseworker retention, recruitment, training, and ability to access the
benefits of technology.\16\ In addition, the law reorganized the Child
Welfare Services program funded under Title IV-B, adding a purpose
section to the law that included: ``providing training, professional
development, and support to ensure a well-qualified child welfare
workforce.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The law directs the Secretary of HHS to reserve the following
amounts: $5 million for fiscal year 2008, $10 million for fiscal year
2009, and $20 million for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
\17\ Pub. L. No. 109-288, sec. 6(b)(3) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 6. State-Reported Initiatives to Improve Services
to Children and Families
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.006
Figure 7. State-Reported Initiatives to Recruit and Retain Caseworkers
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.007
Almost all states reported implementing initiatives to improve
their ability to find appropriate homes for children, but few states
reported initiatives that addressed two of the three most frequently
reported factors underlying this challenge (see fig. 8). For example,
three states reported initiatives to find appropriate homes for older
youth transitioning to independence, and four states reported
initiatives to find appropriate homes for children with special
needs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO previously reported that child welfare agencies focused on
preparing youth for independent living while they were in foster care,
but were less apt to work with other agencies--such as the local
housing authority--to transition youth out of care because of
conflicting policies and a lack of awareness about needed services. See
GAO-05-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 8. State-Reported Initiatives to Find Appropriate
Homes for Children
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.008
Some states implemented initiatives under federal demonstration
projects, and evaluations of outcomes states were required to conduct
under these projects showed mixed results. In general, the
demonstration projects offered states the flexibility to use federal
funding under Title IV-B and Title IV-E in eight different program
areas \19\ in an effort to improve services and placements--addressing
the three primary challenges reported by states. As of 2006, 24 states
had implemented 38 child welfare demonstration projects.\20\ However,
evaluation results were mixed across child welfare outcomes. For
example, while Illinois found strong statistical support for the
finding that funding for assisted guardianships increased attainment of
permanent living arrangements, none of the other four reporting states
found similar conclusive evidence of this finding. Similarly, among
four states using Title IV-E funds to fund services and supports for
caregivers with substance abuse disorders, Illinois was the only state
that demonstrated success in connecting caregivers to treatment
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Projects in the eight program areas included (1) providing
monthly subsidies equal or comparable to foster care maintenance
payments to relatives or other caregivers who assume legal custody of
children; (2) providing capped Title IV-E allocations in exchange for
flexibility in spending child welfare dollars for new services and
supports; (3) using Title IV-E dollars to fund services and supports
for caregivers with substance abuse disorders; (4) using alternative
managed care financing mechanisms to reduce costs; (5) increasing the
variety and intensity of services and supports to reduce out-of-home
placement rates and improve other outcomes; (6) strengthening existing
or provide new post-adoption and post-permanency services and supports;
(7) tribal development of administrative and financial systems to
independently administer Title IV-E foster care programs and directly
claim federal reimbursement; and (8) training for public and private
sector child welfare professionals serving children and their families.
\20\ States can no longer apply for participation in federal
demonstration projects because the program authorization expired in
March 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Taken To Ensure States Develop Plans to Serve Children and
Families Displaced by Disaster
Several actions have been taken by HHS and the Congress to better
ensure that states are prepared to continue child welfare services for
children and families displaced by disaster across county or state
lines. We reported in July 2006 that although 29 states, plus Puerto
Rico, experienced a federally declared disaster in 2005, only 8 of
these states reported having a written child welfare disaster plan.
(See fig. 9.)
Figure 9. Disaster Plan Status for States with Federally
Declared Disasters in 2005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.009
In addition, while 21 states in all reported having a disaster plan
in place, there was great variance in the extent to which they
addressed selected child welfare program elements. For example, most
states included strategies to preserve information, but few states had
included strategies for placing children from other states. (See fig.
10) The need for such plans was highlighted when close to 2,000 of the
5,000 children in Louisiana's child welfare system were displaced in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At the time of our review, HHS had issued guidance to states in
1995 to help states develop child welfare disaster plans and also
provided nearly $3 million for technical assistance to states. This
guidance, however, did not address strategies states needed to continue
services to child welfare families displaced across county or states
lines. State child welfare officials reported that additional federal
assistance would be helpful, including information on disaster planning
requirements or criteria, training on how to develop a disaster plan,
examples of good plans, and forums for exchanging information with
other states.
HHS took action that addressed states' concerns and our report
recommendations including updating its 1995 disaster plan guidance,
providing technical assistance, and asking states to voluntarily submit
copies of their disaster plans for review by December 2006.\21\
Further, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 also
established a legislative requirement for states to submit child
welfare disaster plans to HHS that prepare for displacement of
children. The deadline set by HHS for submission of these plans is June
30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO's July 2006 report recommended that HHS guidance to states
address the dispersion of children and families within and across state
lines, and also recommended that HHS develop and provide training to
states on child welfare disaster planning. This report also asked the
Congress to consider requiring states to develop and submit child
welfare disaster plans for HHS review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 10. Program Components Addressed by State Disaster Plans
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.010
Observations
State challenges in serving the children and families in the child
welfare system are long-standing and continuing. Resolving these
problems has been difficult, however, in part due to the child welfare
system's heavy reliance on various nondedicated funding streams at the
federal and state levels that require an interagency approach to
establish appropriate priority and funding for child welfare families
across different programs and populations. As funding fluctuates or
declines, full awareness of resources outside the child welfare system
becomes especially important, and we recommended in our October 2006
report that the Secretary of HHS improve awareness of and access to
various social services funded by the federal government.
HHS disagreed with our recommendation, stating that it was
insufficient to address the need for additional services and that the
recommendation incorrectly implied that local child welfare agencies
were not already aware of and using such resources. We acknowledged
that increasing awareness of existing federal resources is not the only
action needed, but in the course of our work we found that caseworkers
sometimes were unaware of the full array of federal resources, such as
health and housing, available in their locale or had not coordinated
with other agencies to use them. We continue to support the view that
federal action, such as modifying the CFDA, would allow caseworkers and
others to more easily identify services and service providers funded by
federal agencies in closest proximity to the families they serve.
History has shown that in the absence of specific federal
requirements or dedicated child welfare funding, many states have been
slow to address existing and future challenges, such as recruiting and
retaining child welfare workers or preparing child welfare disaster
plans. Recent federal action has been taken to establish requirements
and dedicate funding to states to help address these specific problems
now and in the future. The next round of HHS state oversight reviews
will determine the extent that these actions and others taken by states
have been able to improve child outcomes.
__________
Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and
Technical Assistance Information Would Help Address Longstanding
Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.:
October 6, 2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to
Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters.
GAO-06-944. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance: Federal Oversight Needed to
Safeguard Funds and Ensure Consistent Support for States'
Administrative Costs. GAO-06-649. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Oversight of State IV-B Activities Could
Inform Action Needed to Improve Services to Families and Statutory
Compliance. GAO-06-787T. Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2006.
Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the
Gulf Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T. Washington, D.C.:
March 8, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provision of Charitable Assistance,
GAO-06-297T. Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2005.
Child Welfare: Better Data and Evaluations Could Improve Processes
and Programs for Adopting Children with Special Needs. GAO-05-292.
Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation
Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States. GAO-
05-290. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2005.
Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services
and Monitoring of States' Independent Living Programs. GAO-05-25.
Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2004.
D.C. Child and Family Services Agency: More Focus Needed on Human
Capital Management Issues for Caseworkers and Foster Parent Recruitment
and Retention. GAO-04-1017. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2004.
Child and Family Services Reviews: States and HHS Face Challenges
in Assessing and Improving State Performance. GAO-04-781T. Washington,
D.C.: May 13, 2004.
D.C. Family Court: Operations and Case Management Have Improved,
but Critical Issues Remain. GAO-04-685T. Washington, D.C.: April 23,
2004.
Child and Family Services Reviews: Better Use of Data and Improved
Guidance Could Enhance HHS's Oversight of State Performance. GAO-04-
333. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2004.
Child Welfare: Improved Federal Oversight Could Assist States in
Overcoming Key Challenges. GAO-04-418T. Washington, D.C.: January 28,
2004.
D.C. Family Court: Progress Has Been Made in Implementing Its
Transition. GAO-04-234. Washington, D.C.: January 6, 2004.
Child Welfare: States Face Challenges in Developing Information
Systems and Reporting Reliable Child Welfare Data. GAO-04-267T.
Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2003.
Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could
Provide States Additional Information to Improve Services. GAO-03-956.
Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003.
Child Welfare: Most States Are Developing Statewide Information
Systems, but the Reliability of Child Welfare Data Could Be Improved.
GAO-03-809. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2003.
D.C. Child and Family Services: Better Policy Implementation and
Documentation of Related Activities Would Help Improve Performance.
GAO-03-646. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2003.
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. Washington, D.C.:
April 21, 2003.
Foster Care: States Focusing on Finding Permanent Homes for
Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. GAO-03-626T. Washington,
D.C.: April 8, 2003.
Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington,
D.C.: March 31, 2003.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. We now turn to Mr.
Bell, who is the chief executive of the Casey Family
Foundation, who in another life, was a New York City
commissioner running the child welfare program.
So, Mr. Bell, we're glad to have you here, and welcome your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS
Mr. BELL. Thank you, Chairman McDermott, Congressman
Weller, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to participate in this hearing this morning. We commend the
Subcommittee on its efforts to identify challenges facing the
child welfare system, as well as seeking viable solutions to
improve the lives of vulnerable children in America.
Like the Subcommittee, we feel a compelling sense of
urgency to change the life outcomes for children in foster
care, because we are extremely troubled by what the data tell
us. The number of children abused and neglected each year is
over one million. Children of color continue to be over-
represented in the nation's child welfare and juvenile justice
systems. Youth aging out of foster care continue to struggle to
build productive, successful adult lives.
Our collective and immediate response is absolutely
necessary. We are all, ultimately, responsible for the outcomes
of the children in America who are touched by the child welfare
system. They are relying on each of us with the power and
resources to act in a way that assures them that their lives
matter.
We agree wholeheartedly with the findings from the GAO
report in October of 2006 that was requested by the Committee.
Casey Family Programs, however, also respectfully submits
that there are approximately seven other areas that we think
are essential to focus on the challenges that are being faced
by child welfare systems, and these areas were absolutely
critical in our efforts to reduce the foster care population in
New York City from over 43,000 children to approximately 17,000
children today.
Number one is caseload size. It's a documented fact that
extremely high caseloads prevent workers from being able to
focus and concentrate on the health and well-being of children,
and we believe that it is absolutely essential for there to be
a caseload standard, or ceiling, for all caseworkers and social
workers in the United States.
Number two, leadership development. It is important, and in
order to sustain the positive change that we desire for
children, that there must be competent executive and mid-level
management expertise in our agencies. Those in strategic
positions must not only have a vision, but also have the proven
experience, resources, and authority to execute on that vision.
Front-line supervision. One of the critical and necessary
elements of child welfare reform is investing in a frontline
workforce to improve the quality of supervision provided to
frontline staff. Individual workers need training, relevant
education, and sufficient supervisory support to make
competent, experienced decisions about the needs of children.
Number four, building political will. For any child welfare
agency to be successful, there must be a public long-term
commitment by the chief political leader, whether that's the
Governor, county supervisor, or Mayor, to support and sustain
change for children and families.
Five, building public will. Child welfare cannot do its
work alone. Systems must work in tandem with local communities,
law enforcement, education, health, community-based
organizations, and others, to build comprehensive programs to
improve the lives of vulnerable children and their communities.
Six, data. We must create and enforce data-driven
accountability, and publicly report on our outcomes. We must
have accurate systems to measure child welfare results, and
transparency with our communication of those results to
increase public trust and accountability.
Seven, time. Systems do not improve overnight. We need to
set better expectations with the public, and for ourselves, as
leaders, about the realistic time frames needed to produce
sustainable improvement of child welfare systems.
New York City is currently considered one of the best big-
city police departments in the country. This year, in New York
City, there will be more than 400 murders, and many women will
die, even though they have registered restraining orders in the
police departments. We don't consider the department broken,
nor should we, but we believe there should be an equal approach
to looking at the standards that we hold our child welfare
systems to.
Then, last, I would remiss if I didn't mention the need to
look at child welfare financing. We urge consideration of the
recommendations that were contained in a recently released
report by the Pew Charitable Trust.
In closing, as I participate here today, I do so with a
strong belief that change is possible, and that outcomes that
we seek can be achieved. Time is of the essence.
On average, each day in America, approximately 1,425
children are removed from their homes and placed in foster
care. That's 59 children every hour. In the time that it will
take us to complete this hearing today, more than 100 children
will have entered the foster care system in America. I thank
you for seeking real change, on behalf of those children.
I also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee
members, for the opportunity to share Casey Family Programs's
perspectives here today. I could go on a lot longer than 5
minutes, but you won't allow me. So, I will be happy to address
any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Bell,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Casey Family Programs
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to discuss Casey Family Programs' perspective on the
challenges facing the child welfare system in this country.
I am William C. Bell, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Casey Family Programs, the nation's largest operating foundation
focused solely on providing, improving and ultimately preventing the
need for foster care.
Casey Family Programs has a more than 40 year history of serving
children and families throughout the country and we commend the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support for seeking to
identify the challenges facing child welfare as well as seeking viable
solutions to improve the lives of vulnerable children in America.
Like the Subcommittee, we feel a compelling sense of urgency to
change the life outcomes for children in foster care, because we are
extremely troubled by what the data tell us:
The number of children who are victims of abuse and
neglect is nearly 1 million each year.
Children of color continue to be over-represented in the
national child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Youth aging out of foster care continue to struggle to
build productive, successful adult lives. And
The ratio of children to caseworkers continues to be too
high to serve children and families effectively in far too many
jurisdictions across the country.
Our collective and immediate action is absolutely essential.
We are all ultimately responsible for the outcomes for the children
in America who are touched by the child welfare system. They are
relying on each of us with the power and resources to act in a way that
assures them that their lives matter.
When a child in this country is placed into foster care, we as
child welfare providers, local, state, and federal government officials
take on the parental duty to raise them--hopefully with the same
standard of care that we would want for our own children if they were
to experience the foster care system. And yet, children in foster care
remain the most vulnerable in our society for poor outcomes.
The GAO Report produced in October 2006 at the request of the
Subcommittee identified three of the most important challenges state
child welfare agencies need to address in order to improve outcomes for
children and families as:
1.) Providing an adequate level of services for children and
families,
2.) Recruiting and retaining caseworkers, and
3.) Finding appropriate homes for children
We agree with the GAO findings and based on Casey Family Programs'
more than 40 years of direct practice experience and ongoing
partnerships with child welfare systems across the country, we
respectfully submit that there are seven specific challenge areas that
must receive focused attention and resource investments in the near
term to achieve the long term positive results we all desire and that
children deserve:
Caseload Size: It is a documented fact that dangerously
high caseloads severely hinder caseworkers' ability to focus on the
health and well being of children in our care.
Given the high amount of time a caseworker and/or social worker has
to spend with administrative duties, travel, court appearances and
providing quality service to children and families, we need to
implement a reasonable caseload size standard or ceiling for all child
welfare caseworkers/social workers in this country.
Leadership Development: In order to implement and sustain
positive change, competent executive and mid-level leadership must be
in place. Those in strategic positions must not only have a vision, but
have the proven experience, resources and authority to execute that
vision.
Frontline Supervision: One of the critical and necessary
elements of child welfare reform is investing in the frontline
workforce to improve the quality of the supervision provided to
frontline staff. Individual workers need proper training, relevant
education, and sufficient supervisory support to make competent,
experienced decisions about the needs of children.
Today many workers lack the education credentials and the practical
training to ensure high quality front line performance. We know with
increased preparation, management support and tools, staff can work
with families more proactively on the front end to help them access
existing, valuable community resources and help engage extended family
and community members in best interests of a child.
Building Political Will: For any child welfare agency to
be successful there must be a public, long term commitment by the chief
political leader (e.g. governor, county supervisor, or mayor) to
support and sustain change for children and families. The chief
politician must be informed and engaged with the child welfare
leadership to implement and consistently build on their clear plan of
action.
In many cities and states today, political support of child welfare
is extremely low or non existent. The average child welfare leader's
tenure in this country is 18 months to 2 years. It is clear when an
issue or child incident occurs, child welfare stands very much alone--
and leaders often feel forced to make near term decisions in times of
crisis.
Where we have seen true, long term success, is in jurisdictions
where political leaders have collaborated with child welfare leaders
(just as they would with police, fire or education departments) to
jointly manage and execute a vision for change.
Community and Cross-Systems Engagement: Building Public
Will: Child welfare cannot do this work alone. Systems must work in
tandem with local communities, law enforcement, education, health,
community-based organizations, philanthropic organizations and others
to build comprehensive programs to improve the lives of vulnerable
children in their communities.
Data: We must create and enforce data-driven
accountability and publicly report our outcomes. We must have accurate
systems to measure child welfare results and transparency with our
communication of those results to increase public trust and
accountability.
Without quality data, we cannot effectively track and share
progress and learning, and make better informed decisions regarding the
investment of resources.
Time: Systems do not improve overnight. We need to set
better expectations with the public and for ourselves as leaders about
the realistic timeframes needed to produce sustainable improvement of
child welfare systems.
New York City has reduced crime significantly in the past 12 years.
It is considered to have one of the best big city police departments in
the world. But this year there will be more than 400 murders in New
York City.
This year a number of women with restraining orders sanctioned by
the courts and registered with the police department will be killed by
their husbands or significant others, but that won't result in a
declaration that the police department is broken and nor should it.
My contention is that we must develop similarly reasonable
standards for improvement in child welfare.
Systems must improve and they must be held accountable. But we must
also recognize that real, lasting, and sustainable improvement takes
time.
Starting with the 20 states with the highest populations of
children in care, Casey Family Programs has embarked on an effort that
we call our 2020 Strategy for Children.
Between now and the year 2020 Casey Family Programs is committed to
supporting and partnering with the child welfare system in each state
in the country to implement changes in these critical challenge areas
in order to achieve the goal of improving the life outcomes for
children in foster care in America as well as safely reducing the
number of children who experience foster care in America.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not address the issue of child
welfare financing, as it is an obvious factor in any aspect of
fundamental change. Currently, the federal government provides more
than $12 billion each year to help pay for the cost of our child
welfare systems.
Unfortunately, for several decades, federal funding policies have
not aligned well with many promising child welfare practices and have
had the unintended consequences of providing a disincentive for
innovation in some of the practices that we know work best for children
and families.
These consequences are visible in the lack of IV-E flexibility for
subsidized guardianship, the lack of comprehensive post reunification
services, the lack of comprehensive post-adoption services, and the
lack of comprehensive transition support services for young adults who
age out of the foster care system.
Recently the PEW Charitable Trusts with the support of other child
welfare organizations has introduced a set of comprehensive
recommendations to improve child welfare financing. We strongly believe
that federal finance reform is critical to achieving better results for
children, and would urge consideration of these recommendations.
In closing, as I participate here today I do so with the strong
belief that change is possible and that the outcomes that we seek can
be achieved--but time is of the essence. On average, each day in
America, approximately 1,425 children are removed from their homes and
placed in foster care. That is nearly 59 children every hour.
In the time that it will take to complete this hearing today more
than 100 children will have entered the foster care system in America.
. . .
I thank you for seeking real change on their behalf.
I also thank you again Mr. Chairman, Congressman Weller, and
Subcommittee members for the opportunity to share Casey Family
Programs' perspective with you today.
Casey Family Programs is honored to serve children and families and
we are committed to working with government, child welfare agencies,
and other systems and partners in every community in America to ensure
we follow through on our promise to improve the outcomes and life
possibilities for every children and families who are touched by the
child welfare system.
Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. The red light is on. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Next we have Ms. Nelson, who is the director of
the child welfare department in Iowa. So, we will hear a little
bit of a different story, maybe, than the story in New York
City. Or, maybe not.
Ms. Nelson.
STATEMENT OF MARY NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Ms. NELSON. Good morning, Chairman McDermott, Congressman
Weller, and members of the Subcommittee. Again, my name is Mary
Nelson, and I am the administrator of the division of child and
family services for the Iowa Department of Human Services, and
I, too, appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
Subcommittee about the challenges facing the public child
welfare system. I testify today on behalf of Iowa, as well as
the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators.
I am going to speak to five challenges. The first is
resources. As someone who has worked in this field for more
than three decades, I have seen the federal role in funding for
this system decline, while oversight has increased. It might
surprise some to learn that fewer than 50 percent of the
children in the child welfare system are supported by federal
IV-E funding. States have picked up the responsibility to fund
the needs of these children, and that trend is clearly not
sustainable.
The second challenge is around the workforce. The issue of
an adequate workforce of frontline child welfare caseworkers
and trained supervisors is one of the most significant
challenges we face in Iowa. Over the last 3 years, we have
worked diligently to reduce the workload of our frontline child
welfare staff, in order to increase monthly visits.
However, we are not where we ultimately want to be. We are
now doing monthly visits with just over 50 percent of the
children we serve, but we do not have the staff complement to
reach 100 percent. New flexibility in the use of federal funds
to support these frontline staff would help us to continue to
make progress to reach this goal.
The third challenge is cross-system collaboration, and I'm
going to use education as an example, because our foster youth
council, Elevate, has identified educational issues as the
number one issue they want to work on this year.
Based on a study through Chapin Hall, we found that over
one-third of the children that aged out of foster care in Iowa
have had five or more school changes, and nearly half reported
having spent at least some of their educational experience in
special education. Simplification of records transfers, and
access to wrap-around educational services to ensure foster
children don't fall behind in school is critical. We will look
for opportunities to address these issues in the congressional
reauthorization of the McKinney Vento and No Child Left Behind
Acts.
The fourth challenge is support for relatives and post-
permanency. In Iowa, almost 40 percent of foster care
placements are with relatives. Many of these relative care-
takers, however, choose not to become licensed as foster
parents. As a result, even though they have met the same safety
standards as licensed foster parents, they are ineligible for
federal financial support through Title IV-E.
Including guardianship subsidies within the Title IV-E
program would mean that all eligible children could achieve
permanency through guardianship, not just those that are
participating in a waiver. This is especially important for
older youth in care, who might otherwise age out of foster care
with no permanent family connections.
In Iowa, as is true nationally, well over half of the
children that exit foster care are reunited with their
families. Providing post-permanency support for birth families
is critical to maintaining these placements, just as it is with
adoption and guardianship.
The fifth challenge is around disproportionality. In Iowa,
we have identified disproportionality and disparate outcomes in
child welfare as a critical issue in our recent redesign of our
child welfare system. It is my understanding that Congress has
begun to pay attention to this issue, with Chairman Rangel
requesting a GAO study. We look forward to discussing this
challenge further, once that study is released.
Addressing only the challenges I have outlined in this
testimony, however, simply is not sufficient. Abused and
neglected children deserve a comprehensive approach to
improving their lives.
For the past several years, various national groups have
come to Congress, asking for reform of the federal child
welfare financing structure, each with their individual
recommendations for reform. Though there was a good deal of
overlap in the reform proposals, it may not have appeared as if
there was consensus.
To focus our efforts to move this critical agenda forward,
leading child welfare advocacy organizations joined forces to
develop consensus recommendations for reform. Today, APHSA, the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
Catholic Charities USA, the Center for Law and Social Policy,
the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense
Fund, the National Child Abuse Coalition, and Voices for
America's Children propose recommendations that cover three
primary areas of reform.
First, guaranteeing services, supports, and safe homes for
every child who is at risk of being, or has been abused or
neglected, by strengthening the Federal/State child welfare
partnership by amending Title IV-E without converting any of
IV-E to a block grant.
Second, promoting program effectiveness through workforce
investment, and vigorous evaluation.
Third, enhancing accountability, both fiscal and
programmatic. We urge the Subcommittee to adopt these
recommendations, in order to keep children safe and in
nurturing families. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Nelson, Administrator,
Division of Child and Family Services,
Iowa Department of Human Services
Good morning, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Weller, and members
of the subcommittee. I am Mary Nelson, administrator of the Division of
Child and Family Services for the Iowa Department of Human Services. In
this position, I have responsibility for program and policy in child
protection, foster care, permanency, and adoptions as well as child
care regulation, juvenile institutions, delinquency programs, dependent
adult protection, teen pregnancy prevention, child abuse prevention and
family support and the interstate compacts for children, juveniles and
medical assistance and adoption. I am also a current member of the
National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA),
an affiliate of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA),
and am here today in that capacity as well. APHSA is a nonprofit,
bipartisan organization representing state and local human service
professionals for over 76 years. NAPCWA, created as an affiliate in
1983, works to enhance and improve public policy and administration of
services for children, youth, and families. As the only organization
devoted solely to representing administrators of state and local public
child welfare agencies, NAPCWA brings an informed view of the problems
facing families today to the forefront of child welfare policy.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
about the challenges facing the public child welfare system in serving
children and families who have come to our attention. With over three
decades of experience with the Iowa Department of Human Services,
beginning as a caseworker, I have seen, experienced and worked to
address the many challenges the child welfare system has and continues
to face.
BACKGROUND
APHSA members appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to one of our
nation's most critical and heart wrenching struggles--what we can and
should be doing to improve the lives of children who are at risk of
being or have been abused and neglected. The latest data released by
the federal government indicate that in 2005, an estimated 899,000
children were found to be victims in this country. The child welfare
system serves as the safety net for these children and works to improve
their life circumstances and outcomes.
CHALLENGES
I must start off with saying that the challenges are great. I have
been asked to discuss the top four to five challenges facing public
child welfare systems. The challenges I will outline today are those we
face in the state of Iowa, but are also similar to those encountered by
other states. As someone who has worked in this field for more than
three decades, I have seen the federal role in funding for the system
decline, while oversight has increased. And it might surprise some to
learn that fewer than fifty percent of the children in child welfare
are supported with a federal dollar. States, including Iowa, have
picked up the responsibility to fund the needs of these children and
that trend is clearly not sustainable.
Core Work of the Child Welfare System--A Skilled and Supported
Workforce
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.
An enormous responsibility is placed in the hands of caseworkers as
they are expected to perform multiple interventions and make judgments
that have the power to change a child's life. Their findings can
determine whether a child is kept safe or put at risk. The connection
that caseworker can make is greatly impacted by the competencies they
can acquire and build through effective training, available tools
including the array of services to which they can link families and on-
going support. This subcommittee acknowledged this core element of
child welfare work in the recent reauthorization of the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program with the requirement for monthly visits in
ninety percent of foster care cases. States agree with the importance
of face-to-face visits as is demonstrated by requirements in many state
child welfare policies and in the results of the first round of the
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) where both visits with
children and with parents were strongly associated with a decreased
risk of harm to the child; improved permanency and enhanced child well-
being. However, the resources needed to meet this goal have not been
sufficient given that less than 25% of states received a rating of
strength on the worker visits items in the CFSRs.
