[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING 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
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-993 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 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. 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 February 20, 2008, announcing the hearing............ 2
WITNESSES
Opening Statements:
The Honorable John Lewis......................................... 7
______
The Honorable Danny Davis, 7th Congressional District, Illinois.. 14
The Honorable Chaka Fattah, 2nd Congressional District,
Pennsylvania................................................... 9
The Honorable Michele Bachmann, 6th Congressional District,
Minnesota...................................................... 17
______
Gil Kerlikowske, Chief of Police, Seattle, Washington............ 26
Ken Deibert, Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Economic
Security--Children, Youth and Family Services, Phoenix, Arizona 34
Jim Purcell, Executive Director, Council of Family and Child
Caring Agencies, New York City................................. 41
Terry Cross, Executive Director, National Indian Child Welfare
Association, Portland Oregon................................... 51
Lupe Tovar, former foster youth, Tucson, Arizona................. 58
______
Hope A. Cooper, Project Director, Kids Are Waiting Campaign, The
Pew Charitable Trusts.......................................... 77
MaryLee Allen, Director of Child Welfare and Mental Health, The
Children's Defense Fund........................................ 82
Khatib Waheed, Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Social
Policy......................................................... 95
Pamela Davidson, Vice President, Government Relations, National
Council for Adoption........................................... 100
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
America Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
statement...................................................... 148
American Humane, statement....................................... 150
Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children, Letter... 156
The Honorable Wally Herger, a Representative from the State of
California 160
National Foster Care Coalition, Letter........................... 162
Thomas Atwood and Marc Zappala, statement........................ 169
American Indian Affairs, statement............................... 170
Ann Harrmann, statement.......................................... 172
DePelchin Children's Center, statement........................... 173
Gladys Carrion, statement........................................ 175
National Council on Disablility, statement....................... 179
National Governors' Association, statement....................... 182
IMPROVING THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008
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 10:01 a.m., in
room 1100, Longworth 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) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 20, 2008
ISFS-15
Jim McDermott Announces A Hearing on
Improving the Child Welfare System
Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support, today announced a hearing to review
legislative proposals designed to improve America's child welfare
system. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, in
the main committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building,
beginning at 10:00am.
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:
The child welfare system, which is administered by State and local
agencies with Federal financial participation and oversight, is
responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable
children and families under its supervision. The system faces numerous
challenges in ensuring positive outcomes for these children. Between
2001 and 2004, in its first round of Child and Family Service, Reviews,
the Department of Health and Human Services found that no State
achieved all of the Federal outcome measures for ensuring the safety,
well-being, and permanency of children. These evaluations generally
indicated that States were most adept at ensuring children were not
exposed to repeated child abuse and neglect and remained in their homes
whenever appropriate and possible, and that States faced the greatest
difficulty in achieving permanent and stable living arrangements for
children, enhancing the capacity of families to meet the needs of their
children, and ensuring the provision of health care services for kids
in care.
Researchers, commissions, and program administrators have
identified certain features of the child welfare system that may hamper
efforts to promote the well-being of at-risk children. Many have
pointed to the current Federal financing structure for child welfare
activities, which is progressively covering fewer children in need of
foster care, while also inadequately funding family-oriented services
that might reduce the need for foster care. Additionally, concerns have
been raised about the child welfare system's difficulties in:
recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce; providing adequate
assistance to relatives caring for children removed from their homes;
assisting foster children beyond the age of 18; and ensuring adequate
health care and educational oversight for children in foster care.
In an effort to comprehensively address these problems,
Subcommittee Chairman McDermott recently introduced the Invest in KIDS
Act (H.R. 5466). This legislation would: (1) create a new Federal-State
partnership to provide services aimed at reducing the need for foster
care; (2) ensure Federal foster care assistance for every child in need
of care; (3) support a qualified child welfare workforce; and (4)
connect foster children to support, family, health care and school
through such policies as allowing Federal foster care coverage to
continue until age 21, providing Federal guardianship payments for
relatives caring for children removed from their homes, and requiring
improved oversight of the health care and education needs of foster
children. Additional proposals have been suggested by other Members of
Congress, the Administration, national commissions, and advocacy
organizations.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman McDermott stated, ``We have no
greater responsibility than ensuring the well-being of America's most
vulnerable children. I want to begin addressing how we might better
meet that obligation, on a comprehensive basis if possible or on an
incremental basis if needed. These children are depending on us, and
failure cannot be an option.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on legislative proposals designed to
strengthen the child welfare system and improve the outcomes of
children in care.
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 March 12,
2008. 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. The meeting will come to order. We are
here today to discuss America's child welfare system and what
we can do to improve it. As a society, I believe we are judged
on how we treat the least among us. Knowing what we know about
the shortcomings in child welfare, let's hope that the judgment
day doesn't come too soon.
It is not that well-meaning people haven't tried over the
years to do some good. It is just that we have continued to
build upon a paradigm that doesn't begin to address the real
needs of the child welfare system in the 21st century.
Nearly 50 years ago, the State of Louisiana expelled 23,000
children from its welfare rolls because they were from
``unsuitable homes,'' which mostly meant their mothers were
unmarried. The Federal Government responded by saying
assistance must continue unless the homes were truly unsafe, in
which case the child would be removed. A year later, 1961,
Congress enacted legislation to share in the cost of caring for
children removed from their homes, and so was born the Federal
foster care system.
To be sure, many valuable improvements to the child welfare
system have been made over the years, but the basic
underpinnings of the Federal system are still based in that
history. It is why we cover only a portion of children in
foster care, those coming from only the very poorest families.
It is why the system still provides much more money for out-of-
home care than for prevention or family support.
I believe the time has come for a new vision to ensure the
protection, permanency, and well-being of America's vulnerable
children. Here are a list of the issues that most demand our
attention.
Forty percent of children who have been substantiated as
victims or abuse or neglect currently receive no follow-up
services whatsoever. Forty percent. Only 43 percent of the
children removed from their homes and placed in foster care
receive some Federal assistance in paying for that care, down
from 54 percent a decade ago. So, actually, we are worse off
today than we were 10 years ago.
The average child welfare caseworker's tenure on the job is
less than 2 years, and their caseloads are more than twice the
recommended level. 24,000 youngsters aged out of foster care
for the last year on record with little support and guidance.
Finally, the health care and educational needs of foster kids
are too often an afterthought rather than a priority.
The bill that we have recently introduced, Invest in KIDS
Act, H.R. 5466, to begin to address these major shortcomings is
what we are here today to talk about. I present this bill not
as the final word on reforming child welfare, but as a first
step toward developing a vision and a consensus on how we can
move forward.
The legislation is based on a few basic principles. First,
the Federal Government should act as a partner with our States
to improve outcomes for vulnerable children. This partnership
shouldn't begin and end with placing kids in out-of-home care.
That is about what the system is today. It also should extend
to family support and prevention services that might keep kids
out of foster care in the first place.
Such a commitment by the Federal Government does not mean
simply giving States a bag of cash and telling them to spend
it. It does mean saying to States, counties, and tribes that if
they are willing to invest their own money to improve outcomes
for at-risk children, the Federal Government will match that
investment.
This Federal match will continue only if the States'
reforms produce positive results, as demonstrated by hard data.
Too often we start programs, and then they go on forever and we
never look to see whether they work. That shouldn't happen.
Secondly, the Federal Government has an interest in every
vulnerable child, and our financing system for foster care
should reflect that fact. Instead, we are now providing for
fewer and fewer foster children with Federal assistance because
of an outdated eligibility standard.
It is the old standard of only serving children in families
eligible for welfare, but we froze the standard in 1996. A
dozen years ago, it became even more restrictive, as I say,
because we put rules in place that said, 1996 will be the date,
and we are not going to have any increase for wages. No
standard of living changes or inflation.
Third, finally, we must do a much better job of promoting
the well-being of foster kids. Too often this seems to stop at
ensuring their immediate physical safety. Of course, that is a
paramount interest, but it can't be our only concern.
There needs to be a greater interest in the daily lives of
these children, starting with health care, education, and their
connection to other family members. It is time to turn another
page in our efforts to ensure a better future for America's
most vulnerable kids.
Given the level of need and the urgency, I would prefer
immediate comprehensive reform. If that is not possible, I hope
to work with my colleagues on this Subcommittee and see if we
can make meaningful but incremental change. I always like to
put out what I really want, and then we will talk about what we
can get.
I look forward to working with all the Members of the
Subcommittee, including the Ranking Member, Mr. Weller, to
achieve this goal. I am reminded of something Dr. Martin Luther
King said: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. There is injustice in the child welfare system
today that does not, and cannot, fully protect innocent
American children. It is up to us to make a difference.
I now yield to Mr. Weller for any opening comments that he
may have.
Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Welcome to my colleagues Mr. Fattah, Mr. Davis, and
Ms. Bachmann before our Subcommittee. Good to have you here,
and appreciate the time you are taking as well as the witnesses
that are going to participate in today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing provides us another
opportunity to review proposals to our Nation's child welfare
system. As a series of hearings in this and prior Congresses
have shown, there is a lot of work to do.
Chairman McDermott recently introduced legislation we will
discuss today. I first want to thank the Chairman for including
several provisions that I myself have worked on for many years.
One provision tracks my legislation, H.R. 2314, to harmonize
Federal reimbursement rates for training child welfare workers.
Mr. Purcell, on behalf of the Child Welfare League of
America, rightly asks, ``Where private, usually not-for-profit
agencies are caring for the public's children, why deny them
access to the training deemed necessary for all workers?'' I
want to thank the Child Welfare League for supporting this
change and for recognizing my efforts on this.
Another provision would address concerns about child
welfare services for Native American children. Our first
Americans should be treated as full Americans, including in
child welfare programs. Mr. Pomeroy, a Member of this
Committee, and I have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 4688, along
with Mr. Camp, to provide more equitable access to foster care
and adoption services for Indian children in tribal areas. The
bulk of this legislation is included in the Chairman's bill as
well.
Finally, the Chairman's legislation builds on a resolution,
H.Res. 733, the Chairman and I co-authored this past year. This
resolution highlights the importance of improving the high
school graduation rates of foster youth. Under the Chairman's
legislation, States would be required to take action in this
area.
We also know that Congress needs to reauthorize the
Adoption Incentives Program, which expires this year, and is
widely regarded as a bipartisan success. As these provisions
reflect, there is ground here for bipartisan cooperation this
year, and in a way that could be fully paid for.
Fortunately, the Chairman's bill does not stop at just
these issues. For example, his legislation includes provisions
that would dramatically reduce the Federal matching rate for
foster care payments. Not surprisingly, States, according to
the HPHSA's testimony, urged the Subcommittee to consider
alternative funding solutions.
The Chairman's legislation also proposes a variety of ways
to increase spending in child welfare programs without
proposing ways to pay for all the additional costs. We are
still waiting to hear from the Congressional Budget Office what
the total cost of this proposal would be, but the likely high
costs of many of the provisions in the Chairman's legislation
make it probably pretty difficult to move this year.
That all suggests that we should work together. We have an
opportunity, I believe, to work in a bipartisan way, Mr.
Chairman, to identify provisions that not only have bipartisan
support but also that we can get done this year. Like you, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to get something done this year.
I look forward to working with the Chairman and other
Members of this Subcommittee to move that process forward. I
think we have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Weller. I will take you
up on that. We are going to work on this and see what we can
get done, even in an election year. It is not easy to get
things through the Senate this year, but we will try.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.002
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We welcome three of our colleagues here
today. I think it says something about this issue that three
Members of the House would come and spend their time to come
before this Subcommittee and talk about child welfare. Children
often get shortchanged in this system, and it is good to have
all three of you here.
We will begin with Mr. Fattah. I would say anything you
want to put into the record, you are certainly welcome to do,
but you have 5 minutes to tell us what is on your mind.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHAKA FATTAH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you and the Ranking
Member in the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. I
appreciate the opportunity, as I know my colleagues do, to
testify before you.
We have a shared interest in this matter, and there is a
great deal of concern, and as a Member of the Appropriations
Committee looking at the challenges that our young people face.
I have remarks that we would like to submit for the record. I
will just talk for a minute on this subject.
In fiscal year 2005, we had some 890,000 children neglected
in the country. We had some 500,000 in foster care. Your bill
this year to deal with a comprehensive reform is critically
important.
I have also offered legislation to reestablish the White
House Conference on Youth and Children. This was begun under
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909. There were conferences
held by the President in 1919, 1930, and 1939, and the last one
in 1970. We would like to reestablish it, and focus
particularly in 2010 on the challenges in our foster care
system.
Of the 500,000 young people who were in foster care in
fiscal year 2005, which is the last data that I have available
to me, some 120,000 are awaiting adoption. There is a
tremendous challenge, and we think that by bringing the office
of the President into this matter--I know all of my colleagues
are familiar with the White House Conferences on Aging because
we all get engaged by seniors and organizations in our
districts around participation in that conference. This would
be an effort similar to that, and we think that it would really
help to bring light to some of the additional changes that we
need in our child welfare system.
So, I am here today. There are a lot of very good ideas. I
agree with the Ranking Member and the Chairman that there is
nothing partisan about this. This is a focus on young people
who do not yet have the opportunity to vote and have not bought
into Democrat or Republican. They are really grappling with
their life chances and we can improve them to the degree that
we do our work here. We should do that on a bipartisan basis.
Franklin Roosevelt once said that preeminently, the
presidency was about moral leadership and about being alert to
change and sensitive to the changes needed in our society. I
think there is no change more important than what it takes for
these young people in the shadows of our society, and neglected
in very real terms, and put them at the very front burner of
policy discussions around the future of child welfare services.
So, I join with the Child Welfare League of America and
with a host of others of my colleagues in moving the
legislation that I have introduced, which is H.R. 5461, but
also in support of comprehensive reform as embodied in the
Chairman's bill.
I thank you for your time, and I thank the Members of the
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaka Fattah follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.007
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Chairman McDermott, Ranking
Member Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 5466,
the Invest in KIDS Act.
My written testimony details how the subsidized
guardianship and adoption incentive provisions would help my
constituents and the nation. However, I wish to focus my oral
testimony on the importance of extending care until 21.
Recently, the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
University of Chicago released a comprehensive examination of
youth leaving foster care. The results clearly indicate that
youth who remain in care are more likely to attend college, to
complete college, and to delay pregnancy compared to their
foster care peers who exited care.
For instance, youth remaining in care are three and a half
times more likely to attend college, and have a 38-percent
reduction in the risk of becoming pregnant. An impressive
finding was that each additional year in care after age 18 was
associated with increased earnings of about 17 percent.
My home State of Illinois has been a leader in extending
foster care to age 21. As the Subcommittee moves forward, I
encourage you to consider some additions to this provision
based on the successes of Illinois' program. To ensure that
these youth benefit the most from extended protection, I have
four recommendations.
First, to help ensure program accountability, having a case
plan that outlines the steps that the youth and child welfare
system must take to achieve independence by 21 is essential.
Secondly, we have learned in Illinois that our foster care
policies need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
varying experiences of these youth. For example, we should
support youth in transitioning to adulthood regardless of
whether they enter higher education or the workforce.
Similarly, youth need a broad array of housing options to
meet their needs as they change over time. Further, youth need
the flexibility of coming in and out of the system. This is how
we parent our children. Our child welfare policies should be no
different.
Third, all youth exiting care at age 18 should be given the
option to remain in care, and we must avoid erecting any
barriers that make it difficult for youth to remain in care.
Finally, I strongly encourage you to extend care through
age 21. The Chapin Hall research is clear that fewer foster
care youth graduate from college by age 21. Although
approximately 28 percent of foster youth were enrolled in a 4-
year college at age 21, none of the foster youth had obtained a
degree from a 4-year college, compared to 8.1 percent of their
non-foster-care counterparts. If we cease care on the 21st
birthday, we remove critical support for these young people and
undermine them at a crucial time.
As policymakers, we have the ability and the responsibility
to make a difference in the lives of foster children. We must
use that ability to make sure that the downtrodden and
neglected of today are the achievers and leaders of tomorrow.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify in favor of this
legislation, but also to indicate the work we do on behalf of
children was actually done on behalf of future generations.
Songwriters said that our children are the future. Teach them
well, and let them lead the way.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here, and yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Danny Davis
7th Congressional District, Illinois
Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Weller, I thank you and the
Subcommittee Members for holding a hearing on the critical need to
reform our child welfare system to better protect our most vulnerable
citizens. I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson who defined
success--not as wealth or power--but as whether we leave the world a
bit better by improving the health of a child or by simply knowing that
``even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.'' The
legislative proposals we will discuss today share this goal--to provide
children with the stable, caring homes that they deserve.
I would like to speak in support of H.R. 5466, the Invest in KIDS
Act. This bill would greatly improve the child welfare system by
addressing the key deficiencies in our current system simultaneously.
Such a comprehensive approach is necessary. I wish to direct my
comments to three elements of the bill: subsidized guardianship,
extending foster care to age 21, and the adoption incentives program.
Central to my testimony is that our child welfare system must promote
permanency, be it through reunification with a child's birth family,
adoption, or legal guardianship.
Subsidized Guardianship
My home State of Illinois has been a leader in pioneering child
welfare reforms such as subsidized guardianship and extending foster
care to age 21. With 10 years of experience under our belts, Illinois
shows that subsidized guardianship works. Research clearly demonstrates
that kinship foster care families are safer, more stable placements
that are more likely to keep children connected with their siblings and
communities than non-relative placements. Further, these placements are
cost effective. In Illinois, cost studies found a projected savings of
approximately $48 million over 10 years compared to a matched control
group that did not have this option. In addition to these benefits, the
Government Accountability Office recently recommended subsidized
guardianship as a key policy to reduce the disproportionate number of
African American children in foster care. The KIDS Act would work to
redress this inequity by including subsidized guardianship as a viable
permanency option.
I am very pleased that the KIDS Act includes many of the key
provisions of H.R. 2188, the Kinship Caregiver Support Act, that my
colleague Tim Johnson from Illinois and I introduced. I am especially
pleased to see the allowance of separate licensing for kinship care
families. This provision recognizes that the requirements on families
to demonstrate a safe home should differ from strangers. A grandmother
in Chicago raising her two grandsons should not have to have a three
bedroom apartment and attend a set number of hours of parenting classes
annually to demonstrate her fitness to care for these young children.
As the Subcommittee moves forward with this legislation, I would
encourage you to consider two additional pieces of our Kinship
Caregiver bill. First, requiring states to notify specific relatives
when a child is placed in foster care will do much to encourage
relative caregiving. Second, to encourage older youth to exit to
permanency, expand eligibility for the Foster Care Independence Program
so that education and training vouchers as well as independent living
services are available to young people who exit foster care after age
14 to guardianship or adoption.
Extending Foster Care to 21
Further, I applaud Chairman McDermott for including the extension
of Federal support for foster care to age 21. Recently, the Chapin Hall
Center for Children at the University of Chicago released the most
comprehensive examination of youth leaving foster care since passage of
the Foster Care Independence Act. The study followed youth aging out of
the foster care system over three years. The results clearly indicate
that youth who remain in care are more likely to attend college, to
complete college, to have increased earnings, and to delay pregnancy.