Additionally, child welfare supervisors play a vital role in
providing support, skill building, and professional development to
caseworkers. Supervisors are coaches, mentors, and evaluators
responsible for the quality of services children and families receive.
A supported, skilled, and stable workforce is crucial in child welfare
practice given the tremendous impact caseworkers can have on helping
vulnerable children and families overcome difficult life circumstances.
Training, workload, risk of violence, supervision, and turnover present
great challenges to providing the needed workforce supports in this
field. However, there is the opportunity to build on the level of
motivation and the level of dedication among the child welfare
workforce which are incredible assets that can contribute to meaningful
and sustained improvements. A key to improving the workload for
caseworkers is to ensure access to other human service systems that can
help provide the services needed by children and families.
Iowa's Challenges
The issue of an adequate workforce of frontline child welfare
caseworkers is one of the most significant challenges we face inIowa in
terms of meeting the requirement for monthly visits. In our first CFSR,
we found that we were only meeting that requirement with ten percent of
the children and 23% of families we served. We worked diligently in our
Program Improvement Plan to reduce the workload of our frontline child
welfare staff in order to make improvements in this area. Although not
where we want to be ultimately, I'm pleased to say that we are now
doing monthly visits with just over 50% of the children we serve. I'm
also pleased to say that we are seeing the positive results of this
effort in terms of improved relationships with children and families,
workers being better prepared for Court, and better outcomes. Our staff
are also reporting higher satisfaction in being able to spend more time
directly working with children and families.Iowa has also struggled
with having an adequate number of trained supervisors. As noted,
frontline supervisors play an essential role as expert consultants to
our frontline staff as they make the critical decisions expected of
them. We have been fortunate to receive two federal grants focused on
recruiting, training and retaining child welfare supervisors. As a
result, we have been able to strengthen the skills of our supervisors
as coaches and mentors. We've also been fortunate to receive funding
from our state Legislature to hire additional supervisors.
Despite the progress we've made to date, we do not currently have
the staff complement to reach 100% of the children we serve. New
flexibility in the use of federal funds to support these frontline
staff--caseworkers and supervisors--would help us to continue to make
progress to reach this goal.
Cross-system Collaborations
The child welfare system cannot do its work in isolation because we
cannot address the complex needs of children and families, and achieve
improved outcomes for children and families alone. Cross system
collaboration is critical both in terms of addressing the multiple
needs of at-risk families in order to prevent abuse and neglect, and in
terms of addressing the complex needs of the children and families that
come to the attention of the child welfare system. Child protection is
often the final safety net for many of the children and families that
were not ``caught'' in time by other systems, such as mental health,
housing, public health, or education. By working together, child
welfare and other systems can strengthen families and prevent the need
for child welfare system involvement.
For those children and families that do come to the attention of
the child welfare system, cross-system collaboration is necessary to
address the multiple challenges these families face, as well as the
trauma of family violence. The Children's Bureau's CFSR findings
indicated that in 86% of states, key services for parents are lacking
(e.g., substance abuse assessment and treatment, child care, respite
care, transportation, domestic violence services, home-based services,
housing, and post-reunification services). Addressing these issues is
often integral to reunification and the ability of a family to care
properly for its children. Collaboration and partnerships must be
developed and continued with all of the critical agencies that can
provide services to children and families who have come to the
attention of the child welfare system. The system has increasingly been
contending with crosscutting challenges impacting the lives of children
and families including unmet medical and mental health needs,
educational challenges, substance abuse, housing challenges for both
families and older youth exiting foster care, and domestic violence.
Obstacles to truly connecting the supports these families need
remain today. The items that were least likely to be rated as a
strength on the CFSRs pertained to assessing and meeting service needs
and meeting children's mental health needs. Waiting lists for services,
particularly substance abuse treatment services, were found in 69% of
states. The funding provided in the reauthorization of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program for substance abuse partnership is a
step in the right direction, however, not all states will receive
grants to enhance their capacity to address this issue. Numerous
families that come to the attention of child protection have unmet
mental health needs. Private health insurance limitations, an
inadequate supply of services, and limited resources have all impacted
the access to mental health services for both children and parents.
This concern is reinforced by the findings in the CFSR that in 71% of
states there is a lack of mental health services for children, and in
77% of states the number of dentists/doctors willing to accept Medicaid
is not sufficient to meet the need. Recent limitations on the ability
of states to use Medicaid Targeted Case Management funds and upcoming
changes to the Medicaid Rehabilitation Option will greatly diminish the
federal government's role in partnering with states to meet the on-
going health and mental health needs that must be addressed to improve
outcomes for children and families involved with the child welfare
system.
We have seen cases where the lack of adequate housing can lead to
overcrowded conditions that cause high levels of stress and can
ultimately lead to the maltreatment of a child. Educational outcomes
for children in foster care are lower than those of the general
population. Simplification of records transfers and access to wrap
around educational services to ensure foster children don't fall behind
in school during placement moves is critical. We will look to
opportunities to address these issues in the Congressional
reauthorizations of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance and the No
Child Left Behind Acts.
These examples serve to highlight how systems must work together to
better address the varied needs of families and how the federal
government must continue to be a true partner in ensuring these
services reach the children and families most in need. Although the
CFSR findings indicated that less than one-half of the states achieved
substantial conformity with the systemic factor of service array, it
also showed that more than one-half of the states were found to be
effective in individualizing services to meet the unique needs of
children and families. If these systems can be brought together to
enrich the array of services available, child welfare systems have
shown that they do have the ability to connect children and families to
the supports they need.
Iowa's Challenges
With respect to our experience in Iowa, I want to focus on the
challenge of ensuring that children in foster care have their
educational needs met. Our youth council, Elevate, which is made up of
current and former foster care youth, has identified educational issues
as the number one issue they want to address in the upcoming year.
Based on a study done through Chapin Hall, we found that over one-third
of children that ``aged out'' of foster care in Iowa have had 5 or more
school changes, nearly half reported having spent at least some of
their educational experience in special education, 18% missed at least
one month of school due to foster care change, and over half could not
read at a 7th grade level. About a third had repeated a grade, and more
than two-thirds had received out-of-school suspensions. While Iowa's
CFSR final report indicated we were making appropriate efforts to
assess and address children's educational needs, we can and must do
better than the Chapin Hall findings. In an effort to turn these
outcomes around, the Iowa Departments of Human Services and Education
have signed a Memorandum of Agreement identifying a set of concrete
steps we will take to address these issues. In 2006, the DHS also used
state funds to implement the Preparation for Adult Living (PAL)
program, which provides continued support to youth that ``age out'' of
foster care that are continuing their education or working. Iowa has
also taken advantage of the Medicaid option for youth that age out of
care. And, this year, the Legislature appropriated additional state
funds for a post-secondary education tuition waiver program that will
supplement the Chafee Education and Training vouchers. Support from
Congress can help states address these and other cross-system
collaborations.
Another important area where cross-system collaboration plays a key
role is prevention of abuse and neglect. In Iowa, we have implemented
an initiative, Community Partnerships for Protecting Children, that
brings together child welfare, substance abuse, mental health, housing,
education, public health, corrections, the faith community, businesses,
and local neighborhoods to work together to develop neighborhood based
supports that address the multiple needs of vulnerable children and
families.
Supporting (Birth, Foster, Kin and Adoptive) Families
The child welfare system cannot succeed without the partnership
with all of the families who care for abused and neglected children--
birth families, foster families, kin, and adoptive families. A state or
local system cannot provide the nurture and care that these families
can provide, with the necessary supports and services from the child
welfare system. The CFSRs showed that a key challenge for many states
is having a sufficient number and type of placement options to ensure
that a child's out-of-home placement is based on appropriateness rather
than availability. Once those placements are found, they must all
receive the supports needed for the children in their care.
The majority (54%) of children in foster care were reunified with
their families in 2005. In these instances, child welfare systems may
have met the challenges of providing the family with the necessary
services to improve their lives to a point of warranting reunification.
However, states currently lack the resources necessary to provide
continued services and supports to ensure children don't re-enter the
foster care system. Reunification cannot be the end goal; rather, the
focus must be on keeping children with their families whether it be
prior to a removal or after a reunification. The Children's Bureau's
analysis of the CFSRs indicated that more than 60% of child welfare
agencies were not able to provide sufficient and/or adequate post
reunification services and only half were able to meet the national
standard for re-entry into foster care.
Recruiting and retaining foster parents, particularly for older
youth and children with special needs, poses an on-going challenge for
child welfare systems. It is not always an easy decision for families
to take on the important work of caring for children who have
experienced difficult home situations. They must be commended and
supported for the incredible role they've agreed to fulfill.
Relatives and other caretakers known to the child often step in
when a home is needed for a child who has come to the attention of the
child welfare system. These caretakers, often grandparents, do not
necessarily have the resources to provide the care needed for children
who have been removed from their homes. Child welfare systems face the
challenge of a declining federal role, given federal regulatory
definitions and recent legislative changes, in providing the resources
needed by relatives. Child welfare systems also struggle with providing
supports to kin and kith who are willing to provide children with
permanency through guardianship. The federal role in supporting this
permanency option is currently lacking.
In 2005, over 51,323 children were adopted from foster care.
Adoptive families are essential for children who are unable to return
to their family of origin. However, on-going supports are necessary for
these families as well in order to ensure they can continue to care for
the children they've taken into their family. Post-adoption supports
through the adoption assistance program continue to decline as the
Title IV-E eligibility link to 1996 standards erodes over time. While
more federal support is needed for post-adoption services, there
currently is no federal support for any of the other post-permanency
options that can also lead to positive outcomes for children such as
guardianship and reunification.
Iowa's Challenges
In Iowa, almost forty percent of foster care placements are with
relatives. Many of these relative caretakers, however, choose not to
become licensed as foster parents. As a result, even though they have
met the same safety standards as licensed foster parents (e.g., child
abuse and criminal record checks, and home inspections and studies);
they are not eligible for federal financial support through Title IV-E.
In Iowa, we also now have more children in subsidized adoption than we
do in foster care placements, in fact, almost fifty percent more.
Thankfully, the vast majority of these benefit from federal support
through Title IV-E. Due to the link to 1996 eligibility standards,
however, that percentage is declining.
Historically, Iowa has had few families able to provide permanency
through guardianship, in part, due to the lack of federal support
through Title IV-E. Recently, Iowa received one of the last Title IV-E
waivers for subsidized guardianship. We began our program in February
of this year, and look forward to being able to offer post-guardianship
support through this program. While we are grateful to have this
opportunity, offering this program through a waiver means that only
some children can benefit since we must maintain a ``control'' group
that cannot receive a subsidy. Including guardianship subsidy within
Title IV-E would mean that all eligible children for whom another
permanency option is not possible could achieve permanency through
guardianship. This is especially important for older youth in care who
might otherwise ``age out'' of foster care with no permanent family
connections.
Lastly, I want to note that in Iowa, as is true nationally, well
over half of the children that exit foster care are reunited with their
families. Providing post-permanency support for birth families is
critical to maintaining these placements, just as it is with adoption
and guardianship. While Iowa has made significant improvement in
reducing our foster care re-entry rate from twenty-two percent three
years ago to ten percent, we still need to do a better job of
supporting children and families after they leave care.
Disproportionality
The issue of disproportionality in child welfare has received the
attention of child welfare administrators across the nation. The scope
of the issue includes differing experiences and/or outcomes for
children in the child welfare system based in some part on racial or
ethnic factors. Child welfare agencies are struggling to identify
effective strategies that accurately identify where disproportionality
is manifested within public child welfare systems and to positively
impact outcomes by addressing issues at the individual and systemic
levels.
Although the federal government found no relationship in the first
round of the CFSRs between the percentage of white children in the
state's foster care sample and the state's ratings for the outcomes,
there were indications in the analyses that African American children
and Alaska Native/American Indian children were more likely to be in
the foster care case sample than in the in-home case sample. It is our
understanding that Congress has begun to pay attention to this issue
with Representative Rangel requesting a GAO study. We look forward to
discussing this challenge further once that study is released.
Iowa's Challenges
In Iowa, the Department of Human Services identified
disproportionality and disparate outcomes in child welfare as a
critical issue in our recent redesign of our child welfare system. As a
result, we have implemented two demonstration projects--one in Sioux
City focused on Native American children and families, and one in Des
Moines focused on African American children and families. Both projects
focus on expanding community based culturally competent services,
improving family engagement, and cross-systems collaboration. Although
progress is slow, in both cases we are seeing improvements in our work
and in outcomes for children and families. In fact, Sioux City was
recently recognized by the Center for Community Partnerships in Child
Welfare as one of 10 jurisdictions to watch in terms of addressing this
issue.
CONCLUSION
The challenges outlined in my testimony are but a few of the many
in a system that impacts every aspect of a child and family's life.
Given that my testimony before you today is not considerably different
from the one I presented in January 2004 and that the Government
Accountability Office recently reported the long-standing challenges
the system continues to face, we must do something drastically
different in this country about child welfare. Addressing only the
challenges I've outlined in this testimony simply is not sufficient.
Abused and neglected children deserve a comprehensive approach to
improving their lives.
For the past several years, various national groups have come to
Congress asking for reform of the federal child welfare financing
structure; each with their individual recommendations for reform.
Though there was a good deal of overlap in the reform proposals, it may
not have appeared as if there was consensus. Therefore, APHSA joined
with a group of national organizations that worked for more than one
year to develop recommendations in order to come to Congress with one
voice in asking for help in meeting the on-going challenges faced by
child welfare systems throughout this county. The recommendations
outline changes needed to ensure access to broad range of services and
supports--including prevention, treatment and post-permanency and other
services--for children who have come to the attention of the child
welfare system. Today, APHSA, the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees; Catholic Charities USA; the Center for Law and
Social Policy; the Child Welfare League of America; the Children's
Defense Fund; the National Child Abuse Coalition; and Voices for
America's Children, propose recommendations that cover three primary
areas of reform:
1. Guaranteeing services, supports and safe homes for every child
who is at-risk of being or has been abused or neglected by
strengthening the federal-state child welfare partnership by amending
the federal Title IV-E statute to do the following without converting
any of the Title IV-E to a block grant
2. Promoting program effectiveness
3. Enhancing accountability
Although several bills have been introduced in this Congress that
would address some of the challenges facing the child welfare system,
comprehensive reform is necessary to make a significant impact. We urge
the Subcommittee and Congress to adopt our joint recommendations in
order to keep children safe and in nurturing families. The details of
our recommendations are attached to my testimony and available on the
press table.
NAPCWA's vision for child welfare is a society where children are
free from abuse and neglect and live in safe, stable, permanent
families--where children and families have needed supports and can help
themselves. When children are at risk and come to the attention of the
public agency, the agency can provide services and supports to them and
their families to mitigate their problems and prevent them from being
removed from their families and communities. When children must come
into care, the agency can address children and family needs
expeditiously and enable a safe reunification or, where that is not
possible, find an alternative permanent placement expeditiously, while
assuring their well-being in the interim. It is a vision where the
child welfare system has the capacity to improve outcomes for children
and families, and the federal government and states are equal partners
in serving all children in all parts of the system.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much, and thank you all
for your testimony. As I sat here listening to it, and having
worked as a child psychiatrist in and around the system in
various places, you have laid out a smorgasbord of
possibilities, some of which are well handled at the Federal
level, and some aren't handled at the Federal level.
I would like to hear you talk about this because I think we
can set the funding aside for just a second, and talk about the
structure of the system. What things do you think this
Subcommittee ought to consider, such as putting a Federal
standard, or do you want 50 different standards in each State?
I would like to hear from those of you in the business. If
you were sitting up here, what would you be pushing? Governor?
Or, not Governor----
Ms. HOLTON. I will take that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Judge?
Ms. HOLTON. Congressman, I think one great thing the
Federal Government has done, and I think it has had good
effects at the State level, is the CFSR process, the child and
family service reviews process, which has set some very high
standards, and some very specific accountability measures.
They have now conducted the reviews in all 50 states, and
all 50 states flunked, which was the expected result, because
the standards are high, but they set real outcome measures.
It's hard--accountability, everybody agrees with in principle.
To do accountability well, you have to have not just one
measure, but rather you have to have a range of measures that
captures all the things you care about. I think the CFSR
process, overall, has done a good job on that. So, I think we
should support that.
The flip side of that is, having set high standards and put
in motion an accountability process, we then need to give the
states the maximum flexibility, in terms of how they go about
processing and achieving those outcomes goals, because there is
an awful lot of--I just--I didn't know much about the money
side of this business from when I was on the bench. That was
not part of my job. In fact, it was my job not to know, ``I
don't care how much it costs, you've got to do what the law
requires.''
The more I learn about it, some of these requirements,
Byzantine is the only word. There is nothing productive about
going back to look to a 1996 AFDC income measure. So, to the
extent we can set outcome measures, and then provide the states
maximum financial support that we can, and give them maximum
flexibility, I think that's the right general approach.
Mr. BELL. I would add to that, that of the list that I
think you have heard from a number of us, three areas, I think,
need focus.
One is the caseloads. We allow workers to have as many as
100 cases on their caseloads in various places. We absolutely
know that is not an environment where children can get the
services that they need. So, I think something must be done
that says that we will not allow workers to carry more than X
number of cases.
I don't want to prescribe 12 to 15, or 20, but I think
something needs to be done to look at, definitely, where does
the scale tip into the area where the children don't get the
services that they need? Then we need to set a ceiling for
workers' caseloads.
I think number two would be supervision. We cannot allow
workers to make independent decisions in isolation, as
significant as when a child needs to be separated from their
families. There must be quality supervision provided on those
critical decisions that will impact on the long term of a
child's life.
Then, the third area is, I think, a focus on services that
absolutely need to be addressed. One is post-reunification
services. We take children away from parents, keep them in care
for long periods of time, and then give them back to those
parents, and then leave the parents to themselves. We have got
to have parents transition back with those children, the same
way we focus on post-adoptive services, and we need services in
that area.
I think, last, transition services for youth aging out of
foster care. Far too many of the young people who go into
adulthood out of the foster care system end up with the kind of
life outcomes that we heard from the First Lady. I believe that
there is an area where there is a gap, where there is not
sustained funding and support for this particular area, and we
have to make a difference in that area.
Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would agree with what
my two fellow panelists have said. Specifically with regard to
what Mr. Bell just said about services. We made a
recommendation in our October 2000 report, which I think is
very important here.
There may very well be, across the Nation, adequate levels
of services. We don't know. However, we do know that there are
a lot of caseworkers and families that don't know what services
are available. These are services provided not only by the
Federal Government, but also State, and perhaps, local
services.
With regard to Federal services, we have recommended that
HHS take the lead, and modify the current catalog of Federal
domestic assistance, which lists over 300 Federal social
service programs. It's a database that is maintained by the
GSA, General Services Administration. We have suggested that be
used as a basis for letting local workers and families know
what is already available. That would include all kinds of
services, post-reunification and other.
Ms. NELSON. I, too, want to amplify, or support what the
others have said already about the value of the CFSRs, as far
as putting an organizing structure around a Federal/State
partnership. I think it's done more for improving child welfare
and focusing State and Federal efforts than perhaps efforts
from years before.
One very specific recommendation I want to speak to that is
in my written testimony that I think, in particular, would
build on what William Bell said, around the importance of
workforce, which I absolutely support, and that is to look at
the Federal match rate under Title IV-E administration, and
bifurcate that so that the match rate for frontline workers and
frontline supervisors might be at the FMAP rate, and keep the
more traditional administrative overhead at the 50 percent
match rate.
That would be an opportunity for the Federal Government to
be a real partner with the State around improving and investing
in the workforce.
Mr. COTTON. I would just like to add two things, because I
agree with everything that was said, just about, so far, too.
You have heard a lot today about Illinois and New York
greatly reducing the foster care populations. As we pointed
out, one of the big ways through in-home services. For the
investigator going out at night, to actually have a choice
besides leaving a child in a risky home or taking that child
away, actually having some immediate services available, and a
funding stream to do that, I think is very big.
The other issue that has been touched on by a couple of
people was kinship care, relative care, whether they're
licensed or not, how you fund them. I think that the Federal
Government, or at least a work group, could look at developing
standards that may be somewhere between licensing and very
little, in terms of where you're going to get with that,
because you do want to make sure that the kids are safe. You
will run into situations where relatives or kin feel they don't
need training because they raised their own kids. All of our
foster parents raise their own kids, and they still need--or
most of them, not all of them--they still need training,
because we have some very difficult kids coming into the
system.
So, in addition to the others, I think that those are two
big areas we should focus on.
Ms. NELSON. I apologize for speaking a second time, but one
thing that I think none of us has mentioned that I think
Congress has played a helpful role in, is the focus on the
courts, through the court improvement projects, and the
funding, and the structure that has been set for court
expectations. I think that has also been a very important role
that Congress can play.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller will inquire.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking over the
testimony last night, I was looking at Mr. Cotton's testimony
about the case of Clark County, Nevada, and clearly, a case
study of failure. A situation, since Federal funds are
involved, frankly, that is a national disgrace.
Mr. Chairman, I pulled some news clippings regarding Clark
County, which I would ask unanimous consent they be included in
the record.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Okay.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.111
Mr. WELLER. Just a few weeks ago, I noted there was a
little girl that was found in a home--this was on April 8th,
basically a month ago. As a father of a little baby girl, it
breaks my heart a child was found in an upstairs bedroom, with
two black eyes several days old, long lacerations on the back
of the child's legs, scabbed over, signs of being malnourished.
At age 3, she only weighed 19 pounds. This was 4 weeks ago. So,
clearly, there is a failure going on in Clark County, Nevada.
Mr. Cotton, in your testimony about your work in reviewing
what is occurring in Clark County, you mentioned in your review
that you and your group called the hotline and, on average, it
took about 25 minutes to get a response. I know when I call,
wanting to buy something and I'm on for very long, my patience
wears pretty thin. I think that's fairly common.
You mention that when investigations did occur in response
to complaints, only about 31 percent of the child abuse neglect
reports were appropriately initiated, which meant that they
actually saw the victim, in order to assess what is happening,
and review whether or not that child was safe.
You say in your testimony that 10 percent of the alleged
victims were never seen by Clark County investigators during
the investigation, and 60 percent were never interviewed
privately before completing the investigation, which meant that
the victim, a child, was interviewed while seated next to the
alleged perpetrator.
You also mention that 57 percent of the people who stayed
online, on the phone, made the call, made the report, only 50
percent of them were ever contacted, which means over half of
those who called and complained were never followed up with.
Can you share more details? Also, as you share more
details--you made some recommendations. Had they done it in the
proper way, what difference would it have made for the children
impacted?
Mr. COTTON. Yes, thank you. To first start out with the
case you just talked about, I think it's a valuable situation
to talk about, because when my report came out, shortly after
it, it was met with sort of an attitude that things are all
fixed. Clearly, there were many prior involvements with this
child that you just talked about, as there are others.
I think what we repeatedly saw was workers simply didn't
know what they were supposed to do. We almost use these reviews
as training sessions to say, ``Go out and do this.'' What
bothered me a lot was I was called and said, ``They don't work
for you, you can't tell them to go do these things,'' which is
kind of interesting, because somebody needed to.
Just seeing kids who hadn't been seen for 3 or 4 months, we
saw situations--I won't get graphic--but situations where a
child who had been very badly injured, requiring a lot of
stitches was asked with Mom sitting next to him, Mom said he
fell out of bed and got those. The worker looked over and said,
``Did you fall out of bed?'' He said, ``I could have.''
Unsubstantiated, done, out the door.
I think caseload doesn't take the place of common sense.
The fact that you have a lot of cases and training and
understanding what's going on with families isn't just a factor
of big caseloads. So, I think we did repeatedly see that.
We saw situations where safety and risk assessment
documents--these are validated tools, research-validated, that
actually work. They greatly reduced repeat abuse in other
states, but the workers saw them as a form. They were never
trained to use them. What we found were large numbers of them
didn't gather enough information to use the form properly, to
make it. They simply said, ``Check, check, check, check, and
I'm done.''
So, just in terms of what you're supposed to look for, when
we suggested to people that interview children privately, some
of them stared at us. Others said, ``Well, that's a good
idea,'' but they had never been told that.
Others did get creative. I will tell you there were some
very good workers. For example, some would ask, ``Well, how do
I interview a baby, check on a baby in a foster home, to make
sure he is okay?'' Change the baby's diaper while you're there.
You don't need to say, ``I'm looking for marks,'' just change
the diaper and see if there are marks.
So, I think there are a lot of creative ways. A child who
is afraid to talk, because he keeps looking at the door,
because he's afraid Dad is going to walk through the door and
hear it, take him to a park and interview him, where he can see
100 yards in every direction, so nobody can see that. So, I
don't know if I answered everything----
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Cotton, as I understand in Clark County,
it's a county, so this is a county-based program. Is that
correct?
Mr. COTTON. That's----
Mr. WELLER. Who is in charge? Who administers the Clark
County program?
Mr. COTTON. There is a director of the department of family
services who reports to an assistant commissioner of social
services, and then the county is actually a commissioner
system.
Mr. WELLER. So, the ultimate authority, the ultimate
decisionmakers are, like, the county board of supervisors, or
commissioners?
Mr. COTTON. It goes to county commissioners, who actually
then report to a county manager, who is in charge of all the
commissioners of roads and everything.
Mr. WELLER. So, are the commissioners elected officials?
Mr. COTTON. Yes.
Mr. WELLER. Okay. So, essentially, the county board--that's
how we would refer to it in Will County, Illinois, and the
district I represent--but the county board of commissioners,
they are the ultimate authority and the ultimate
decisionmakers, with oversight over the Clark County program,
is that correct?
Mr. COTTON. That's correct.
Mr. WELLER. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, you have been
generous. I know the red light has been on.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you all for being here. This has been
most informative, and I appreciate the information. Both Mr.
Porter and I represent parts of Clark County. I am not speaking
for him, but we are painfully aware of the problems that we
have. A good deal of Clark County, as you are aware, is the
fastest growing community in the United States. It has every
societal factor that would lend itself to this sort of
situation.
Let me ask you something, because we spoke with Mr. Morton,
who is the new head of the Clark County services, and he shared
a lot of your concerns, because our question to him is, ``What
can I do, on the Federal level, to help him do his job.''
Let me ask you something. One of the things that he pointed
to was the extraordinary caseload. He said when he got there,
that the average caseload was 39 cases per worker. One had
almost 100, or just over 100. I can't see, if you have that
great of a caseload, if the recommendation is 12 cases and the
workers in Clark County are doing 3 times that, how they could
possibly be able to interview all the teachers and the
neighbors and the reporter.
I am wondering if it's just a matter of additional funding,
because then this segues over to training. If I am just getting
out of college, and I want to do social work, what are my
qualifications? It seems, Mr. Cotton, the questions that you
suggested, it doesn't seem that you have to be a genius to
figure any of that out. I can't understand what type of
training is necessary in order to do this kind of work.
Now, I do know the burn-out rate is extraordinary, so
you've got on-the-job training, we throw people into this line
of work. After 2 years, when they are finally proficient, they
are also burned out. So, then you are redoing this every couple
of years, and you never get an experienced and competent
caseworkers force, because they just can't handle that. I could
certainly understand that.
I am also very curious, if we don't have to do it on the
record, who it was that you spoke to that told you not to
interfere, because if they're still there, I think we have a
certain amount of people that we know on the county commission,
and certainly the county manager, that we would like to share
that information. That, to me, is outrageous.
So, any additional input that you can give me when it comes
to appropriate training, when it comes to funding--is this a
partnership with the State? Does the State kick in additional
money as well? If you're not getting adequate funding from the
states, how does that impact, as well?
What do you do with--one of the things--and I'm sorry to
ramble, but one of the things that Mr. Morton suggested is
additional funding for other societal issues that contribute to
child abuse and the increase in the need for foster families.
One of them is we have a huge methamphetamine problem in Clark
County. We end up having to remove a lot of children.
So, we have got a child haven, and that is where we put our
neglected and abused children, while they are waiting for
intervention. It is beyond over-crowded. We don't have enough
cottages for these kids. We don't have enough people working
there. So, it's one issue after another.
I can understand when you start asking questions, it's a
``Yes, but, what are you doing?'' ``Yes, but,'' ``Can you do
this?'' ``Yes, but,'' and I think there is a lot of yes-buts
right now in Clark County, too. It is a national shame, and
it's certainly a terrible embarrassment. What do I do, sitting
here, to help these people?
Mr. COTTON. If I could respond, there were a lot of
questions in there.
[Laughter.]
Ms. BERKLEY. I know. There is a lot to----
Mr. COTTON. I have no problem at all talking about the
interference, as you call it. Basically, I was called into the
management team, who said, ``Let us know about issues, because
they don't work for you,'' and it was the whole management team
who told me that.
Ms. BERKLEY. Are they still there? I know there has been a
huge shake-up.
Mr. COTTON. Three-fourths of them are.
Ms. BERKLEY. Really?
Mr. COTTON. At that point--I don't want to get off onto
that tangent.
Ms. BERKLEY. Yes.
Mr. COTTON. At that point, basically, when we started
calling and nothing was happening, we sort of, behind the
scenes, made sure things got done, because just calling wasn't
helping.
The second issue, and I know this is not going to be a
popular statement, but about the caseload reductions, one of
the things I have to go back to, looking at what is going on in
caseloads--and having been a worker for a while, I know that
when you've got big caseloads, there is not a lot you can do--
but one of the things that happened in Illinois with the big
caseload reductions is when all the in-home services were
transferred to child protection--I had a great management
team--we looked at every single case.
Almost 40 percent of them we were able to close. They
weren't getting any services, they didn't need any services,
but as long as they're open, they're counted, and they are
required visits, and they require caseworker time. Many states
have the same requirement to see a 14-year-old who was
neglected 4 years ago, as they do a baby who is at high risk,
rather than differentiating between those.
So, I think that, certainly, caseloads have to be reduced.
Additional staff is one way. Another way is looking at what's
open, and does it need to be open. I think the management team
needs to do that.
Ms. BERKLEY. That is headed by Mr. Morton now, of Clark
County.
Mr. COTTON. Yes.
Mr. BELL. You know, I would add that the situation that you
describe in Clark County is very complex, and the response to
it is multi-tiered.
It is not so dissimilar to what you would have seen in New
York City in 1994, and probably in Illinois, before the changes
happened there. The catalyst in New York City was the death of
Elisa Izquierdo in 1995. The response to that was a
comprehensive look at the system. In Clark County, what has to
occur is, first and foremost, there has to be a building of
infrastructure to run a quality program.
Now, I agree with Mr. Cotton, that you can't just say,
``caseload, caseload, caseload,'' and that's the answer.
Caseload is a factor, and one of the factors that has to be
addressed.
Ultimately, there has got to be a management structure in
place that actually manages and believes that it can be
successful in managing a program. The history of what has
evolved in Clark County also has to be addressed. The history
of this longstanding bifurcated system. The history of the
State being responsible, and then turning over responsibility
to the county, but there not being an infrastructure in place
to receive that responsibility, and operating at a point now,
as though it is just a Clark County issue.
It's a statewide issue, and there must be accountability at
both the State social services level, as well as at the county
social services level, and I think any influence that Congress
can provide, in terms of making sure that each of those
entities upholds its individual responsibility would absolutely
be critical.
Another key point that I think worked wonders in changing
how people did work in New York City was describing what a
quality investigation looked like. We had thousands of workers
who were each making up the rules on each individual
investigation. We created a quality case practice guide, not a
must-follow, but a guide that framed what quality looked like.
We trained supervisors in that, as well as workers in that, so
that people had a sense of what they were required to do, such
as making sure that you interview children away from the
alleged perpetrator.
I think that the critical challenge is also how do we
broaden what we're trying to do in Clark County, beyond just
the government social service entity, and engage the
communities in being a part of the job protection effort in
that county?
As in New York City, as I'm sure happened in Illinois and
in Los Angeles County, until you engage a cross-systems,
community-based support around protecting vulnerable children
where they live, government cannot do the job that we hold it
responsible for doing. In Clark County, first and foremost, you
have got to build an infrastructure to manage your child
welfare system, and be focused on a clear plan of action, which
is developing right now, but does not current exist, in terms
of that county structure.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. We are going to move on to
Mr. Porter.
Mr. PORTER. Thank you. I thank you all, again, for your
testimony. Mr. Cotton, if I could summarize why you were hired
by Clark County to come in--that was because there were at
least 79 children who had died of abuse or neglect at the hands
of their parents, foster parents, or care givers, while under
the watch of the Clark County Department of Family Service. Is
that one of the reasons you were brought in to do your
investigation?
Mr. COTTON. Yes. Actually, there was a national panel put
together to look at those 79 deaths, and how the county
responded to them, and a lot of other issues, not just family
services, but the police, the district attorney.
When that report was written--and I was the only Nevada
member on that, there were forensic pathologists, people from
all over the country--when that report was written, Clark
County looked at it, thought there were major issues, asked me
to review, I think, about 135 cases.
Part-way into that, I was about done with 85, I gave them
an interim report. I think it was like a light going off,
going, ``Oh, my gosh, what are we going to do?'' At that point,
they asked me to do every--this 1,352 cases refers to every
child under the age of 5 that has an open case in Clark County.
So, at that point, we looked at every kid under five.
Mr. PORTER. Most importantly, I know that Clark County is
taking steps to try to improve their problems, and I think the
State has been involved. Do you think the problem is adequately
being taken care of? Is it being fixed in Clark County, or is
it a Band-Aid?
Mr. COTTON. It's very hard to tell, because one of the
things I do want to differentiate--and I think this happened in
both Illinois and New York--was when the systems were in this
bad of shape, everything was put on the table. Everything was
wide open. The media was brought in to just about every meeting
we had. We said, ``We've got a big problem, we're going to fix
it.''
That's not what I see happening in Clark County right now.
The most recent case you talked about is, again, behind closed
doors. ``Let's not discuss it, let's not talk about what's
going on.'' There are--well, I won't get into that--there are
many other issues that I am just concerned about.
Some of the reaction was, ``Let's try to make the problem
seem less than it is,'' rather than saying, ``We've got a big
problem, let's fix it,'' and I think that is what happened in
both Illinois and New York. We said, ``We've got to fix it,''
we weren't saying, ``Let's see if we can mitigate it in some
way.'' Everything was wide open. I don't feel that it is, right
now.
Mr. PORTER. What are some of the things you think are not
being reviewed in public? What are some of those things,
specifically?
Mr. COTTON. Well, it's very interesting too--when Mr. Bell
talks about the model investigation, we provided a model of
practice for investigations for Clark County staff. We used it
to evaluate families, or to evaluate the files. It was never
provided to workers for training, the decision was made not to
go with it.
So, we don't know that they have a model. It looks
piecemeal. They are given a risk assessment, they are given a
safety assessment. Coordinating those into one model of
practice, which I think is kind of what you were talking about,
we provided that but it was never used, and still hasn't been
used, as far as I know.
So, I think that's part of the issue. I think it's kind of
overwhelming, because you're not just talking about
investigations, all the afterward caseworkers dealing with the
foster families, other situations.
There are some workers who would say, ``I don't visit the
kids in foster homes, because they're safe in foster homes.''
There is a kid that's been beaten to death in a foster--
allegedly beaten to death--in a foster home. There is a child
missing, a 3-year-old who has been missing, for 11 months from
a foster home.
So, for workers to assume that a child is safe because
they're in a foster home, ``So, I don't have to visit them that
frequently,'' is--it's absurd.
Mr. PORTER. Are there some other steps that you think we
should take as Congress at this point with that particular
situation in Clark County?
Mr. COTTON. I'm really not sure what steps you could take,
as Congress.
I think that oversight within the State of Nevada, that--
again, in Illinois and New York, when systems got fixed, the
media was not the enemy. They became the partner. I think in
Nevada, they're still seen as the enemy. They're still seen as,
``Let's not get everybody on the same page here, and work
together,'' it's, ``This advocate is bothering us. This person
is a problem. This lawsuit is a pain,'' rather than, ``This
thing is pointing out issues we need to address.''
Let me give you, I'm sorry, one more quick example. When I
did this report, we all knew, when it was going to be released
publicly, it was going to be a bombshell, and in fact,
negative. I repeatedly asked Clark County staff, ``Do you want
to do this together, so we can talk about not just what's in
it, but where we're going from here, and that we know about it,
and we're fixing it?''
I repeatedly was told, ``That's a good idea,'' and it never
happened. It was dumped on the press 2 days before Christmas,
hoping there wouldn't be much coverage, which is, to me, a
strange way of doing business.
Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Lewis will inquire.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
so much for holding this hearing today. I thank members of the
panel for being here. It is good to see you again, Mr. Bell.
I would just like to know, from members of the panel, any
one of you, am I missing something? It appears to me that more
and more children, whether a part of the foster care system, or
whether they're outside of the system, are just falling through
the cracks.
There are all of these dramatic stories all over the
country, where children, young kids, are being abused, harmed
by relatives, some boyfriends or girlfriends. What's happening?
Tell me.
Mr. BELL. I would suggest, Congressman, that you're not
missing something. I think the challenge here is more of a
challenge of leadership and commitment than it is one of
knowing----
Mr. LEWIS. Is it because of more press attention? What's
going on in America with children?
Mr. BELL. Well, what's happening in America with children,
and vulnerable children, is that families are overcome by the
issues of poverty, the issues of substance abuse, the issues of
domestic violence. Those issues result in children being
harmed.
I think the other side of that is that society is not
responding in the way that it needs to for a very small number,
in comparison, of children. There are a half-million children
in foster care in this country. There are a million children
who are abused and neglected in this country each year. That's
a small percent, if you look at the larger percentage of
children in this country.
My contention--and I would believe the contention of
members of this panel--is that we can fix this, if we commit to
the leadership and the attention necessary to make it happen.
In New York City, in Illinois, the chief politician, the
Governor in Illinois--at that point in time, Rudy Giuliani, and
later, Mike Bloomberg--said, ``I own this problem, and it is my
problem to fix, and I'm going to fix it through the person that
I have appointed to run the system. I'm going to give them the
resources to hire competent leadership and competent managers.
I am going to focus on training their frontline staff. I am
going to make sure that I give the same kind of attention to
vulnerable children as I give to the police department, as I
give to the fire department, as I give to education.''
I think that the first step in this process is we have got
to elevate the needs of vulnerable children to that same level,
and that even in tough budget times, the police department gets
spared as much as possible. Children get cut. We have got to
change that approach. Once----
Mr. LEWIS. Well, wait, Mr. Bell, and other members of the
panel. Do you think that we have come to that point in the
history of our country, where we need to put children and
families on the same level that we put other national concerns?
Maybe we need a department, a cabinet-level department, of
family and children services, or children and family services.
Are we ready?
Mr. BELL. I believe----
Mr. LEWIS. The Chairman raised a point earlier about
whether you can have 50 different standards. Should they be
Federal standards?
Mr. BELL. I believe that there should be Federal standards.
I believe that HHS--and I don't think restructuring is----
Mr. LEWIS. Why dump it on HHS?
Mr. BELL. No. What I'm saying is that I don't believe that
another restructuring is the answer. I think that we need to
put our energy in place in the communities, where they need to
be. We need to take on a sense of responsibility at a local
leadership level.
Children are raised in communities. Families are dying in
communities. We have to get local politicians----
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Bell, it is not working. I know in Atlanta,
in Fulton County, we changed department heads constantly.
Mr. BELL. Right, and that is a part of the problem. On
average, the tenure of a child welfare director in this country
is 18 months to 2 years. There is absolutely no Fortune 500
company that we would invest in that changed its CEO every 18
months to 2 years.
When I speak about leadership and commitment, I am really
saying, ``Let's do what we know how to do.'' All of us in this
room, if asked about how successful we have been, will point to
how we have raised our children, and point to what we know how
to do, in terms of how to raise children. We simply need to do
that same thing for the vulnerable children in this country.
In New York City, we have 59 community districts. It wasn't
until we focused attention to recognize that 18 of those 59
community districts were producing 60 percent of the kids who
were coming into foster care, and when we targeted our
attention, whether children were--put the services where the
children were, we changed the outcomes for those children.
We know where these children are in this country. If we
were to put concentrated attention in those places where those
children are, and do the things that have been done in other
jurisdictions, and hold leadership accountable, we could change
the outcomes for the children that we're talking about in this
room. Clark County can be fixed. Atlanta and the State of
Georgia can be fixed. Philadelphia can be fixed.
If you can fix the State of Illinois--and fix doesn't mean
that you won't have problems with children, because those
problems are happening in families. We can respond in a way
that changes the outcomes for those children, and we can
prevent some of those problems from happening, if we simply do
some of the same things that have already happened in many
jurisdictions in this country.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis will
inquire.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you haven't had
a lot to say, Ms. Ashby, so I will make sure I point my
question toward you so you can talk today.
Ms. ASHBY. Thank you.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me pose a general proposition, Ms. Ashby. I
will ask you to be the first one to respond to it. Obviously,
we have spent a lot of time today talking about the clear and
present crises that exist in the system: children who are
physically getting hurt; children who are being physically and
emotionally abused. I take it that Clark County, Nevada is an
especially poor example of a crisis.
Let me try to reorient the conversation, though, a little
bit. At best, it seems that the foster care system is one that
is a stop gap in this country. It walks into a crisis point in
a child's life. It places that child in a home for a temporary
period of time. Essentially, we hope that no additional damage
is done to the child.
How do we measure long-term outcomes in the foster care
system? How do we measure whether or not the kids who were
placed in the system end up going to college, end up working
productively, end up becoming parents, end up becoming
successful, productive members of the community?
I understand we're trying to prevent them from getting hurt
and abused, but how do we have a much more ambitious vision of
making them productive citizens in the community? Do we have
any measurements in place, as to how foster kids are doing,
once they age out of foster care? Ms. Ashby, do you want to
pick up on that?
Chairman MCDERMOTT. May I just interrupt, for just 1
second?
Ms. ASHBY. Certainly.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. The reason Mr. Weller and I are leaving
is that we've got a bill on the floor we have got to go deal
with. So, it's not that we disrespect Mr. Davis's question.
Mr. DAVIS. That's all right.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We want to thank you all for what you
have done. Thank you very much. We will talk with you. If you
have further things that you think of, after listening to one
another talk, write to the Subcommittee, please. Thank you.
Ms. ASHBY. Thank you. Well, I will try to respond to your
question, first. Then there are a couple of things that I would
like to say, with respect to other things that have been said
this morning.
Mr. DAVIS. Respond to my question.
[Laughter.]
Ms. ASHBY. I will respond to your----
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
Ms. ASHBY. I will do that. The short, direct answer is no,
there are no measures that I am aware of, that would look at
the long-term effects of people who have been in child care--
I'm sorry, the child welfare system.
If they remain in and age-out, there are lots of studies
and lots of examples of the poor outcomes for that group of
people. Yes, they are the ones who end up incarcerated, for the
most part. They have mental health problems. They are the least
educated. Many end up homeless.
The outcomes for young people who age out of the child
welfare system are not good at all, and there are a number of
studies that would support that.
In terms of children that are adopted, or somehow have a
permanent situation, I don't know of any studies. There may
very well be studies that have looked at that, but I am not
aware of any. I would imagine that their outcomes are dependent
a lot on the families that end up adopting them. You know, like
other----
Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me----
Ms. ASHBY [continuing]. Individuals, a lot depends on the
parents.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me stop you, just for the sake of----
Ms. ASHBY. Certainly.
Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Try and see if we can get a factual
foundation around this.
Does anyone on the panel know what percentage of children
who go in foster care end up in the work place within 4 years
of the time they age out? Someone even have a number?
Mr. BELL. Right now, the body of knowledge that we have on
this subject matter really is related to those kids who age out
of foster care. There have been a number of studies that have
been done recently: the Northwest Alumni Study done by Casey
Family Programs; Chapin Hall has done a study, the Midwest
Alumni Study.
What we know is that, for children who age out of foster
care--the general population graduates from a 4-year college at
about a 28-percent rate. Children who age out of foster care
graduate at about a 3 percent rate.
We know that children who age out of foster care are not
employed at the same regularity as children--young adults--in
the general population.
We know that within 2 years of leaving a foster care
system, that 50 percent of them are still on welfare. We know
that 50 percent of them, by the age of 25, still do not have a
high school diploma. So, there are education outcomes, there
are employment outcomes, and the health and well-being outcomes
are challenged. We think it's connected with being in foster
care.
Casey Family Programs has embarked on something we call a
20/20 strategy, which is focused on this research piece that
you're talking about, so that we know what is happening with
children in foster care, focused on reducing the number of kids
in foster care, and reinvesting those savings, but also
concentrating on education, employment, and mental health
outcomes for kids in care.
The standards that you ask about, in terms of how do we
know whether or not we've been successful, are the same
standards that we look to for our own children. If they
graduate from high school and college, if they have good health
and mental health outcomes, and if they are able to get jobs
and have livable wages to build their families. We know that
far too many kids in foster care don't get that.
Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me--if Mr. Lewis will indulge me to
ask one question and get your response before we finish up
today--the other thing that was striking to me, as I was
preparing for this hearing, is the disproportionate number of
children who are African American who are in the system.
People don't end up in foster care because their families
are poor. Obviously, there are a lot of more poor black people,
in relative terms, than poor white people, in relative terms.
That's not how people end up in foster care.
So, I am trying to get some handle on why 35 percent of the
children in foster care in this country are of one particular
race, when only 15 percent of the children in this country are
black. Is it reporting issues? Is it that, for whatever reason,
systems are quick to pull the trigger and take kids out of a
home if it's a black family?
Can any couple of you speak to that issue? I appreciate Mr.
Lewis indulging me on that question.
Ms. ASHBY. We are doing a study for this Committee on that
topic. I can't answer your question right now, because we're in
the process of doing the study.
I would like to say some things, however, about the Federal
role----
Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Answer the question----
Mr. BELL. I would like to touch on----
Ms. ASHBY. I understand, but there are some things,
questions that have been raised about the Federal role in all
of this.
Mr. DAVIS. Hold for 1 second. You will have an opportunity
to do that, but because my time is limited, I need to make sure
I get an answer to my question. Mr. Bell?
Mr. BELL. Right. The answer to your question is it's a
decisionmaking issue. It's not because families of color abuse
or neglect their children at a rate that is higher than
families that are not of color.
It's the decision that gets made on the spot, on the
ground, when judgments are being made about whether or not
something happened, about what the remedy is, if something did
happen. Is the family strong enough to take care of this child,
or does this family need protective custody, in order to meet
the needs of this child?
Decisions that are made with respect to is this family
ready to receive their child back from foster care, are they
strong enough, in order to give the children what they need,
and to carry them through life. Those are perception issues
that are deeply embedded in how we perceive families in this
country, how we perceive individual groups in this country.
So, the challenge in overcoming it, aside from trying to
fix the larger societal perspective on the strength or relative
weakness of African American families, I think, is focused on
how we make decisions in child protective services, and making
sure that no single individual is making decisions solely based
on perception, but that there are standards that are used for
every single judgment that is being made, and that's where
quality supervision comes in, and leadership around management
comes in, in making sure that we make the right protective
decision.
It is absolutely true, that there are African American
families that are abusing and neglecting their children. It is
absolutely true that there are African American families who
need to have children in foster care, but it is also true that
there are more African American children in foster care than
should be there, just as I believe that there are more
children, in general, in foster care than should be there.
Ms. HOLTON. If I could just very briefly jump in, I concur
with Mr. Bell's remarks, but I would like also to say that I
think poverty is a factor, and the over-representation of----
Mr. DAVIS. Oh, there is no question about that.
Ms. HOLTON. 100 percent, or at least 99.9 percent of the
families that came before me in court, as a J&DR judge, with
foster care matters were poor. We just, frankly, stopped doing
the income affidavits at some point. It was almost not worth it
for our--appointing counsel, for instance, because white/black/
Hispanic, everybody.
The ability to obtain services and help without going
through the formal system, absolutely, is much better in
communities where there is money. Folks who don't know how to
access services, or there aren't services available if they
can't pay for them, their kids end up--they end up in more
conflict within the families, and the kids end up neglected
more, and they end up needing foster care.
Mr. DAVIS. Understand, I absolutely don't mean to say that
poverty doesn't play a role, I just wanted to make the point
that poverty, by itself, didn't strike me as being predictive.
Ms. NELSON. I agree with what William has said. I would
also like to add two things. First, the disproportionality
begins even before the call comes to the State agency. It
begins with who reports.
In many jurisdictions, African American children and
families are reported at higher incidents, in very similar
circumstances that other children might not be reported. So,
that starts, that decisionmaking starts from even the person
who calls in the report to the agency.
The other thing I would just note is that, certainly in
Iowa, and I think in many jurisdictions, we see a very similar
level of disproportionality with Native American children.
Mr. COTTON. Could I add very quickly that a second point is
that the African American children tend to remain in foster
care longer, and I think that ties to lots of issues, but one
big one, which we haven't mentioned yet, and that's housing,
that you have to have an appropriate residence to return a
child to.
A lot of times, you're getting workers looking at the
parental home, because of poverty and other issues, and at that
point saying, ``I can't return the child home yet, because of
housing issues.''
So, I know that ties to poverty somewhat, but over and over
when we asked individual caseworkers what did they need to
return kids home, they said, ``Housing.''
Mr. LEWIS. [Presiding] Ms. Ashby, you wanted to say
something about the Federal role.
Ms. ASHBY. Yes. A question was raised earlier about Clark
County, and what can be done at the Federal level. Perhaps what
the role of Congress might be--or this Subcommittee might be--
to encourage HHS--and HHS is the Federal agency who is
responsible for oversight of State child welfare programs. The
administration for children and families.
So, there is a Federal agency that has that responsibility
now. For a situation that seems as bad and as dire as Clark
County--and I'm sure that's not a unique county for that--the
Federal Government can come in and look at the situation, and
make recommendations. The Federal Government can withhold
money, as the ultimate weapon. I know withholding money toward
children, that wouldn't happen unless it were absolutely
necessary.
There are things that can be done, and the situation
doesn't have to keep going on as it is.
Mr. LEWIS. Well, let me, on behalf of the Chairman, the
Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank each and
every one of you for your testimony and for your being here
today.
I want to thank the first lady of Virginia. Say hello to
the Governor. It's good to see you. Thank you, Ms. Ashby, Mr.
Bell, Ms. Nelson, Mr. Cotton. We may be calling on you again. I
think this is an issue that, as a congress, and as a
Subcommittee, we must continue to deal with.
We have unbelievable problems facing our children, and we
must confront these problems head on, and not try to sweep them
under the table in some dark corner, never to be seen or heard
from. So, thank you again, for being here.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43094A.310
Statement of Children's Law Center of Los Angeles,
Monterey Park, California
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles is a nonprofit public interest
legal organization that serves as the ``voice'' for abused and
neglected youth in the largest foster care system in the nation. The
dedicated attorneys and staff at the Children's Law Center represent
more than 22,000 children in Los Angeles County dependency court. We
advocate day-by-day, child-by-child, and case-by-case on behalf of our
young clients. We also learn from our experience with individual
clients and use that knowledge to advocate for concrete solutions to
problems and for broader system reforms.
We are heartened by the commitment shown by the Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support to improving the lives of the more
than half a million children living in the nation's foster care system.
We hope to draw your attention especially to the areas of federal
funding reforms, provision of adequate mental health services to
children in foster care, and assistance to youth who age out of the
foster care system without a permanent support system to rely upon.
Financing: Mental Health Services:
Key recommendations in the report growing out of the Mental Health
Summit include ensuring timely and quality screenings and assessments,
instituting early intervention and prevention programs, promoting
evidence based practices, enhancing access to services, facilitating
system collaboration and communication, and enhancing the voice of
youth in this process. Consistent themes centered on the need for
better communication, collaboration, tighter controls on the use of
psychotropic medications and oversight among the multiple systems
charged with caring for abused and neglected children. Lack of
continuity of care and frequent changes or interruptions in therapeutic
relationships is a significant barrier to improved mental health
outcomes and overall well-being.
Over reliance on congregate care and extreme shortages in
therapeutic foster care placements may be the single most troubling
aspect of our nations response to children with mental and emotional
health problems. Until children can find loving families trained to
provide individualized foster care in a family setting we will continue
to see children leaving our foster care system in worse shape than when
they came into care. Children cannot heal let alone flourish when they
are raised institutions and cared for by shift workers. Even the most
dedicated group home staff, the most skilled psychiatric technician and
the most nurturing nurse or clinical social worker cannot be a
substitute for a stable family with a lifetime commitment. Specialized
training for parents, relatives and foster parents will allow many
children who are currently institutionalized to find their way in their
communities.