An impressive finding was that each additional year in care after age
18 was associated with a $924 increase in annual earnings, after
controlling for youth characteristics that could affect later earnings.
These are all successes that we want for our own children, and we have
an obligation to provide the same protections to those in our care.
As the Subcommittee moves forward, I encourage you to consider some
additions to this provision of the KIDS Act based on the successes of
Illinois's program to ensure that these youth benefit the most from
extended protection. For example, to help ensure program
accountability, all stakeholders involved--be it the youth, the
agencies, or the courts--should have clear responsibilities. Having a
case plan that outlines the steps that the youth and child welfare
system must take to achieve independence by 21 is essential, and it
should continue to include a focus on permanency. Simply because you
are 18, 19, or 21, one still needs a permanent family. Moreover, we
have learned in Illinois that our foster care policies need to be
sufficiently flexible to accommodate the varying experiences of these
youth. Youth take different paths. Some go on to higher education; some
must work. We should support youth in transitioning to adulthood
regardless of what path they take. Similarly, youth need a broad array
of housing options. At times, youth may thrive in independent
apartments; at other times, they may need more supportive housing. We
should work with youth to ensure they can access the type of housing
that supports them best. We also must avoid erecting any barriers that
make it difficult for youth to remain in care until 21. It should be a
seamless process, not one with multiple steps that dissuade youth from
receiving support. Moreover, all youth exiting care at age 18 should be
given the option to remain in care, and youth need the flexibility of
coming in and out of the system. The research shows us that most youth
will take advantage of remaining in the system, but, if they choose to
leave, we must ensure they have a place to return. This is how we
parent our children. Our child welfare policies should be no different.
Finally, I strongly encourage you to extend care through age 21.
The Chapin Hall research clearly shows that few foster care youth
graduate from college by age 21. Specifically, at age 20 or 21, only
27.9 percent of youth who remained in foster care were enrolled in a
four-year college, compared to 71 percent of the general population of
21-year-olds. Moreover, only 1.9 percent of foster youth had obtained a
degree from a 2-year college compared to 43 percent of their non-foster
care counterparts. None of the foster youth had obtained a degree from
a 4-year college compared to 8.1 percent of their non-foster-care
counterparts. It is not fair to expect foster youth to become
independent at an earlier age than their non-foster-care peers. If we
cease care on the twenty-first birthday, we remove critical supports
for these youth and undermine them at a crucial time. Although this
would not be our intention, it would be the result.
Adoption Incentives Program
The Adoption Incentives Program is important because it encourages
States to build the infrastructure to support children who cannot
return to their families. The Invest in KIDS Act advances the policy of
promoting permanency by expanding the incentive program to include
subsidized guardianship. I hope that in the future we will be able to
reward States for improving their rates of placing children in
permanent homes via any of the three main paths to permanency:
reunification with the child's birth family, adoption, or legal
guardianship. The reauthorization of the incentives program also offers
an opportunity to address the unintended penalty to States with good
histories of moving children to permanency or States with large case
loads. Currently, qualification for and calculation of incentives is
based on the number of children moved to permanency, whereas using the
rate of children moved to a particular type of permanency would best
measure a State's success.
As Forest Witcraft said, ``A hundred years from now it will not
matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the
kind of car I drove, but the world may be different because I was
important in the life of a child. . . .'' As policymakers, we have the
ability and responsibility to make a difference in the lives of foster
children. We must use that ability to make sure that the downtrodden
and neglected of today are the achievers and leaders of tomorrow.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Bachmann.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE BACHMANN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Ms. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weller, Members
of the Subcommittee. Educational opportunities for foster
children is an issue that is near and dear to my heart because
over the years, my husband and I have welcomed 23 teenaged
foster children into our home through the Minnesota-based
Social Services Treatment Foster Care program.
After practicing tax law for several years, I had just
given birth to our fourth biological child, Caroline, and I was
ready to be working from home. My husband Marcus and I knew a
few families who had opened their homes to teenage foster
children, and we felt that it would be our privilege to do the
same.
We noticed many educational differences for our foster care
children. Rather than giving up on foster children, it is our
belief that we should be reaching out to them. We should be
working to end the self-fulfilling prophecy that foster
children just can't make it in school, and that instead of
perpetuating the statistical evidence stacked up against those
children, we need to embrace the view that it doesn't have to
be like this.
There is strong research to show that school transfers
cause disruptions in the learning process and lead to emotional
disruptions, including loss of friendships and relationships
with adults. This is a unique hardship of changing schools when
you change homes, and it is a cycle that we have the chance to
break.
Every child would benefit from high-quality education, and
foster children should not be punished because of the changes
in their home lives, changes over which they have little or no
control or say.
Instead of separating foster children from their trusted
friends and teachers, we should give them the opportunity to
stay at a school if it is working for them, and we should allow
families to choose the school that is best equipped to help
that foster child.
Last year I introduced legislation with my colleague,
Representative Jim Cooper, to enhance the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program and extend its school voucher scholarship
benefits to children of all ages. The Chafee program was
designed to help foster children successfully navigate the
difficult transition out of State care into independence at
adulthood. Childhood education is the key to adult
independence.
It gives older foster children access to better educational
opportunities by providing education and job training vouchers.
Many foster children could also benefit from these
opportunities at a younger age.
My legislation with Mr. Cooper is H.R. 4311, the School
Choice for Foster Children Act, which would also allow the
States to use the school voucher section of the Chafee program
so foster parents could receive appropriate funds to transport
their child to their original public school or to choose a
private school that would suit the foster child's needs.
My bill would not only allow foster children to attend a
school best suited to equip them, it would also give these
children, often for the first time in their lives, the
opportunity to belong somewhere. That is what they need, Mr.
Chair, an opportunity to belong, regardless of the life changes
in their home. It would provide them with much-needed
stability.
The longer we leave foster children without choices and
consistency, the longer studies show that they will fail in
school, fail in adulthood, something that won't serve them or
our country. Giving foster children the tools they need to
succeed in school will make our country stronger and give them
what they deserve, the American Dream.
I hope this Subcommittee will consider my proposal as you
look for ways to improve educational opportunities for children
in the foster care system. Again, I thank you, Mr. Chair, for
your interest in the needs of foster children; for Mr. Weller,
for Subcommittee Members, for holding this important hearing;
and for the opportunity to share my thoughts with my colleagues
and my experiences with you. I thank the Subcommittee for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michele Bachmann follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Michele Bachmann
6th Congressional District, Minnesota
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Weller, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to this important hearing to discuss ways we
can improve America's child welfare system.
Eight months ago, I was fortunate enough to speak with you about
these important issues and I appreciate this opportunity to once again
join you in discussing the educational disparities disadvantaged youth
face, particularly those affecting foster children.
As many of my colleagues may know, educational opportunities for
foster children is an issue near and dear to my heart because over the
years, my family welcomed twenty-three teenage girls into our home
through the PATH Social Services' Treatment Foster Care program.
After practicing tax law for several years, I had just had my
fourth biological child, Caroline, and was ready to work from home. My
husband, Marcus, and I knew a few families that had opened their homes
to teenagers in the foster care system and we felt it was our time to
do the same.
All of our girls were treatment level care teenagers, meaning they
all had psychiatric conditions involving severe emotional and
behavioral problems. Many suffered from eating disorders like anorexia
and bulimia and came from abusive, broken homes.
These girls had never really known what it felt like to be loved or
cared for, let alone received encouragement to do well in school in the
hopes of achieving a brighter future. Still worse, they were shuffled
from school to school when they changed from one set of foster parents
to the next just because their new home was in a different school
district than their previous one.
They were uprooted from their daily routine and separated from
their friends and from the teachers who were familiar with their needs.
The lack of stability undermined the encouragement they received from
foster families, caring teachers, and others truly interested in their
well-being.
My husband and I began to realize just how different the
educational experiences were for our foster children versus our
biological children.
It seemed as if our foster children were considered destined to
fail. Many were immediately put in remedial classes and were hardly
given the attention our biological children received. Though I hope
their school administrators and teachers meant well, it seemed they
were almost dismissed as ``problem children'' who weren't going to be
around for long, thus not worth the effort.
While our biological children would come home with tough
assignments and high expectations from their teachers, our foster
children would have little to no homework each week and would tell us
that extensive classroom time was wasted on things like watching long
movies instead of focusing on real academics.
Rather than giving up on these kids, we should be reaching out to
them. We should be working to end the self-fulfilling prophecy that
foster kids can't make it in school, instead of perpetuating the
statistical evidence stacked up against those children.
According to the National Conference of State Legislators, foster
children's poor performance compared to the general population is
reflected in ``high rates of grade retention, lower scores on
standardized tests; and higher absenteeism, tardiness, truancy, and
dropout rates.''
The American School Board Journal found that ``foster children
often repeat a grade and are twice as likely as the rest of the
population to drop out before graduation.''
It doesn't have to be like this.
There is strong research to show that school transfers cause
disruptions in the learning process and lead to emotional disruptions,
including the loss of friendships and relationships with adults. This
unique hardship of changing schools when changing homes is a cycle we
must break.
Every child deserves to receive a high-quality education and foster
children should not be punished because of changes in their home
lives--changes over which they have little to no control or say.
Instead of separating foster children from trusted friends and
teachers, we should give them the opportunity to stay at a school if it
is fulfilling their needs. We should also allow families to choose the
school that is best equipped to serve their foster child.
Last year, I introduced legislation with my colleague, Rep. Jim
Cooper, to enhance the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and
extend its school voucher scholarship benefits to children of all ages.
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Act was designed to help foster
children successfully navigate the difficult transition out of State
care and into independence at adulthood. Childhood education is the key
to adult independence.
The Chafee Program gives older foster children access to better
educational opportunities by providing education and job training
vouchers. But many foster children could also benefit from these
opportunities in their younger years.
My legislation, H.R. 4311, the School Choice for Foster Kids Act,
would allow States to use the school voucher section of the Chafee
Program so that foster parents could receive appropriate funds to
transport their child to their original public school or to choose a
private school.
My bill would not only allow foster children to attend a school
best equipped to serve them, but it would also give these children,
often for the first time in their lives, the opportunity to belong
somewhere regardless of whether their home life changes. It would
provide them much-needed stability.
The longer we leave foster children without choices and
consistency, the longer studies will show them failing in school and
failing in adulthood. Giving foster children the tools they need to
succeed in school will only make this country stronger; it will give
these kids a real chance to achieve the American Dream.
I hope the Subcommittee will consider my proposal as you look for
ways to improve educational opportunities for children in the foster
care system. And, I hope that you will feel free to draw on my personal
experiences to help inform your consideration of legislation impacting
foster kids.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Weller, and
Subcommittee Members for holding this hearing and for the opportunity
to share my thoughts and experiences with you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
One Member on this Subcommittee would like to make a
statement. Rather than sit down at the front desk, Ms. Berkley
would like to make a statement.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
for holding today's hearing to focus on ways the Federal
Government can do a better job in helping communities respond
to the needs of families, especially at-risk children.
Our nation's child welfare system is supposed to protect
children from neglect or abuse and to ensure that they grow up
in a safe and stable home. All too often under the current
financing system, this means that the child welfare system
steps in when the situation has gotten so bad that it is no
longer safe for the child to remain in the home, and removal
into protective custody is necessary.
This situation arises because the current system provides
open-ended funding for children in foster care, while flexible
funding for programs and services that allow kids to remain
safely at home have declined as a percentage of total Federal
child welfare support. For example, less than 15 percent of the
funding Nevada receives from the Federal Government can be
dedicated to helping prevent the need for foster care in the
first place.
The number of children in foster care in Nevada has grown
rapidly, I am very sorry to say. Between 2004 and 2006, there
was a 30-percent increase, and that is just in a 2-year period.
By 2006, it has gotten dramatically worse, there were over 5200
kids in Nevada in foster care.
Last May this Subcommittee held a hearing on challenges
facing our Nation's child welfare system. This hearing detailed
some of the challenges that the Clark County Department of
Family Services, which is in my district, struggled with in
protecting this very vulnerable population.
In response to that hearing and in support of ongoing
efforts in Nevada to improve our child welfare system, I
introduced the Partnership for Children and Families Act. I
also want to thank Mr. Tiberi of Ohio, another Member of the
Committee on Ways and Means not on this Subcommittee, for
working with me on this bipartisan legislation, and my
colleague Mr. Porter, who is here today, for holding hearings
on this very subject in Southern Nevada.
The Partnership for Children and Families Act has two main
provisions, and those are in H.R. 4207. Similar to Chairman
McDermott's Invest in KIDS Act, my bill would do away with the
AFDC look-back and extend Federal foster care maintenance
assistance to all children in need.
The second provision would grant States with greater
flexibility in how child welfare funds are spent. I think this
is particularly important. This would be accomplished by
providing States with the option to apply to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to establish a baseline of projected
days in out-of-home care experienced by children.
Any savings achieved by reducing the total number of days
in care would be reinvested in family preservation, support
services, reunification services, adoption promotion, or to
improve training of the child welfare workforce. States would
also be required to provide a detailed plan on how the amounts
provided to the States would be reinvested, and to maintain
their share of funding.
I want to commend Chairman McDermott on his wide-reaching
child welfare reform package, and I commend the Members who
have testified before the Subcommittee on this panel for their
work on this very important issue. I hope that the Members of
the Subcommittee can work together to help promote needed
changes to Federal child welfare programs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Porter, you would like to make a statement, too.
Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Imagine sitting at home as a child, maybe five or 6 years
old. You have been sitting there watching a television program,
and have a couple strangers knock at the door. You are told
that you have to round up all of your clothes and all of your
belongings and you have to leave immediately to go to another
home.
I can't imagine the pain that that causes for a child. It
happens time and time again as we try our best to serve those
children that need our help the most. I can't imagine sitting
there and having two strangers say, you have to leave now.
I applaud all those that are in the child welfare services
across the country. We have had serious challenges in Nevada,
as my colleague, Congresswoman Berkley, mentioned, but not
unlike other States, the system is broken and we need
additional help.
I appreciate being able to cosponsor H.R. 5461 with my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah. As we look at the
children and youth across the country, we have a very
successful program in Nevada that I want to take a moment and
explain. It is probably one of the things that I am the most
proud of in my career.
We established a program when I was in the State
legislature where we put a fee--not a tax, a fee--on documents
that are being copied in Clark County, which is Las Vegas area,
and Washoe County. It is now generating about a million dollars
a year to help foster kids.
It was my legislation, and what it does is it provides for
that young person, when they age out at 18, to have health
care, training, housing--because again, my kids are in their
twenties and they keep coming home. They have a home to come
back to, whereas a child at 18 is on the street in many cases
without family or support.
I am very, very proud of that. I would encourage some of
our local governments to look at a similar program. Literally,
it is a dollar a document, and it is about a million dollars a
year helping these kids.
As we move forward, Mr. Chairman, I would ask one thing. I
appreciate your leadership and the steps that you are taking,
but there is about $600 million a year being spent on child
welfare in the United States for the Federal Government that is
servicing between 20 and 25 million children. We are not sure
at what stage because that census changes.
It is about $30,000 per child, and I would ask all of you
that are here today, and the Subcommittee as we look at ways to
help kids, we need to find out where that $30,000 is going per
child.
Now, I would oversimplify by saying we should write a check
for $30,000 and give it to every child. Of course, that is not
feasible but somewhere out there, there are programs that are
duplications. We want to make sure that that $30,000 per child
being spent by the Federal Government is going to the child.
That is part of our responsibility also. I think the White
House conference is one area that we can look to make sure we
can help these kids.
So, thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much. Obviously, my
colleagues, we have lots of different ideas. The more former
State legislators we have got around here, the better off this
thing will be.
Are there any questions for the Members who have come to
testify today? Mr. Weller.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to thank
my colleagues for joining us this morning. We are limited on
time. So, Ms. Bachmann, I will direct my question to you.
First I want to thank you for the leadership you have taken
on these issues, along with your colleagues. This is, I know,
the second time you have been before this Subcommittee, and
much of your work is based on your own personal experience. I
want to commend you for what you have done in opening your home
to so many children in need of a loving home. Thank you for
doing that.
Also, in checking, I discovered I was not a cosponsor of
your bill. I would ask if you would allow me to join you as a
cosponsor of your legislation.
I note one of the areas you and I have in common is we both
believe that a high school diploma is a ticket to a better
opportunity. Of course, your legislation works to address that.
Can you, in simple terms explain how kids lose out when
they are bounced from school district to school district,
particularly as they work toward that goal of trying to get a
high school diploma, from your experience and your work?
Ms. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weller, thank you so much
for the opportunity again to be here today. Of course we would
welcome you and every other Member of the U.S. Congress to be a
cosponsor on this legislation. We invite you and thank you for
your participation.
The way that we saw that children were disadvantaged was
truly by a loss of relationship and by a loss of stability.
When a child, as Mr. Porter had stated, is in the unfortunate
situation where someone comes into their life and says, you are
leaving the home that you have known and you are moving to
somewhere else, sometimes that can be a relief for a child and
sometimes that can be the beginning of a traumatization in a
child's life.
It isn't just the home life. It is the school life. As we
all remember and recall from our memories of school life, it is
really the relationships that we recall from our school
experiences.
Children have formed relationships with friends, with
coaches, with teachers and when foster children are torn up out
of that home and taken out of that school, everything they know
about their life has changed, overnight. There is nothing that
is the same.
Often what will happen to children emotionally, Mr. Weller,
is that children will just go within and they will start to
close doors in their life. They will close emotional doors.
They shut down. Their behavior will change.
Then they are thrust into a brandnew school with other
children that already have established relationships. They feel
broken anyway because of the brokenness they have experienced
in their family relationships. There is also a brokenness that
they feel because their friendships aren't the same.
We know how it is just when we change a situation in our
own lives as adults. We have to walk into a room with a new
group of people. We have to figure out how to make friendships.
Think of what that is, as Mr. Porter had stated, to a 6-year-
old, or to, much worse, a 15-year-old or a 17-year-old.
Many of the foster children who were in our home, Mr.
Weller, were between the ages of 14 and 18. Think of how
difficult that is, when you are at the end of your educational
career and you have to change, and you won't be completing your
senior year at the school you thought you would, or your junior
year, or your tenth grade year.
Mr. WELLER. For a typical teenager in foster care, what is
the average number of schools they would be under in what we
would call their high school years? Do you know that number?
Ms. BACHMANN. I would be happy to find that for you. I
don't have that on hand. I can tell you from our personal
experience, we kept a foster child in our home between 2 and 3
years. We were the last stop. Our goal was to make sure a child
was graduated from high school and was successfully launched
into the world, and I am happy to say we accomplished our goal.
All 23 of our children graduated, were launched into the world.