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care: While foster care numbers are
declining, both the numbers and percentages of youth aging out of care
on their own is increasing across the country. Foster care was intended
to be a temporary solution, until families could get their lives back
on track, but for many children it has become a long-term living
arrangement.
Youth who leave foster care at about age 18 are often ill-prepared
for living independently. They have no safety net, and too many will
experience unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and even come into
contact with the criminal justice system within the first two years of
leaving foster care. We need to do more to ensure that youth entering
foster care will find a permanent family to love, nurture, and protect
them. For youth who leave foster care on their own, we need to provide
more help with practical life skills including how to act in a job
interview, help in obtaining a drivers license, and information about
programs that can assist youth with housing needs and provide personal
guidance in enrolling in a college or trade school. Once out of care
youth should have access to supportive services aimed helping them
transition to total independence including transitional housing,
specialized programs on college campus, and access to health and mental
health care.
For some young people there are little or no such programs and for
others supports that are available end abruptly at age 21. Significant
research shows however, that the majority of young people in America do
not become fully independent until age 25 and that former foster youth
who receive supportive services past the age of majority experience
better outcomes than those who do not.
Quality Representation and Youth Participation in their Own Cases:
The availability and quality of legal representation varies
dramatically from state to state, county to county and even child to
child. A strong legal advocate provides the bridge between the child
and the court and between the child and needed services. While all
would agree that the child is theoretically the most important person
in a any dependency court proceeding, neither policy nor practice
stands true to that ideal. Children are often not recognized as a party
to the proceeding, are rarely welcome in the courtroom and even in
states where the child is statutorily permitted in the courtroom there
are multiple barriers which prevent children and youth from actually
attending the hearings. For the few who do attend their own court
hearing adult resistance to their participation is common. This
posture, often couched in protective terms, is in reality harmful to
the child and jeopardizes the integrity of the judicial process.
When children and youth are active participants in their own cases
and are supported by a strong advocate the court will have better
information, will better appreciate the child's hierarchy of needs and
will be better able to make and enforce orders aimed at addressing the
many issues this committee and other witnesses have identified.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
It is up to Congress to take these accumulated recommendations to
heart and undertake now to institute concrete reforms. Each day we
delay, an average of nearly 1,500 children in the U.S. enter the foster
care system, and 62 foster youth will age out of the system without
having found a permanent, loving family. Our nation cannot afford to
fail our most vulnerable children in this way.
Statement of County Welfare Directors Association of California,
Sacramento, California
Hearing in Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System
The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the
challenges child welfare agencies face in serving children under their
supervision. 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 welcome the Subcommittee's
interest in improving the child welfare system and will work with you
in those efforts.
Each of California's 58 counties operates a child welfare program,
under state oversight and in accordance with federal and state rules
and regulations. Not only do those programs depend upon revenues
generated by each county, but a large share of child welfare financing
depends upon state and federal funding streams.
Our State's child welfare system is the largest in the nation, with
nearly 80,000 children in our foster care system. CWDA is working
actively with the state legislature and the state executive branch on a
number of child welfare initiatives. This statement, however, focuses
on a few key federal changes we urge Congress to make this year. Our
statement also wishes to highlight a report it released this month
documenting the need for greater investment in family caregiver support
and recruitment.
CWDA supports comprehensive reform of the child welfare system.
There are, however, some specific changes Congress can act upon this
year which would improve the lives of children and their families.
Those issues are described below.
Criminal Records Checks
CWDA supports retaining the ability of the State of California and
its counties to continue administering their own system of conducting
criminal background checks when licensing or approving foster and
adoptive parents, including relative caregivers. Enacted last year, the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248) arbitrarily
eliminated the current statutory authority for states to implement
their own system of conducting criminal background checks, effective
October 1, 2008. California has utilized an option under prior federal
law to implement a criminal background check system that is more
comprehensive and detailed than federal law. While federal law focuses
only on felony convictions, the State reviews all convictions--
including misdemeanors--other than minor traffic violations.
California law gives the State limited, case-by-case discretion to
approve persons with certain types of past convictions when it is in
the best interests of a child to do so, as long as there is evidence
that the applicant is of good moral character and the approval would
not be detrimental to the child's safety or well-being. State law also
contains a list of crimes that are not exemptible under any
circumstances. While federal law allows exceptions, they are in
extremely limited circumstances that do not appropriately balance the
best interests of children against the concerns that are understandably
raised when a background check reveals a past conviction.
The new one-size-fits-all federal mandate `fixes' a problem that
does not exist and may force more children from relative care into
foster care.
CWDA is joined by children's advocacy groups such as the Child
Welfare League of America and the Children's Defense Fund, as well as
the State and City of New York to retain State and local flexibility
that is more nuanced than federal law and has never resulted in a
situation that has harmed a child.
Earlier this year, CWDA collaborated with California's Department
of Social Services to survey counties' use of criminal records
exemptions they granted to relative caregivers seeking approval to care
for abused and neglected children. Thirty-three of the State's 58
counties responded, representing 91.3 percent of the children placed
with relatives statewide as of October 2006.
According to the survey results, the exemptions process is rarely
used, with only four percent of the 3,381 homes receiving one in the
third quarter of calendar year 2006. When the process is employed,
however, it makes a huge difference in the lives of the children and
families involved. Here is one real example of how California's process
has made a difference in a family's life.
Four Latino siblings, ages 2, 5, 10 and 12, were taken into custody
when their parents went to jail on drug-related charges. The 5-year-old
has special health care needs and is diabetic and requires insulin
injections. The children were placed in foster homes on an emergency
basis while relatives were located and evaluated for placement.
The children were not able to all be placed in the same home, and
the 5-year-old had to be placed in a medically fragile home due to her
medical condition. Only the 10-year-old was able to be placed in a home
near his school. The 2- and 12-year-old were placed together in a
foster home that was quite a distance from where they lived with their
parents and had to be enrolled in another school mid-year.
The children's maternal grandparents desired to care for the
children and had been an active part of their schooling as well as the
5-year-old's medical care. They also lived in the same neighborhood as
the parents of the children. The grandfather had a conviction for
spousal abuse to his current wife that was 15 years old. The
grandparents readily admitted to the domestic violence in the past and
felt they had learned from and overcome this. They were able to show
proof that they had successfully completed therapy together and the
grandfather had completed an anger management course. The children have
never known the grandparents to be violent in any way. They often spend
weekends at their home and take trips with them.
The exemption for the grandfather's conviction was granted and all
4 children were placed in the care of their grandparents within 2
weeks. The children have all returned to their original school and the
5-year-old is healthy and doing well. The children maintain regular
contact with their parents and the grandparents are actively involved
in the reunification plan and assist the parents to be successful in
their drug rehabilitation.
A chart documenting the survey results is attached at the end of
this statement.
Accessing Other States' Criminal Background Check Registries
In addition to eliminating states' ability to establish their own
background check requirements, effective October 1 of this year, the
Adam Walsh Act also requires states to conduct criminal background
checks in other states when a person applies for licensure as a foster
care provider. CWDA supports this requirement, but there is no national
infrastructure to support the process at this time. Without an
automated verification system, child welfare staff will face lengthy
delays in recruiting and approving new homes. Until there is federal
funding to build and successfully launch a national registry database,
CWDA urges Congress to enact a statutory change to delay the effective
date of the requirement until the system is created.
SSI Eligibility for Foster Youth
Every year over 4,000 young people emancipate out of California's
foster care system. The outcomes for them are poor. Sixty-five percent
age-out without a place to live; 51% are unemployed; and less than 3%
go to college.
Foster youth with physical and mental disabilities are even more at
risk and vulnerable than the general foster care population. A
provision in federal law makes it even more difficult for those youth
to make a successful transition. Currently, counties cannot file an
application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) while a disabled
youth is receiving Title IV-E foster care payments. Even for youth with
disabilities who are likely to be SSI eligible as adults, counties are
not allowed to file the application until the youth leaves foster care,
resulting in a three- to six-month period in which he or she has no
source of income. Some of these youth become homeless and/or involved
in the criminal justice system while they await approval from the
Social Security Administration. While retroactive benefits are paid
back to the date of application, the lump sum does not address the
immediate crises many of these youth experience in the interim.
The State of California has requested a meeting with the Social
Security Administration in Region IX to explore policy changes or a
potential waiver to allow applications to be made prior to
emancipation.
Ironically, SSI-eligible prisoners with disabilities leaving the
criminal justice system receive payments immediately upon release. We
recommend the enactment of legislation to enable SSI applications to be
filed for youth who are nearing the age of emancipation from foster
care, in anticipation that the benefits will start immediately when the
youth is emancipated.
The Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties
(NACo) approved unanimously a policy in March urging Congress to adopt
legislation to remedy this problem.
Family Caregiver Recruitment and Support
CWDA partnered with the Legal Advocates for Permanent Parenting to
publish a report this month documenting the dire need for increased
investments in family caregiver recruitment and support. The full
report, ``No Family, No Future'' may be accessed at: http://
www.cwda.org/downloads/FamCarePolicyRep.pdf
The report notes that 77 percent of surveyed California counties
report a loss in licensed foster family homes in the last decade. In
those counties with longitudinal data, the number of licensed foster
homes has declined an average of 30 percent. A combination of low
reimbursement rates and high housing costs contributed to this decline.
According to the report, the minimal cost of raising a child exceeds
the foster care board and care rate by over 43 percent. In fact,
kennels in California charge an average of $620 per month to care for a
dog compared to $494 per month for basic board and care for a foster
child.
At the same time that licensed foster family home placements have
decreased, foster family agency and group home placements have been
rising. These factors have contributed to a mismatch in the placement
of children. Less than 50 percent of California's foster children are
living in the most preferred type of placements--37 percent with
relatives and only 10 percent with licensed foster families.
To address these issues, CWDA is working with the state legislature
to enact a critical first step in attempting to stop the decline in the
number of family caregivers. CWDA is supporting a bill (AB 324 (Beall))
which increases the basic foster parent rate by five percent in 2008,
with inflationary increases thereafter. The measure also creates a
recruitment, retention and support program to support foster parents.
CWDA urges Congress to make similar federal investments to support
family caregivers.
Federal Funding for Guardianships
About 40 percent of all children first entering foster care in
California live primarily in a relative care placement. Research
indicates that these children are more likely to be placed together
with their siblings, less likely to have move from one foster home to
another and more likely to maintain family relationships and avoid
homelessness when they turn 18 than children who are placed with non-
relatives.
CWDA strongly supports federal financing of guardianships. Due to
the success of California's ground-breaking KinGAP program created in
1998, about 16,000 California children are today living in safe,
loving, permanent homes with relatives and have been able to leave the
formal foster care system. 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. KinGAP,
however, cannot assist non-relatives who assume guardianship of
children, because of TANF funding rules. The use of TANF dollars, which
are increasingly scarce, to fund KinGAP also places the program in
danger of future cutbacks.
CWDA supports federal legislation such as that authored by Rep.
Davis (D-IL) (H.R. 2188) to include guardianships as an allowable
activity under Title IV-E, and to enable children placed into
guardianships to retain IV-E eligibility, with the maintenance subsidy
payable to the guardian. Continued receipt of IV-E funding would be
consistent with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA), which contains provisions aimed at promoting adoption and
permanent placement for children removed from their homes due to abuse
or neglect. Given the evidence that such placements lead to better
outcomes for children, the federal government should support this
permanency option.
CWDA appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for the
hearing record and stands ready to work with Subcommittee members to
improve the nation's child welfare system.
County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
California Criminal Records Exemption Survey
March 2007
Counties were asked to provide data regarding the criminal records
exemptions they granted to relative caregivers seeking approval to care
for abused and neglected children. The survey period was the quarter
July through September 2006. Of California's 58 counties, 33 responded,
representing 91.3 percent of the children placed with relatives
statewide as of October 2006.
According to the survey results, the total number of homes approved
during the quarter (with or without exemptions) was 3,381. The number
of homes for which exemptions were approved, 148, represents 4 percent
of the total. Note that a home can receive more than one exemption.
Extrapolating to the entire caseload, it is estimated that a total
of 3,702 homes were approved during the quarter, with 162 homes (4
percent) receiving exemptions.
The types of crimes for which exemptions were granted breaks down
as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions by Exemptions Extrapolated
Type of crime survey extrapolated to annual
counties statewide number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony not allowed under federal statute 20 22 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony barred for five years under federal statute 64 70 280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony for which an exemption is required under CA statute only 92 101 404
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misdemeanor exemptions granted (CA statute only) 1,147 1,256 5,024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of homes receiving exemptions (unduplicated) 148 162 648
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of homes approved with or without exemptions 3,381 3,702 14,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of homes receiving exemptions 4% 4% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the exemptions granted during the course of a year, an estimated
88 would be for crimes for which the federal government would never
allow an exemption, and 280 were for crimes that must be older than 5
years prior to an exemption being granted. These are exemptions that,
if no longer allowed, could delay placement for children who have been
abused or neglected or result in placements with non-relatives instead
of relatives who would have otherwise been able to provide stable,
safe, loving homes for them.
Note that it is not known how many of the 280 exemptions for which
the federal government requires five years to have passed would have
been unallowable under federal law because they were committed less
than five years ago. The survey did not request this information.
Supplemental Sheet
Submission for the Record
Hearing on Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System
Statement on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association of
California
Person Submitting Statement
Frank J. Mecca
Executive Director
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Sacramento, California 95814
Tom Joseph
Director, CWDA Washington Office
Waterman & Associates
Washington, DC 20002
Mr. Mecca's statement is made solely on behalf of CWDA and does not
speak for any other party or organization.
Statement of First Star
In abuse and neglect cases, court orders determine a child's
future, including whether the child will remain in his or her home, the
nature and duration of any placement outside the home, the child's
contact with parents and other relatives, and the child's access to
social services. Clearly, a child's interest in these proceedings is of
fundamental importance. However, the level to which children are
involved with their legal representation in court varies not only from
state to state, but from case to case, and all too often, from hearing
to hearing. The root of these inconsistencies lies in the lack of
uniform standards for the representation of children, coupled with the
lack of sufficient training necessary for attorneys to provide adequate
representation to their child clients.
The states' use of different statutory language and mandated roles
for child representation has led to much confusion within the field.
Although child welfare advocates, over the past two decades, have been
diligent in their zeal to improve and enhance legal representation by
developing several sets of guidelines and standards in an attempt to
provide some consistency among state laws, there is still no
established binding legal authority defining the role attorneys should
play in representing children, the type of training that will
sufficiently prepare them, or the duties and responsibilities entrusted
to each one.
While 35 states and the District of Columbia require that a lawyer
be appointed to a child in dependency and foster care proceedings, only
17 states require that the lawyer be ``client directed,'' represent the
child's ``expressed'' wishes, and require that the child be heard in
court. (A Child's Right to Counsel. First Star's National Report Card
on Legal Representation for Children 2007) Children in abuse and
neglect hearings often do not receive the kind of legal representation
that allows the child equal access to justice and to have his or her
own voice heard in a court of law.
In fact, most official consideration of a child's ``best
interests'' in abuse, neglect and dependency determinations takes place
without the child being heard, without the necessary resources and
without the trained, qualified investigation and deliberation that
would best serve the child. Each state should require mandatory
appointment of an independent attorney to every child in dependency and
foster care proceedings. A child's cognitive and developmental
abilities and the child's ability to express his or her wishes to the
court should be considered and decided by the child's attorney. It is
the attorney's role to decide if a child can present his or her wishes
and goals; by allowing the judiciary to make such decisions for the
child interferes with the independent judgment that a lawyer would
apply to representing a client.
According to the American Bar Association (ABA), ``the term
`child's attorney' means a lawyer who provides legal services for a
child and who owes the same duties of undivided loyalty,
confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as is due to
an adult client. ``Traditional'', ``client-directed'' or ``expressed
interest'' attorneys are governed by the Model Code of Professional
Responsibility, the same code that governs attorneys representing
adults, and must abide by the child clients' expressed wishes
concerning the objectives of the representation, counseling them on
those objectives.
The National Association of Counsel for Children has amended the
ABA and Model Code standards to provide an alternate representation
scheme in certain circumstances, particularly where very young children
are concerned. Should the attorney feel that the child's expressed
preference conflict with his or her best interest, a GAL should be
appointed to advocate the best interest position. The attorney may
counsel the child as to what may be in his or her best interest;
however, the decision regarding what position will be advocated in
court remains in the hands of the child. In cases where direct danger
is likely to result from advocating the child's preference, the
attorney-client privilege may be abrogated. The ABA states quite
clearly that a ``nonlawyer [GAL] cannot and should not be expected to
perform any legal functions on behalf of a child.''
The child welfare system is intricate--involving many agencies,
organizations, and individuals. Ultimately, however, it is state
government that has primary responsibility for carrying out child
welfare programs and for protecting children in their care and custody.
But because states retain significant latitude in the design and
delivery of child welfare services, there is significant variation
across states in practice and policy. It is clear, then, that in order
to effectuate the best practices throughout the states with regards to
representation of children in abuse and neglect proceedings, the
federal government must play a vital role.
The federal government's responsibility to abused and neglected
children must include creating and implementing a common policy
framework in which representation of children should be carried out;
sharing in the financing such representation; and, holding states
accountable both for using federal dollars in an appropriate manner and
for achieving the results that federally sponsored programs are
intended to accomplish.
As such, Congress should encourage the development of national and
state professional standards to ensure that attorneys representing
children in maltreatment and dependency cases are trained in child law
and provide effective representation to their child clients. National
uniform standards for practice, such as the American Bar Association's
Standards of Practice For Lawyers Who Represent Children In Abuse and
Neglect Cases (1996) and the National Association of Counsel for
Children's Recommendations for Representation of Children in Abuse and
Neglect Cases (2001), should be further developed and their adoption
strongly encouraged by federal law to the full extent possible.
In addition, Congress should amend the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) to require:
That an independent, competent, and zealous attorney be
appointed to represent the interests of children in all child abuse and
neglect proceedings
That attorneys be trained and practice in accordance with
the standards arrived at by the American Bar Association.
Every child shall be entitled, to the fullest extent
possible given the child's cognitive and developmental capacity, to
contribute his or her voice to the proceedings through counsel.
That each state report on its current representation
model and standards, stated goals for the representation of children,
and steps being taken towards their implementation.
Better oversight and enforcement of the Act's provisions,
including strict penalties for states that delay in complying with such
standards to protect children.
Thirdly, Congress should work to pass new authorizing legislation
in order to attract and retain trained and qualified lawyers in the
dependency practice area by the development and implementation of
standards for reasonable compensation for dependency counsel; the
establishment of loan forgiveness programs for children's counsel; the
development and implementation of standards for reasonable attorney
caseloads; and the allocation or resources and support for attorney
training. This should be done concurrently with the explicit rejection
of any proposed legislation that weakens a federal or state position on
the need for competent, trained legal counsel working for abused,
neglected and dependent children.
Lastly, Congress must ensure legal services for children by
assisting the states in providing such services. A state's dependency
law should be designed to promote the safety, stability, and well being
of children through the provision of high quality legal services for
child clients. To this end, all states should:
Require a statutory right to counsel for every child
involved in child welfare proceedings;
Require that counsel for children advocate for the
expressed wishes of the child in a client directed manner;
Provide specific training requirements for all child's
counsel and mandate multidisciplinary interaction between counsel and
other professionals;
Require that a child be considered a party entitled to
notice, and be present in all child protective, foster care or
dependency proceedings;
Specify that each juvenile has the right to continuous
representation by the same counsel at all stages of the proceedings,
including all reviews and appeals and;
Ensure that all children's counsel be bound by the
ethical and professional responsibilities established by the
traditional attorney-client relationship, including the duty to
maintain client confidences. The law must contain appropriate
provisions to account for a client with diminished capacity. In
addition, the law must reject any immunity from malpractice liability
for children's counsel.
Statement of Generations United
Generations United is pleased to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support. This testimony
addresses the needs of children and youth who are being cared for by
relatives both inside and outside the formal foster care system.
As an organization dedicated to bolstering communities through
meeting the needs and promoting the strengths of all generations,
Generations United (GU) has a special interest in ensuring that
grandparents, other caregiving relatives, and the children they raise
lead healthy and stable lives. Generations United is in a unique
position to address the issue of relatives raising children from the
perspectives of both the young and old. As a result Generations United
has emerged as the national leader in a growing field of organizations
focused on the more than 6.7 million children being raised in
grandparent- and other relative-headed households.
BACKGROUND
More than 6.7 million children are being raised in a home run by
their grandparents or other relatives according to the U.S. Census
Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey. This represents an increase of
more than 222,000 children or 3.4 percent since 2000. Overall, about
one of every 12 children in this country lives in a household headed by
a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling or other relative. Nearly 2.5
million grandparents take primary responsibility for their
grandchildren--perhaps because of parental illness, substance abuse,
incarceration, poverty or the exigencies of an increasingly mobile
workforce. Many of these children live with relatives because they have
suffered neglect or abuse in the parental home. Relatives save the
state millions of dollars each year, and keep millions of children out
of state custody, by raising them when their parents cannot. There is
very limited help available to families like this, and the help there
is can be very hard to find.
Some relatives become registered foster parents in order to take
care of children. On any given day over half a million children are in
the foster care system. About one quarter of these live with relatives.
Many of the children will be able to be reunited with their parents.
Others will be adopted by the relatives who took them into their homes.
But some--nearly 20,000--languish in foster care after courts have
decided that reunification and adoption are just not an option.
Although being a part of the formal foster care system opens the door
to many helpful resources, it is not an ideal long-term solution. For
this group of children, their best hope of a permanent home is
guardianship. Children in foster care can often find a safe and stable
home with family members, but some need federal help to make that home
permanent.
RESEARCH
How Children Fare In Relative Care
The research in this section is drawn from a report published by
Generations United, Kids Are Waiting and the University of Illinois
titled Time for Reform: Support Relatives In Providing Foster Care And
Permanent Families For Children. It shows that children are safe,
stable and connected in relative homes. Initially, relative foster care
was seen primarily as an emergency response to provide care for
children entering foster care. Over time, however, practitioners began
to observe, and research confirmed, that many children placed with
relatives fared better than children placed with non-related foster
families. Research shows that children in relative foster care
placements as compared to those in non-relative foster care are: safe
if not safer; more stable; more likely to remain with siblings; and
more likely to stay connected to community and culture. Relative
placements are often overlooked as a safe, permanent option for
children. In many states, a preference for placement with relatives has
been codified in law and practice, however, this is practice is not
implemented nationwide.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, provides that ``in order for a State to be
eligible for payments under this part [Title IV-E], it shall have a
plan approved by the Secretary which . . . provides that the State
shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-
related caregiver when determining the placement for a child, provided
that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection
standards.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a)(19).
Safety: A federally funded study in 1999 that examined rates of re-
abuse of children found that children in foster care who were placed
with relatives did not experience higher re-abuse rates than children
with unrelated foster parents. More recent studies also reveal that
children placed with relatives are often safer. In fact, research in
Illinois from 1995 to 2005 shows lower rates of abuse in relative homes
than in homes of unrelated foster parents. The findings demonstrate
that with appropriate screening for safety, the homes of relatives are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
just as safe if not safer than the homes of unrelated foster families.
Stability: It is widely recognized that moving children from one
home to another is detrimental to their physical, emotional and
developmental well-being. For children in foster care, stability is
usually measured by whether and how often children experience changes
in foster care placement over the course of a year. National data show
that children placed with relatives are less likely to have a change in
placement. According to the latest national data (2002), 82% of
children in foster care who were placed with relatives were with the
same caregivers one year later, compared to 65% of children placed with
non-relatives.
Sibling Connections: Placements with relatives help to reduce the
trauma and separation that accompany children's removals from their
parents by preserving children's important connections to their
siblings. Research shows that sibling relationships play a major role
in how children develop and learn to interact with other people.\ii\
Children placed with relatives are more likely than children in non-
relative homes to be placed with their siblings. Research in California
shows that 40% children placed with relatives are not living with all
of their siblings in care while 64% of those in non-relative homes are
not living with all of their siblings.\iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Begun, A.l.(1995). Sibling relationships and foster care
placements for young children. Early Child Development & Care, 106-237-
250.
\iii\ Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Cuccaro-
Alamin, S., Shaw, T., Dawson, W., Piccus, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M.,
Smith, J., Dunn, A., Frerer, K., Putnam Hornstein, E., & Ataie, Y.
(2006). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved
[January 23, 2007], from University of California at Berkeley Center
for Social Services Research website. URL:
Community Connections: Children with relatives are also more likely
to maintain ties to their community, school and culture. For example,
research shows that fewer children in relative foster care report
having changed schools (63%) than do children in non-relative foster
care (80%).\iv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) CPS
Sample Component Waiv 1 Data Analysis Report, April 2005. (Washington
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ACF, 2005).
Permanent Homes: Relatives are frequently willing to provide a
permanent home, as long as they have the crucial financial resources to
do so. Research in Illinois found that 80% of relatives caring for
children viewed them as ``already home.'' Two thirds of these were
willing to consider adoption. For the remaining one third--caregivers
who want to offer a permanent home, but don't want to adopt--
guardianship is an important permanency option. There are a lot of
reasons why adoption might just not be right for a family. Sometimes
the reasons are personal, sometimes cultural.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Allow States to Use Title IV-E Funding to Support Subsidized
Guardianship Programs
A fundamental step that could help many children being raised in
grandfamilies would be to enact the Pew Commission on Children in
Foster Care's recommendation that federal guardianship assistance be
available to all children who exit foster care to live with a safe,
legal guardian when adoption or reunification with parents is not a
viable permanency option.
The Pew Commission's recommendation would help give permanent homes
to about 20,000 children who have lived for a year or more in
grandfamilies in the foster care system, but cannot leave the system
because they do not have any other options.\v\ For these children, a
court has already ruled that reunification with the parents or adoption
is not feasible. However, leaving the system without financial
assistance is often not an option because the caregivers cannot afford
to give up the monthly financial stipend that foster care provides for
these children they did not expect to raise. So, despite the fact that
the children are in loving, safe homes, the children and their relative
caregivers remain in the system. They have to routinely meet with
social workers and judges who could at any time remove a child from the
relative's care. Because the state has legal custody of the child and
is the only legally recognized decision-maker, the caregiver and child
have to get permission for ordinary childhood activities that most of
us take for granted. If the child wants to sleep over at a friend's
house or go on a school field trip, the caregiver and child have to get
prior approval from the state. Because these grandfamilies have no
other option but to remain in the system, the number of children in
foster care is inflated, and expensive and routine administrative and
court costs have to be paid for by taxpayers.\vi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Fostering Results (2004). Family Ties: Supporting permanence
for children in safe and stable foster care with relatives and other
caregivers. This 20,000 number comes from 2002 AFCARS data. 77 percent
of children who have been in long-term relative foster care have been
living in the same relative home for a year or more, and 27 percent for
four years or more.
\vi\ Fostering Results (2004). For additional information, see also
GU's All children deserve a permanent home: Subsidized guardianships as
a common sense solution for children in long-term relative foster care.
(Washington, D.C.: GU, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidized guardianship programs solve these problems. They allow
children to safely exit the system into guardianships with their
relatives, and provide monthly financial assistance for the care of the
children. The children get a permanent, safe home with their loving
grandparents, aunts, uncles or other relatives. Subsidized guardianship
respects cultures in which adoption and termination of parental rights
defy important societal norms of extended family and mutual
interdependence such as in many American Indian/Alaska Native and
African American families, which are over-represented in the child
welfare system. This suggests that subsidized guardianship is a
promising tool for reducing over-representation of children of color in
the child welfare system.
More than half of the states have a subsidized guardianship
program, which they finance on their own through state sources,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds, or an expired federal
waiver program that allows some states to use federal Title VI-E of the
Social Security Act child welfare monies for this purpose. However,
because this waiver authority expired as of March 31, 2006, no other
states can currently get authority to use their federal child welfare
funds for subsidized guardianship programs. Furthermore, the federal
waiver process requires the use of a control group. This means that
many youth, for whom subsidized guardianship would be the only route to
permanency, are denied it because they are randomly assigned to a
control group.
Despite the proven success of these programs and the fact that
guardianship is recognized as a permanency option in federal law, the
federal government does not provide reimbursement for all states to
have these programs. This leaves many programs vulnerable to cut backs
or elimination in times of state budget shortfalls. The lack of broadly
available federal support for subsidized guardianship is effectively
discouraging subsidized guardianship programs and allowing the 20,000
children to languish in the more costly foster care system without
permanency. There are federal legislative proposals pending such as
(H.R. 2188) that would work towards rectifying this situation.
Authorize Federal Support for Kinship Navigator Programs
Many grandfamilies simply do not know where to turn for assistance
when children are placed in their care. One effective response to this
problem has been the development of state-wide kinship navigator
programs, which currently exist in New Jersey, Ohio and Washington, and
are being explored elsewhere. These programs provide information,
referral, and follow-up services to relatives raising children to link
them to the benefits and services that they and the children need. They
also sensitize agencies and providers to the needs of relative-headed
families.
Allow Separate Licensing Standards for Kinship Foster Parents
States should be permitted to establish separate licensing
standards for relative (or kinship) foster parents and non-relatives
foster parents, provided both standards protect children and include
criminal record checks. This recommendation recognizes that certain
licensing standards for non-relative foster parents, such as requiring
a separate bedroom for each child, may not be appropriate for foster
parents who are related to the child. Separate standards could make it
possible for additional appropriate, loving, relatives to raise their
relative children and increase the likelihood that sibling groups would
be kept together in their care.
Require Child Welfare Agencies to Provide Written Notification to Adult
Relatives of a Child Placed in Foster Care
Oftentimes, relatives, who could provide safe, stable homes for
children, are not aware until months or even years later when a child
is taken into foster care. State child welfare agencies should be
required to provide written notice within 60 days of the removal of a
child from the custody of the child's parents, to all adult
grandparents and other relatives of the child, subject to exceptions
due to family or domestic violence.
Expand Eligibility for Education Vouchers and Independence Program
Youth leaving foster care to adoption or legal guardianship after
the age of 14 should be eligible for the education and independent
living elements of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.
Currently youth who exit foster care to subsidized guardianship are not
eligible. As a result children are discouraged from exiting foster care
to permanency and may remain in foster care only to access the tuition
assistance of other independence services. Expanding eligibility for
the program would help current and former foster care youths achieve
self-sufficiency through the provision of education and training
vouchers and access to other programs that help with higher education
and daily living.\vii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vii\ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/
state_tribal/jh_chafee.htm and S. 661 SEC. 201 (c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just some of the key steps that can be taken now as part
of creating a continuum of available services. There are, however, many
other supports that the federal, state, and local governments implement
to help the families, and they are very necessary as part of this
continuum. These include financial assistance through Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families or ``welfare'' grants, adoption
assistance, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid,
affordable legal assistance, child care, transportation, hot lines,
other referral and information services, and additional community-based
and faith-based supportive services.
CONCLUSION
Generations United appreciates the opportunity to offer our
comments to the Subcommittee in regard to child welfare reforms. As the
Subcommittee moves forward, we look forward to continued dialogue and
stand as a resource for needed information. We hope this hearing serves
as a spring board for comprehensive reform that results in reduced
numbers of children being abused and neglected and paves the way for a
safe and permanent home for every child.
For more information contact Jaia Peterson Lent at Generations
United.
GrandParents United
Hockessin, Delaware 19707
May 13, 2007
The Honorable Congressman Jim McDermott
Chair, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee
House Ways and Means Committee
1102 Longworth House Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman McDermott and Committee Members,
First, thank you for the time to present this written testimony. I
am a former relative caregiver and now an advocate for children who
need family ties. I work daily with Kinship caregivers; I know their
frustrations, joy, pain of watching a child suffer and disappointment
in our child welfare system. And most important their hurdle to save
the children they love so unconditionally. I am the Vice President for
GrandParents United DE, Inc. I also run all of our support groups in my
county, hands on experience. What do I do, everything from where to get
a child birth certificate, medical affidavit, parenting classes,
counseling for the children who have been abused and or suffer multiple
disorders from the trauma they have suffered. I go through the journey
with them and for them; I am not paid but love what I can do to make a
difference in their outcomes.
One issue I see with the child welfare system begins with the
Interstate Placements Act only addresses children in formal foster
care. When I read the right to be heard we whom are saving children
from the formal foster care system have no right to be heard. Home
studies are with children that relative caregivers would like to have
placed with them and keep family ties for the benefit of and the best
interests of the child are few and far between. We have ask more from
our social workers and incontestably the perks that states receive in
formal care and adoption only exclude the relative caregivers of this
great country.*1
``Joining Forces for Delaware's Children Summit''
Next would be we have a broken system. Last year we in Delaware had
a wonderful opportunity to attend ``Joining Forces for Delaware's
Children Summit.'' Only the second in the Country to be held bringing
together Family Courts Judges, Child Protective Services, Pew
Commission, State Police, CWLA, ACFS. Former Chief Justice of Minnesota
Supreme Court, juvenile judge, legislator, attorney who prosecuted
child abuse cases Kathleen Blatz now a child advocate for reform of our
broken system, and any and all Child Advocates. We at GrandParents
United DE, Inc. happen to be a grassroots group not only for
grandparents raising a grandchild but Aunts, Uncles, siblings and the
children who have suffered the trauma that most of us never have had to
endure. ``Blatz, in her previous incarnation as a lawyer for the state
in child welfare cases, saw kids wait six years in foster care before
the court terminated their abusive parent's custody rights and
completed adoption. She saw kids bounced to new foster homes, five,
ten, even twenty times.'' We listen and hope for change but as of today
we have seen little.
As everyday citizens who happen to advocate for children we heard
what we have known. ``Kids are getting lost in the system,'' says.
Former Chief Judge Blatz ``We can do better, and we must do better for
kids. And so when I became chief justice, you know what? I ran out of
excuses. If I could not help bring about some change, who could?'' She
sent a strong message that we need to reform the courts and child
welfare system. We must all look at this through the eyes of the child.
``Judge Byars, what were you seeing in your courtroom that made you
press so hard for these changes? What was wrong with the system
before?'' Judge Byars: ``Every child deserves a family . . .'' ``JUDGE
WILLIAM BYARS, 5th Circuit, South Carolina: In South Carolina, we ended
up having children in care for an average of 40 months. We had--we
figured we had--they were not going to new homes. They were stuck in
the system that we had designed, that we were implementing at that
time. And children--it just came down to a belief of need to look at
the system through the eyes of a child. That is the person who was the
victim. That was the person who was being hurt. Every child deserves a
family, and that was what our effort is based upon.''
I also learned that 59% of these children end up in the juvenile
justice system and as adults 30% end up violent offenders. So where is
the justice the right to advocate for children who were thrown away? I
know in Delaware the motto is ``Think of the Child First'', it is a
good thought but not a practice. On any given day over 800 children are
in foster care and 68 age out each year with no place or family to go
home too.
``Joining Forces for Delaware's Children Summit'' Hear it from a
child's perspective: ``At one of the break out sessions that I attended
was a panel of Foster Kids who have aged out. The first question, after
their age and name, was what brought them to foster care. The first boy
said ``his grandmother was raising him and his two sisters and she
lived on a fixed income and couldn't keep them all, so she put him in
foster care.'' The hair on the back of my neck stood up!!! Later I saw
ask someone from the Office of the Child Advocate there. So, I emailed
her about what the boy had said. I asked her if there was more to his
story if not the State of Delaware should be ashamed of themselves! She
emailed me back yesterday that she didn't know if there was more to the
story but that she agreed with me!'' *Tina Light co-founder and
President, GrandParents United DE, Inc. a grandmother raising two
grandchildren for over ten years now also sits on the Child Review
Placement Board in DE. She has nearly singled handed sign on nine
attorneys' to represent grandparents on a new Pro Bono Program she has
worked diligently on. She is a volunteer to her community. This is a
true advocate for all children who need hope for a brighter future.
``Lost And Found''
``Thirteen-year-old Samara has been in foster care her whole life
and now lives at ``Five Acres,'' a treatment center for troubled kids.
Officials tell 60 Minutes she does well in school, but that she
struggles with severe depression, despite years of therapy and
medication. Last Christmas, Samara admits she was in pretty bad shape
and even tried to hurt herself. Asked what was going on inside of her,
she tells Stahl, `` `Cause the other kids. They used to go on visits
with their family and all, and I was stuck at the house. Like for
Christmas, everybody else was out.''
``Everyone was out with some relative but her. ``She was very
suicidal, very self-harming,'' Marylou McGuirk, Samara's therapist,
remembers. ``Is your analysis of her case that it was all stemming from
the loss of her mother?'' Stahl asks. ``I believe it was the loss of
her family,'' McGuirk explains. ``Not having a support system around
her. And that trauma--was there was no healing process for that.''
Kevin Campbell, who created and runs ``Family Finding,'' went to Five
Acres last winter to teach the staff how to find Samara's family.''
``If the situation was so bad that the state had to take a child
away from that home, why under any circumstances would the state put
them back into that home?'' Stahl asks Campbell. ``We may not be ever
considering placing the child back in that home. What I'm looking for
is `Does he have an aunt or an uncle or a great-aunt or uncle who's
safe with their kids and has done a good job and would be there for
them,' '' he says. ``What do you do when you find family members who
say, `No, I don't want anything to do with him or her? ``We do is keep
moving. You're not done until you've found at least 40 relatives. Don't
stop,'' Campbell explains. ``The minimum first step is 40.'' ``That
seemed like a long shot, since Samara was considered a ``cold case.''
Not a single relative was known. The search began with just a few
details about her mother. ``I have her first name, we think an accurate
spelling, a middle initial and a last name. We think she was in Culver
City, Calif. We think that she's 27 years old,'' he explains. That's
all they had. And yet, with the help of a company called ``U.S.
Search,'' they were able to find not only Samara's mother, but a
virtual family tree. Within two hours, the search yielded 44 family
members.''*3
To me that indicate there is no excuse for so many children living
in foster care. The number of sustained child abuse cases is alarming.
More alarming are the cases closed under three conditions and no
services, which I learned acting as a pro se and cross of a supervisor
in Delaware's Child Protection Division. They are: A.) Closed with out
concern B.) Closed with concern C.) Closed with risk. In 2005 87
Delaware field worker sent a letter to the press that the children in
Delaware were not being protected. They cited federal over site and
Family Courts hovering over the cases brought to the courts.*5
We have enacted new laws mandating the number of cases a field
worker can be assigned to only to find now children are falling through
the cracks. Frankly, how many more stories do we need to hear or
litigation*4 before we and our honorable elected officials say ``Its
time for major change''. When the dollars come from federal level,
State's then will make necessary changes. Sadly to say it will be up to
those on the federal level to require mandatory notification to
relatives to prevent more children from the hopelessly placement in the
formal system. It may be time to revise confidentially as well in what
CAPTA which unfortunately allows the child welfare system to hide
behind. I respectfully thank you for the chance for everyday citizen to
comment on the issue that plagues the children of our Country.
Sincerely,
Debbie Fales
References
1. Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of
2006: H.R. 5403, to improve protections for children and to hold States
accountable for the safe and timely placement of children across State
lines. This bill only addressed Foster parents not relative caregivers
and placed
`(g) Definitions--In this section:
`(2) INTERSTATE HOME STUDY--The term `interstate home study' means
a home study conducted by a State at the request of another State, to
facilitate an adoptive or foster placement in the State of a child in
foster care under the responsibility of the State.
SEC. 6. CASEWORKER VISITS.
(a) Purchase of Services in Interstate Placement Cases--Section
475(5)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)(A)(ii)) is
amended by striking `or of the State in which the child has been
placed' and inserting `of the State in which the child has been placed,
or of a private agency under contract with either such State'.
(b) Increased Visits--Section 475(5)(A)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
675(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking `12' and inserting.
SEC. 7. HEALTH AND EDUCATION RECORDS.
4
Section 475 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking `To the extent available and accessible, the' and
inserting `The'; and
(B) by inserting `the most recent information available regarding'
after `including'; and
(2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
(A) by inserting `a copy of the record is' before `supplied'; and
(B) by inserting `, and is supplied to the child at no cost at the
time the child leaves foster care if the child is leaving foster care
by reason of having attained the age of majority under State law'
before the semicolon.
SEC. 8. RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN FOSTER CARE PROCEEDINGS.
(a) In General--Section 475(5)(G) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 675(5)(G)) is amended--
(1) by striking `an opportunity' and inserting `a right';
(2) by striking `and opportunity' and inserting `and right'; and
(3) by striking `review or hearing' each place it appears and
inserting `proceeding'.
(b) Notice of Proceeding--Section 438(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
638(b)) is amended by inserting `shall have in effect a rule requiring
State courts to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and
relative caregivers of a child in foster care under the responsibility
of the State are notified of any proceeding to be held with respect to
the child, and' after `highest State court'.
The last AFCARS Report Interim FY 2003 Estimates as of June 2006
(10) SEC. 473B. TIMELY INTERSTATE HOME STUDY INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
`(a) Grant Authority--The Secretary shall make a grant to each
State that is a home study incentive-eligible State for a fiscal year
in an amount equal to the timely interstate home study incentive
payment payable to the State under this section for the fiscal year,
which shall be payable in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
`(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations--
`(1) IN GENERAL--For payments under this section, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--
`(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
`(B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
`(C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
`(D) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
Facts
1) How many children were in foster care on September 30, 2003?
520,000
5
What were the placement settings of children in foster care?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Adoptive Home--------------------------------------5%--------24,806-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Family Home (Relative) 23% 121,511
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Family Home (Non-Relative) 46% 240,916
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Home 9% 45,828
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution 10% 51,549
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supervised Independent Living 1% 5,525
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runaway 2% 10,657
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial Home Visit 4% 19,206
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What were the case goals of the children in foster care?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reunify with Parent(s) or Principal Caretaker(s)------48%-------249,549-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live with Other Relative(s) 5% 24,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adoption 20% 105,171
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Term Foster Care 8% 44,006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emancipation 6% 31,793
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guardianship 3% 15,561
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Plan Goal Not Yet Established 10% 49,469
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/
report10.htm
*3. Lost and Found'' CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/
main2269159.shtm
*4. Foster Care Reform Litigation Docket
The 2006 Foster Care Reform Litigation Docket (``the Docket'')
provides basic information on 71 child welfare reform cases nationwide
that are currently in active litigation, a pending settlement
agreement, or are significant in some other respect. The Docket also
describes a small sampling of damages cases.
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/status/active/''>
Active Litigation
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/aswvmink/''>
A.S.W. v. Mink
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
carsonpvheinema/''> Carson P. v. Heineman
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/dupuyvsamuels/
''> Dupuy v. Samuels, also known as Dupuy v. McDonald
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/ecvblunt/''>
E.C. v. Blunt
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/katieavbonta/
''> Katie A. v. Bonta: Case status
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
oliviayvbarbour/''> Olivia Y. v. Barbour
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/wrvconnecticut/
''> W.R. v. Connecticut Department Of Children and Families
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/status/
pending_settlement/''> Pending Settlement Agreement
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
andersonvhoustoun/''> Anderson v. Houstoun
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
aristotlepvsamu/''> Aristotle P. v. Samuels, also known as Aristotle P.
v. McDonald and Aristotle P. v. Johnson
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/bhvsamuels/''>
B.H. v. Samuels, also known as B.H. v. Samuels, B.H. v. Johnson, B.H.
v. Suter, and B.H. v. Ryder
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
braamvstateofwa/''> Braam v. State of Washington: Case Status
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
brianavhattaway/''> Brian A. v. Hattaway, also known as Brian A. v.
Sundquist
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
charlieandnadineh/''> Charlie and Nadine H. v. Codey, also known as
Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey and Charlie and Nadine H. v. Whitman
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
davidcvhuntsman/''> David C. v. Huntsman, also known as David C. v.
Leavitt
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/emilyjvweicker/
''> Emily J. v. Weicker
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/ericlvbird/''>
Eric L. v. Bird
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
freemanvscoppetta/''> Freeman v. Scoppetta
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/glvstangler/''>
G.L. v. Stangler, also known as G.L. v. Zumwalt
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/higginsvsaenz/
''> Higgins v. Saenz (related to Wheeler v. Sanders)
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/hillverickson/
''> Hill v. Erickson
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/jeaninebvdoyle/
''> Jeanine B. v. Doyle, also known as Jeanine B. v. Thompson
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/juanfvrell/''>
Juan F. v. Rell, also known as Juan F. v. O'Neill and Juan F. v.
Rowland
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/katieavbonta/
''> Katie A. v. Bonta: Case status
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/kennyavpurdue/
''> Kenny A. v. Purdue
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/ljvmassinga/''>
L.J. v. Massinga
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
lashawnavwilliams/''> LaShawn A. v. Williams, also known as LaShawn A.
v. Williams and LaShawn A. v. Dixon
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/marisolvpataki/
''> Marisol v. Pataki, also known as Marisol v. Giuliani
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/markavwilson/
''> Mark A. v. Wilson
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
childadvocatevrossi/''> Office of the Child Advocate v. Rossi, also
known as Office of the Child Advocate v. Picano and Office of the Child
Advocate v. Rhode Island
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
peopleunitedforchild/''> People United for Children, Inc. v. City of
New York
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/rcvwally/''>
R.C. v. Wally, also known as R.C. v. Petelos, R.C. v. Cleveland, R.C.
v. Hornsby, and R.C. v. Nachman
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/roevohiodhs/''>
Roe v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services, also known as Roe v. Staples
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
wheelervsanders/''> Wheeler v. Sanders
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/status/damages/''>
Damages Cases
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/aishaw/''>
Aisha W. v. Aunt Martha's Youth Services Center
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
apostolvauntmart/''> Apostol v. Aunt Martha's Youth Services Center
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
braamvstateofwa/''> Braam v. State of Washington: Case Status
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
bogutzvstateofaz/''> Bogutz v. State of Arizona
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/khvdorsey/''>
K.H. v. Dorsey
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/letishavmorgan/
''> Letisha v. Morgan
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/mabelavwoodard/
''> Mabel A. v. Woodard
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
martinavgiuliani/''> Martin A. v. Giuliani, also known as Martin A. v.
Gross (consolidated with Cosentino v. Perales)
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
nicholsonvwilliams/''> Nicholson v. Williams, also known as Nicholson
v. Scopetta
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/ssvmcmullen/''>
S.S. v. McMullen
<``http://www.youthlaw.org/publications/fc_docket/alpha/
twoforgottenchildren/''> Two Forgotten Children v. State of Florida
National Center for Youth Law, http://www.youthlaw.org/
publications/fc_docket/
Child Protection Doesn't Work for Kids
ROBERT ATKINSON and BRUCE FISHER
07/21/2005
The News Journal covered a recent report of the Child Protection
Accountability Commission, which recommends the Children's Department
make improvements by ``changing how it sets up cases, considering
parents' history more when assessing children's risk of being abused,
and improving coordination among agencies involved in a child's
welfare.''
Too bad the commission didn't seek the perspective of the
department's front-line social workers before reaching its conclusions.
Had it done so, some of the bare facts regarding conditions within the
Children's Department, which somehow have eluded the commission, would
have become known.
Dangerously high case loads, unrealistic expectations of Family
Court judges, ever increasing bureaucratic tasks, understaffing and
insufficient funding have resulted in a demoralized workforce, and
ultimately a deficient response to the needs of at-risk children in
Delaware.
In meetings with their management, social workers have made
impassioned pleas to address the situation. Management is either
incapable or unwilling to act.
The Children's Department has adopted the slogan ``Think of the
child first.'' Noble advice! The variance between this ideal and actual
practice would be laughable were it not so tragic. Instead, other
priorities guide the administration:
Think of the politics. Recent federal legislation and
policy has resulted in a substantial increase in bureaucracy and in the
vigilance of the Family Court when children are in the custody of the
state. Rather than approaching the General Assembly for significant
increases in manpower and funding necessary in today's world, the
Children's Department attempts to project the image that it can make
do. It is as though requests for additional resources would reflect
badly upon the competence of those in charge, and damage career
opportunities.
Think of the Family Court. Only a fraction of the
families involved with the child protective arm of the Children's
Department have lost custody of their children to the state. Most of
the families are intact, meaning all the children are at home in the
care of their parents. However, due to federal dictate, Family Court
hovers over custody cases, often ordering activity inconsistent with
established policy and in excess of available resources. The court does
not consider how those demands interfere with the overall child
protection effort.
For instance, the ability of the department to safeguard children
not in state custody but at home is compromised by the court's
diversion of manpower and funds to custody cases. Many employees
believe this imbalance is inviting tragedy. Children's Department
management has been approached by social workers many times about this
situation, but has not made changes.
Think of the numbers. The number of cases that child
protective workers may handle at any given time is capped by state law.
Children's Department management must report to designated legislators
periodically on caseload sizes in relation to the legal maximum. Some
administrators have become adept at juggling numbers so as not to alarm
their legislative overseers.
As a consequence, many child abuse investigations are completed on
a hurry-up basis. There are far too many instances of the caseload
maximums, already set far too high, being violated.
There also exists the practice adjusting the flow of cases to
social workers to keep the caseloads within the legal maximum, which
creates surges of new cases that are difficult to manage.
Think of the money. Along with most other state
governments, Delaware has had financial challenges during recent years.
The Children's Department will take the position that, despite money
problems, services for children have not diminished. This is just not
so. Department workers have had far too many experiences where
essential services have been cheapened or delayed because of financial
constraints. In developing contracts for services, the department has
hammered providers so hard that many have withdrawn, rather than be
driven into a losing proposition or delivering inferior quality.
The Child Protection Accountability Commission should broaden its
sources of information when developing recommendations. Tapping into
the wealth of experience from those in the trenches would be a good
move.
Robert Atkinson and Bruce Fisher are family crisis therapists at
the Division of Family Services in New Castle County. This article also
was signed by 87 other employees of the division.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050721/
OPINION07/507210326/1108/OPINION
Statement of Kimberly L. Blue
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I welcome this
opportunity to discuss the problems many parents of color and
immigrants encounter with the child welfare system in particular--Child
Protective Services.
I make this testimony as an advocate for family--my family--that
was destroyed because of a multilateral system rife with unchecked
discrimination and personal prejudices.
My boys became involved in the child welfare system after I sought
relief from Family Court for a domestic violence incident. Our lives
became a living nightmare when this system came into our lives.
Judge Balkin ordered my children into the system three weeks after
our home caught on fire. There was nothing more important to me than to
keep us together as a family after suffering such a terrifying and
tragic incident.
The constant harassment and irrelevant recommendations by the
``experts'' just did not make any common sense to me nor addressed the
issues that my family was facing at the time.
To be mandated to go to counseling when the caseworker can not
specify what type of counseling is needed is absolutely absurd. To have
the judge tell you that ``she can not intervene'' when the visitation
agency writes a discriminatory report is truly absurd. To have the
judge tell you that ``she's making a conscious decision'' when she
mandates you back into a detrimental situation to visit your children
is truly not wise.
Every year you hear these same agencies telling you that they need
more funding. And every year you give them more funding. This agency
has not only exceeded its number of casualties but has improved nothing
that needs to be improved within this agency and its collaborators--
DISCRIMINATION!
It has been seven years since I have seen my boys but as a grieving
mother I advocate on behalf of other families who may otherwise suffer
horrific consequences at the hands of discriminatory child protective
caseworkers without my assistance.
Members of the Committee--Control the discrimination that children,
especially families, suffer from this agency's discriminatory
practices--there will be less children in foster care. In addition,
America can stand proud to honor its message of being an ``America for
Families: Where Children Make Families and Families Make Children'' no
matter their socioeconomic status. Thank you.
Statement of Madeleine Green Wojciechowski
As a grandparent raising a thirteen year old grandson I know
firsthand how difficult it is. How relative caregivers outside the
foster care system are under the radar screen. We receive NO support;
financial, emotional, educational, no support.
As I reviewed the testimony from other presenters I felt compelled
to write. Because an adult makes a mistake that results in a child they
are unable to care for it does not make them a bad person. Because they
can not care for this child it does not make them a law violator as
your speakers suggested. Because our institutions and culture have
chosen the easy way out and not addressed how best to assist families
in distress we have a dysfunctional system that is expensive at best.
Individuals who have done the best they know and faced up to family
responsibilities do not deserve to be demeaned by your presenters
rather they should be thanked for their service and commitment to doing
the right thing.
Our government efforts should focus on solutions not band-aids, on
helping and finding those who are struggling. Many of the grandparents
raising grandchildren are compromising their health and retirement
through the assumption of these responsibilities. Caregivers should not
be forced into poverty because of the added expenses and
responsibilities. This outcome leads to a future further compromised,
this must be addressed through either a subsidy, tax break, or benefit
eligibility.