They came from many, many previous homes. They didn't just
go directly from their home of origin to our home. They came
from foster home to foster home. I will tell you what
Minnesota's numbers are. I would imagine, as Congresswoman
Berkley said, if they have had such an incredible increase of
30 percent in 2 years, you can imagine that those children have
untold instability in the years prior to that level.
So, I am sure there is a national number, and that could be
broken down. I would imagine the case of Ms. Berkley's State
that it has been traumatic for a great number of children.
Those numbers vary, but I will be happy to find that
information out for the Subcommittee.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, and thank you for your work. Again,
thank you to all my colleagues for joining us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Herger?
Mr. HERGER. Ms. Bachmann, again, what an awesome lady you
are. What an example you are for those of us who just raise
children. Now, my wife and I, mainly my wife, have nine
children.
All the challenges you have just with your regular
children, and to think of bringing in these young people who
have all the psychological problems that come with moving from
home to home, being uprooted. The example you are setting,
working with them, is so commendable.
I would like to ask, if I could, how would your legislation
strengthen those bonds and better ensure that children have a
stable high school education and better chances of graduation?
Ms. BACHMANN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Herger. I
appreciate that question. I have to deflect the praise. This
would not have been done without an extraordinary man. My
husband is an extraordinary man. How many men would be excited
about having five biological children, let alone 23 foster
children, into their home?
He has been a man who just adores children. Without him and
his love for little babies to high schoolers, this wouldn't
have been done. So, I give him a lot of the praise.
Also, we had remarkable foster children come into our home.
They are incredible children. They are just waiting to be known
and waiting to be loved. So, I just want to encourage anyone to
consider foster care. Consider taking up this challenge because
there are remarkable children that will give more into a
family's life than we will ever be able to give back to them.
You had asked the question, Mr. Herger, about stability and
what this legislation would do to enhance stability for
children. What it would do is try to maintain a core set of
relationships that a child has put together, as well as an
expectation for educational achievement.
One thing that we know is that not all schools are equal.
Schools even within my district aren't equal. Some schools may
be covering the Civil War. Some schools may be covering African
independence of nations. Some schools may be covering various
other topics.
If a child can stay in one educational environment, they
can continue down the educational path that they have known.
Their teachers also know the strengths and deficiencies that
that child has had to encounter in their own personal
educational struggles.
Having that depth of knowledge from an educator, as well as
perhaps school social workers, who know the intimate emotional
needs of that child, they can have the stability of the adult
care givers in their life.
For a child, sometimes the most important relationships
they have are their friends. Their friends are perhaps the
people that they have truly poured their heart out to. They
trust perhaps their friends in that school maybe more than the
adults in their lives. They have established those core
relationships.
That is what I hope to see occur, Mr. Herger, is that we
could allow for a child to maintain friend relationships that
they would have in one particular school, as well as perhaps
the social workers that are tied to that school, as well as the
educational professionals who really care about those children.
I saw extraordinary teachers, teachers who loved those
foster children, wanted to pour into their lives. They felt the
grief when that child would be uprooted out of that school and
put into a new school. The charts would go along with that
child, but not the care and the love that the adult
professionals had in that child's life.
That is what Mr. Cooper and that is what I am hoping to
maintain for this child, is the level of relationships and
stability and continuity so that a child can then go on and be
successful, make their way in the world.
If we just give them a chance, they will succeed. I know
that, but we need to give them the tools that every child
needs. Those are love, care, stability, and hope springs from
that.
Mr. HERGER. How would your legislation help bring that
about?
Ms. BACHMANN. What it would allow is that a child would
have the chance through this Chafee legislation to not only
have the opportunities at the college level, but from high
school down. Whatever age that child would be, if they are in
the public school system, they would have the ability to be
able to stay in that school.
Whether it would be through help with transportation or
whether it would be if the child was, say, in a private school,
they would be allowed to stay in that private school. Today
that isn't allowed. I know with our foster children, they
didn't have that privilege to do so.
We had children that wanted to stay in a previous school.
The children asked me if they could stay. I was prohibited from
even paying for their private education because the system
didn't allow that.
Mr. HERGER. If I am not already, I would like to also be a
cosponsor of your legislation.
Ms. BACHMANN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Herger.
We will be delighted to add you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Let me ask a question of Mr. Fattah and
Mr. Davis. Getting kids into school and keeping them in school,
how does the legislation that you have been talking about
affect that?
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It just happens that my
congressional district has more children in foster care than
any other congressional district in the nation. It also has
more children being raised by grandparents than any other
district in the nation.
What the legislation will do is it will allow children--
because some children don't move as rapidly as others--to be
extended in care to the point where they are beyond 18. By 18,
many foster children have not graduated from high school
because they have, as Ms. Bachmann indicated, been moved
around. They have fallen behind. They have had difficulty. So,
simply extending the ability for them to remain in care to 21
would go a long ways toward making sure that they had the
opportunity to at least graduate from high school.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I would hope that you would take a look
at Subtitle D on page 58 of our bill and give us your opinion
about how that would affect the issue that you are both worried
about. I think it is an issue that is covered in the bill
because we recognize the difficulty of moving kids around and
moving them from school to school.
How can we make it possible for States to come up with
comprehensive programs to do that? So, I would welcome your
comments on the bill, and we thank you very much for coming
before us and testifying.
We are facing one vote on the floor. I think it might make
sense to just go and vote and then come right back.
[Recess.]
Chairman MCDERMOTT. If the people in the audience will
please take their seats, we will begin the hearing. We have got
about an hour between now and the next vote, so we would like
to get through this panel for sure.
We will begin with the police chief from my home city, Gil
Kerlikowske. We are glad to have you here, Chief. The floor is
yours. Any statements you want to make will be put into the
record, as with all of you. Whatever remarks you want to make
beyond that statement is fine.
STATEMENT OF GIL KERLIKOWSKE, CHIEF OF POLICE,
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Chief KERLIKOWSKE. Thank you, Chairman McDermott and
Ranking Member Weller, and the other Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this.
I have been in law enforcement for 35 years. I have been
the chief of police in Seattle since 2000. I am the current
president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and I am also
the Chairman of the board of directors of Fight Crime: Invest
in Kids. That is an organization of more than 3500 police
chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and the victims of violence who
have come together to take a very hard-nosed look at research
on what can keep kids from becoming criminals.
Law enforcement leaders know from their firsthand
experience that child abuse and neglect is often only the first
chapter in a tragic story of violence. Abuse and neglect
increase the likelihood that a child will engage in later
violence.
I commend you, Chairman, for this recent introduction of
H.R. 5466, the Invest in KIDS Act. This legislation would
constitute an important first step toward long-needed
improvements in Federal child welfare policy, including
providing greater resources for services to reduce the need for
foster care, including prevention services, providing needed
enhancements in Federal foster care coverage for abused and
neglected children, strengthening the child welfare workforce,
and expanding States' ability to serve youth who are aging out
of foster care.
Each year an estimated 2.7 million children in America are
abused or neglected, including 900,000 cases that are actually
investigated and verified by overburdened State child
protection systems. More than 1400 children die from abuse and
neglect each year, and over half of them were previously
unknown to these child protective services.
Children who survive abuse or neglect carry emotional scars
for life. The best available research indicates that based on
confirmed cases of abuse and neglect in just 1 year, an
additional 35,000 violent criminals and 250 murderers will
emerge as adults who would not have become violent criminals if
not for the abuse or neglect they endured as kids.
Fortunately, there are evidence-based home visiting
programs that are proven to prevent child abuse and neglect and
reduce later delinquency. For example, the Nurse Family
Partnership home visiting program randomly assigned at-risk
pregnant women to receive in-home visits by nurses, starting
before the birth of their first child and continuing until the
child was age 2. NFP, these Nurse Family Partnerships, cut
child abuse and neglect in half, and they reduced kids' and
moms' later arrests by 60 percent. That saved an average of
five dollars for every dollar invested. Other models of home
visiting, such as Parents as Teachers and Healthy Families of
America, have also demonstrated reductions in injuries and
abuse and neglect.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of at-risk families
nationwide do not have access to quality home visiting.
Therefore, we recommend that Congress provide funding
specifically for the evidence-based home visiting programs for
at-risk families through the Education Begins at Home Act
sponsored by Representatives Danny Davis and Todd Platts.
Conversely, proposals such as those in the fiscal year 2009
Administration budget would, at State option, remove the long-
time Federal guarantee of foster care room and board funds for
the protection of abused or neglected children, and it would
jeopardize the safety of these children. Such proposals should
be rejected by the Subcommittee.
Currently, Title IV-E dollars cannot be used for
prevention. We commend you, Chairman McDermott, for your
efforts to provide IV-E resources for prevention and other
services through a new child and family services State-planned
component.
We believe that to best achieve the goal of substantially
increased resources for prevention, a minimum portion of
States' efforts pursuant to the State plan component should be
specifically designated for evidence-based activities to
prevent child abuse and neglect.
Historically the States have used multi-purpose funding for
prevention services only after they have met needs related to
kids who have already been abused or neglected, except where
funding is specifically designated for prevention, such as the
Title IV-B Promoting Safe and Stable Families.
Let me conclude by saying that keeping the Title IV-E
foster care room and board payments as an uncapped entitlement,
and increasing funding for prevention would provide the money
to break the cycle of violence caused by child abuse and
neglect.
I talk to a lot of my colleagues around the country. We
have seen a lot in our many, many years of law enforcement
services, but I don't think there is anything that has made
more of an impression on us than the cases of child abuse and
neglect.
I can remember as a young detective sergeant--I can close
my eyes and visualize today, 30 years later--being in a
hospital emergency room looking at the body of a 2-year-old
girl who had been killed by her mother's boyfriend. I think
today, 30 years later, if we can prevent those kinds of things
through these proven, evidence-based programs, we are so much
better off. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Gil Kerlikowske follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.012
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Chief.
The next witness is Kenneth Deibert, who is the deputy
director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security and
Division of Children. Mr. Deibert.
STATEMENT OF KEN DEIBERT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC SECURITY--CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. DEIBERT. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Weller, thank you
for the opportunity to spend some time with you today. I am
here on behalf of the American Public Human Services
Association and the National Association of Public Child
Welfare Administrators.
Our Members are deeply committed to improving the practice
of child welfare to assure vulnerable children are protected,
and just as importantly, to assure that they have every
opportunity to grow and develop in a supportive family
environment.
A longstanding concern of State and local child welfare
administrators has been the lack of flexibility in the current
funding structure for child welfare services. Current Federal
funding mechanisms do not allow States the ability to
effectively develop and support the array of services needed to
improve outcomes for children and families.
Nationally, there are approximately 500,000 children in
foster care on any given day. We believe the funding system
should reward States for reducing the number of children
entering foster care, not punish them as the current funding
system does.
In Arizona, the need for realignment of resources was
recognized a number of years ago when the number of children in
foster care was increasing at an annual rate of 20 percent.
With the support of Governor Napolitano and the legislature, we
have invested in services designed to keep families together.
Due to this commitment to families, we have seen a decrease in
the number of children who are being placed in foster care.
The Invest in KIDS Act represents an alternative approach
to Federal funding that will assist States like Arizona to
safely further reduce the number of children in foster care by
helping families rebuild their lives.
Today, because of the limitations placed on how Federal
funds can be used, States struggle to find ways to provide
comprehensive services for those families who are reported to
the child welfare system. The provision of preventative
services, in-home services, and post-permanency services
ensures more children can remain in their homes when it is safe
to do so. These services are critical components in the
continuum of services we need to strengthen families.
It makes fiscal sense to fund the up front parts of the
child welfare system to prevent more children from entering
foster care. H.R. 5466, in our view, does make significant
strides toward resolving these current funding limitations. We
do, however, urge the Subcommittee to reevaluate the necessity
of the proposed FMAP reduction and the cap on administrative
reimbursements.
We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance
of supporting and retaining a qualified child welfare
workforce. States' ability to improve outcomes for children and
families are highly dependent upon their ability to hire and
retain qualified staff that are able to work collaboratively
with families and our communities. Just as importantly as
having a qualified staff is the need to assure that staff has
realistic caseloads.
Supporting youth who have been in the foster care system up
to age 21 is simply good policy. It is the right thing to do
for so many reasons. We fully support the inclusion of this
provision in the resolution to do just that.
There have been significant shifts in the child welfare
system over the last decade as the number of children living
with relatives and other kinship providers increases. However,
a lack of flexibility in the current Federal funding structure
does not support children in kinship placements in obtaining
permanent legal status through relative adoption or
guardianship.
We believe that an expanded Federal partnership with States
for this critical component of our work will lead to increased
permanency for children. We believe that with the additional
support provided in this resolution for adoption and
guardianships, States will continue to have the resources
needed to further improve the outcomes for children through
adoption and guardianship. We appreciate the support of the
Subcommittee in recognizing this very important option.
Coming from the great State of Arizona, which is home to 21
federally recognized tribes, I can't pass up on this
opportunity to voice our full support for the resolution's
recommendation to allow tribes to apply directly for Title IV-E
funding as they currently do under Title IV-B.
I want to thank Chairman McDermott and Members of this
Subcommittee for their thoughtful and innovative approach to
dealing with a major overhaul of the current funding structure
for child welfare services. We believe the implementation of
the components of this resolution will go a long way to
providing States and local government with the flexibility
needed to address our common interest of protecting vulnerable
children and supporting families.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ken Deibert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Deibert, Deputy Director,
Arizona Department of Economic Security--
Children, Youth and Family Services
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to spend some time with you today. I am Ken Deibert,
President of the National Association of Public Child Welfare
Administrators. I am here today to testify on behalf of NAPCWA, an
affiliate of the American Public Human Services Association, and the
State of Arizona, where I serve as the Deputy Director of Children,
Youth, and Families at the Department of Economic Security, the agency
responsible for our State's child welfare programs. Our members are
deeply committed to improving the practice of child welfare to ensure
that vulnerable children are protected, and just as importantly that
they have every opportunity to grow and develop in a supportive family
environment.
We appreciate Chairman McDermott's and the Subcommittee's
continuing efforts to develop legislation that, in our view, will
improve outcomes for vulnerable children by investing in families,
improving accountability in the child welfare system, and finding safe,
stable, and permanent homes for foster children.
Title I--Providing Services to Strengthen Families and Reduce the Need
for Foster Care
A long-standing concern of State and local child welfare
administrators has been the lack of flexibility in the current funding
structure for child welfare services. Current funding mechanisms do not
allow States the ability to effectively develop and support the array
of services needed to improve outcomes for children and families.
We recognize that this comprehensive effort to address many of the
current shortcomings of the Federal foster care system represents
careful compromise and consideration of maintaining sufficient Federal
supports for our most vulnerable children and families. Currently,
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the primary Federal funding
source for foster care, imposes a perverse incentive on States to
remove children from their families and maintain them in out-of-home
care placements. This policy framework is not only harmful to children
and their families, it places onerous fiscal burdens on States as they
strive to support safe and timely permanency options for children.
Nationally, there are approximately 500,000 children in foster care
on any given day.
According to nationally collected data, under the current fiscal
structure, the number of children eligible for Federal financial
support is projected to decline by approximately 5,000 children each
year. We believe the funding system should reward States for reducing
the number of children entering foster care, not punish them, as does
the current funding system. In Arizona, the need for realignment of
resources was recognized when the number of children in foster care
increased by an annual rate of 20 percent. In September 2005, Arizona
published ``Strengthening Families: A Blueprint for Realigning
Arizona's Child Welfare System.'' One of our key strategies was the
implementation of intensive in-home services to enable more children to
remain at home when safe to do so. With the support of Governor
Napolitano and our legislature, we have been able to redirect some of
our State funds to accomplish this goal. Since July 2003, the number of
children served safely in their homes in Arizona has increased by 67
percent and the number of children in foster care has decreased by 2
percent. Increasing Arizona's capacity to provide in-home services was
the right thing to do, but at the same time placed limitations on our
ability to fund other aspects of the continuum of services needed to
truly strengthen our child welfare system. The Invest in KIDS Act
represents an alternative approach to Federal funding that will safely
reduce the number of children in foster care and lead to improved
outcomes for children and strengthened families.
Title II--Ensuring Federal Foster Coverage for All Children in Need
The current Federal framework does not support a comprehensive
service system that encompasses prevention, efforts to move children
quickly and safely to permanency, and post-permanency services. The
funding opportunities proposed by this resolution for the provision of
preventative services, in-home services, and post-permanency services
will ensure more children can remain in their homes when safe to do so.
These services are a critical component in the continuum of supports we
need to strengthen families. It makes fiscal sense to fund the up-front
part of the child welfare system to prevent more children from entering
foster care. Rather than ensuring effectively aligned resources, the
current system encourages children remaining in placements outside of
their homes and families, while failing to intervene before this level
of involvement is imminent. On average, only 10 percent of Federal
funding supports prevention. Moreover, a recent analysis by Prevent
Child Abuse America estimates that the nation's total annual cost of
child abuse--including the responses of the foster care, juvenile
justice, law enforcement, and health care systems--totals nearly $104
billion.
Under the existing financial reimbursement structure, Title IV-E
eligibility is directly tied to the 1996 Aid to Families and Dependent
Children income eligibility requirements, which has not been adjusted
for inflation. States have seen a steady decline in the number of
children eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement because of the current
eligibility formula. Since 1998, 35,000 fewer children have been
eligible, and States have lost an estimated $1.9 billion in Federal
foster care support.
In our view, H.R. 5466 does make significant strides toward
resolving the current funding limitations. The flexibility provided by
this resolution would allow States to support families of children who
enter foster care to help them rebuild their lives and welcome children
home as quickly as possible. In Arizona, we were fortunate to receive a
IV-E demonstration waiver that has allowed us to provide intensive,
flexible services using IV-E funds to expedite reunification of
children with their families. Our initial results are very promising.
In the first year of this project, children and families who
participated in the program saw a 43 percent higher rate of
reunification than the comparable control group. We appreciate the
Subcommittee's effort to expand opportunities for States to develop
programs such as our intensive family intervention program.
The draft legislation proposes reducing all Federal Medical
Assistance Percentages in order to offset the Federal financial burden
of de-linking. NAPCWA supports Federal policies that optimize State
flexibility. This act's proposal to de-link IV-E eligibility is a
crucial element in reforming the child welfare system. In light of
State fiscal difficulties in the States, and the uncertainty related to
the rising cost of child welfare, caseload dynamics, and other factors,
we urge the Subcommittee to consider alternate funding solutions.
NAPCWA would like the opportunity to work with States to explore the
implications of this proposed legislation and offer feedback that may
guide the Subcommittee in making future amendments.
Further, the proposed cap on administrative reimbursement will
limit State flexibility in covering integral service components.
Administrative reimbursement covers costs related to determining
eligibility, setting rates for foster homes and institutions, and the
proportionate share of related agency overhead. We urge the
Subcommittee to reconsider limitations in administrative reimbursement.
I represent the great State of Arizona which is home to 21
federally recognized tribes, I can't pass up this opportunity to voice
our full support for the tribes' ability to apply for their own Title
IV-E funding as they do now under Title IV-B.