Personally I postponed my retirement five years to be able to
provide for our grandson. It was a life threatening illness that forced
his placement with us. I resent the portrayals allowed before your
committee and expect the committee to insist on evidence based
information as the only materials allowed before the committee, and
entered into the record.
Just because someone says it is so does not make it so. Experience
has taught me to dismiss those who speak ill of others especially when
they are not there to defend themselves.
Statement of National Indian Child Welfare Association,
Portland, Oregon
The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits this
statement on improving child welfare services to Native American
children and families. Our constituents, tribal children and families,
face many health challenges and child abuse and neglect is certainly
one of the most critical of those challenges. Our testimony focuses on
the risk factors that exist in tribal communities, the current state of
tribal child welfare service delivery systems, and two important
proposals that can improve outcomes for Native American children and
families: 1) authorization for tribes to directly administer the Title
IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs, and 2) expansion of
the IV-E program to fund guardianship placements.
Native American Children and Families At-Risk
Native American children and families are disproportionately
represented in the child welfare system, particularly the foster care
system. Native American children are placed in out-of-home placements
are a rate 2-3 times their population (National Data Analysis System,
2004). This data is reported from state systems and is even more
dramatic when you factor in the exclusion of the numbers of Native
American children in tribal foster care systems. Data for Native
American children in tribal foster care systems is not available in a
national aggregate total, but estimates have placed the rate in several
larger tribal foster care systems at or above the national figures.
Other known risk factors for child abuse and neglect include
poverty, unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse, family structure,
and domestic violence. In Native American communities the rates of
these risk factors are very high and contribute to Native American
children being placed in out-of-home care in high numbers.
Although these rates are very high great progress is being made by
tribal governments to confront these issues. The strengths of tribal
governments are their knowledge and skills in developing long term
solutions that will reduce or eliminate these community problems. New
models for research, service delivery, community involvement and
prevention are developing in tribal communities every year. The process
and outcomes from these models are increasingly being disseminated to
other tribes and when possible they are being adapted for
implementation in other tribal communities too. Even with these great
strides, Native Americans still lag behind the general population on
all of these important indicators.
Poverty and Unemployment--Overall poverty rates in tribal
communities have been very high for many years. While the poverty rate
in the United States is 12.4%, the poverty rate for Native American
people nationally is over double that rate at 25.7% (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2006). According to the 2000 Census, about 40 percent of
Indian children on reservations live in poverty.
Related to poverty rates is unemployment. The majority of tribal
communities have little opportunity to establish viable economies that
are diversified and can provide gainful employment for their citizens.
Other than the relatively few tribes that have benefited from tribal
gaming or natural resource dividends, most tribal governments have
little ability to raise significant amounts of tribal revenue.
According to the 2000 United States Census, the unemployment rate among
Native American people nationally was 15% compared to 6% for the
general population (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003). Family poverty
levels are also high with almost 26% of Native American families, with
children under the age of 18, from the largest 25 tribes living in
poverty compared to 12% for the general population. The unemployment
rate and poverty rates reported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for
Indian reservation areas are much higher than those reported by the
Commerce Department. For instance, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 2003
Labor Force report shows a national average of 49% unemployment for
Indian people living on or near reservations. Of those employed 32% are
still living below the poverty level.
Alcohol and Substance Abuse--Alcohol and substance abuse is
prevalent in many tribal communities. NICWA estimates that 85% of child
welfare cases involving Native American families involve some form of
alcohol or substance abuse. Nationally it is estimated that
approximately 65% of all child welfare cases involve alcohol or
substance abuse. Methamphetamine abuse is rising in many tribal areas
and has jumped to the second most reported substance identified during
treatment admissions among pregnant Native American women as reported
by state agencies (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 2003). The Indian Health Service reports a 30 percent
increase in methamphetamine patients between 2004 and 2005 alone (FY
2008 IHS Budget Justification).
Domestic Violence--Domestic violence in Indian Country is difficult
to quantify, but studies done since the 1990's and local data have
suggested that the rate of domestic violence among Native American
women is approximately twice that of the general population. The
Department of Justice reports that Native women are more than 2\1/2\
times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the
U.S. nationally. Congress has recognized this and has, in fact,
allocated ten percent of Violence Against Women Act grants for tribes.
When domestic violence occurs, the victim is less likely to be able to
address the immediate needs of her children due to the trauma of the
assault, Domestic violence can create a higher risk for child welfare
authorities to become involved, especially if it is determined that the
children are experiencing harm or are in an unsafe situation.
Child Welfare Services to Native American Children and Families
As tribal governments and communities try to address the risk
factors for children being placed in out of home care they share in the
consequences from this risk as families are separated and communities
struggle to maintain their identity and shape their future. Reducing
the number of Native American children and families in the child
welfare system will require solutions that utilize the extended family
more and increase the ability of tribal governments to contribute their
knowledge and skills.
Until 1978, tribal children were removed from their families in
shocking numbers, many times not because the removal was necessary, but
because of the lack of understanding and bias private and public
agencies had regarding tribal families. Prior to 1980, it was estimated
that 25% of all Native American children were in some form of
substitute care, most often away from their tribal communities and
extended families (Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 1977). During
this same period, most of the child welfare services that were provided
to tribal children and families came not from tribal government
programs, but from federal Bureau of Indian Affairs programs located on
tribal lands or by state child welfare agencies. Tribes had very little
say in how these programs were designed or operated, and few tribal
juvenile courts were in operation.
During this same time, tribal governments also had access to very
few federal funding sources to combat this critical community health
issue. In most cases, tribal governments only had access to Title IV-B
Child Welfare Services funding, which resulted in grants of less than
$10,000 for the vast majority of tribes or BIA Social Services funding,
which was discretionary and not available to large numbers of tribes
across the United States. This resulted in tribes most often not being
involved in tribal child welfare matters and other agencies deciding
how and when their children and families should be served. This created
a negative sense of dependency upon these outside agencies and was a
barrier to tribal governments and their communities in developing a
sense of ownership over these problems and exercise their authority and
responsibility to their children and families.
With the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978,
Congress set out to reduce the number of Native American children and
families that were removed from their homes by implementing new
standards on how public and private agencies worked with this
population. In addition, Congress made it clear that tribal governments
were in the best position to provide child welfare services to their
members by acknowledging tribal authority to be involved in child
welfare matters concerning their member children and families, and
providing small grants (ICWA) to support tribal child welfare programs.
Congress also acknowledged that tribal governments should be eligible
to receive funding from other federal sources to support child welfare
services. New Bureau of Indian Affairs funding was made available to
tribes to exercise their authority and responsibility in child welfare.
However, the ICWA grant program was discretionary and never funded
above $13 million until 1993. This only allowed for a competitive
grants process in which the majority of tribes never received any grant
funds.
Today tribes receive direct federal funding from Title IV-B Child
Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs. The
grant size has not increased significantly under Title IV-B Child
Welfare Services; most tribes are still receiving grants under $10,000
with the annual outlay to tribes currently about $5.7 million. Under
the Title IV-B Promoting Safe and Stable Families program there are now
approximately 134 tribal grantees eligible for funding, up from 89 in
2005. This increase in eligible grantees comes after Congress increased
the tribal allocation to 3% under both the mandatory and discretionary
programs under this law as it was reauthorized in 2006. For FY 2007
tribes will receive $11.8 million from this program.
The ICWA grant program is still a discretionary program, but in
1993 it became available to all tribes with the majority of grants
being just under $50,000 a year. Some tribes are eligible for BIA
Social Services funding, which can support child welfare services, but
the list of tribes that are eligible for this discretionary program
excludes over 200 tribes.. The funds are also not available to support
administration or training costs associated with foster care or
adoption services, unlike those reimbursed under Title IV-E.
While the amounts and number of federal funding sources available
to tribes has increased some since 1978 tribes still are considerably
behind states in their ability to address child abuse and neglect.
Parity for tribes regarding the amounts and types of federal funding
sources available to states has still not been achieved. While more
tribes are eligible for federal funding sources, such as Title IV-B, no
tribes are eligible for the larger federal child welfare related
funding sources such as Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
and Title XX Social Services Block Grant. The small number of tribes
that have been able to access some of these federal child welfare
program funds have only been able to do so because the state they
reside in has passed through a portion of these funds, which is not a
mandatory requirement for states.
What tribes do not have access to is a stable source of non-
discretionary funding to support the vulnerable children that need
foster care or adoption assistance services, such as in the Title IV-E
program. Without this funding, tribes are forced to place children in
unsubsidized homes, which can lead to instability and failure of the
placement, or turn them over to state agencies whenever possible, which
burdens state governments and reduces the chance that tribal children
and families will have access to services that are specifically geared
to their needs. Arlene Templer, Director of Human Resource Development
for the Salish and Kootenai Tribes, in testifying before the Senate
Finance Committee last year, said that without direct funding her tribe
cannot be guaranteed they will be able to provide every child that
needs foster care a safe and stable home. Even with a Title IV-E
agreement with the State of Montana, she noted that the Salish and
Kootenai Tribes are unable to obtain IV-E reimbursement for tribal
children that come home from out of state to be cared for by relatives
because of restrictions the state has included in its agreement with
the tribe.
When tribes have stable funding like Title IV-E they can achieve
great things. Three Affiliated Tribes in North Dakota, which has a IV-E
agreement with North Dakota, has been able significantly reduce their
foster care caseload in the last few years. Having stable funding for
foster care, one of the most expensive of child welfare services,
promotes the ability of tribes to channel other funds into child abuse
prevention and family preservation keeping children out of the foster
care system. Unfortunately IV-E agreements are not available to the
majority of tribes, and any of the exiting agreements provide only a
portion of the IV-E program to tribes.
Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Access for Tribes
Former representative Bill Frenzel, in his role as chair of the Pew
Commission on Children in Foster Care, said in his introductory remarks
in releasing the 2004 Pew Commission report that ``in the name of
justice'' we need to provide Title IV-E services to Indian children.
The Pew Commission recommended, as do we, that tribes be authorized to
directly administer this $7 billion federal entitlement program which
is designed to protect and provide permanent loving and safe homes for
abused children.
We are appreciative of the support we have had from Members in both
Houses of Congress to amend the Title IV-E statute to put this program
on a government-to-government basis with regard to tribes. Over the
course of the last few Congresses, Representative Camp and Senators
Daschle and Smith introduced legislation to accomplish this goal. Last
Congress provisions to authorize tribal administration of the Title IV-
E program were included in Representative McDermott's Leave No Abused
Or Neglected Child Behind Act (HR 3576). At the March 22, 2007 Senate
Finance Committee hearing, ``Keeping America's Promise: Health Care and
Child Welfare for Native Americans'', Chairman Baucus and Ranking
Member Grassley each expressed support in their opening statements for
direct tribal administration of the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance programs.
Tribal governments, certainly no less than state governments, have
the legal and moral responsibility to provide protection and permanency
for the children under their jurisdiction who have been subjected to
abuse and neglect. But the Title IV-E law extends only to state
governments and to entities with which states have agreements. There
are some 70 tribal-state Title IV-E agreements, many of which do not
afford the full range of services to children in tribal custody that
children in state custody receive. Many such agreements provide only
the maintenance payment for the foster home, but not the training,
administrative and other court-related work, and data collection that
states receive. And most tribes have no access to the Title IV-E
program at all. States remain the grantee under tribal-state Title IV-E
agreements and thus are liable for all expenditures. In some cases
states will not allow Title IV-E funding to be used for foster homes
that are tribally, rather than state, licensed.
Marilyn Olson, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's Director of Children
and Family Programs in Washington State, on conversations with the
National Indian Child Welfare Association, said they feel fortunate to
have a Title IV-E agreement with the state of Washington. Before they
developed the agreement, which is only 18 months old, they had to
divert large sums of funding from the tribe's Bureau of Indian Affairs
Self-Governance funds, TANF grant and tribal general revenue funds to
operate their foster care program. ``We were diverting significant
amounts of funding that could have been used to provide child abuse
prevention, treatment and substance abuse treatment for the families.
We also had to use over half of our tribal TANF funds in order to avoid
our children from being placed with families outside our community.
Having access to Title IV-E funding gave us hope and resources to keep
many more of our children in the community with their extended
families.'' Port Gamble S'Klallam's experience illustrates what is
possible when Title IV-E funds are available to tribes, but they are
one of the relatively small numbers of tribes, in Washington and
elsewhere, that have been able to gain access to this crucial federal
program.
Direct access to the Title IV-E program for tribes would provide
those governments with much needed funding for their child welfare
systems, would improve tribes' ability to recruit and retain Indian
foster and adoptive homes, would provide improved and greater
permanency services for tribal children, and would provide better
support for training and subsidies to tribal foster care and adoptive
families. We also support continued authority to continue existing
tribal-state IV-E agreements and to establish such agreements in the
future.
Relatives as Caregivers for Native American Children
In addition to providing direct funding to tribes under the Title
IV-E program, we urge Congress to make available resources to relatives
who are primary caregivers for members of their family. Some states
have child welfare waivers to provide funding for subsidized
guardianship, such as Illinois and Washington. This needs to be made
available to all states and tribes. Traditionally and today the
extended family system is the core of a natural helping system in
tribal communities that protected children and participated in their
upbringing. Even though this system was under attack by intrusive
federal policies and forced placement of Native American children in
boarding schools into the 1900's, the extended family still plays a
critical role in tribal communities everywhere in helping care for
Native American children. Indian grandparents comprise the largest
percentage of any racial/ethnic group with regard to being primary
caregivers for their grandchildren. The 2000 Census revealed that 8% of
Indian people over the age of 30 have grandchildren living in their
homes and 56% of those have primary responsibility for those
grandchildren compared to the national average of 40%.
Marilyn Olson, Director of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's
Children and Family Program, in conversation with the National Indian
Child Welfare Association, noted that they rely heavily on the use of
relatives to place tribal member children who need to be removed from
their home. ``Our culture and traditions require us to look to
relatives first when placing our children. Extended families are the
foundation of our approach to healing and caring for our tribal
children, In most cases, our relative families are the most appropriate
permanent family for our children who can not return home, but we have
sometimes struggled to find ways to support these placements.'' Ms.
Olson also stated that going outside the child's extended family system
is uncommon and risks alienating the child, their family, and other
community members in the healing process.
While Title IV-E and other federal policies encourage the use of
relatives, many times the only permanent placement option provided to
relatives is adoption. This can cause negative feelings between family
members and often results in deteriorating family relationships, many
of which are important to the child's well-being. This has a profound
affect upon the children in most cases. If family members will not
adopt and there is no subsidized guardianship program available to
them, the placement agency will most likely move the child to a non-
relative home that will adopt. This severs the child's important family
connections and leaves the family extremely distressed.
Where subsidized guardianship placements have been available, such
as Washington and Illinois, tribal children have benefited greatly.
Relatives that could not afford to care for additional children in
their home were supported and Native American children were given the
opportunity to retain and nurture those important family and cultural
connections.
Some state subsidized guardianship programs rely upon a federal
child welfare waiver to operate. Tribal children have benefited from
these waiver programs in many cases when in state care, but tribal
children under their tribe's care may have more limited access due to
federal requirements for the waivers and the temporary nature of the
waiver. Arlene Templer, Director of Human Resource Development for the
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, described to the National Indian Child
Welfare Association a situation where a tribal member aunt was caring
for a niece and nephew in her home. She wanted to provide a permanent
placement for the relative children and was excited about the
possibility of the guardianship program in Montana. However, when
Arlene applied for her to be a part of the program they were told that
this aunt would be in the ``control group'' and therefore would not
receive any subsidy and limited support services if they chose a
guardianship placement. The aunt said she could not continue the
placement without a subsidy and support services, so she had to return
the children to a foster care placement where Arlene says they will
likely stay until they age out of foster care because they are not good
candidates for adoption.
Conclusion
In tribal communities, family relationships are the most important
relationships people will ever have. The sense of responsibility to
those family members and their children within the community is
enormous. Tribal governments have waited for the day when they will be
able to fulfill their responsibility to their children too, and all
they need are the resources and opportunities to exercise this
responsibility and ensure that all the tribal children and families
under their care are provided the supports they need. By providing
greater opportunities for tribes to be able to utilize their network of
extended family members and providing direct funding from this nation's
most prominent child welfare funding source, that promise can be kept.
Please join us in bridging that divide. Thank you.
References
``Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978'', Hearings on S. 1214 before
the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 95th
Congress, First Session (August 4, 1977), pages 537-603.
National Data Analysis System, Child Welfare League of America
(2004 data). Obtained at http://ndas.cwla.org/.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003).
Treatment Episode Data Set Analysis Performed March, 2006 by Children
and Families Futures, Inc.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2006). We the People:
American Indians and Alaskan Natives in the United States. Publication
CENSR-28.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (2003), March Current
Population Survey (CPS), 1994 to 2003.
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).
If you have questions regarding this testimony or other public
policy issues impacting Indian children and families, please contact
David Simmons, Director of Advocacy and Government Relations.
Statement of Public Justice Center
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of
the approximately 6,600 children currently in foster care in Baltimore
City and those who will enter the foster care system in the future.
Significant improvements must be made to the foster care system both in
Maryland and nationally to prevent yet another generation of foster
youth spending their childhoods being moved from temporary placement to
temporary placement with less than adequate health care and education
and, as a result, entering adulthood woefully unprepared to be
productive, healthy and happy citizens. Solutions are available--a
number of proposed reforms are set forth in this statement;
implementation of those and other solutions requires increased funding,
creative and thoughtful programming and a commitment to listening and
responding to children and their families.
Unfortunately, by Maryland's Department of Human Resource's
(``DHR'') own data assessment, the care of Baltimore City's foster
children has deteriorated to some of the worst levels in the 18 years
since the United States District Court entered a Consent Decree \1\
ordering comprehensive improvements in Baltimore City's child welfare
program. Some of the alarming statistics \2\ for 2006 include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ L.J. v. Massinga, Civ. A. No. 84-4409, was filed in 1984 in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
children who had been abused and neglected while under the care and
custody of the Baltimore City Department of Social Services. Because,
in Maryland, the local departments of social services are controlled by
the state Department of Human Resources (``DHR''), DHR is a key
defendant in the case. In 1987, Judge Joseph C. Howard issued a
preliminary injunction governing several aspects of the children's
care. In approving a comprehensive Consent Decree the next year, Judge
Howard noted that ``[t]he court found overwhelming evidence of serious
systematic deficiencies in Baltimore's foster care program such that
foster children would suffer irreparable harm if immediate injunctive
relief were not granted.'' 699 F. Supp. 508, 510 (1988). In 1991,
Defendants agreed to a nearly identical decree governing the care of
children in the custody of BCDSS but living with unlicensed relative
caregivers. 778 F. Supp. 253 (1991).
\2\ Unless otherwise stated, the data in this statement are from
the most recent semi-annual compliance report that DHR is required to
file with the federal court (the most recent report was filed February
5, 2007), clarifying documents disclosed by the Office of the Attorney
General of Maryland, audits done by Maryland's Department of
Legislative Services (DLS), and so-called ``CAPS'' reports, a statewide
annual sampling and reporting program abolished by DHR in 2005; there
is currently no statewide system for collecting and analyzing data
about the child welfare system. The sampling system used in Baltimore
City to generate data for the semi-annual compliance reports was found
to be unreliable by DLS in a report issued in December 2005, available
online at http://www.ola.state.md.us/reports/Performance/
Foster%20Care%20Report%201-6-06.pdf.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services (``BCDSS''),
responsible for providing homes and services to the children, continues
to lose foster homes at an alarming rate--more than half of its homes
during the last five years, dropping from a high of more than 3,000
homes in August 2001 to only 1,366 at the end of 2006. Largely as a
result, the number of children in group homes and residential
placements rose from 834 as of Aug, 31, 2001 to 1,536 as of May 30,
2006, a nearly 85% increase. The cost of group placements averages
$60,000 per year, close to eight times the basic foster care subsidy
rate of $635 per month ($7,620 per year).
Caseworkers failed to make mandatory monthly visits of
children in 33% of continuing foster care cases.
For children entering foster care, 21% of children
entering foster care did not have initial health screens and 56% did
not have timely comprehensive health assessments. 64% of children in
continuing care did not receive periodic medical and dental care as
required by federal and state law.
One quarter of children in continuing care were not
placed in school within one week after placement; 75% of children in
relative placements needing special education referrals did not receive
them; and 34% of children in unlicensed placements with relatives did
not have their education monitored by BCDSS.
45% of children in continuing foster care had no
documentation of any visits with their parents, even though their
permanency plans were reunification.
Service agreements for families with a permanency plan of
reunification were not completed in 25% of continuing foster care and
34% of continuing kinship care cases.
Funds to prevent foster care placement have fallen to
their lowest levels in more than a decade and are serving less than 60%
of the families served in 1999.
Despite numerous plans, proposals and promises, Maryland has failed
to improve the most basic services--health, access to education, a
family--to the children in its care. It continues to shortchange the
children of Baltimore City who, in FY2005, made up 65% of the foster
care population while receiving only 40% of the state's child welfare
funding.
These failures are not attributable to one particular governor's
administration nor to one particular political party. As with many
state programs, attempts at reform are often disrupted by changes of
administration which result in changes of leadership and direction at
DHR. This problem underscores the importance of enforceable federal
laws mandating that states provide basic decent care to the children
they remove from parental custody. Current federal laws, while
increasingly helpful, still remain insufficiently specific and
unenforceable. In addition, many of the problems set forth herein
reflect inadequate federal funding under both Title IV-E maintenance
and administrative payments and IV-B program grants as well as in the
Medicaid program.
Although Maryland has spent countless hours and money in creating
multiple plans for improvement over the past ten years, including
Maryland's Program Improvement Plan submitted in response to its dismal
results in its Child and Family Services Review, there is little to
show for it. An infusion of funding for meaningful prevention and
family preservation programs, recruitment and support for foster and
adoptive parents and support for kinship caregivers and subsidized
guardianships would result in significant savings over time.
However, money is far from the only need in Maryland. Proper
administration of the child welfare system would bring significant
savings to Maryland while a status quo approach will continue to result
in skyrocketing budget overruns. In just the last three years alone,
Maryland has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars by failing to
have proper placements for children. The number of children in foster
care has continually decreased over the past five years, and yet
Maryland's foster care maintenance costs have increased by 75% (from
$204.1 million to $353.1 million) from FY2005 to FY2008 alone,
reflecting the massive shift from foster home to congregate care
placements. This is a staggering waste of money that has been caused by
Maryland's degradation of foster homes and the placement of children in
expensive, unnecessary, and inappropriate high-end congregate care
settings--even though the children do not need these placements and do
not want them--they want families. Yet the damage to the children far
outweighs the travesty of wasted dollars. A truly comprehensive plan is
needed to reduce Maryland's dependence on congregate care that has
caused this staggering increase in cost.
These are abused and neglected children, most of whom have
experienced harm or deprivations that are difficult to imagine. They
are the State's responsibility. One would have hoped that the many
reports and audits showing how badly the system is broken would have
compelled Maryland to make the investments necessary to fix the system
but, to date, that is not so.
Key Areas Needing Reform
Placements
The placement ``system'' is in fact an ad hoc patchwork of programs
that developed locally without any planning as to needs, priorities,
service gaps, etc. Monitoring has been poor, and providers have been
allowed extremely broad deference in programming, selection of
children, and rejection of children. Group homes now are a dominant
form of placement, and their quality is mixed. Maryland has not
performed nor commissioned a comprehensive needs assessment for
placements since 1989 \3\ Children are moved from placement to
placement without much regard for their needs or whether more focused
intervention could prevent removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Although, as required by the General Assembly, the Governor's
Office for Children issued two reports on placement needs during 2005
and 2006, neither were based on anything resembling a true needs
assessment. The first, the Joint Chairmen's Report on Out-of-Home
Placement and Family Preservation Services (Dec. 2005), provided only a
snapshot of the type of placement for each child in state custody on
June 30, 2005. The second, the State Resource Plan, issued in August
2006, based its calculation of placement needs solely on a ``survey of
local departments of social services conducted by the DHR Office for
Planning in January 2006. There was no attempt to examine a sample of
children in care, determine their needs, and extrapolate to the
population of foster children in placement or in need of placement.
Both reports can be found at http://www.ocyf.state.md.us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One example of the depth to which the system has fallen was
revealed in June 2005 when BCDSS admitted using a rented unlicensed
office building as an overnight shelter for children in its care.\4\
The facility had only four thin floor mattresses available only in the
girls' room (none were available in the boys' area); there were
insufficient blankets and pillows (again only enough for four
children); there were no shower or bath facilities; no toiletries; no
first aid or other health care provisions; and no arrangements for
adequate meals. The boys had to stay in a small waiting room area,
where there was no room to sleep--they could only sit in hard chairs
with armrests that made it impossible to lie down. Moreover, these were
not just short-term stays. One girl stayed for twenty-three consecutive
nights; one boy had to sit up in the chairs for seven consecutive
nights. These children were not in school, and their activities during
the day were minimal if they did not find placements. Many just
followed their caseworker and spent the day sitting in another BCDSS
office, only to return that evening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Baltimore Sun, June 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All told, 150 children stayed at Gay Street in 2005, most for
multiple nights with another 50 staying there in 2006. Mixed together
were children who had been in foster care nearly their whole lives and
children whose first night in foster care was being spent one the floor
of an office in the same filthy clothing in which they had been removed
from their parents' home. The mix of population was extremely
inappropriate. Younger preteen girls were mixed with much older late
adolescents, some of whom had severe mental illnesses and posed
definite risks to the younger children. Even a two-year old with a
feeding tube ended up in Gay Street.
Even after the disclosure, BCDSS was shockingly slow in remediating
conditions and still has not created any long-term solutions. While
conditions have been approved, air mattresses and toiletries are now
available, it remains an office building--with no shower or bath
facilities, no licensed supervision other than on-duty Child Protective
Services Workers during the night and on weekends, and no hot food
other than microwaveable oatmeal and McDonald's. Furthermore, to avoid
use of the facility in late 2005 and in 2006, BCDSS turned to housing
children overnight in motels. These youths were not accompanied at the
motels by BCDSS employees nor employees of licensed placement agencies;
instead, BCDSS used local ``mentoring'' programs to transport and
supervise the children. These unlicensed providers had no legal
requirement compelling them to ensure that their employees had passed
criminal background checks, yet those employees transported and spent
nights (and days) alone with children awaiting placement in hotels or
motels.
Needed reforms to the placement system must address:
Increase in the foster care reimbursement rate. Even
though foster home reimbursement rates were frozen for fourteen years
between 1992 and the end of 2005, DHR opposed in 2006 and 2007 a bill
supported by advocates statewide to raise stipends over three years to
the amount documented by the USDA as the cost of rearing a child. While
Maryland has increased the subsidy significantly in the past two years,
it is still far from adequate and there is no legal requirement that
increases continue (or even be maintained).
Restoration of child care subsidies. Maryland continues
to refuse to restore child care grants to foster parents and kinship
care providers, even though DHR has acknowledged that the loss of child
care assistance in 2002 was reported by foster parents as the principal
reason why so many had left the system.
Need for a wide variety of placements. BCDSS does not
maintain a meaningful supply of emergency foster homes, even though the
lack of such placements explains in large part the use of the illegal
and unlicensed Gay Street facility and of motels. BCDSS has not
targeted the two most pressing areas of foster home shortages: homes
for infants and for adolescents, including homes (as well as other
programs) that will care for teen parents with their children. There
are inadequate diagnostic shelter facilities and insufficient supply of
therapeutic foster homes. As a result of the lack of sufficient long-
term placements, there are often overstays in short-term shelter and
diagnostic shelter facilities.
Maryland's plans for foster home recruitment and
retention aim low and achieve less. In January 2006, Maryland issued a
recruitment and retention plan that called for only a 4% increase in
foster homes statewide (only 154 homes) over an eighteen month period
ending December 2006. Yet during the first two-thirds of the
implementation period, Maryland lost nearly that number of homes in
Baltimore City alone.
Maryland has squandered available resources, such as up
to $1 million for supports to foster parent and relative caregivers
that was returned to the federal government after a lack of use in FY
04 and a similar refund in FY 05 (the exact amount is not known).
Lack of responsiveness to caregivers' concerns and
complaints. The abusive and disdainful manner in which many caseworkers
and supervisors treat foster parents and kinship care providers is
shameful. DHR cancelled contracts for support centers several years ago
and has not restored them. While there are new foster parent
associations (after the former ones were defunded by DHR), they are not
sufficiently independent to act as an advocacy body for caregivers.
Caregivers still have minimal access to court proceedings. As a result,
disastrous decisions may be made to remove children with limited input
from the caregivers. No ombudsman exists to investigate complaints or
redress legitimate grievances. The cumulative effect of this is that
word-of-mouth has made it very difficult to recruit and retain foster
parents.
Long delays in processing of foster home applications and
general deterrence of restricted foster care applications by relatives.
Even though state regulation requires applications to be processed
within four months, delays of a year or more are common. Caseworkers
historically have discouraged relative caregivers from applying to be
foster parents, sometimes complying with a requirement that they advise
caregivers about foster home licensure in only 60% of the appropriate
cases (according to Defendants' data).
Failure to provide foster parents and kinship caregivers
with information about the children.
Lack of automated and efficient system for finding
placements. There is no comprehensive list of placement options, no
automated system to determine vacancies, and no meaningful system to
link providers and BCDSS in problem-solving (such efforts have been
short-lived).
No comprehensive needs assessment.
Group homes are overused and under-monitored. Their
programming often is poor. They have low tolerance for typical teen
behaviors, and DHR has long condoned precipitous and unjustified
removals. Simple and inexpensive steps to reduce their use, such as
sitting down with teens in foster care to talk about relatives and
others who might be placement resources, are not taken.
Limited utilization of new treatment modalities.
Caseworkers leave treatment issues to the providers. As a result, best
practices and improvements noted elsewhere in dealing with mental
health, adolescence and other issues have lagged in Maryland.
Lack of placements for siblings.
Slow interstate compact referral processing.
Criminal background checks; CPS history checks; and fire,
sanitation, and safety inspections for caregivers. According to 2004
CAPS data, the most recent available, far too many foster home and
kinship placements have not had required criminal background checks
(more than 25% of foster homes and nearly 50% of relative placements)
or fire, health and safety assessments (35% of foster homes lacked
annual safety inspections).
Overall lack of coordination between the responsibility
for finding placements for children (which falls upon BCDSS) and the
responsibility for creating, funding, monitoring, and maintaining
placements (a DHR duty).
Health
Provision of comprehensive health services to children in foster
care should not be difficult in Baltimore City, the home of the Johns
Hopkins and University of Maryland medical schools and hospital systems
as well as numerous other highly regarded hospitals and medical care
institutions. Moreover, all children in foster care are automatically
eligible for Medical Assistance. Yet Maryland has failed to provide
even the most basic appropriate care to the children in foster care in
Baltimore City, reflecting what Maryland's Secretary of DHR has
acknowledged to be a broken system. Not only do Baltimore City and
Maryland have the resources to provide excellent, let alone, decent
health care, there are numerous models around the country from which
they can draw in designing and implementing such a system. Until
recently Maryland has refused to consider much less implement these
models which have been evaluated with recommendations for basic
components of any successful system by the American Association of
Pediatrics (``AAP'') \5\ and the Georgetown University Child
Development Center \6\ Some progress may be in the workings; this
month, DHR, with the assistance of the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
finally convened a workgroup to look at alternatives to the current
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fostering Health: Health Care for Children and Adolescents in
Foster Care, 2nd
\6\ McCarthy, Jan, ``Meeting the Health Care Needs of Children in
the Foster Care System'' (2002) available on line at http://
gucchd.georgetown.edu/files/products_publications/fcsummary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the basic features of such a system which BCDSS currently
lacks include:
Initial screening and separate comprehensive assessments.
In the early 1990s, Maryland had a contract through the University of
Maryland Medical System to provide comprehensive assessments of
children entering foster care. That contract was cancelled after only
two years. The high quality of the UMMS assessments gradually has
fallen to a poor patchwork of decentralized community-based physical
examinations and unconnected mental health assessments. Several years
ago, DHR adopted a policy to obtain the physical examinations
immediately or shortly after entry into care, so health histories
typically are not included or reviewed in many if not most cases. Even
vaccination information may be missing. The ``assessments'' typically
are a short handwritten EPSDT medical form that, to a layman, often is
illegible, and in any event is ill-suited for a comprehensive
assessment. Lab reports are reviewed subsequently and are not
incorporated into the document. The mental health/developmental reports
are done by any provider available, ranging from excellent (if the
child is in a diagnostic placement and already receiving mental health)
to poor (a counselor at a group home may be required to write the
report). They are not coordinated with the somatic assessments, and
they typically are not distributed to the attorneys, the Court, or the
parties. As a result, they may be buried in the file and ignored.
Timely access to and provision of health care services
and treatment. BCDSS caseworkers and supervisors chronically fail to
ensure compliance with needed mental health therapy, specialized
medical treatment, referral follow-up, etc. According to DLS audits, in
2002, 28% of children did not receive recommended treatment; in 2004,
48% lacked recommended mental health treatment. For 2004, DHR's own
data showed that 20% of foster care cases and 33% of adoptions cases
did not receive recommended mental health treatment. Specialized care,
ranging from orthodontia to surgery, often is not provided as well,
despite obvious and sometimes urgent need.
Prompt collection of health histories for children
entering care.
Management of health care data and information, and
careful monitoring of ongoing health care needs of children in OHP and
health services provided to them. The unit in place only monitors
intake cases--ignoring 95% of the children who are in longer-term care.
Coordination of care, including alerts to workers and
caregivers of health needs of children in OHP and follow-up of unmet
needs. Maryland has taken the position that Managed Care Organization
(``MCO'') in which each child must be enrolled serves as the ``medical
home'' because it retains historical knowledge about the child. This is
not acceptable under the AAP standards, and for obvious reasons. The
MCOs are not care providers, and their only purpose is to fund or not
fund medical services. If they do not serve the functions of a
``medical home,'' their centralized nature is utterly immaterial.
Moreover, children who change placements, particularly between group
homes, may be required to change doctors and MCOs.
Collaboration among all public health and social services
systems serving children in OHP.
Family participation (both caregiver and, where possible,
parents)
Resolution and coordination of transportation
responsibilities for health care.
Immediate and continuous Medical Assistance coverage.
Attention to cultural issues.
Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness of
comprehensive health care system; and
Training and education of caseworkers, youth, parents and
caregivers.
Permanency Planning
In the recent CFSR assessment, BCDSS fared among the worst in the
country on issues relating to permanency, reaching federal standards in
only 8% of its cases. Unfortunately, these results surprised no one.
While some positive efforts are underway (such as a program based upon
the Family to Family model, a new private-public drug treatment
initiative, and a model court program for accelerated hearings in
certain drug cases), much more remains to be done.
Reunification services. BCDSS never has performed a needs
assessment of the services needed for prompt reunification: housing
assistance, drug treatment programs, education assistance, etc. As a
result, reunification is slow and inconsistent. The lack of housing
assistance is a huge problem, but no efforts have been made to obtain
assistance from housing agencies for priority status and other help.
Several intensive drug treatment initiatives have been attempted, but
most failed due to various bureaucratic problems. The number of
transportation aides has declined sharply.
Flex funds. The funding for reunification assistance is
not dedicated and instead is drawn from the general ``flex fund'' pool.
As a result, during budget shortfalls, these funds may dwindle to a
trickle, if not disappear, and those needing assistance in the latter
half of a fiscal year may well be denied.
Parent visitation. The lack of regular weekly visitation
has been a chronic problem. Nevertheless, DHR has failed to take any
measures to enforce a clear and critical requirement that is vital to
prompt and timely reunification.
Case plans and service agreements. Besides the documented
failure to produce case plans timely, they also typically are rote,
formulaic and canned, while service agreements have virtually no
substantive content regarding the agency's commitments and timelines.
As a result, the ``planning'' process in permanency planning is
inherently flawed--little real planning occurs.
In-patient, family-oriented drug treatment programs.
These need to be greatly expanded. Again, no needs assessment of how
much capacity is needed has been conducted to our knowledge.
New community initiative. BCDSS is just beginning its
first pilot effort in a new community-based reunification effort based
on the Family to Family model. Obviously, such programs have
significant potential, but this was tried before in Baltimore, without
success, and the current design has significant flaws that need to be
corrected if the effort is to achieve the breakthroughs that BCDSS
anticipates.
Adoptions. After making significant gains in the late
1990s, BCDSS's trendlines for termination of parental rights and
subsequent adoptions have plummeted. Based on annualized statistics
derived from the first half of FY 2007, BCDSS will have obtained 248
TPR decrees, which represents a 66% reduction from FY 1999 (720
petitions granted), and 318 adoptions, which represents a 64% reduction
from the number of adoptions in FY 2003 (877 adoptions granted). TPR
petitions get filed, but cases often are not ready to proceed to trial,
resulting in requests by BCDSS to dismiss the petition or grant large
continuances. Adoptions homestudies are infamously slow.
Subsidized guardianship. Maryland took an early lead on
pursuing waivers with HHS for subsidized guardianships but then failed
to expand the program further. This year, it finally has invested some
new funds into the program, but far too little to meet the need. Given
the goal of reducing the number of children in State custody, and the
high number of children in long-term kinship care placements (whether
licensed as restricted foster parents or not), subsidized guardianship
makes sense and should be available to meet the demand, at subsidy
rates commensurate with restricted foster care rates. Congress needs to
expand IV-E reimbursement from just foster care or subsidized adoption
to include subsidized guardianships.
Locating and working with absent parents and relatives.
This chronic problem remains unaddressed. Fathers and/or available
relatives often are ignored in permanency planning, or delays occur in
identifying and locating them. When they do appear in the case sometime
later, significant delays arise as BCDSS is required to make efforts to
determine whether paternal reunification or placement with a relative
is feasible and then to work with the fathers or relatives toward that
end.
Personnel and Case Management
Even though reported caseloads have declined in recent
years, they are still far from those recommended by the Child Welfare
League of America (``CWLA'') and mandated by the Maryland legislature.
Instead of 1:12 ratios for caseworkers serving foster children, the
average caseload for BCDSS caseworkers is 1:20, nearly twice as high,
and its impact on the care of the children and families under their
supervision is reflected in the dismal statistics set out in this
statement, including: 25% of all foster homes (321 out of 1,552) did
not receive required training in the past year.
During 2006, caseworkers did not make reasonable efforts
to provide weekly visits between parents and their children in 37% of
continuing foster care cases with permanency plans of reunification.
BCDSS admits that it did not comply with its own
guidelines for changing permanency plans in 33% of its cases.
Teens are not provided with timely and complete
independent living services. Critical delays are not uncommon in
securing basic benefits and services (such as financial assistance for
college, help with applications, etc.) Some workers are openly hostile
to the children. Teens are told they are not eligible for independent
living services because they are not in the ``teen unit'' or are placed
with relatives. Runaways are not pursued, and rescission remains a
frequent option for recalcitrant youths that turn eighteen and often is
the ``plan'' for 17 or even 16-year-olds.
BCDSS reports a substantial loss in the number of
supervisors even though the latest data demonstrate that caseworkers
need more, not less, supervision. One of the foremost reasons for poor
casework over the years is the failure of many BCDSS supervisors to
identify and remedy the deficiencies. Far too often, the supervisors
condone or contribute to the casework problems.
Recently, BCDSS administration has focused on workplace
infrastructure and workforce improvements, and some progress may have
been made in those areas. Any such advances, however, have yet to
translate into visibly improved delivery of services. Caseloads came
down when a 2003 hiring freeze finally was lifted, but turnover remains
high and cases are distributed very unevenly. Despite heavy investments
in computers and new telephone systems, assigned caseworkers remain
difficult to reach and, often, difficult even to identify. Uncovered
cases persist, cases are not timely transferred, and ``coverage''
workers continue to appear in court as unacceptable proxies for absent
workers. Even worse, often no worker appears at all, causing
postponements and further delays of permanency. Good child welfare
casework is demanding and requires highly-skilled and dedicated
individuals. They need to be supported with increased wages and
advanced training. Congress should be increasing, not reducing as was
done in the last Deficit Reduction Act, Title IV-E support for
administration and training.
Education
As reflected in the statistics set out above, the basic steps--
getting children enrolled in and attending school after changes in
placement, securing appropriate special education, and addressing
discipline problems constructively--still are not being taken.
Prevention
As of 2003, children are twice as likely to be in care in Baltimore
than in comparable cities. This disparity stems in large part from the
lack of appropriate prevention services. The need for adequate
preventive services is particularly critical at this point, for, in
Baltimore City, the number of continuing child protective service open
cases has doubled during the past two years, rising from 409 cases at
the end of 2003 to 828 case in January 2006.
The easiest and cheapest way to reduce the number of children in
foster care is to provide programs and services to families that can
prevent the need for foster care in the first place. Nevertheless,
funding for programs proven to succeed in maintaining families and
preventing foster care placement has shrunk dramatically.
Intensive family services (``IFS''), i.e., those services
proven most effective in preventing removal of children from their
families serve only 50% of the families and children they served in
1999. The number dropped by 30% in 2005 and 2006 alone.
The number of families and children receiving other less-
intensive family preservation programs dropped by approximately 60%
since 1999 and down by 30% between 2003 and 2006.
The total funds spent on these services in FY06 fell to
less than $94,000 from more than $170,000 in FY05 and $310,024 in FY99.
Other basic prevention programs (family service centers,
neighborhood outreach, housing assistance, expanded drug and alcohol
treatment, in-home aides, etc.) are inadequate, but, because there has
not been a needs assessment, it is impossible to determine the
magnitude of the need. Funding for family service centers was cut
dramatically in 2003, and it has not been restored. Moreover, those
programs, while excellent, served parents with young children only and,
therefore, do not serve all families in need.
Those groups that have been provided access to child protective
services (``CPS'') files, such as the various fatality review boards
and CPS review commissions, have raised significant concerns about CPS
that need to be addressed.
Planning
Finally, strategic planning for reform has been abysmal. Over the
years, Maryland has focused on forms, standard policies, and
procedures, not on substantive outcomes and programs that improve the
system or the lives of the children. Congress must provide adequate
funding and then demand that states meet the standards set in federal
law and the Child and Family Services Review so that a system truly
responsive to children's welfare is created and sustained.
Statement of Robert Littlejohn
Three years ago, the Congressman and legislators from Arizona, New
Mexico and California sat and listened as parents, lawyers, a
physician, child welfare experts and a foster parent shared horror
stories of CPS malpractice. They spoke from a giant horseshoe table
(normally used by the City Council) and the lawmakers sat facing them
in staff table in front of the stage. Throughout the day, groups of 7
speakers at a time were led up to the horseshoe table and each took
their turn speaking for 10 minutes. They worked straight through lunch
and the lawmakers were very attentive. The hall was packed with an
audience--standing room only--and four video cameras from assorted
media taped the entire thing.
All speakers were harshly negative about CPS. Some of the speeches
were very emotional (one played an audio tape into the microphone of a
child screaming as police ripped him away from his mother). As part of
their presentation, each speaker offered possible solutions (reforms)
to the problems many had documented so well. Here are some of the most
common themes:
1) Almost all the speakers said that CPS needed to be dismantled
and rebuilt. (A view shared by many social work researchers and other
published experts).
2) That police assume the role of investigating child abuse. (One
lawyer suggested that the social work roles of ``helping'' and
``investigating'' should at least be divided and separate--the same
worker should not do both jobs)
3) Funding be changed--especially Title IV-E funds. The
congressman agreed that it needed to be capped and be used by the
states for services other than foster care.
4) That parents receive effective legal representation. (Speaker
after speaker explained the dismal, sell-out work done by public
defenders. Juvenile court judges were called to task.)
5) Almost all speakers wanted all child welfare hearings opened
to the public. There were two excellent reports on what had happened in
those states that had opened up their courtrooms (none of the CPS,
chicken little predictions have proven true.) It was the general
feeling that if courtrooms were opened, the public would learn how
unjust and abusive the system is to children. It was accurately
reported that states who have opened up their juvenile and family
courtrooms are experiencing more just, family-friendly procedure and
decisions.
6) That anonymous reporting be stopped.
7) Repeal of mandated reporting laws.
8) Removing the qualified immunity protection given CPS
caseworkers and imposition of criminal sanctions for perjury, false
reporting, holding back favorable information, etc.
9) Rewriting state statutes to clearly define child abuse and
child neglect.
10) An investigation into therapist's practice of pseudo-science.
11) Court orders (from an actual judge, not officers of the court)
for all removals and the requirement that such ``pick up orders'' be
issued only after a showing of probable cause that actual abuse or
neglect has occurred.
12) That the cloak of secrecy be lifted from child protective
services (only the child's name and other identifying information
should be withheld from the public).
13) That state laws make malicious false reporting a felony
punishable by prison time.
14) That CPS workers give a full and complete disclosure of rights
and responsibilities to parents at the onset of an assessment or
investigation.
One parent was a former Navy Seal. He gave a moving testimony of
how all of the rights he thought he once fought for were denied him as
a father of a child who was abused by CPS. The man drove out to the
conference from the East Coast.
The governor in California has taken seriously the complaints
reaching his office from parents across the state. He is committed to
using Title IV-E funds to keep families together rather than to fund
foster care. The imposition of a totally new family meeting plan
piloted with help from a foundation will be funded with Title IV-E, for
instance.
He has appointed an ad-hoc commission to develop concrete, action
steps to accomplish the mission of reducing foster care incarceration
by 60%. The funding change alone should reduce the foster care
population by more than that. The commission's position is that
patchwork reforms will not work--that a total revamping of the system
is required.
While this is referring to discussions of three years ago, the
suggestions are still the same. The same revamping of the entire CPS
system is long overdue and is warranted now. The same suggestions have
been made time and time again, and yet there is no change!
I would further add that the CPS in each state be put under the
direct supervision of the States' Attorneys, thus forcing the state CPS
agencies to come to their office with hard corroborating evidence that
child abuse or neglect has occurred, and that further abuse or neglect
will put the child in harm's way, thus necessitating the child's
removal from the home. If the children have been removed and they have
not brought the state's attorney the 75% credible evidence proof to
him, they must--upon orders of the state's attorney--return the
children at once or face stiff penalties from the state's attorney's
office.
If the 75% credible evidence has been met, the state's attorney
will recommend to the judge that a pick up order be issued to remove
the children from the abusive home. The accused must then stand in a
trial-by-jury and have them decide whether or not there any abuse had
occurred; and if the evidence if flimsy, the jury will return a verdict
of not guilty, and the children must be returned home at once, with
apologies made to the parents by the court, with the further
stipulation to the Child Protective Service agency that they will no
longer become involved with the interruption in the lives of the
innocent parents, thus not only returning physical custody of the
children to their parents, but also legal custody of the children--
under the threat by the court of a heavy stiff fine if they refuse to
obey the decision of the jury and of the court!
The suggestions above will be a start in making the Child
Protective Services a more efficiently run organization. Thank you for
your time.
Sincerely,
Robert Littlejohn
Still father of Diane Carol and Charles William Littlejohn by the
will of God, though taken away by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Statement of Roma O. Amor, Tucson, Arizona
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Roma O. Amor, petitioner appearing as herself
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY (ADES) & ITS DIVISION OF
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES (DCYF)--CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES (CPS),
Parties in Interest
MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND COMPLIANCE
Now comes Roma O. Amor seeking Declaratory Relief for Positive
Enforcement to address the issues of the greater public interest of the
Constitutional, federal statutory, and Federally-Protected Rights of
families and their children who reside in the State of Arizona.
Petitioner seeks relief against unconstitutional policies of ADES and
CPS that violate Federal Child Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contracts).
CPS has adopted an increasingly unbridled pattern of disregard for the
law and its methods of intrusion into the private and family affairs
resulting in unnecessary child fatalities and abuse while in ADES
custody or under investigation by CPS Agents.
1. Jurisdiction is conferred by AZ Rule of Civil Proc. 57, AZ Rule
of the Supreme Court 28(G), Arizona Constitution Article 6 Section 5
2. Venue is found in this court for State of Arizona policies and
actions under color of state law of its CPS agency, its Office of the
Attorney General, and the Juvenile Courts of its subdivisions.
3. Questions Raised:
a) Whether current child welfare laws of The State of Arizona are
unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional under Federal Statutory Child
Welfare Funding Law (Federal Contract Law) and the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
Arizona child welfare laws violate Federal Contract Law under the
United States Constitution Article I Sec. 8 cl. 1 Spending Clause which
gives the U.S. Congress power to place conditions on federal funding
grants. Spending Clause legislation is a contract; in return for
federal funds, the recipients (State of Arizona) agree to comply with
federally imposed conditions.
See: Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed. 526 U. S. 629, 640 (1999),
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman 451 U. S. 1, 17
(1981); see also Davis, supra, at 640; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent
School Dist. 524 U. S. 274, 286 (1998); Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv.
Community of New York City 463 U. S. 582, 599 (1983) (opinion of White,
J.); id., at 632-633 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Lau v. Nichols 414 U.
S. 563, 568-569 (1974).
4. Supporting Statements and Standards of Law Incorporated Herein:
a) ARS 41-1962 ``Federal law shall control.''
b) Detention/Removal Hearings, Federal Statutory Law, examples
--CFR Sec 1356.21(d) Documentation of Judicial Determinations (2)
Neither affidavits nor nunc pro tunc orders will be accepted as
verification documentation in support of reasonable efforts and
contrary to the welfare judicial determinations. (3) Court orders that
reference State law to substantiate judicial determinations are NOT
acceptable, even if State law provides that a removal must be based on
a judicial determination that remaining in the home would be contrary
to the child's welfare or that removal can only be ordered after
reasonable efforts have been made.
If finding is not explicitly documented, Title IV-E funding is
severed under federal law. 45 CFR 1356.21(c)
--42 USC 672(a)(1) Court must make the finding that ``continuance
in the home of the parent or legal guardian would be contrary to the
child's welfare.'' and ``removal from the home was the result of a
explicit judicial determination and that reasonable efforts have been
made''.
This finding must be made at the time of the first court ruling
authorizing removal of the child from the home or lose all Title IV-E
federal funding. 45 CFR 1356.21(c)
--42 USC 672(a)(2) Court must make finding that ``placement and
care are the responsibility of the State agency or any other public
agency with whom the responsible state agency has an agreement.''
No federal funding until findings are made 45 CFR
1356.71(d)(1)(iii)
--42 USC 671(a)(15), 42 USC 672(a)(1), and 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1)
Court must make the finding that `` reasonable efforts have been made
to prevent or eliminate need for removal.'' Mandates Prevention to
Prevent Removal
If explicit finding are not documented Title IV-E funding will be
withdrawn. 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(1)(ii)
--PL 96-272 Judicial determinations are required to be explicit and
so stated in the court order. The Senate Report on the bill that became
Public Law 96-272 characterized the required judicial determinations as
``important safeguard(s) against inappropriate agency action and made
clear that such requirements were not to become ``a mere pro forma
exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal Funding.'' (S. Rept. No.
336, 96th Congress, 2d Session. 16, 1980 ``We concluded, based on our
review of States' documentation of judicial determinations over the
past years that, in many instances, these important safeguards had
become precisely what congress was concerned that they not become.''
c) State statutes and regulations cannot be construed to displace
the protections of the United States Constitution, even when the state
acts to protect the welfare of children. Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v.
Reilly 533 U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)
d) ``State courts can decide definitively only questions of state
law that are not subject to overriding federal law.'' Leiter Minerals
Inc. v. United States 352 U.S. 220 (CERT No 26, 1957)
e) ``Public policy is better served by imposing a duty in such
circumstances to help prevent future harm.'' Gibson v. Kasey (AZ
Supreme Court, No CV-06-0100-PR, 2006; AZ Ct App Div 1 No 1 CA-CV 05-
0119) (En banc)
f) ARS 25-408(H)(I) Judicial acts and the court must adhere to
previous agreed custody agreements
g) ARS 25-403 and 25-403.03 domestic violence and family law
h) Child abuse proceedings involve the government acting in an
adversarial role toward the custodial parent, an entirely different
circumstance and procedure than divorce proceedings where there is no
governmental accusation of fault. ``Persons faced with possible forced
dissolution of their custodial rights have a more critical need for
procedural protections than do those in ongoing family affairs.''