Title III--Supporting a Qualified Child Welfare Workforce
States continue to make investments in improving the competence of
the child welfare workforce and lowering caseloads. As we continue to
increase the demand for better outcomes from the child welfare system,
then we should invest in improving the quality of the child welfare
workforce.
We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of
supporting and retaining a qualified child welfare workforce. State
capacity to improve outcomes for children and families is highly
dependent upon the ability to hire and retain qualified staff able to
work collaboratively with families and communities. Ensuring realistic
work loads is as important as having qualified staff.
We appreciate that this resolution acknowledges the importance of
the critical role caseload plays in our ability to achieve safety,
permanency and well-being for children. The Child Welfare Service
Quality Improvement grant program described in Title III of the
proposed legislation is a necessary and worthwhile program. States
struggle to support their child welfare workforce in ways that allow
them to successfully serve children and families. The grant program
provides funding to States allowing them to increase the capacity and
quality of their workforce by increasing coordination. Providing
workers with the support, training, and resources they need is a
crucial piece of the child welfare system. Currently, many case workers
are required to meet a near impossible level of service to their
clients. Workers are expected to be liaisons among the court system,
mental health, juvenile justice, substance abuse, and child welfare
systems, as well as other systems. The vast array of systems that
workers touch can be particularly demanding and difficult. Allowing
States to receive increased funding to improve coordination among these
entities will allow workers to spend more time and energy focusing on
working directly with children and families.
We fully support giving States the opportunity to access increased
reimbursement to cover training expenses for a broader spectrum of
professionals who are all integral to a high-performing, comprehensive
child welfare system. We strongly support the Subcommittee's expansion
of the scope of training reimbursement.
Title IV--Connecting Children to Support, Family, Health Care, and
School
Subtitle A--Connection to Support
In the ``typical'' American family, youth are continually supported
by their parents until approximately age 24. The Federal system is
currently designed to provide support to youth until the age of 18--
although some States do have State-funded extended foster care
programs.
Youth exiting the foster care system do so with significantly
higher levels of need than their non foster care counterparts in the
areas of health, mental health, and physical and developmental
disabilities. Very often, their experiences in the foster care system
have contributed to or exacerbated their needs. One in four youth aging
out of the foster care system experiences post-traumatic stress
disorder. This population will require additional support services as
they develop independence and self-sufficiency in the areas of housing,
education, employment and permanency connections.
Allowing States the flexibility to continue funding foster care
services for youth to the age of 19, 20 or 21 significantly improves
States' abilities to ultimately improve outcomes for older youth.
Supporting youth who have been in the foster care system up to age
21 is good policy. It is the right thing to do for so many reasons. We
fully support the inclusion in this resolution provisions to do just
that.
Subtitle B--Connections to Family
There has been a significant shift in child welfare over the last
decade as the number of children living with relatives and other
kinship providers increases. It is estimated that about one-third of
all children in foster care live with relatives, many of whom are
grandparents. Kinship care may present a viable permanency opportunity
for children in foster care since it provides a stable and familiar
environment. State funds provide only limited financial assistance and
social work support to kinship placements, leaving families struggling
to maintain relative children in their homes. Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act mandates that Federal funding may only be allocated for
licensed foster care placements. Although kinship caregivers have the
option to become licensed, they often face barriers in the licensing
process stemming from issues of space in the home, background checks,
and lack of finances to support the child. Additional flexibility for
this funding would allow more relatives to receive support to raise
children in their own families, allowing more permanent homes for these
children.
Arizona, like many States, has recognized the critical role
relatives and foster parents can play in providing stable, long-term
support for children who cannot be reunified with their biological
families. About 14 percent of children who exit foster care in Arizona
achieve permanency through legal guardianship. Since 1994, eight States
have introduced subsidized guardianship programs through Federal
waivers that allow kinship caregivers the opportunity to become legal
guardians of a child, receive adequate financial support, and allow for
permanency for the children in their homes. These waiver programs,
while still in process, have shown very positive preliminary results.
Kinship guardianship assistance payments present States with another
viable permanency option that strengthens family connections for
children and improves outcomes. We support the draft legislation's
additional option extended to States for this program.
Family Connection Grants will competitively offer States the
opportunity to implement kinship navigator programs. States that
already offer these programs successfully assist kinship care providers
in navigating the complexities of the system to better support the
children in their care. We commend the Chairman's commitment to
improving relative caregivers' quality of care.
Adoption or guardianship provides many children for whom we are
responsible with a wonderful opportunity to have a family. Congress has
recognized the importance of connecting children with permanent
families by providing incentives to States for improving rates of
adoption of children in foster care. I am pleased to inform you that as
a direct result of these incentives, Arizona has been able to improve
our practice and services to adoptive families. This resulted in an
increase in adoptions of 62 percent since 2003. With the additional
support provided by this resolution, adoptions and guardianships will
continue to increase. We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in
recognizing the importance of children achieving permanency.
The proposed changes to the protocols surrounding the Adoption Tax
Credit potentially expand the financial support available to adoptive
parents. We also support the proposed extension and expansion of the
Adoption Incentive Program.
Maintaining strong sibling relationships among children in foster
care is a critical ingredient to positive outcomes. We strongly support
the proposed increased focus on placing siblings together unless the
safety and well-being of a child is compromised.
The Deficit Reduction Act has further reduced the funds that States
receive to support children and families. This act significantly
shifted major costs of providing services to children placed with non-
licensed relatives. Many States took action to attempt to mitigate the
loss, but were largely unsuccessful.
For example, Arizona has made a significant commitment to place
children with relatives. Over a third of our foster care population is
placed with relatives, most of whom are unlicensed. In June 2006,
Arizona estimated its Title IV-E administrative loss to be at about $15
million annually due to the requirement that all foster families must
meet all the licensing requirements for foster parents. In Arizona we
have been fortunate up to this point to have the support to replace
these lost funds, but with a looming shortfall in State revenues in of
over $1 billion in this current fiscal year, ongoing support is a
concern. We fully support providing States with the option to allow for
separate licensing standards for relatives in order to receive Federal
funding. This provision will greatly benefit relative caregivers and
children.
Subtitle C--Connections to Healthcare
Children in the child welfare system are more likely to experience
health and mental health issues than their peers in the general
population. We support the proposed Health Oversight and Coordination
Plan, but urge the Subcommittee to grant States additional funding to
ensure the effective implementation of this plan.
Subtitle D--Connections to School
Numerous studies have demonstrated that foster children achieve at
significantly lower rates educationally than other children. School
mobility poses a particular challenge to children in foster care; 65
percent of youth who have aged out experienced seven or more school
changes. The draft legislation would require that child welfare systems
work closely with local educational agencies to keep children in their
school of origin throughout placement changes, and facilitate smooth
and timely transitions. While we support the intent of this proposed
legislation, we feel that local educational agencies should also be
required to assume equal responsibility in supporting educational
outcomes for youth in foster care.
Conclusion
The fiscal year 2009 president's budget proposes level funding for
Protecting Safe and Stable Families. PSSF dollars are a flexible
funding source that allows States to provide comprehensive services to
families who come into contact with the child welfare system.
Additional funding for PSSF would increase the potential impact of the
Invest in KIDS Act.
NAPCWA fully endorses APHSA's membership in the Partnership to
Protect Children and Strengthen Families, a coalition of several
national, State, and local organizations. The partnership recommends a
series of reforms to the child welfare system that would strengthen its
ability to serve children and families. I am pleased that many of the
partnership's proposals are echoed in the Invest in KIDS Act. The
partnership's full statement is attached here for your review. I ask
that you consider how components from this statement may complement the
proposed legislation.
I want to thank Chairman McDermott and the Members of this
Subcommittee for their thoughtful and innovative approach to dealing
with a major overhaul of the current funding structure for child
welfare services. We believe that implementing of the components of
this resolution will further the efforts to providing States and local
governments with the flexibility needed to address our common interest
of protecting vulnerable children and supporting families.
We appreciate the intent of H.R. 5466 and your continued work to
improve outcomes for vulnerable children.
______
January 2008
Partnership to Protect Children and Strengthen Families
Changes Needed in Federal Child Welfare Law to Better Protect Children
and Ensure Them Nurturing Families
Organizations representing public human services directors, public
child welfare directors, private child and family service agencies,
unions representing child welfare workers, and advocates for children
(see attached list), have joined together in partnership to call on the
110th Congress to join them in a renewed commitment to protect the
Nation's children. The partnership will work for a system that better
protects all children by:
Supporting the full range of services necessary to prevent
child abuse and neglect;
Ensuring that all children who have been abused and
neglected, including those in foster care, have the services and
supports they need to heal; and
Guaranteeing the more than half a million children in
foster care the help they need not just to survive, but to thrive and
return to their families, or to live permanently with adoptive families
or legal guardians (often grandparents or other relatives).
We cannot afford to waste the potential of another child! It is
time for Congress to update outmoded financing strategies so the
Federal Government can better help States prevent child abuse and
neglect, protect and care for many more abused and neglected children,
support a high quality child welfare workforce, and do more to increase
accountability for outcomes for our most vulnerable children and their
families. This year marks a decade since Congress passed major
bipartisan child welfare reforms. Although progress has been made in
those 10 years, much more remains to be done. It is time to build on
gains made and lessons learned and for Congress to act now.
Innovations are underway in selected States and communities, but
the Federal-State partnership to help children and families in need
must be renewed and strengthened if we are going to ensure progress for
all children. Despite the efforts of creative leaders and dedicated
staff, too many children today still remain in harm's way. A child is
abused and neglected in America every 36 seconds. The Department of
Health and Human Services reports that only six of every ten abused and
neglected children get services. Those children who enter foster care
remain an average of nearly two and one-half years. An estimated
114,000 children wait in foster care for adoptive or other permanent
families. Eroding Federal supports reach fewer than half of the
children in foster care. Federal dollars for services to keep children
out of care, and to get them out and keep them out once they are placed
fall far short of the need. The average tenure of a child welfare
agency worker, who is often called upon to make life and death
decisions for children, is less than two years.
It will take all of us working with others across the country to
keep children safe and in nurturing families. We will need to invest
additional funds and to support a broad range of services and
supports--including prevention, treatment and post-permanency services.
On behalf of America's children, we ask Congress to act now to do its
part.
This partnership of diverse organizations recommends a
comprehensive package of reforms that will:
Guarantee 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 Title IV-E
to a block grant:
Promote investments in a broad continuum of services for
children and families by allowing states that offer services and
supports that safely reduce their foster care caseloads and
expenditures to retain the Title IV-E Federal funds they would have
otherwise used for foster care and reinvest those funds in a range of
services and supports that prevent child abuse and neglect, provided
that the state dollars no longer needed for foster care are similarly
invested.
Ensure federal, as well as state, financial support for
all children when they must be placed in foster care by eliminating the
income eligibility criteria applicable to Title IV-E, provided that
state funds currently used for foster care are reinvested in prevention
and treatment services for children who are at-risk of being or have
been abused or neglected.
Guarantee children have access to critical post-
permanency services by amending Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
to allow funds to be used to provide such services and supports. These
services will prevent the return to foster care of children who are
reunited with their parents, placed permanently with relatives or
adopted from care. They will also help older youth who ``age out'' of
foster care successfully transition to adulthood.
Guarantee children placed permanently with legal
guardians (often grandparents or other relatives) receive federal, as
well as state, financial support by amending Title IV-E to allow funds
to be used for subsidized guardianships, when return home and adoption
are not appropriate options.
Ensure that children living with relatives while in
foster care have access to Title IV-E federal, as well as state,
financial support, so long as the relatives have met state licensing
standards that contain safety protections and criminal background
checks.
Assure that Native American children have access to
Federal support by allowing Indian tribes to have direct access to
Title IV-E funding.
Promote program effectiveness:
Improve outcomes for children by enhancing and sustaining
a competent, skilled and professional child welfare workforce by
allowing Title IV-E training funds to be used for training on all
topics relevant to ensuring safety, permanency and well-being for
children and for training to all staff who work with children who come
to the attention of the child welfare system, including staff with
private agencies as well as public agencies, court personnel, and those
with expertise in health, mental health, substance abuse, and domestic
violence services.
Ensure that all children involved with the child welfare
system receive intensive, quality casework services by increasing the
Title IV-E Federal match for casework services from 50 percent to the
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) and thus increasing the
capacity of child welfare agencies to address the needs of children and
families. Assessments of children and families' needs, development and
refinement of permanency plans, recruitment, licensing and supervision
of foster and pre-adoptive parents are at the heart of child welfare
casework and these activities should be reimbursed as more than simple
administrative expenditures. General overhead and purely administrative
expenditures would continue to be reimbursed at a 50 percent match.
Promote rigorous evaluation of programs and practices and
prevent the loss of critical child welfare funding by allowing states
to reinvest penalties and disallowances back into the child welfare
system to conduct evaluations of promising approaches to achieving
safety, permanence and well-being for children and to implement
practices and approaches that have been demonstrated to improve these
outcomes for children.
Enhance accountability:
Enhance fiscal accountability by requiring states to
report annually on the funds spent on particular services and
categories of services; the number of children and families provided
each service; the duration of those services; and the number of
children and families referred for services who are unable to access
such services.
Evaluate the effectiveness of this package of reforms
five years after enactment by directing the Government Accountability
Office to conduct a study of: (1) enhancements of preventive,
permanency and post-permanency services; (2) changes in foster care
placements; (3) recruitment, retention, and workloads of child welfare
workers; and (4) improved outcomes for children who are at-risk of
entering or have entered the child welfare system.
Increase the knowledge about outcomes for children by
allowing states to submit additional state level data during the Child
and Family Service Review process.
National Organizations
Alliance for Children and Families
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Humane Association
American Public Human Services Association
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Association of American Indian Affairs, Inc.
Black Administrators in Child Welfare
Catholic Charities USA
Center for Law and Social Policy
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Defense Fund
Children's Research Center
Children's Rights
First Focus
Foster Family-based Treatment Association
Generations United
Lutheran Services in America
National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds
National Association of Counsel for Children
National Association of Counties
National Association of Social Workers
National Child Abuse Coalition
National Foster Parent Association
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Network for Youth
Prevent Child Abuse America
Voice for Adoption
Voices for America's Children
*Organizations in bold were the original partners.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Purcell is the chief executive officer for the Council
of Family and Child Caring Agencies of the State of New York, I
believe. Mr. Purcell.
STATEMENT OF JAMES PURCELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COUNCIL OF
FAMILY AND CHILD CARING AGENCIES, NEW YORK STATE
Mr. PURCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Weller, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am the
CEO of the Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies in New
York State. I am also here today representing the Child Welfare
League of America. I am pleased to represent and speak in
support of the bill on behalf of both organizations.
The Child Welfare League includes hundreds of State and
local direct service organizations, including both public and
private. CWLA members provide a range of child welfare
services, from prevention to placement services, including
foster care, kinship, and services provided in residential
settings, as well as adoption.
The New York State Council of Family and Child Caring
Agencies, which I lead, is the statewide membership
organization representing over 110 not-for-profit providers who
contract with their public sector partners to provide foster
care, preventive services, and aftercare services. Our agencies
provide foster care, for example, to over 80 percent of the
children in New York State, and include virtually all the
children who are placed by New York City.
We thank you for inviting me to testify today in regard to
H.R. 5466, the Invest in KIDS Act. The Child Welfare League, as
well as the Council, express our strong support for this
legislation. I am pleased to be here the same week that CWLA is
holding its annual national conference.
We are grateful to be here along with Representatives
Fattah and Porter, cosponsors of an important bill that will
seek to reestablish the White House Conference on Children and
Youth, a conference that we see as serving as a tool to
implement the reforms we hope this Subcommittee will be able to
help guide through passage in Congress.
We have an important responsibility and obligation to the
children that we are focusing on during this hearing. In fact,
it is I think important for you as Members of Congress to
reflect on the fact that those children are in foster care in
some part because of laws that Congress has passed and the
states have implemented. It makes it incumbent on all of us to
meet our obligations to these young people who are being raised
in the custody of the government agencies.
I need to comment on several aspects of the bill. First,
the proposal to open eligibility to all kids in foster care is
absolutely critical. To someone on the front line, I have the
problem of trying to explain to frontline caseworkers why they
need to document financial income from years ago to determine
whether or not a child is eligible for Federal support.
The Federal Government ought to be interested in all of its
children who have been abused and neglected, and not just
those--those increasing few, actually, given the problems in
the current statute--who meet financial eligibility levels.
Preventive services is an area which, as the previous
speakers have mentioned, has been woefully underfunded by the
Federal Government. In New York we have a program where the
State will provide 65 percent funding for preventive services
and the local governments put up 35 percent of the money.
In New York City, for example, over the last 5 years the
foster care population has been reduced by more than 50 percent
in large measure because we now serve 38,000 children who still
live with their families, keeping them safe and out of foster
care, and the foster care population has come down from around
40,000 to around 17,000 today.
The use of preventive services is absolutely vital. They
are an investment in families, and they avoid the separation
that comes with placing kids in foster care. The kinship/
guardianship proposals and the proposal to allow tribal
organizations direct access to Federal funding are also
critical in a modern and appropriate child welfare system.
Attention was drawn by some of the Members of the
Subcommittee and the previous congressional speakers about the
need to pay more attention to the well-being of children in
foster care, particularly their health, mental health and
education needs. It is ironic that we are talking about that at
the very moment that the CMS is proposing to, frankly, drive
another dagger in the heart of using Medicaid funds to support
the needs of children in foster care.
It is true that kids who come into foster care, having been
victims of abuse and neglect, often physical, sometimes sexual,
have an immense amount of physical, dental, and mental health
needs which we have an obligation to meet. The way that is done
under Federal funding rules is through the Medicaid program,
and making efforts to close those doors will devastate these
programs, and in fact, in some cases run the risk of turning
some of them back into orphanages which provide ``three hots
and a cot'' but no real treatment services to kids who
desperately need it.
I appreciate the comments of one of your colleagues who
talked about his own children in their twenties coming back
home. I am facing that myself. This idea that young people at
18, who have already had a very difficult life, can live
``independently'' at 18 is a myth, and we ought to extend the
eligibility for foster care up to age 21, and then provide
supports for kids leaving it after that.
Finally, I know I am out of time, but I need to point to
the workforce elements of the bill. The fact that we provide
foster care services for kids through private agencies but then
deny them the Federal funding support for training which public
sector workers can get is just nuts. The ability to open that
up, train our workers the way they need to be trained, is
important.
I noted in my testimony that New York State did a study
last year of a couple thousand workers, how they spend their
time, what they have to do. We found that those workers spent
an average of 54 minutes a month in face-to-face contact with
the kids and the families that they work with.
I submit to you that that is not enough. We have to lower
these caseloads. The New York recommendation level was to 12,
which is also the Child Welfare League standard. We have
caseworkers who have got over 20 cases. That is where they end
up spending 54 to 63 minutes a month in direct face-to-face
contact with kids. I submit to you that if the case file name
was Purcell or McDermott or Weller, we would expect a lot more
time with our caseworkers in order to resolve the issues and
get our kids home.
I thank you very much for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. James Purcell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Purcell, Executive Director
Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies, New York City
Chairman McDermott, Representative Weller and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, my name is Jim Purcell, I am the CEO of the
Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies in New York state. I am
also a member of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and am
pleased to be here today on behalf of both organizations.
The Child Welfare League of America includes hundreds of state and
local direct service organizations including both public and private,
and faith-based agencies. CWLA members provide a range of child welfare
services from prevention to placement services including adoptions,
foster care, kinship placements, and services provided in a residential
setting. CWLA's vision is that every child will grow up in a safe,
loving, and stable family and that we will lead the nation in building
public will to realize this vision.
The New York State Council of Family and Child Caring Agencies is
the primary statewide membership organization for child welfare
services providers, representing over 110 not-for-profit agencies that
contract with the New York City and the county departments of social
services to provide foster care, preventive services, adoption, and
aftercare services as well as education for children on our facility
campuses. These agencies serve 80 percent of all children and families
in the state's child welfare system, and nearly all of New York City's
children at risk.
Thank you for inviting me to testify in regard to the legislation
that is now before this subcommittee, H.R. 5466, the Invest in ``KIDS''
Act. The Child Welfare League of America, as well as the New York State
Council, express our strong support for this legislation and we thank
Chairman McDermott for both his introduction of this measure and his
desire to enact some significant reforms in child welfare.
I am pleased to be here today, the same week that CWLA is holding
its annual National Conference. We are especially grateful to be here
along with Representative Chaka Fattah and Subcommittee Member
Representative Jon Porter, cosponsors of an important bill that will
re-establish a White House Conference on Children and Youth. A
conference that we see as serving as a tool to implement the reforms we
hope this subcommittee will be able to help guide to passage in this
Congress.
We have an important responsibility and obligation to the children
we are focusing on during this hearing. In fact the children in care
are there in part because of the laws we have written and that makes it
incumbent upon us to make sure they get the very best care. Throughout
the last several years CWLA has called for or endorsed a number of
bills to improve the nation's child welfare system. H.R. 5466, includes
a number of the proposals that have been introduced in the last several
congresses and have had the support of both Democrats and Republicans.
I highlight a few key provisions included in this bill and currently
before Congress in other legislation:
Reforming the current eligibility requirements under Title
IV-E foster care and adoption assistance. Current eligibility is
restricted to those children removed from a home that would have
qualified for the now non-existent AFDC program as it existed on July
16, 1996. This makes no sense to anyone. There is no rationale for the
Federal Government to provide support for some abused and neglected
children, but not for others.
Extending Federal funding to support kinship and
guardianship placements as a form of permanency as supported by
Congress through the 1997 passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) and extending Federal funding to children in Indian country.
Enhancing flexibility in the use of Title IV-E Federal
funds so that key services can be funded to prevent placement into
foster care or that can move children out of foster care more quickly.
Supporting efforts and strategies to strengthen the child
welfare workforce including access to current Federal training funds by
private agencies.
Over the past two years this Subcommittee has dedicated much of its
attention toward an examination of the complexity of the nation's child
welfare system. We appreciate this effort.
What is needed now is to move beyond past debates that were
frequently limited to a discussion of numbers, the 506,000 children in
foster care placements at the end of the Federal fiscal year 2005 and
the approximate $7 billion in Federal funds spent on the foster care
and adoption assistance under the Title IV-E entitlement. We need to
address the reality that 800,000 children spend at least some time in
foster care each year. A reality that 3.3 million reports of abuse and
neglect were made in 2005 and that 899,000 children were substantiated
as abused or neglected in that same year. We need to address the
approximate 40 percent of those children who do not receive follow up
services, and the fact that more than 24,000 youth leave foster care
simply because they become too ``old'' or ``aged-out'' of the system.
KEY COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
Prevention
Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness or promise of several
approaches to prevention of child maltreatment. Programs such as home
visiting have produced evidence that positively impacted a variety of
outcomes for children and families, including prevention of abuse and
neglect. Similarly, high quality pre-kindergarten programs such as the
Chicago Child Parent Centers and Head Start, that include parental
involvement and supports, have also demonstrated effectiveness.
Independent studies have found that the financial savings achieved
by the most effective of these approaches far exceeds their costs.
Rigorous cost-benefit analyses conducted by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy showed cost savings for several pre-
kindergarten, family support, and home visitation programs as well as
for Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, a center-based intervention that
provides direct coaching to parents as they interact with their young
children.
In New York City our preventive services programs have contributed
mightily to reduce the use of foster care by more than half in the past
seven years--declining by 53.3 percent from 2001 to 2005. Today more
than twice as many children receive Preventive Services than Foster
Care--with 16,985 children in foster care and 38,768 remaining at home
while their families receive Preventive Services.
Intervention
Early intervention services play a vital role for children and
families who may already be in trouble. These interventions may include
services such as child care, housing, job training, and substance abuse
services. These are the kind of non-traditional child welfare services
that can enable families to stay together safely to the fullest extent
possible.
To better target the needs of families a number of child protective
service systems (CPS) utilize differential response. This approach
allows CPS to respond differently to accepted reports of child abuse
and neglect. Family preservation services are additional programs which
may incorporate several of these services in an effort to prevent the
removal of a child.
Preventive Services programs work with families whose children are
at risk of foster care placement, and clearly would have been placed in
foster care in the past. These families often suffer from mental
illness, substance abuse and alcohol addiction, domestic violence and
other abusive behaviors, as well as economic, housing, educational, and
social deprivations. Preventive services caseworkers counsel the
families to identify their needs and work to connect them with the
specific services that will address their problems. While they are
working with the parents, they are monitoring the safety of their
children and ensuring that the children receive the child care,
educational, medical, emotional, and other resources necessary to
remedy the neglect or abuse that they have suffered.
Impact of Legislation
While we have made progress in my state we can do more. We are
encouraged by the potential impact of H.R. 5466 on funding for these
services. First it proposes to open Title IV-E in a measured way and
tie this to goals of reducing the length of stay, reducing the number
in care, and improving the well-being of children in care. It is also
important that a state be allowed to identify outcomes that can measure
results. It is a challenge to design a Federal program that can
encompass all the prevention services that may be needed. These
services will vary by location and community. A new funding source that
allows states to target that funding in a way that is tied to outcomes
is an important part of a reform effort. We are also supportive of
efforts that build on the Child and Family Review Process (CFSRs) and
its accompanying program improvement plan (PIP).
Reunification
Reunification is the first permanency option states consider for
children entering care. We know that of the 280,660 children exiting
out-of-home care in 2005, sixty-four percent were reunited with their
parents or other family members.
Successful reunification requires skilled workers, readily
available supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and
service plans, and excellent collaboration across involved agencies.
Reunification also requires culturally appropriate support and
treatment services for families and the critical need for after care or
post-permanency services to ensure that safety and permanency are
maintained following reunification.
Children in foster care have greater health, emotional and
developmental challenges. Children in care may come into that care
having been traumatized by violence, or have been affected by having
many of their basic needs neglected for some time, including failure to
note and treat chronic medical, dental, developmental, and mental
health issues. In addition separation from parents and in some cases
from siblings, frequent changes in placements and caregivers, and a
sense of instability and uncertainty about the future can undermine
children's physical, emotional, and developmental well-being.
Studies have documented that children and youth in out-of-home care
experience higher rates of physical and emotional problems and that
significant percentages of children in care have chronic medical
conditions, developmental delays, and mental health problems. One
study, for example, found that approximately 60 percent of children in
care had a chronic medical condition, and one-quarter had three or more
chronic health problems. Studies further suggest that up to 60 percent
of preschoolers in out-of-home care have developmental delays. One
study found that children younger than 6 in out-of-home care had higher
rates of respiratory illnesses (27 percent), skin problems (21
percent), anemia (10 percent), and poor vision (9 percent) than the
general population of young children. In relation to mental health
problems, it is estimated that between 54 percent and 80 percent of
children in out-of-home care meet clinical criteria for behavioral
problems or psychiatric diagnosis.
The Impact of Legislation
This legislation provides an important step through child welfare
planning requiring states to better coordinate health planning and
services for children in care including health screenings, the
collection of health records and information, the oversight of
medications and how they are used, and steps that will be taken to
maintain a continuity of care. There is a much bigger challenge today
for states. The Administration has issued a series of Medicaid
regulations that undercut the very purpose and effectiveness of the
Medicaid program. Later today at 1:30 p.m. in room 332 of the Russell
Senate Office Building CWLA will be cosponsoring a Capitol Hill
briefing on one of these new rules that threatens case management
services for vulnerable populations including children in the child
welfare system.
There can be no question that the children placed into foster care
bring with them a complex set of unmet needs. Many of these children
have been physically or even sexually abused. Virtually all of them
have suffered the effects of poverty and chronic neglect of their basic
needs. They are far more likely than similar children to suffer from
chronic diseases, to have developmental delays, to be in dire need of
dental care, and to suffer from the effects of parental substance
abuse, mental health needs, and domestic violence. They need
substantial levels of mental health services, notably to address the
chronic impacts of trauma they have experienced.
Many states use case management services under the Medicaid program
for children in foster care. Case Management and Targeted Case
Management services are a state option under Medicaid and assist
beneficiaries on a state-wide or targeted basis in accessing much
needed medical, social, educational or other services. Taking into
account the vulnerability and complex needs of children in foster
care--including health needs, at least thirty-eight states employ the
Medicaid TCM option to ensure that children in foster care receive a
comprehensive approach and greater coordination of care. The immediate
and long-term impact of TCM services is overwhelmingly positive and
cost-effective, as children in foster care that receive TCM services
are more likely than non-recipients to receive physician services,
prescription drugs, dental services, rehabilitative services, inpatient
services, and clinic services.
Through Section 6052 of the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171),
Congress clarified the scope of the case management/TCM benefit,
excluding from the definition the direct delivery of certain underlying
medical, educational, or social services, all the while prominently
iterating that many case management services remain allowable,
legitimate Medicaid expenses.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an
interim final regulation seeking to interpret the DRA that goes beyond
the DRA's statutory provisions on numerous fronts. For instance, the
regulation vaguely disallows Medicaid reimbursement for case
management/TCM services that are deemed ``integral to'' the
administration of another non-medical program, such as child welfare
and child protective services. Why would the Federal Government exempt
for its medical and mental health funding the most vulnerable children
who most need those services, just because they are in foster care? The
regulation's preamble states that this exclusion could extend to case
management services furnished by contractors to State child welfare and
CPS agencies, even if they are otherwise qualified Medicaid providers.
This dissection obliterates the goal and need for systems to work
together towards the well-being of children in care and seems directly
contradictory to the very purpose of case management and TCM. The
regulation also contains several provisions that would negatively
impact other vulnerable populations.
CWLA sincerely hopes that CMS will heed the public's and
Congressional Members' concerns and at a bare minimum, temporarily stop
the regulation from going into effect to ensure that Congressional
intent is upheld. Legislation has been introduced in both the Senate
and House that would impose a moratorium on all administrative action
surrounding the regulation until April 1, 2009. Representative Keith
Ellison (D-MN) introduced the House bill (H.R. 5173) and Senators Norm
Coleman (R-MN) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) led the Senate bill S. 2578.
Such a moratorium was recently added to the Senate's Indian Health bill
(S. 1200) by voice vote. Action must be taken quickly as the rule is to
take effect on March 3, 2008.
Permanency
Research demonstrates the importance of children being nurtured in
a stable family environment, confirming the need to move those who must
enter foster care into permanent living situations as quickly as
possible. Recent studies suggest that, when children must leave their
families, well-supported kinship placements have the potential to
provide more stable and normalizing environments than unrelated family
care.
Kinship care is a situation in which an adult family member, such
as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or other relative, provides a caring
home for a child who is not able to live with his or her parents. The
practice is not new, but it is growing partly because repeated studies
and CWLA Best Practice Guidelines have revealed the value of placing
children with a relative when appropriate. The financial difficulties
many relatives experience potentially threaten the use of this
practice.
Subsidized guardianship is another important permanency option for
relatives who care for children. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) released findings and evaluations of the seven
state waiver demonstration programs that allow Federal Title IV-E
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance funding to support guardianship
programs. These findings reflect that non-relative guardianship is a
viable and effective option for child welfare workers to consider. The
major findings include: the availability of assisted guardianship as a
permanency option may decrease the length of out-of-home placements;
combined data from two states reveals that less than 5 percent of the
children in guardianship placements return to foster care; children in
guardianship placements fare as well as those in other permanency
settings on several measures of well-being, including school
performance, engagement in risky behaviors, and access to community
resources; and the use of guardianship placements shows statistically
significant signs of positive outcomes, with more exits from foster
care resulting in reunification or adoption.
Adoption has long been a vital service for children who need
families, bringing children whose birth parents cannot or will not be
able to provide for them together with nurturing adults who seek to
build or add to their families. Although only 2 to 3 percent of the
U.S. population is adopted, adoption touches the lives of many people.
In 1938, the Child Welfare League of America published the first
professional standards to guide adoption agencies. Over the past
decades, families choosing to adopt have become increasingly diverse. A
growing number of foster families, families of color, older individuals
and families with children, two-parent working families, single parents
(both male and female), gay and lesbian couples, families with modest
incomes, individuals with physical disabilities, and families of all
education levels, religious persuasions, and from all parts of the
country now adopt. These individuals and families have one important
thing in common: they are willing and able to make a lifelong
commitment to protect and nurture a child not born to them, by
providing a safe and loving family for that child.
Historically, most of the Federal adoption support has been
targeted toward promoting adoptions. As adoptive families increase in
number and as time passes, however, there is a corresponding, increased
need to address some of the challenges that may surface in later years
for these families through post-adoption services. The most common
post-adoption services are subsidies. The other services which should
also be available include support groups, crisis intervention, child
and family advocacy, adoption searches, case management, family
therapy, mental health treatment, respite care, and targeted case
management. Some adoption agencies also provide chemical abuse
treatment, day treatment, and intensive in-home supervision, indicating
a strong commitment to making adoption placements work.
The Impact of Legislation
Eligibility
There are several provisions in this bill that CWLA believes will
enhance these various permanency options. First and foremost the bill
would mean that all children in foster care and special needs adoptions
would be covered by Federal funding. The current eligibility tied to an
eligibility standard last written in 1996 makes no sense. Secondly we
believe that this nation has a compelling interest in the future of all
children in foster care, not just the 45 percent now covered by Federal
funding. We would advise that as the legislation develops and states
trade off some of their Federal matching funds in exchange for covering
all children we pay special attention that no state comes out with a
formula that might provide substantially less per child simply because
of the old AFDC standard. CWLA is prepared to work with the Congress in
this regard.
Kinship/Guardianship
We are also strongly in favor of the provisions of this bill that
would extend Federal Title IV-E funds to kinship and guardianship
placements. We would remind the Subcommittee that the Government
Accountability Office has recommended that one of the key ways to help
address the issue of disproportionality or the overrepresentation of
certain populations in the nation's child welfare system is by adding a
kinship provision to Title IV-E.
Adoption Incentives/Adoption Tax Credits
We support the efforts to make the adoption tax credit more
available to lower income families and those families adopting from the
foster care system. Many of the 51,000 adoptions from the foster care
system annually are by poor families who have opened their homes to
provide loving and permanent families. We need to be doing much more in
this regard and need to pay particular attention to post adoption
services as these adoptions continue to increase.
In regard to the adoption incentive fund we would suggest a new
formula that is not set on a specific base year but is perhaps averaged
out over a two-year period. Most states have seen their number of
adoptions jump in the first years of this incentive fund. A baseline
that recognizes slight increases would be more appropriate.
In addition to the provisions that encourage adoption of older
children there must be increased technical assistance to programs that
can target this population. We suggest that when funds are appropriated
for the incentive fund, if states do not draw down all available
Federal funding, the funds be held by HHS instead of allowing these
dollars to lapse back to the Federal treasury. These dollars could be
designated perhaps for technical assistance or to advance these
adoptions.
We are also encouraged that the bill's proposal to expand the
incentive to guardianship placements is an important provision. The
challenge may be in collecting the data and how to accurately measure
permanent placements in these settings.
Youth Leaving Foster Care
In 2005 over 24,000 young people exit the foster care system due to
age, a number that seems to be increasing. Young people transitioning
out of foster care are significantly impacted by the instability that
accompanies long periods of out-of-home placement. Youth in the foster
care system are often confronted with emotional, behavioral,
developmental, and health challenges. The life events of these young
people place them at an increased risk for experiencing adversity. In
the midst of elevated rates of homelessness, poor educational outcomes,
low wages, unemployment, long-term dependency on public assistance,
incarceration and health issues, young people ``aging out'' of the
foster care system are also experiencing pregnancies and early
parenthood. Confronting and overcoming these challenges is more
difficult without support networks or familial connections and impedes
their transition into adulthood.
Providers of child welfare services want every young person aging
out of foster care to have the pathways to success that we all want for
our own children--a college education or preparation for meaningful
employment and permanent connections to a caring and supportive family
or individual. Young people in foster care are encouraged to stay in
school and their progress is monitored. This can be very challenging.
Many of the teens coming into foster care are under-educated, with long
histories of school absences. Studies have shown that many are not
likely to get their GED until they reach the age of 20. Foster care
agencies focus much attention on helping teens in their care address
their school problems, hiring tutors and paying for extra instruction.
Education is a strong factor in the plan developed with youth when they
enter care. But much time and personal attention are required to
compensate for the lack of consistent schooling in the past.
Having seen too many examples of youth leaving foster care without
benefiting from the preparation available to them, some agencies have
developed innovative ways to work with youth.
developing incentives to encourage youth to attend skills
sessions,
hiring a former foster youth to engage the teens
currently in care,
Presenting youth with contracts to be signed by the youth
and the agency,
Creating their own transitional housing programs,
Collaborating with housing programs to ensure that youth
leaving foster care have a place to live, and
Keeping youth connected to the agency so that they have a
place to return to for help.
Impact of Legislation
We are supporting other bills that would extend Title IV-E funding
beyond age 18 and we are pleased that this legislation does the same.
We believe it is important that the child welfare system recognize that
our society has changed. Young people regularly return home in their
early and late twenties after college. As our families change, we need
to recognize that leaving the foster care system at age 18 not fully
prepared should never happen. First we should make every effort to
prevent a child from staying in care that long and make every effort to
reunify these young people where possible or help them find a loving
family. If that is not possible then we must step up our efforts
through legislation such as this. It is also important that states
provide the needed transitional supports and oversight for these young
people.
Education
Children and youth in foster care encounter numerous barriers to
school success. In addition to the abuse and neglect initially bringing
them to the attention of the child welfare system they must deal with
the emotional consequences of being removed from their homes and
communities, separation from siblings, sometimes being moved from home
to home, and having the child welfare agency and court system involved
in all aspects of their lives.