Santosky 455 U.S. at 753
In Brittain v. Hansen, the 9th Cir. Court discussed the greater
custodial liberty interest and procedural differences of child abuse
and custody cases, and concluded that ``by failing to recognize the
lesser liberty interest in visitation Id. at 992 the court applied the
erroneous legal standard ``best interests of the child,'' quoting Reno
v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-04 (1993) and held the ``best interest of
the child'' legal standard applies to custody law not child abuse
proceedings''
``Custodial parents have a greater liberty interest than those with
visitation rights.'' Brittain v Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991, 992 (9th
Cir. 2006), quoting Weller v Dept of Social Svcs, 901 f2d 387, 394 (4th
Cir. 1990), Zakrzewski v Fox, 87 F.3d 1011, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 1996),
Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir. 1981); ``A non-
custodial parent lacks prudential standing to bring Establishment
Clause challenge based on his relationship with his child.'' Brittain,
quoting Elk Grove Unified School Dist v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 13-18
(2004); ``Liberty interests of parents with only visitation rights does
not give rise to a constitutional violation'' Brittain, (9th Cir.)
quoting Wise (10th Cir. 1981)
i) ``Substantive Due Process rights are those which involve greater
liberties, as those guaranteed by the First Amendment''. Glucksburg 512
U.S. at 721-22
Anthony v. City of New York 339 F.3d 129, 139 (2nd Cir 2003) ``(1)
whether any policy makers of the municipality knew that it's employees
will confront or encounter a given situation,; (2) that the situation
either presents the employees with a difficult choices of this sort and
that training or supervision will make less difficult or that there is
a history of the employees mishandling the situation; and (3) that the
wrong choice by employees will frequently cause the deprivation of a
Person's Constitutional rights.'' See also: King v Atiyeh, Monell v New
York City Dept of Social Services
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 901
(1992), quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S.--(1995) ``Legislative
purpose to accomplish a constitutionally forbidden result may be found
when that purpose was the predominant factor motivating the
legislature's decision.'', Shaw v. Hunt 517 U.S.--(1996), Joseph P.
Mazurek, AG of Montana v. James H. Armstrong et al (Cert. 9th Cir Ct
App, No 96-1104, 1997)
5. ARS 8-821 standard of proof for temporary custody is
unconstitutional under the USSC ``Matthews Test '' addressed by the AZ
Supreme Court in Kent K. and Sherry K. ARS 8-821 provides for taking
into temporary custody under the ``reasonable grounds'' standard,
similarly vague to suspicion or probable cause. A parent's interests at
this stage are paramount; the interest of the government is to reunite
the child with the custodial parent. This error of lowered standard of
proof, ``reasonable grounds,'' at the early stage of proceedings stacks
the deck against custodial parents' greater interest in their child and
familial association. Matthews v. Eldridge and Kent K and Sherry K set
the minimum standard at ``preponderance of evidence''. The goals at
this stage are prevention and reunification not termination which does
not enter the equation until 12-18 months later. Until the first 18
months pass, a real reunification effort with the custodial parent is
mandated by federal statutory law (contract law). By giving the adverse
party the greater interest and lowering the standard of proof thus
increasing the risk of error, a parent's case will be lost at the first
stage of proceedings, a deprivation of substantive due process to
protect the greater interests of the parent. There must be a concrete
offer of due process afforded to the parent with the greater liberty
interest in adversarial proceedings, not the current level of rubber-
stamping and paper-shuffling to meet federal funding guidelines. These
are families. Santosky 455 U.S. at 753 (holding child abuse proceedings
involve the government acting in an adversarial role toward the
custodial parent, and such ``persons faced with possible forced
dissolution of their custodial rights have a more critical need for
procedural protections.'')
In Re KG, SG, and TG (9th Cir. 2004), reaffirming the decision of
the U.S.S.C., ``This court has noted that the permanent termination of
parental rights has been described as the family law equivalent of the
death penalty. Consequently, parents must be afforded every procedural
and substantive protection the law allows.''
6. ARS 8-824(F) is unconstitutional; the Standard of Proof is
limited to ``probable cause to believe that continued temporary custody
is clearly necessary.'' In applying this standard of proof, the court
will make an erroneous determination of unfitness without offer of
proof (common in juvenile court) and substantive and procedural due
process of law which will lead to loss of the parent's right to
familial association, and in affect, terminated rights to custody. Kent
K and Sherry K, quoting Santosky (holding erroneous determination of
unfitness at this stage could lead to permanently extinguishing the
relationship between a fit parent and her child).
7. The State of Arizona encouraged and instituted into state law a
vague and easily misconstrued policy of mental illness as reason for
removal of a child as well as for termination of parental rights. ARS
8-533(B)(3) and ARS 8-846(1)(b) ``A State shall not be immune under the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for
violation of a federally protected right . . . remedies (both at law
and in equity) are available.'' Title 42 Chap. 126 Sec 12202 and Title
42 Chap. 21 Subchapter V 2000d-7, and Title 28 CFR, PART 35
Nondiscrimination on Basis of Disability, State and Local Government
Services
Title II of the ADA, ``No qualified individual with a disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in
or be denied the benefits of the services or programs of a public
entity [reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunification
programs of CPS], or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.''42 USC 12132 A ``public entity'' is defined as ``(A) any State
or local government; or (B) any department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local
government.'' 42 USC 12131
``Where a statute authorizes conduct that is `patently violative of
fundamental constitutional principles,' reliance on the statute does
not immunize the official's conduct''. Grossman 33 F3d at 1209 See
also: Meyers v. Contra Costa County Dept. Soc Svcs 812 F2d 1154, 1157,
1158 (9th Cir. 1987) and Miller v Gammie (No 01-1549, DC No CV-99-
00275-HDM PHA, 9th CirCtApp. 2003)
8. Another usage of the wrong standard of law that needing
addressed, is the ``best interests of the child'' standard in
adversarial child abuse cases which invoke greater liberties and
constitutional protections for familial association. ``Best interests
of the child'' standard is erroneous in child abuse proceedings. Only
when proceedings reach the permanency stage, specifically the
disposition stage, does the balance of interests shift away from the
custodial parent. Matthews
9. Much of A.R.S. Title 8 is unconstitutional and in violation of
overriding federal law; for brevity petitioner provided examples. Vague
policies, statutes, laws, or the encouragement thereof that violate
federal Child Welfare Funding Laws, constitutionally and federally-
protected rights must be examined. Families have the right to be free
from unbridled State intrusion into their private family life without
afforded substantive and procedural due process of law. When a case of
state custody is necessary, children and others in the custody of the
state must be afforded the duty of care owed by the state and its
agencies under the Fourteenth Amendment.
10. Federal laws of foster care and adoption, legislated by
Congress with good intention, are routinely violated by the state.
Rather than adhere to statutory preventative measures to provide
assistance to keep families together, they many times remove children
from their parents when less extreme measures should have been taken
violating federal statutory law and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. Arizona ADES-DCYF-CPS
often places children with abusive noncustodial parents or in abusive
foster/shelter care. (State Created Danger)
11. State law and policies announced by Governor Napolitano
encourage unlawful practices of use of these federal funds resulting in
need for more monies as the number of children removed from their
parents rise. Funds should be used to provide families assistance with
food, shelter, furnishings, education, location to domestic violence
shelters, state training of its agencies in recognizing common
consequences of domestic violence on victims and their children, and
other preventative measures to stabilize the family and prevent
removal.
12. The most critical issue in The State is the additional large
expenditures of monies to hire additional caseworkers, reportedly to
handle the overflow of children, but the reality is that additional
caseworkers coupled with current ``take the child and run'' policies
encourage improper practices, erroneous and non-explicit findings of
abuse, and has the beginnings of an enterprise whose practice is to
break up the family. Hiring additional caseworkers creates more crisis
and more child fatalities; more children are removed rather than focus
on current cases; the state is not the parent and not able to provide
the proper standard of care as is its duty, nor can it provide
nurturing. If more monies need be spent, it should be appropriated to
training current caseworkers in integrity and ethics characteristic to
the social services Code of Ethics. Higher standards of care and duty
to assist those in need are standards to which social workers should be
held. It is time that the State of Arizona brings those ethics back
into its ADES-DCYF Child Protection Services agency, perhaps with more
experienced workers with families of their own who understand the value
of the family.
13. AZDES CPS removes children on suspicion (substantive due
process violations). Many children are then abused in state custody
(six to ten times higher in state custody per NCCAA). Reasonable
efforts must be made to preserve the First Amendment protection of
familial association in Arizona. It is obvious that this petitioner,
the Mays family, the Hill family, the Payne family and other families
undisclosed to the public, the Governor's office, the State of Arizona
and its CPS agency, the Pima County Juvenile Court in the State of
Arizona, the City of Tucson Police Department, and The People are aware
that there are serious Constitutional policy/procedural deficiencies
regarding the safety, care, and protection of children and their
families in the State of Arizona under current CPS policies and
procedure s.
14. The announced policy statement by Governor Napolitano coupled
with the seemingly endless supply of federal monies encourages wrongful
state intrusion into the lives of families in Arizona and violates
constitutional and federally-protected rights and federal law.
15. Pattern and Practice of State Created Danger
*Payne children, deceased 2007 (CPS--Domestic Violence)
*Emily Mays, deceased August 2005, (CPS)
*Dwight Hill, deceased November 2005, (CPS)
*D.R.A., Abused, October-November 2005 (CPS)
*Others unnamed to protect the families.
The State-Created Danger Doctrine See Penilla v. City of Huntington
Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997) ``If affirmative conduct on the
part of a state actor places a plaintiff in danger, and the officer
acts in deliberate indifference to that plaintiff's safety, a claim
arises under Sec. 1983.''. Second, the official's act did more than
simply expose the plaintiff to a danger that already existed. See L.W.
v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Dwares v. City
of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 1993); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911
F.2d 52, 55 (8th Cir. 1990). Finally, the official acted with
deliberate indifference to known or obvious dangers. See L.W. v.
Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 1996) ``The plaintiff must show that
the state official participated in creating a dangerous condition, and
acted with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious danger in
subjecting the plaintiff to it.''
18 U.S.C 4 Misprision of Felony--parents report abuse of their
innocent children in CPS custody and judicial, state, county, and other
actors, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of
families and their children to a duty of care in state proceedings and
custody (Fourteenth Amendment), do not act to interfere or stop the
abuse, and even retaliate on the reporting parent by termination of
rights, terminating visitation, or relinquishing custody of the child
to prevent further reports of abuse at the hands of state agency
policies and procedures upon these children. This is appalling and an
outrage.
16. Petitioner's case parallels the Mays and Hill cases in the
period of time of injuries, the nature of the injuries, and deliberate
indifference of the court, CPS, state-appointed attorneys, GALs, and
assistant attorney generals acting as counsel for ADES to step up to
the plate to provide the owed duty of care to protect children in state
custody from further harm (death in the Mays, Payne, and Hill, other
cases). The Payne case, this petitioners, and others demonstrate the
deliberate indifference of CPS and juvenile courts toward domestic
violence victims and their children and the need for change of the
improper standard of ``best interests of the child'' in child abuse
cases to protect the greater liberty interests of the custodial parent.
It also demonstrates the complete unlawful disregard for ``previous
custody agreements''. ARS 25-408(H)(I)
17. This petitioner and other parents have contacted (2003-2007)
Arizona Office of The Governor, Arizona House and Senate Members, and
other public officials (State, City, AZBAR, AZ and Pima County Courts,
and the like) who have the ability to make changes to inadequate or
dangerous policy both before and after herein stated violations. They
are all aware there is a problem with their own policies regarding the
constitutional right of familial association and the Doctrine of State
Created Danger and the duty of care afforded by the Fourteenth
Amendment involving child protection and related policies.
Instead of positive changes to policies or even investigation into
violations, policies were changed to further deny the Constitutional
Right to due process and to strengthen policies that violate
Constitutional rights in adversarial CPS cases.
18. Bill SB1430, initiated by Senator Johnson would have
strengthened due process protections for First Amendment rights for CPS
TPR cases, Arizona State Senate Committee on Family Services Minutes,
dated February 13, 2006. Petitioner spoke at this Senate committee
hearing. In June 2006 it was voted down due to Napolitano's threat of
veto. Napolitano has at the same time publicly stated that caseworkers
are to ``err on the side of the child'', affecting increased removals
and TPR and creating policy at CPS that violates due process to
families under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ``It seems like a
lot of trouble for something that's going to get vetoed.'' Rep. Pete
Hershberger, R-Tucson, said before the bill died on the House floor.
Napolitano's threatened veto and changes to policy removed jury
trials for CPS TPR cases is in violation of the 1st, 6th, 7th, and 14th
Amendments guaranteeing the right to trial by jury and the right of
confrontation in any criminal or government adversarial trial where the
value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars (a child's life and the right
of familial association is invaluable).
The excuse was that ``most jury trials resulted in TPR anyway''.
This statement illustrates by admission the lack of procedural and
substantive due process in Arizona juvenile courts, demonstrating the
need for reform policies that implement the Constitutional Due Process
of Law protections of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, Arizona Constitution,
Federal and Statutory law. See: Cf. Lorillard Tobacco Co v. Reilly 533
U.S. 525, 540-41, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414 (2001)
AZ State Representative Laura Knaperek, as well as child advocacy
expert Richard Wexler, spoke out strongly condemning Governor
Napolitano's policy saying it will deeply hurt Arizona's families, and
it has.
19. The Governor's policy implementation (threat of veto, lowered
standards of proof, and removal of jury trials) is a deliberate and
knowing error as ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court decision in Kent K.
and Sherry K. v. Bobby M. and Leeh M. where the Court, applying
Matthews and Santosky, held that, ``The private interest affected is
commanding; the risk of error from using a preponderance standard is
substantial; and the countervailing governmental interest favoring that
standard is comparatively slight. Because the preponderance of the
evidence standard essentially allocates the risk of error equally
between the parents and the state, due process requires a higher
standard of proof than ``preponderance of the evidence''.
20. This petitioner spoke at Governor Napolitano's CPS Reform
conference in 2003 on domestic violence and the need for CPS to protect
Mothers and their children. The recent horrific cases of Tyler and
Ariana Payne and another unnamed father who dated a CPS supervisor
parallels this case and the problem of Domestic Violence and CPS
policies of separating Mother her child in favor of the noncustodial
batterer, thus inflicting the sins of the batterer on the children, as
addressed in an injunction against NY Child Protection in Nicholson et
al v Scoppetta et al and Williams et al where the Court concluded:
``The City may not penalize a mother by separating her from her
children; nor may children be separated from the mother, in effect
visiting upon them the sins of their mother's batterer'' (In re
Nicholson, 181 F supp 2d 182, 188 [ED NY Jan. 20, 2002], Nicholson v
Williams, 203 F Supp 2d 153 [ED NY Mar 18, 2002] [108-pg elaboration
grounds injunction]). The Court found that ACS unnecessarily, routinely
charged mothers with neglect and removed their children where the
mothers were the victims of domestic violence; that ACS did so without
ensuring that the mother had access to the services she needed, without
a court order, and without returning these children promptly; that ACS
caseworkers and managers lacked adequate training about domestic
violence, and their practice was to separate mother and child when less
extreme measures should have been taken. The District court cited the
testimony of a manager that it was common practice in domestic violence
cases for ACS to wait a few days before going to court after removing
the child because ``after a few days of the children being in foster
care, the mother will agree to ACS's conditions without the matter even
going to court'' 203 F Supp 2d at 170.
See also: Pathologizing the Victim, a common tactic used in family
court to applaud the actions of the abuser while labeling the victim
unstable.
21. Common sense and civil law state that when government or agency
policies are in violation of Constitutional Rights or of Federal Law or
Federally protected rights, state and local governments and their
agencies that institute or encourage policies are directly liable for
wrongs and injuries that result. Governor Napolitano and the State of
Arizona's policies and deliberate indifference has assumed
responsibility for injuries instilled upon families such as those of my
child and of Emily Mays and Dwight Hill (infants) and further cases
such as the Payne case (involving prior domestic violence and CPS
change of custody) which show the sufferings and irreparable injury of
parents and their children as a result. Children are no safer in state
custody than with parents, nor are they any safer with CPS involvement.
Child abuse is an issue for the police, not a social agency.
22. The federal law on child abuse and neglect is found primarily
in Title IV-B&E of the Social Security Act transfers monies from the
Social Security Fund to The State. Approximately seventy-five percent
of the funds in Arizona is federal money which is available only if the
state meets eligibility requirements; these funds can be withdrawn if
requirements are not met.
The history and sources of the Child Welfare funding are primarily
found in: Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance 42
USC 670-679b; the 1974 Walter Mondale Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act, PL 93-247, 88 Stat. 4, 42 USC 5101-5107; and the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, PL 96-272, 94 Stat. 500, 42
USC 670-676 (and amending 620-628); 42 USC 107(b), 5106a(b)(1) Grants
to States for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment
programs, as well as other sources such as the Interstate Compact on
the Placement of Children (ICPC), a contract which provides financial
incentives for interstate placement of foster children, reportedly to
find permanence.
23. The State of Arizona is the governing body of AZDES-DCYF-CPS.
The State collects Federal Funding, (42 USC 670-679b) (17 Trillion in
2004, U.S. total) from the United States Government in the form of
Title IV (Parts B & E) funding, mandated to be used primarily for
prevention and reunification purposes (42 USC 671). Title 42 Chapter
67: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform also
offers federal funding grants to CPS agencies through various
eligibility programs such as fostering, adoptions, interstate
placements, etc., as do other additional grants/receipts.
24. ADES receives federal funding through the state which then
provides funding to domestic violence shelters and programs through its
Community Services Administration (CSA) and collects information such
as Name, Address, Age, Phone Number, Children's Names and Ages, Income,
Disability Status, and other personal information. ADES maintains its
own private database on Mothers and children who receive domestic
violence services. Recent events in the Payne case as well as this
petitioner and others show a pattern of disregard for Mothers and their
children who are victims of domestic violence.
25. The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona has power to issue
declaratory relief in the form of Arizona State Congressional
investigation into state records of specific practices of this agency
such as the use of federal funding to meet federal eligibility
requirements regarding prevention, inconsistencies in individual case
documentation, nonexplicit rubber-stamped judicial findings, paper-
shuffling to meet federal statutory law, foster provider licensing,
state-contractor conflict-of-interests (fishing expeditions to build a
case through forced services to justify unlawful removals post facto),
and for examination or positive enforcement of federal law that
overrides state law matter of child welfare.
26. This petitioner prays this AZ Supreme Court will honor
Declaratory Positive Relief to address the problems in the Child
``Protection'' Services of the State of Arizona, such as amending state
statutes and state policy to properly comply with overriding federal
funding contract law.
Dated this 17th day of May, 2007
Signed in ink for the court
Roma O. Amor, Appearing as herself
SUBMISSION OF TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD
ABOLISH CPS. Let police handle it!
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT
CHILD WELFARE HEARING 5-15-07
Submitted for:
Roma O. Amor and Dante R. Amor (Rafe)
All Arizona families and for those children that suffer.
Statement of Voice for Adoption
Voice for Adoption (VFA) is pleased to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support on the challenges
facing the child welfare system. We look forward to continuing to work
with the Subcommittee as you examine ways to improve the outcomes for
children and families involved with the child welfare system.
As everyone who is involved with the child welfare system knows,
the system faces a wide range of challenges as it attempts to achieve
safety, permanency, and well-being for all of the children it serves.
One issue that I want to highlight for this committee is the growing
need for high-quality post-adoption services as a way to ensure that
adoption can truly provide the stability and permanence that vulnerable
children need.
The Needs of Children in Foster Care
Children in foster care have experienced great traumas in their
lives. Many of them struggle with physical and mental health problems,
developmental delays, educational challenges, and psychological
difficulties.\1\ As a result of being in foster care, all of them have
experienced loss and multiple transitions, which can make it more
difficult for them to adjust to new family settings. Achieving
permanence for these children is a critical goal, but permanence itself
cannot ensure a child's well-being. Children and their adoptive
families need additional support to help them heal and enable them to
thrive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Casey Family Services, The Casey Center for Effective Child
Welfare Practice. (2002) Strengthening Families and Communities: An
Approach to Post-Adoption Services--A White Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the great resources available to the child welfare system is
the large number of families that are dedicated to caring for children
who have experienced abuse and neglect. These foster and adoptive
parents face extraordinary challenges as they try to help their
children heal from their past traumas and learn to manage their special
needs. The child welfare system recognizes the need to provide services
and support to foster families to help them meet their foster
children's needs; foster parents can receive additional subsidies or
financial assistance to pay for the child's food and clothing costs,
respite care, special camps, child care, and other expenses involved in
caring for the child.\2\ For many prospective adoptive parents, they
are considering adopting a child from foster care, a child who may
receive, through the foster care system, medical, educational, mental
health, and crisis intervention services to address their special
needs. Many of these supports and services end as soon as a child is
adopted. Prospective adoptive parents of children with special needs
shouldn't be faced with the added challenge of deciding between making
a child a permanent part of their family and ensuring that their child
can continue to receive the services and support they need in order to
overcome the challenges they experienced early in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005) Better Data and
Evaluation Could Improve Processes and Programs for Adopting Children
with Special Needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Role of Post-Adoption Services
Post-adoption services play a critical role in helping stabilize
families that adopt children with special needs. Programs that provide
post-adoption services have been shown to contribute to improved child
functioning, improved parenting skills, prevention of adoption
disruption and dissolution, and increased numbers of adoption.\3\
Thanks in part to major investments in adoption promotion and
recruitment activities over the past decade, nearly 400,000 children in
foster care have been adopted.\4\ This has created a growing need for
adoption-competent services for the families that have adopted children
with histories of abuse and neglect. Unfortunately, the intense efforts
and investments that have contributed to this dramatic increase in the
number of adoptions have not been matched by a corresponding commitment
to providing support for the families that have responded to the calls
to adopt children in foster care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Post-
Legal Adoption Services for Children with Special Needs and Their
Families: Challenges and Lessons Learned.
\4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System: Trends in Adoption and
Foster Care and Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency
Involvement By State FY 1995-FY 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A paper from the Casey Family Services' Center for Effective Child
Welfare Practice provides a succinct description of critical role that
post-adoption services play in achieving permanence for waiting
children: ``The growing population of special needs children in foster
care who are waiting to be adopted highlights the critical need to
recruit, prepare and then support a larger number of adoptive families.
We have found that the recruitment of prospective adoptive parents and
the provision of post-adoption services and supports are integrally
related. As the population of children in foster care waiting to be
adopted has grown and become more complex, ever-increasing numbers of
adoptive families who can meet these special needs must be recruited,
an effort that is likely to be negatively affected if post-adoption
services and supports are lacking or do not continue once a child is
adopted from foster care. Assurance of the availability of services and
supports following adoption has been found to play a critical role in
many prospective adoptive parents' decisions to go forward with the
adoption of children in foster care--whether children are adopted by
their current foster families or new families recruited for them.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Casey Family Services, The Casey Center for Effective Child
Welfare Practice. (2002) Strengthening Families and Communities: An
Approach to Post-Adoption Services--A White Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child welfare professionals and adoption advocates have long
acknowledged that adoption saves the government money compared to the
costs of keeping a child in foster care. Based on new research from
2006, we have strong confirmation of the range of cost-savings that
adoption offers.\6\ With an estimated annual savings to government of
$1 billion, there is a highly compelling government interest in moving
children out of long-term foster care into adoptive families. Providing
permanent families for waiting children not only brings better outcomes
for children; it is a sound way of saving money. These savings are
realized in the short-term, with the federal and state governments
seeing a reduction in administrative costs for each child that moves
out of foster care and into adoption. The financial benefits to
government of moving children out of foster care and into adoption
depend on those adoptions remaining intact, however. Post-adoption
services play a key role in keeping adoptive families together and
healthy, which helps keep children from re-entering the foster care
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Barth, R., Lee, C., Wildfire, J., & Guo, S. (2006). ``A
comparison of the governmental costs of long-term foster care and
adoption.'' Social Service Review, 80(1). 127-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the strong evidence of the importance of post-adoption
services in recruiting and sustaining adoptive families, states
struggle to provide the services and support that adoptive families
need. One of the most significant challenges that the child welfare
system faces as it seeks to support adoptive families is the structure
of funding sources that can be used to pay for post-adoption services.
Even when funding is available for states to provide post-adoption
services, states still face the challenge of patching together
disconnected funding streams that have varying eligibility criteria and
allowable activities. The primary federal funding streams available for
post-adoption services are Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security
Act, Adoption Incentive program payments, and discretionary grants
through the Adoption Opportunities program. Despite the existence of
multiple funding streams that can pay for post-adoption services, none
of these programs provide dedicated post-adoption funding; states are
forced to choose between using the money to fund post-adoption services
or other critical social service needs. For example, the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program (Title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Social
Security Act) provides for 20 percent of each state's program funding
to be directed toward ``adoption promotion and support'' activities.
Even with this funding category being dedicated to the area of
adoption, states still must choose whether to direct the money toward
adoptive parent recruitment and other adoption promotion activities or
toward post-adoption support. With the Adoption Incentive program
rewarding states for increasing their number of adoptions, but no
consideration of the stability of those placements, there is a strong
financial incentive for states to invest in recruitment instead of
post-adoption services. Even within the Adoption Opportunities
program--a program designed to focus specifically to promote and
support special needs adoption--the grants in recent years have been
diverted away from core program activities. The program used to focus
on three main areas: recruitment of families for minority children in
foster care; post-adoption services; and field initiative grants.
Recent grant categories have directed funding instead toward marriage
education and non-resident fathers initiatives.
The reality of the current state of post-adoption services is that
they are provided by disparate agencies and government entities, with
varying eligibility requirements, limited and fragmented access, and
inconsistencies in the adoption competency of the service providers. A
report from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services describes the
fragmented status of post-adoption services around the country:
``Although the field has proposed an optimal continuum of care for
adoptive families, the provision of post-adoption services can best be
described as patchy rather than comprehensive. Services offered range
from information and referral networks to support for residential
treatment. Yet there is little uniformity in provision of services
across, and sometimes within, states.'' \7\ This lack of uniformity
creates great inequalities in the amount of support that adoptive
families receive depending on which state or county a family resides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002) Assessing
the Field of Post-Adoption Services: Family Needs, Program Models, and
Evaluation Issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The child welfare system faces great challenges in achieving its
goals of safety, permanence, and well-being for children. Although we
have seen great progress in the number of children in foster care who
have achieved permanence through adoption in the past decade, the
families who provide this permanence experience extraordinary
challenges trying to provide true stability for their children. A
dedication to providing permanence for vulnerable of children requires
acknowledging that the work does not end once a child's adoption is
finalized; true permanence requires a strong commitment to both
achieving permanence for children and sustaining permanent families so
that they can experience stability, security, and well-being. In order
for a child to truly experience the benefits of permanency, the family
must have the support it needs to manage the challenges the come from
raising a child with special needs. Without dedicated funding for post-
adoption services, states will continue to struggle to patch together
disconnected funding streams with wide variations in the availability
of services across the country.