Schools should represent stability for foster children during times
of transition and instability, but due to poor coordination and
communication between schools and child welfare agencies, this often
does not always happen. Federal law falls short in assuring school
stability and access to supportive services for children in care. Too
often there is as much movement among schools as there is in living
arrangements. When children change schools, education records
frequently do not follow in a timely fashion. Indeed, youth in foster
care in some states have been reported to move through an average of
nine different schools during their tenure in foster care. These
children and youth are commonly out of school for weeks or months and
fall behind academically, cognitively, and socially. They often need to
repeat courses and are unable to access the support services that could
improve education outcomes.
Impact of the Legislation
CWLA supports the directive in the bill that states do a better job
assuring that if a child is placed into foster care they will be
allowed to stay in that same school even if they move. It is also vital
to assure that if it is in the best interest of the child to enter a
new school they be given immediate enrollment and not be delayed due to
the slow or inadequate transition of school and health records.
We also encourage Members to weigh in during the reauthorization of
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. CWLA has joined together with a number
of other groups including some of the advocates for homeless children
and families to amend and to increase funding for the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Children's program to clarify current law to assure that
foster children are covered by the same protections for homeless
children.
Tribal Populations
Tribal child welfare services operate in a unique context shaped by
laws, jurisdictional issues, cultural factors, financial constraints
and a Federal trust relationship that is unlike any other experienced
by states or the territories. Most Federal funds that could address the
needs of children from tribes that come into contact with the child
welfare system are not provided directly to tribal governments. Tribes
receive a limited set-aside of funds from Title IV-B Part 1 and 2,
Child Welfare Services, and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program respectively. Under Title IV-B Part 1, over half of the tribal
grants are less than $10,000, and under Part 2, most of the tribal
grants are under $40,000. Under the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA), tribes compete for a very small portion of
funding with organizations serving migrant populations. The greatest
inequity however is that the most basic funding under Title IV-E foster
care and adoption assistance may never reach children in Indian
country. This is an inequity that must be addressed.
Impact of the Legislation
CWLA supports the provisions of this bill that would extend access
to Title IV-E funds to tribal governments and consortia. Members of
both parties and both houses including Members of this subcommittee
have supported this through separate legislation. Currently these bills
include S. 1956 and H.R. 4688. This too is an issue of cultural
competence and an important part of our need to addresses the issue of
overrepresentation of certain children in the child welfare system.
Child Welfare Workforce
Successful outcomes for children and families in child welfare
depend heavily on the quality of services received, and in turn, on the
ability of the workforce delivering them. Yet, child welfare agencies
across the country are facing a workforce crisis on many fronts.
Attracting, training, and retaining qualified staff at all levels has
become increasingly challenging. Staff shortages and high turnover
rates have grown with the increasingly rigorous demands of the work,
low to modest compensation, and competition with other more attractive
options in the job market. Child welfare workers must be prepared to
handle caseloads typically well beyond recommended national guidelines.
Every day they work with children and families with complex problems
and often in situations that may jeopardize their safety.
A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that
states failed to meet some of the outcome measures in the Child and
Family Service Reviews, due at least in part, to workforce
deficiencies. Areas where measures were not met due to workforce issues
included: timely investigation of abuse complaints, efforts to reduce
the risk of harm to the child, the ability to maintain stable foster
care placements, establishing permanency goals for the child in a
timely manner, involvement of children and families in case planning,
and adequately monitoring child safety and well-being.
New York State conducted an extensive study in 2006 to identify
``reasonable'' caseload sizes. One example was the finding that foster
care workers should have no more than 12 children on their caseload. In
New York City our average caseloads approach 20 children, with many
being considerably higher. An analysis of the data from the study shows
that with a caseload of about 20 a worker has an average of 60 minutes
a month of face to face time with that child and/or their family. That
is far too little if we really want to expedite the services needed by
the family and discharge children to safe homes as quickly as possible.
The need for training for both new staff and on-going training for
current staff is a critical part of the workforce issue. States must be
able to ensure worker competencies through the provision of
comprehensive, rigorous, competency based training programs. We believe
that an important part of this strategy is to allow states that
contract their services to private agencies to be able to use Federal
IV-E training dollars to train this important part of the workforce.
In this challenging economy where many of our citizens and leaders
fear jobs going overseas, it might be a useful national strategy for
this country to invest in human service jobs from child welfare
workers, to nurses, to long term care workers to child care workers and
many others. Many of these career paths require greater experience,
greater demand and are locally based.
The Impact of the Legislation
We strongly endorse the provisions of this bill that would provide
funding for applying states to address what is a shortage in child
welfare workforce. This is an area too often overlooked. When we ask
for greater and more detailed data collection as ACF is currently
doing; when we ask for monthly caseworker visits as mandated by this
subcommittee; and when we need to recruit more foster and adoptive
families--all of this comes down to the need for more workers and
better trained workers. Keeping families together, reunifying children
with families placing children in adoptive and kinship families and
providing these children and families with the needed services is labor
intensive.
We strongly support the provisions of this bill that would allow
private agencies access to Title IV-E training funds. This is a
longtime item on the CWLA agenda and we appreciate the efforts of both
the Chairman and the Ranking Member Representative Jerry Weller's
longtime support for this provision. Where private, usually not-for-
profit agencies are caring for the public's children why deny them
access to the training deemed necessary for all workers?
CONCLUSION
CWLA appreciates the opportunity to offer our comments to the
Subcommittee in regard to child welfare reforms. We commend the
Subcommittee and its Members for taking up the issue of child welfare.
If in the remaining days of this session it is not possible to address
a comprehensive effort then we feel it is very important that Congress
take at least some critical steps. In addition to the reauthorization
of the adoption incentive fund we urge you to address our top
priorities of kinship care, access to Title IV-E funding for tribal
governments, and expanded assistance to youth beyond age eighteen. Of
course we also hope all Members will do all they can to see that H.R.
5461, the bill to re-establish a White House Conference on Children and
Youth, is passed in this Congress.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
Mr. Cross is the executive director of the National Indian
Child Welfare Association. Mr. Cross?
STATEMENT OF TERRY L. CROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Mr. CROSS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Weller,
Members of the Subcommittee. I am Terry Cross. I am the
executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare
Association. I am also a member, an enrolled member, of the
Seneca Nation of Indians. In my language, I want to say Nayweh.
That is our word for thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
Subcommittee Members, for this opportunity to talk about this
very important issue to our American Indian children.
Mr. Chairman and cosponsors of the Invest in KIDS Act, H.R.
5466, I want to thank you for the provisions--the inclusion of
tribes, the tribal eligibility in the IV-E program, to be able
to administer the IV-E program. Chairman McDermott, you have
been a leader for Indian children for some time, and we want to
thank you specifically for your work on that.
We also want to acknowledge and thank Congressmen Weller,
Pomeroy, Blumenauer, and Camp for cosponsoring a bill with
similar language, H.R. 4688, the Tribal Foster Care and
Adoption Access Act of 2007. A similar bill has also been
introduced in the Senate.
I am providing testimony today focused on the need and
opportunity for tribes to operate this program and to receive
the direct funding from IV-E for foster care and adoption
programs.
Currently, as you know, tribes are not eligible to receive
this support directly. The tribal children under the custody of
tribal courts are the only children in the nation who are not
served by this ``entitlement.'' The issue is an issue of
justice, of fairness, of equal access, and it is time to
change. It is urgent. We have children right now who need
resources, who need the protections.
What we often don't understand in tribes not having access
to these funds, our children don't have the same protections of
safety and permanency that other do--the requirements that
cover other children. We have relatives, neighbors, friends,
who are willing and able to provide care but don't have the
resources to do that. We have children and youth who tell us
about their experience in foster care and their desire to be in
care in their own communities, in their own cultures.
Daryle Conquering Bear, an Oglala Sioux, told us about his
experience in foster care. He comes from an extended family
that has ceremonial responsibilities. He didn't receive the
education, the cultural training, when he was away in a non-
Indian foster home away from the reservation. He told us
recently that when he goes to ceremony, he feels like a
spectator, not a participant. It is going to take years for him
to come back from that experience.
We have tribes that are the only government entity that has
the authority to provide services to abused and neglected
children. There is no other resource. As a matter of fact, in a
recent conversation with Marilyn Poitra of the Turtle Mountain
Chippewa Tribe in North Dakota, she told us that the local
county is so strapped for services that they are coming to the
tribe to ask for help and asking to use tribally licensed
homes.
States and counties have proven that they are ill-equipped
to serve our children, and already overworked. Liz Mueller of
the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, the vice chair of the tribe,
told us how the outcomes have changed in her community since
the tribe has had its own resources to put into prevention and
family-based services. Imagine what they could do if they had
access to funding for foster care.
Marilyn Poitra again from North Dakota told us of a child
that had the misfortune of being taken into care just before
his coming-of-age ceremony, his vision quest ceremony. In an
evaluation, he told his evaluator about the ceremony that he
was to take part in, that he was afraid that he was going to
miss. He was referred to a psychologist and a recommendation
was made for psychotropic medication because of his ``bizarre
ideation''.
These kinds of cultural misunderstandings are too
widespread. Children are not getting the right services. They
are not getting what they need. If our tribes can be empowered,
we see it improving everywhere.
Some tribes have gained access to IV-E through tribal/State
agreements, but there are only 70 of those in the country and
they are hard to get. Where they do, they run the program
effectively.
So, many provisions of your Investing in KIDS Act are not
only good for our Indian children but for all children. It is a
wonderful piece of legislation. We believe thoroughly in the
things that you are trying to accomplish. The tribal provisions
have the support of over 400 tribes, of 24 national advocacy
organizations for children, bipartisan support in the House and
in the Senate.
The time is now. Our kids are waiting. We think it is
doable. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry L. Cross follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Cross, Executive Director
National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association submits this
statement on improving the child welfare system. Our primary focus will
be on issues specific to American Indian and Alaskan Native children
and families--on the need to provide tribal children served by their
tribal governments access to the same Federal programs provided to
children under state jurisdiction. Providing direct tribal access to
Federal programs like the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance Act is the surest way to ensure that American Indian and
Alaskan Native children have safe, permanent homes. In our statement
you will hear from tribal leaders, foster parents, foster children and
child welfare program staff that deal with these issues every day.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our testimony today. Our
constituents, tribal children and families, face many challenges to
their well-being and child abuse and neglect is certainly one of the
most critical. Bringing more attention to the barriers tribal children
face in receiving basic child welfare services and the opportunities to
improve their lives is much needed.
We also thank Chairman McDermott and the co-sponsors for the
introduction of the Invest in KIDS Act (H.R. 5466). This legislation
addresses many of the issues that prevent our national child welfare
system from providing more effective services and reaching those
children and families that have fallen through the cracks in our
system. American Indian and Alaskan Native children, a population whose
needs and service realities are often not understood, can take heart
that this legislation addresses their concerns in several important
areas, such as the need to receive the benefits of the Title IV-E
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance program.
Chairman McDermott has been in the forefront of efforts to help
improve child welfare services to tribal children and families for many
years. In 1997 he and former Congressman Hayworth offered an amendment
to the Adoption and Safe Families Act that would allow tribes to
receive direct Title IV-E funding. While unfortunately the amendment
was withdrawn due to the lack of an offset, it was helpful in bringing
awareness to others the role tribal governments play in providing child
welfare services and the need to change the IV-E law with regard to
tribal governments.
We give heartfelt thanks to Congressmen Pomeroy, Blumenauer, Weller
and Camp--Members of the Ways and Means Committee--for introducing
legislation last December that would allow tribal governments to
directly receive Title IV-E funding for the children under their
jurisdiction and responsibility (Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Access
Act of 2007--H.R. 4688). We urge Members of this Subcommittee to co-
sponsor H.R. 4688. This legislation is similar to a provision contained
in the Invest in KIDS Act, Section 201. As you know, Finance Chairman
Baucus introduced a bi-partisan bill in 2007 that would achieve the
same purposes (Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Access Act of 2007--S.
1956).
Child Welfare and American Indian and Alaskan Native Children
Daryle Conquering Bear, a former foster youth and Oglala Sioux
tribal member, describes his experience in state foster care and the
resulting challenges with which he is still dealing:
While I was in foster care I wasn't able to participate in the
cultural events that I had looked so forward to because I was placed in
state foster care, far away from my community. As a result, I often
feel like an outsider in my own Lakota Sioux tribe. During my time in
foster care, I read books about ceremonies and events that I should
have been experiencing first hand. Today, at events like pow wows, I
feel like a spectator, not a participant.
Daryle's experience is not uncommon for many of the American
Indian/Alaskan Native children who are or have been in foster care. It
underscores the need to provide child welfare resources directly to the
governments and programs that are in the best position to effectively
meet the needs of our tribal children.
In fact, tribes in most states are the only government that has
authority to provide services to their children and families and
adjudicate child welfare proceedings. This is a part of inherent tribal
sovereignty and was explicitly recognized in the Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978. Tribes have done their very best to provide these services
and exercise their authority despite inadequate Federal resources for
tribal programs.
Before 1975, the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and states
(where they had concurrent jurisdiction) were often the main providers
of child welfare services in many tribal communities. These
arrangements were not successful and in some cases created more harm
than good. They took away from tribal governments, who have exclusive
jurisdiction in child welfare matters in most cases, the responsibility
for developing solutions to child abuse and neglect. The BIA and state
agencies were not well equipped to address these complex issues and,
while well intentioned, they implemented programs and services that did
little to improve conditions. Tribal children continued to be placed in
out-of-home care in alarmingly high numbers. Many of these children
were placed in homes outside their communities even though there were
suitable homes (including relatives) within the community.
With the enactment in 1975 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, tribal governments were authorized for the
first time to contract with the BIA to operate their own social
services. While not all tribes were eligible to receive these funds, it
did begin a movement to enhance tribal government capacity and
responsibility for child welfare services to American Indian and
Alaskan Native children.
Marilyn Poitra, Child Welfare Coordinator for the Turtle Mountain
Chippewa Tribe in North Dakota and President of the Native Foster
Parents Association recently, explained the value for American Indian
children and families of having a viable child welfare program.
We have a good relationship with them, but because we are in a very
remote and rural area resources are very tight for all of us. One
nearby county where several of our families live has a severe shortage
of foster families and very limited child welfare staffing. When they
need a foster or adoptive home they often have to come to our tribe and
ask to use one of our homes. Depending upon them for services for our
tribal members is not an option.
In 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted. This law
recognized the existing authority and role tribal governments have in
providing child welfare services to children under their jurisdiction.
Prior to this law, very few of the over 500 federally-recognized tribes
received any Federal child welfare funding other than small amounts of
Bureau of Indian Affairs social service funding. Many tribes were not
eligible to receive even these funds. Beginning in 1979, ICWA
authorized a small annual grant program for tribes that was competitive
until 1993 and funded at between $8 and $12 million annually. Only half
of the tribes that applied were awarded grants, and many times, a tribe
would be funded in one grant cycle and not the next. Tribal child
welfare programs were dependent upon a patchwork of discretionary
programs where funding ebbed and flowed from one year to the next.
Nonetheless, tribal governments took advantage of their meager
funding and combined with the opportunities provided under the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and ICWA, an increasing
number of tribes begin developing their own child welfare programs.
Today almost every one of the over 500 federally-recognized tribes in
the United States operates some basic child welfare services.
In the early 1980s, Congress embarked upon child welfare reform
that established a new direction in Federal policy. In 1980, Congress
enacted the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act through which
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act was created (Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance program). In 1981, Congress combined several social
service related Federal programs into the Title XX Social Service Block
Grant. Unfortunately, because Congress was unaware of the role tribal
governments played in child welfare tribal governments were not made
eligible for the new Federal programs under Title IV-E and Title XX,
two of the largest sources of Federal revenue to support child welfare
services. Since that time Congress has become more educated about the
needs of tribal children being served by their tribal governments and
has created direct funding opportunities under the Title IV-B Promoting
Safe and Stable Families, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child
Support Enforcement and Child Care and Development Block Grant
programs.
Supporting the direct funding of tribes in child welfare was a 1994
report by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
Inspector General (OIG),Opportunities for Administration for Children
and Families to Improve Child Welfare Services and Protections for
Native American Children. The report documented that tribes receive
little benefit or funding from Federal Social Security Act programs,
specifically Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance and Title
XX Social Services Block Grant. In listing options for improving
service to tribes, the OIG study stated that the surest way to
guarantee that AI/AN people receive benefits from the Social Security
Act programs is to amend the authorizing statutes to provide direct
funding to tribes. State representatives interviewed for the study
described the difficulty of developing agreements and the burden to
states in administering them, and they supported direct funding to
tribal governments.
As a short-term solution, tribes have increased their efforts to
access state allocations of Federal child welfare program funding
through agreements and contracts and have realized some measure of
success. Currently, there are approximately 70 tribal/state Title IV-E
agreements in 13 states; only four states pass Title XX funding to
tribes. A small handful of states also provide tribes with state
general fund revenue. As helpful as these intergovernmental agreements
and contracts are, they are discretionary and subject to political and
resource issues beyond the control or influence of tribal governments.
In addition, as the 1994 OIG report found, a number of states have
concerns about their administrative and legal obligations when entering
into an agreement with a tribal government for child welfare funding.
Chairman Frank Ettawageshik of the Little Traverse Bay Band of
Odawa Indians at a 2007 roundtable discussion on child welfare reform
hosted by The Pew Charitable Trusts stated:
My government has spent over a $100,000 over the last five years in
tribal staff time and other resources trying to develop a Title IV-E
agreement with the state of Michigan and we still don't have an
agreement. We have spent a huge amount of time negotiating
administrative issues in this effort with a small staff that is already
overworked. I have to wonder if we will ever get an agreement and think
about how many of our children could have been served with the funding
we have expended on this effort.
Child Welfare Data on Tribal Children
Data on American Indian/Alaskan Native children who experience
child abuse and neglect and who are in the foster care system is
limited. Currently, there is no unified, national data system that
tracks these statistics for children under tribal jurisdiction and
care. This is in part due to tribal governments being left out of the
Federal child welfare programs, such as Title IV-E, where this data
collection is required and reported to the Federal Government.
According to experts in the field, reports of child abuse and neglect
and foster care involving American Indian/Alaskan Native children are
underreported in many state child welfare systems. Nonetheless, current
data for tribal children in state care does provide some understanding
of the experiences of American Indian/Alaskan Native children and their
families.
Child Abuse and Neglect. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System (NCANDS) provides information on only those American Indian/
Alaskan Native families and children who are reported to state child
protection authorities, whose cases are investigated by state child
protective service systems, and who self-identify as American Indian/
Alaskan Native. NCANDS does not include American Indian/Alaskan Native
children who come to the attention of and are served by tribal child
welfare systems. It is estimated that 40 percent of all cases of child
abuse and neglect among AI/AN children are not reported to the NCANDS
(Earle & Cross, 2001). In addition, the definitional and cultural
aspects of child abuse and neglect among AI/AN people are complex,
leading to serious questions regarding the true rates of child abuse
and neglect in AI/AN country (Earle & Cross, 2001). The limited data
indicate that:
In 2005 American Indian/Alaskan Native children
experienced a rate of child abuse and neglect of 16.5 per 1,000
American Indian/Alaskan Native children. This rate compares to 19.5 for
African American children, 16.1 for Pacific Islander children, 10.8 for
White children, and 10.7 for Hispanic children (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2007).
In 2005 American Indian/Alaskan Native children were more
likely than children of other races/ethnicities to be confirmed as
victims of neglect (65.5 percent) and were least likely to be confirmed
as victims of physical abuse (7.3 percent) (U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 2007).
American Indian/Alaskan Native children are over-
represented in the population of child maltreatment victims, at more
than 1.6 times the expected level, with the highest rates of
overrepresentation in states that have larger American Indian/Alaskan
Native populations (Maple & Hay, 2004).
Foster Care. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting
System (AFCARS) provides information only on those American Indian/
Alaskan Native children who self-identify as American Indian/Alaskan
Native and are placed by state child welfare agencies in foster care.
AFCARS data do not include American Indian/Alaskan Native children who
receive foster care services from tribal programs. It is estimated that
approximately two-thirds of AI/AN children in foster care are placed by
state child welfare agencies and one-third to 40 percent are placed in
foster care by tribal authorities (Earle, 2000). The limited data show
that nationally:
There are 10,498 American Indian/Alaskan Native children
in state foster care systems.
Two percent of the children who entered state foster care
in FY 2005 (7,036) were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
Two percent of the children who exited state foster care
in FY 2005 (5,857) were American Indian/Alaskan Native.
Two percent of the children waiting to be adopted in state
foster care systems on September 30, 2005 (2,120) were American Indian/
Alaskan Native.
One percent of the children adopted with public child
welfare agency involvement were American Indian/Alaskan Native (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).
Nationally, American Indian/Alaskan Native children are
overrepresented in foster care--at more than 1.6 times the expected
level--and are overrepresented among the children in foster care who
are awaiting adoption--at two to four times the expected level (Maple &
Hay, 2004). American Indian/Alaskan Native children are even more
significantly overrepresented in foster care in a number of states with
higher American Indian/Alaskan Native populations.
These statistics illustrate that levels of reported abuse and
neglect, which can lead to foster care placement, are well above
national averages. This demonstrates the need for Congress to ensure
that there are adequate resources available to front line tribal
programs to effectively reduce the incidence and address the needs of
these children.
In the state of Washington, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council
member and former tribal child welfare director Liz Mueller, discusses
her Tribe's understanding of why the role of tribal government is so
vital in addressing these issues:
Our tribal community and its members are unique. We are a small,
rural community with unique cultural and approaches to the problems
that affect us. While we have a good relationship with our state child
welfare agency, they are not able to see and address as quickly as we
can the complex issues that bring our children and families to the
attention of the child welfare system. Since we started focusing on
early intervention strategies that emphasize culturally based
solutions, we have reduced several risk factors for being in the child
welfare system. Ninety-nine percent of our youth now graduate from high
school and many more go to college. Tribal families have increased
trust in seeking services when they are working with the tribe, which
helps us identify issues in the family earlier that could lead to
prolonged involvement with the child welfare system. All of this has
strengthened our families and now we see healthier children and parents
with the skills they need to succeed.
Tribal Opportunities in the Invest in KIDS Act
The bold proposals outlined in H.R. 5466, Invest in KIDS Act,
respond to tribal concerns in three important ways. They recognize that
tribal children and families are best served by their tribal
governments--both in reducing the amount of involvement tribal children
have in the child welfare system and by keeping children in the
communities where their families and culture are available to them.
Secondly, it recognizes the government-to-government relationship that
exists between the Federal and tribal governments. Tribal governments
should be provided access to all Federal funding streams to which
states have access, such as Title IV-E. Third, it recognizes that
tribal children and families can not consistently depend upon other
governmental entities to effectively serve them. These are the
cornerstones for the development of any effective strategy to address
child abuse and neglect in Indian Country through policy reform.
We thank Chairman McDermott for providing tribal governments the
opportunity to receive funding under the legislation for which states
are also eligible. We note that for tribes to be eligible to utilize
some of the opportunities in the Invest in KIDS Act they must
administer the Title IV-E program directly. Section 201 of the
legislation would allow tribes to apply to DHHS to directly operate the
program--this critical change is long overdue. Providing direct access
to the Title IV-E program is the most important thing Congress can do
to help American Indian/Alaskan children to have permanent homes and
increase their overall well-being.
We want to make it clear that tribal governments currently have the
responsibility to provide child welfare services for their children--
with or without the resources of the Title IV-E program. For everyone
who is concerned about protections for Indian and Alaskan Native
children--and we all are--bringing tribes into the IV-E program would
increase protections for vulnerable Native children.
Support for legislation to provide tribal governments and their
children with direct access to Title IV-E has never been higher. The
National Indian Child Welfare Association has tracked support for
authorization of direct tribal administration of the IV-E program from
over 400 tribes, eight leading Indian organizations and 24 prominent
child and family advocacy organizations. In addition, among the
bipartisan sponsors and co-sponsors of the pending House and Senate
tribal IV-E bills are a significant number of Members of the Committees
of jurisdiction. We expect that the numbers of co-sponsors will
significantly increase in this coming year as will the number of tribes
and organizations that will be active in educating Members of Congress
on this important opportunity.
The Invest in KIDS Act provisions to provide tribal direct access
to Title IV-E has some differences with the pending bills introduced by
Congressman Pomeroy and others in the House and Senator Baucus and
others in the Senate. The core elements and purposes of the legislation
are the same, but there are some differences in language and some
additional provisions in the Pomeroy and Baucus bills. Based upon our
discussion with tribes and our partner organizations, such as the
National Congress of American Indians, we believe that these
differences can be readily reconciled. We look forward to further
dialogue with the Subcommittee on tribal IV-E legislation.
Overall, we feel that all the provisions under the Invest in KIDS
Act will be beneficial to American Indian/Alaskan Native children and
families. Below we have highlighted a few specific sections that could
have direct benefits to tribes.
Section 101--Child and Family Services Program. This section
contains a tribal option like that afforded to states to expend funds
under Title IV-E for programs and services that can strengthen families
and reduce the need for foster care.
Section 201--Expanded Eligibility. We are very supportive of de-
linking IV-E foster care eligibility from the 1996 outmoded AFDC
standard as it will help additional children to receive IV-E benefits
and protections. While tribal communities and families are exposed to
some of the deepest pockets of poverty it will help significant numbers
of Indian children, especially among those families that are considered
the working poor.
Section 202--Relative Foster Family Standards. In tribal
communities and beyond placements of choice are almost always relative
care providers. Allowing tribal governments involved in the IV-E
program, as is envisioned for states, to establish separate standards
for relative care providers will help to recruit more qualified and
knowledgeable care providers.
Section 301--Child Welfare Service Quality Improvement Grants. We
are appreciative of the Chairman's decision to include tribal
governments as eligible to receive these funds. Workforce improvement
is a critical area of need in Indian Country, one that is exacerbated
by the geographic isolation of many tribes and inadequate access to
training and technical assistance. The ability to improve skills levels
will directly benefit American Indian/Alaskan Native children who are
being served by tribes as well.
Section 302--Increase in Payment Rate for Short Term Training. This
provision can enhance tribal training efforts under Title IV-E.
Currently, disseminating promising practices that could be helpful to
other tribes is very difficult given the strained budgets in tribal
child welfare and juvenile court systems.
Section 401--Continuing Foster Care Coverage Until Age 21. Tribal
governments have not been able to apply for and receive Chafee
Independent Living funds and consequently have not been able to provide
comprehensive services to older youth who are aging out of foster care
in tribal settings. This provision could help tribes bridge some of
that gap and help ensure that tribal youth have access to needed
support beyond age 18.
Section 411 and 412--Kinship Guardianship Payments and Family
Connection Grants. Supporting relatives in ways that can help them feel
comfortable in taking in relative children is critical and the Chairman
is to be applauded for including kingship guardianship payments and
family connection grants in his bill. We strongly support the
incorporation of kinship payments into the IV-E program as we believe
it is one of the most important changes that can be made to find
permanent homes for youth. Tribes would, however, reap much more
benefit from the guardianship payments if they were directly
administering the IV-E program. Absent that, some Indian youth under
state care or those being served via tribal-state agreements would be
benefit.
We appreciate that tribes would be eligible for the Family
Connection Grants but recommend that there be a tribal allocation
(i.e., 3 percent) from those funds. This could provide funding for a
handful or more tribes. You might want to consider then making the 20
grantee limit in the bill exclusive of the tribal grants. Many other
Federal programs--including some in H.R. 5466--include tribal
government allocations. It assures some funding for tribes and is
respectful of the government-to-government relationship between the
U.S. and tribal governments.
Section 414--Adoption Incentives. Reauthorizing incentives for
adoption and adding guardianships to the list of eligible placement for
incentives is important and will help tribal governments as they gain
access to Title IV-E.
Section 415--Sibling Placement. Tribal siblings often face an
uphill battle to be placed in the same home. Adding encouragement and
incentive to the search and placement decision to keep siblings
together is a positive step in maintaining these important
relationships.
Conclusion
Seeing the turmoil a child and his/her family go through while a
child is in the foster care system is emotionally challenging at best.
No child in foster care leaves the system without some trauma. In
Indian Country, as elsewhere, we strive to reduce that trauma and
provide services and support so that our children and families can find
healing and a new direction. As Marilyn Poitra, Turtle Mountain
Chippewa Tribal Child Welfare Coordinator and President of the Native
American Foster Care Association in North Dakota points out, we can't
afford not to succeed:
I have seen more than I care to admit as a foster parent and child
welfare professional. I have seen a 15-year old young tribal woman so
medicated after a stay in a residential treatment facility outside our
community that she was shaking so badly she could not even pick up a
soda to drink. I have had to intervene in cases where the needs of our
tribal children were so misunderstood that the agencies in charge
wanted to prescribe powerful psychotropic drugs to a nine year old
because they didn't understand our spiritual teachings regarding prayer
and our connection to the Creator. Thankfully, our tribe was able to
use our resources to bring these children back to their communities and
relatives and provide them with the healing they desperately needed,
but could not seem to get anywhere else. My greatest frustration is not
with our parents who aren't parenting as well as we would like, but
with the policies that deny our communities the ability to help our
children and families in the way that other communities can help their
children and families.
Thank you again for allowing us to share our experience and
knowledge with you on these critical issues affecting our young people.
Providing tribes with direct access to Title IV-E will be the most
important change that the Congress can make to improve the well-being
of American Indian/Alaskan Native children who are abused or neglected.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this legislation.
______
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, including helping tribes
child welfare policies; (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; Association
of American Indian Affairs; Federation of Families for Children's
Mental Health; and the Child Welfare League of America).
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for that testimony.
We now move to Lupe Tovar, who our sheet says is a former
foster youth from Arizona. I don't think that quite tells the
story. She is a foster care graduate who came out, went to
college, and is now the program coordinator for In My Shoes.
So, Lupe? Put on your microphone and pull it toward you.
STATEMENT OF LUPE TOVAR
FORMER FOSTER YOUTH FROM ARIZONA
Ms. TOVAR. As you can tell, this is my first time. I wanted
to start by saying hello and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me here today, as well as Representative Weller, the
other Members of your Subcommittee, and your staffers, for
allowing this to happen today. I am also very grateful for the
organizations who got me here today. Those are FosterClub, the
National Foster Care Coalition, and the Kids are Waiting
Campaign.
I will give you a little history about myself, but as you
mentioned, I have aged out. So, this isn't about me, this is
about my brothers and sisters who are still being raised in the
system.
I am currently 25 years old, raised 20 years in the foster
care system. I attended 11 schools. I was in 11-plus
placements; I don't count the ones that were just for a couple
months. I lived with about 35 or so foster brothers and
sisters.
I want to highlight my disruptions pertaining to the
specific items that you are trying to improve on, such as
sibling separation, my educational disruptions, as well as the
need for permanency, which I still to this day do not have in
the form of a family.
I will start with talking about sibling separation, which
is very difficult for me, but I think this is the right place
and time to talk about it. I was taken away from my family when
I was about 4 years old, and my biological mother had seven
children. Four of us were taken away at one time, and they
paired us off by age groups.
So, my sister Valerie and I moved from place to place
together until I was in high school, and the family we were
with chose who they wanted to treat better. This is hard to
explain to caseworkers, lawyers, guardians ad litem, who don't
get to know you on a personal level.
So, when I made the decision that I needed to leave this
placement, no one would believe me that it was so I could think
for myself, so I could achieve the goals of completing high
school and having normal memories, like cheerleading, being in
theater, and those types of things.
Anything that I wanted to do had a stamp of, ``no, she
wants to go out and party.'' ``No, she wants to break the
rules.'' ``No, there is no way she could want to be in
cheerleading and student council or any of those types of
things.'' I had to make the decision to separate from my one
connection to my bio family, which was my sister.
This is when most of the disruptions in my life happened,
which were during my high school years. I attended five high
schools in 4 years, and I still graduated with my class in
2000.
So, the disruptions aren't what prevent youth from
graduating from college. It is the lack of permanency, whether
it be a supportive adult, a family, or a mentor, or a stable
caseworker, a stable lawyer, a stable judge. There are many
layers to permanency, and the one that I never had was a
family, a set family.
I did have people come into my path who shed light on
opportunities that I could have or could dream of, and through
the youth that I met in school or the youth who I met through
the different churches I attended, I was able to see glimpses
of what it meant to be in a family, and how happy they were,
and how the families interacted together, and all of these. I
held onto those moments and let those drive me to success. If I
wasn't going to get the permanency I needed from foster care, I
was going to create it myself.
This is so hard to talk about. I don't think I can do
justice to the half a million youth out there who don't have
that, don't have that person to show them, don't have that
family who can let them know they believe in them or they know
they can succeed, but I will try to share another story.
When I was a junior in high school, I lived in a placement
for a few months, and this woman decided to move across
country, a personal choice. A decision was made by the team of
staff that was raising me that it is too short notice to find
her a stable placement, so let's send her to a lockdown
facility in a different State for four weeks. We will look for
a home for her, and then we will--at this time I am 15 years
old.
Being 15 in foster care is not very desirable, especially
with people thinking that you have all these psychological
problems. Well, who wouldn't if you lived in that many
placements? Who wouldn't feel broken? Who wouldn't have gaps?
Who wouldn't have hurt? In foster care, hurt is seen as, let's
put you on meds, something like that. God forbid I feel what I
am going through? It just didn't make sense to me.
So, I went to this place, and I was in between caseworkers
at this time as well. These 4 weeks turned into a year and a
half of my life. I am not sure if you guys are aware of the
type of education in these types of placements, and my goal to
graduate high school.
The education that I got there just kept putting me further
and further behind in high school, and for some reason, people
would not listen to me when I said, ``I just want to graduate
in double O.'' To me, that sounded pretty cool to be able to
say I graduated in double O, and all the hype about the
millennium. I wasn't going to let anyone take that away from
me, but I had to fight so hard and had to make so many people
believe that I, a Latino girl in foster care, wanted to
graduate high school more than anything in the world.
So, then this takes me to being 16 years old, and I move
into my last foster family for one more year. Again, I got the
messages, no one thinks you can do it. Okay? So, I went to
school on Saturdays with the troubled kids. I fit right in,
being a youth in foster care.
I did it so I could graduate. I wasn't going to let anyone
take that away from me. If that family didn't believe in me, at
least I had a caseworker at that time--I was blessed with a
really great caseworker who was focused on adolescent youth and
their needs. What a concept, right?
That was very, very invigorating for me to hear someone
say, you need to start thinking about if you do want to go to
college or if you do want to save money or if you do want to
get a job. She and I met once a month for more than the 54
minutes you mentioned. She would take me to Starbucks, and we
would sit and dream. She let me dream. Then we made that plan.
Kind of like you said, Chairman, I will tell you what I wish we
could do, and then we will make a plan of action.
So, that is what she allowed me to do. Oh, gosh, and now I
dream all day. Like it is amazing. This is a dream come true
for me. You know? This is your job, but me sitting here is a
dream for me. I wish this for my brothers and sisters who can't
be here with me today.
So, this takes me to graduating from high school and still
not having that family. At this point, health care gets cut
off. At this point, you even need to fight to want to go to
college. I was so deficient in some of my classes because I
took the same chapter in math for 4 years in a row.
So, then I go to college, and again I am fighting to keep
up with the standard of the 50,000 youth or adults who are
attending Arizona State University, but that advisor that I
walked into his office and I said, I am so scared. I do not
know anything other than I have a dream to go to college and
graduate. So, my dreams got bigger. First it was to make it out
of foster care, then graduate high school, and now attend
college.
What he gave me was a packet, kind of like this, that told
me anything you want to know about this university is in this
manual. I read that manual like it was the Bible. I am not
joking. No doors were closed to me at that university. That
knowledge made me feel so strong that I just checked off the
classes that I completed on my checklist, and knew that with
every check mark I was getting closer and closer to graduation,
and I did.
I was able to graduate from college, but again, I couldn't
celebrate it. I couldn't celebrate and feel happy because I
didn't have anyone, really, who understood how hard it was. I
swear to you, that first year of college, after being locked up
in foster care my entire life, 20 years of my life in foster
care, I was scared to interact with people.
I went to school and I went to classes and I studied, and
then there was just time that was spent just thinking of like,
``am I really from foster care?'' Like really, there is nobody
who I can call right now? Like there is nobody I can call to
teach me how to make mashed potatoes, or something basic, or to
say, I got an A on my test. Just basic things that your
children would want to call and celebrate with you, or if they
are struggling and have a question about how to renew their
registration, or something like that. There was no one for me.
There really wasn't. I could not understand why.
So, then I applied for an internship in 2005 with
FosterClub, and was able to connect with All-Star Alumni, who
had the same goal as me, to make change for my brothers and
sisters who are still in foster care, but they got it. They
understood, all the hardships and all of those things.
We were able to talk to hundreds of youth and realize that
they all have the same insecurities. They all have the same
wants and dreams as your children do. They just don't have that
connection with a person, a family, or anything like that to
help them to achieve that.
I know that I have probably gone way over my time, and I
didn't even get to health care.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lupe Tovar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lupe Tovar, Former Foster Youth from Arizona
First, let me say thank you to Chairman McDermott, Representative
Weller, and the Members of the Subcommittee for inviting me here today.
Thanks also to FosterClub, the Kids are Waiting Campaign, and the
National Foster Care Coalition for making it possible for me to get
here. I am honored to have this opportunity to share my story and to be
the voice of truth for the half-million children and youth in foster
care today. All children and youth deserve a loving family. I know. I
spent virtually my entire life--20 years--in foster care. In twenty
years, I moved more than eleven times, enrolled in eleven different
schools, and lived with more than 35 foster brothers and sisters.
Through all those placements and people, and after two decades in
foster care, I lost contact with my birth family, including my 6
brothers and sisters, and never found a family to call my own. I did
most of my moving during my high school years. I remember that this was
the time when I realized what it really meant to be in Foster Care.
Unfortunately for me, being a teen in foster care, well, that's not a
good thing. Most families, are looking to take in younger youth. I kept
bouncing around from place to place while the organization that was
trying to find me a family looked for one that wanted to have a
teenager. When a foster parent I was living with made a personal choice
to move across the country, the staff in my life made a choice to send
me to a lock down facility in another state while they looked for yet
another home for me. Keep in mind, I was only 15 years old and was told
that I would only be in this other facility for four weeks while a
family foster home was found for me. This temporary four-week placement
turned into a year and a half of my life. This year and a half had a
tremendous effect on my education, my sense of identity, and my sense
of permanency. As if being in foster care wasn't bad enough, this
placement took me far away from anything, any place and anyone that I
knew.
Having to change placements and change schools makes it so
difficult for us to succeed. So many young people who have the same
hopes and dreams as your children lose their hope because foster care
is so unstable and it becomes so difficult to successfully complete
their education. Sometimes staying connected with your teachers and
your friends at school is the only anchor that you have in foster care.
We all agree that keeping kids out of foster care, or finding a family
for them as soon as possible if they can't return to their birth
family, are the best options. At the same time, we need to do more to
make sure that foster youth have the chance to stay in the same school
when placements change, so that they can stay connected to the
community and people that they know, and so that they have a better
chance of success. We need to make sure that more than half of foster
youth graduate from high school, and more than 2 percent graduate from
college--the current education outcomes.
Today, I have a great job and great friends, and I travel around
the country speaking about my experiences in foster care and why I
think that the system has to change.
However, I still long for a family. Growing up, it was really hard
knowing that there was no one to turn to if I had problems, needed
advice, or even wanted to just sit and talk with someone about dreams
and aspirations I might have. My successes have always seemed
bittersweet, because few people understand how hard I have had to work
to accomplish the goals I set for myself. They don't know how
frustrating it was to move every year, how challenging it was to change
schools constantly and to adjust to different houses, different rules,
different foster parents, brothers and sisters. All of the moving
around--especially in high school--made it difficult to keep friends,
and I lost my identity. I loved being involved in school activities
like theater, church groups, sports, and diversity clubs. These gave me
glimpses of a life lived by my classmates and their families that I
only dreamed of. These glimpses of ``normal'' family life were also
reminders of siblings I was never able to know, the brothers and
sisters that foster care took away from me. My sister Val, is a driving
force for me; she was the only sibling I was able to stay connected to
in care. It was so hard to have to do things like monitored visits,
timed visits, timed calls, begging, fighting, and breaking down so that
we could spend limited time together. This just weighed my heart down,
and made me feel like all the hurt was my fault, like I chose to be
born into the family that I was, like I chose for the foster families
to not like both of us, like I was the one who neglected, abused, and
hurt my family. Why did my love for my sister have to come at this
expense, when all we both needed was our connection? As for my other 5
siblings, I never even had any chance to stay connected to them.
Because of my experiences in foster care, I've had to redefine what
family means to me. I finally found my family in supportive people and
groups who believe in my voice and potential, and who are my network of
support and love and encouragement. These people that I have met and
worked with along the way share the trials in life I have experienced
and the triumphs I know I will achieve.
More than half a million children and young people are now in
foster care, and 12 million people who have been in foster care are out
there in the world.
I have accomplished a lot, but it is in spite of all of the
uncertainty I experienced in foster care--not because of it. I want
something better for the youth who are currently in the foster care
system. I want them to have families to love and protect them and homes
they know they can always return to. I want them to leave foster care
to live with a family, a relative--someone who will be permanent in
their lives. I do not want the youth currently in foster care to age-
out of foster care with no family and no one to turn to for help or
support. For those youth who do remain in foster care until they become
adults, I believe they should have the care and support of the foster
care system until they are truly prepared to live on their own, and
have more opportunities to connect to adults who care about them.
Foster care supports and services should stay in place at the very
least until they turn 21 years old. This would also ensure that they
had access to health care while they are learning to support
themselves. When I aged out of foster care, I did not have any health
insurance. I was told that I needed to apply to Arizona's state health
care program while I was attending college. I applied, got rejected,
re-applied, and got rejected, re-applied, was told yet again that I had
too much income, and have no dependents, therefore I did not qualify.
It was not until my anxiety got so severe, or I had medical scares, and
that my voice strengthened, and I was able to ask with confidence for a
basic need to be met, of medical insurance. The one semester in
college, that I had medical insurance, I did not miss classes due to
having an anxiety attacks, or because my flu turned into bronchitis,
because I did not have or know the right way to treat my illness . . .
it was so helpful not to have to worry about my health for that short
time.
In spite of this, I am strong and successful. In 2000, I graduated
from high school with my class despite attending 5 different high
schools. I went on to receive a BA in Psychology from Arizona State
University in May 2006. All these accomplishments came and went with
little or no time to celebrate, as I had to remain focused on making
sure that I had a place to live and a way to support myself. I was very
motivated, too, by the belief that no one believe that I could do it .
. . that I could succeed. I only wanted my sister to be by my side as I
fought through school and working, The toughest accomplishments are
those where there is no one to celebrate with. My College graduation,
was the most meaningful accomplishment, because my sister was there, my
best college friends were there, and a FosterClub All-Star Sis was
there. Also, I have a mentor, a mentor to support me and to tell me
what they thought about the work I put into school. My success would
have been sweeter if I would have had a family to share it with, and if
I hadn't had such worries about my health and about having no support.
Our government has the power to ensure that children in foster care
have better outcomes, and that young people leaving foster care receive
the support they need to succeed. If Congress simply changed the way
the Federal Government pays for foster care services, it would prevent
the need for some children to enter foster care and move others to
safe, permanent families more quickly. It would make an enormous
difference in the lives of so many children who have already been
through so much and would save others from having to uproot their lives
three, four, ten times as I did. Changes that would increase school
stability, ensure good health care, and extend support to 18-21 year
olds would make such a big difference in the lives of these children
and youth that we all care about so much.
Hundreds of thousands of children are waiting for help, waiting for
families, waiting for things to be better. Congress has the power to do
something, and I ask you on behalf of all of my brothers and sisters
who cannot be sitting here with me to do something now. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. You have said enough to reach us.
Ms. TOVAR. Thank you very much. This legislation will
change my brothers' and sisters' lives who are still in the
system.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We appreciate your willingness to come
and bare your soul.
Ms. TOVAR. My pleasure.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. It is very tough to do. I know that.
The first time you sit in a place like this, it has got to be a
little scary. So, we are really proud of you.
Ms. TOVAR. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. You help us put a human face on what
the issues are. So, thank you.
Ms. TOVAR. Thank you.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I would like to ask a question of Chief
Kerlikowske. One of the programs that you are doing--this whole
business of prevention and how you prevent these kids getting
in there in the first place, prevention is kind of vague.
I would like you to talk a little bit about the program
that you have dealing with kids who have watched their parents
be taken away by the police, and the emotional programs that
they have developed in Seattle to deal with that.
Chief KERLIKOWSKE. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are
a couple things that I think are critical, and that is that we
make a lot of arrests, like any big city police department. Of
course, the untold victims of those arrests are often these
kids that are left at home.
So, working closely with the State, working closely with a
group called Seattle Team for Youth, we can also have officers
and trained social workers that can help to deal with some of
those emotional scars for some of the kids.
The partnerships and the leveraging are just critical. I
know we are all sitting here talking about Federal dollars and
more Federal dollars for some of these programs, but I would
hope that all of the Members of the Subcommittee would
understand that we are very judicious in how those dollars are
used, on how we leverage our resources with others.
Police chiefs like to think they are actually in charge,
like Members of Congress. I quickly recognize that I am not in
charge, that there are areas of expertise in the education and
in the social service agencies which we want to be at the table
and we want to be supportive, but we don't need to be in charge
of those kinds of programs.
That is why we think, as an unexpected messenger, myself
and my colleagues come to you. We come to our statehouses. We
advocate for these smaller dollars for prevention in order to
save not only people from future violence, but also to save
future dollars. It is just a better investment.
So, those partnerships with a lot of different agencies are
the ones that seem to make the most sense in keeping those kids
out of trouble.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Purcell, you raised an issue that I
would like you to talk a little bit more about. It seems to me
that with the standard set in 1996, that by--I don't know where
it is, probably 2012 or something--there will be no children
left eligible for foster care financing.
Mr. PURCELL. That is right. My understanding is that when
the TANF legislation was passed, Congress realized that the
eligibility for IV-E funding for foster care kids at each State
level was tied to each State's welfare level. Recognizing that
some States would be changing those in the face of the
flexibility that the TANF legislation gave them in welfare, it
was an effort to actually protect the foster care program by
locking that number in as of July 16, 1996, I believe.
So, on that day, it was probably a very good idea, but I
think the expectation, at least of those of us in the field,
was that a year or so later Congress would update that. It
simply hasn't been updated, so that we're still--it is called
the look-back provision, as one of your colleagues referred to
it before, because every day when the public sector folks--my
colleague next to me--admit a child to foster care, they have
to look back. They have to look at the parents' income, of all
things----
Chairman MCDERMOTT. How do you find that income?
Mr. PURCELL. Well, you ask them. I will defer to my
colleague on that.
Mr. DEIBERT. Mr. Chairman, we spend a great deal of time
and energy. We have staff that all they do is eligibility, to
research the financial records of families to determine whether
or not they qualified in 1996. These are resources that are
taken away from our capacity to provide services, direct
services, to children.
It is long overdue that Congress look very, very carefully
and very seriously at de-linking the foster care system and
funding from the AFDC rate of 1996.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. What should the link be to? Or should
all children be covered?
Mr. DEIBERT. In this resolution, you recommend that all
children be eligible for support from the Federal funding
stream. I agree with that 100 percent. Children are children.
We need to address all children with an equality of
opportunities to have access to services and the supports they
need, and certainly their families, to help them to rebuild.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you.
Mr. PURCELL. If I could just add to that that this is one
of those places where Congress could actually simplify the work
that goes on, this frankly wasted time figuring out what the
income level was. In fact, since all this started so many years
ago, there are very strong child support provisions, so that if
in fact a working family's children are admitted to foster care
or my child was admitted to foster care, there are provisions
that I pay part of that support, just as I would in child
support in another situation.
So, this isn't about foster care subsidizing wealthy people
who somehow want their children in foster care, as if we could
even imagine that that could happen. This is an opportunity for
Congress to simplify the front-end work.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Weller will inquire.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know our full
Committee has a lot on the floor today with the trade
preferences, the tax increase legislation, and other bills that
are before us. So, I know Members are going to be coming and
going.
I would just ask, out of courtesy, Mr. Chairman, for all
our colleagues on the Subcommittee, if we could just have
unanimous consent for questions that could be submitted for the
record for any Member of this Subcommittee.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. WELLER. Thank you. Also, I had asked Ms. Bachmann
earlier because of her work in helping children, particularly
staying in the same school, the number of schools that foster
children are likely to attend before they would be eligible to
graduate.
Mr. Deibert, I see that you note in your testimony,
``School mobility poses a particular challenge to children in
foster care. Sixty-five percent of youth who have aged out
experience seven or more school changes.'' I can only imagine.
Ms. Tovar, your testimony speaks to that as well. I really
want to commend you, Ms. Tovar. You are a very impressive young
woman, and I want to thank you for your commitment to your
brothers and sisters in foster care. God has blessed you with
great strength from your experiences, and you have represented
yourself as well as the other kids very well today. Thank you
for being here today.
I know our time is limited. Mr. Purcell, you come from New
York State. New York is like Illinois and Florida: 100 percent
of the child welfare work is given to the responsibility of
not-for-profit organizations.
Mr. PURCELL. Right.
Mr. WELLER. My State of Illinois, of course, is an example
like your State.
You made reference to legislation that I have introduced
that you said equalized the opportunity to participate in child
care worker training programs, making sure the reimbursements
are treated the same.
Mr. PURCELL. That is right.
Mr. WELLER. Can you speak, perhaps from the New York
perspective, what I would consider to be an unfair treatment of
not-for-profit versus public employees, what the difference
really makes, particularly in being able to provide quality
foster care in our States?
Mr. PURCELL. Well, our State, for example, has a fairly
extensive training program for the public--we are a State-
supervised, county-administered system--but our State sponsors,
using Federal IV-E training funds, a fairly extensive amount of
training for those county workers.
Then we turn and we look at the not-for-profit agencies,
and because the Federal funding support isn't there, our
workers literally are not able to enroll in some of the
training courses that are being provided. In fact, it is even
crazier than that because even if there was a vacant seat in
the room, if one of our workers were to attend that class, it
would change the whole funding formula for the training
contract and they can't handle that.
Mr. WELLER. Any idea what the history is, why this
difference in treatment of not-for-profit child care workers
versus public employees?
Mr. PURCELL. Actually, I used to work for the State
government and I should know the history of that, but I don't.
In any event, as we look around the country now, we are finding
more and more what I will refer to as privatization efforts,
which is efforts on the part of the public sector to devolve
some of the case management responsibility and much more of the
financial risk to private providers.
That has been a very big movement in Florida, for example.
New York City is moving in that direction, a number of
jurisdictions around the country. Yet we have still got this
disequity with regard to the ability to train our workers.
Our frontline worker, caseworker turnover rates, are 35
percent and more. That goes back to the comments that Lupe was
making about stability. I like to say that if we could get the
workers to stay longer than the kids do in foster care, we
would have a much better system with more experienced workers.
We pay them poorly, and in our State, particularly on the
private side, there is an enormous amount of pressure on them.
I talked about the caseloads being too big before, and----
Mr. WELLER. Sure. I appreciate the Chairman including my
provision in his bill. I think this is a scenario for
bipartisan opportunity.
Mr. Cross, before my time is up, you and I have worked
together. We have talked about another issue, the fair
treatment of tribal governments in providing foster care. Right
now, the tribes are not eligible to directly receive IV-E
funding.
Mr. CROSS. Right.
Mr. WELLER. You referred to this in your testimony. We have
a bipartisan bill which the Chairman has included language
essentially identical to in his bill. Can you give an example
of how this lack of direct access has directly impacted
children on tribal lands?
Mr. CROSS. Yes. This is a problem from a lot of different
perspectives. You have to realize that we have about 6,000
Indian children across the country that would be eligible for
IV-E if they were not under the custody of the tribal court.
So, they are not getting the protections of the permanency
provisions and other provisions of IV-E, but in addition to
that, the funds that are available under IV-E for recruitment
and licensing of foster homes is not available to tribes. There
is not training for the foster parents. These 6,000 children
that we estimate are in case are being taken care of by poor
people for no reimbursement. It is out of the kindness of their
hearts.
There is no money for worker training. Our caseloads are
astronomical. We have no data about--I can't even tell you what
the reliable data is because the data systems that track
children in foster care come from IV-E. So, without access to
IV-E, not only do we not have the foster care payment for the
child or money for a caseworker, but money to recruit homes, to
train foster parents, to train workers, to record data. So, the
ramifications are across the board in our services.
Mr. WELLER. 6,000 children?
Mr. CROSS. We believe it is about 6,000 children.
Mr. WELLER. That certainly reinforces why that provision is
so very, very important.
Mr. Chairman, again I believe we have opportunities to put
together bipartisan legislation that we can get done this year.
I very much want to work with you to accomplish that goal.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Ms. Berkley will inquire.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Ms. Tovar, let me thank you very much for sharing
your story as eloquently and as beautifully as you did. It does
put a human face on a very tragic problem.
In my community--I represent Las Vegas--we have a lot of
great things going in Vegas, and I brag about it all the time,
but we also have a crisis in our foster care system and our
welfare system, and the most vulnerable among us are the ones
that suffer the most, as you all know. I know I am preaching to
the choir when I speak with you.
There are a couple of things I wanted to ask you about. I
don't know whether you were here when I did my opening
statement, but in addition to Mr. McDermott's Invest in KIDS
Act, which I think is an outstanding piece of legislation, I
have a piece of legislation that would do away with the AFDC
look-back and extend Federal foster care maintenance assistance
to all children in need.
The second provision of the bill would be to grant States
greater flexibility in how child welfare programs are spent. We
would establish a baseline of projected days out-of-home care
experienced by children, and then take the savings and use it
for various other things, including reinvesting in family
preservation, support services, reunification services.
The way we do our funding of our child welfare system, it
is after things have gotten so bad that we take them out of the
home instead of spending money up front and seeing if we can't
preserve the family unit, do counseling, improve the quality of
our social workers that are dealing with this situation,
certainly improving the pay. In Las Vegas you can park cars and
make four times as much as you can being a social worker or,
for that matter, a teacher in our public school system. It
doesn't give people much incentive to stay in these very
important jobs.
I was wondering what you thought about those two
provisions, and if there isn't some way that we can bring these
provisions into Mr. McDermott's bill and perhaps improve the
quality of both pieces of legislation and improve the quality
of foster care in our country.
Mr. PURCELL. I certainly would agree with both of those. I
think that the provision to fund all the kids and get rid of
this look-back provision is in fact part of this bill.
We really have to--we keep coming across these tragedies.
They are in the paper in every jurisdiction from time to time.
They are often the result of human foibles and an inability to
guess ahead what somebody is going to do. They are also the
function of very low pay that keeps workers out of this field.
I spend more to kennel my dog when I go away than a foster
parent will get for taking care of a child every day. That is
crazy. I look for the cheapest place to kennel my dog. Our
payment processes are out of whack, and we are not focusing on
the quality of services--which, frankly, if we did it right
would, I think, cut down the lengths of time kids spend in care
because we would get to deal with the issues a lot sooner with
a quality workforce to do it.
Ms. BERKLEY. Let me ask you something. I am also very
concerned about kids aging out of foster care and what happens
to these kids afterward. I couldn't help but agree with my
colleague from Nevada. My two kids are living at home and they
are in their twenties. They are no more ready to be out on
their own than the man on the moon.
I think of these kids that are coming from very unstable
backgrounds, and then all of a sudden go out there, and you are
18 years old, and take care of yourselves. I can't imagine how
they can do it. A large part of my homeless problem in the Las
Vegas valley are aged-out kids from the foster care system with
no place to go.
I am very concerned about the health care aspect of foster
care. Could you, Mr. Purcell, elaborate a bit on how these
regulatory changes to Medicaid will affect children? I know
that the State of Nevada is very concerned with these changes,
and it is worth discussing how these regulations will be
detrimental to children in foster care.
Mr. PURCELL. I am not an expert on all aspects of it, but
the most recent set of regs would prohibit foster care agencies
from being the recipients of funds under a program in Medicaid
called targeted case management. Lots of kids in foster care
have the kinds of serious needs--developmental, sometimes
mental health, and physical health--that are perfect examples.
My State just within the last 8 months got a series of
Federal Medicaid waivers specifically targeted to kids in
foster care. Then these regs came out that, on their surface,
say that the approvals that the same Federal agency just gave
the State to run these waivers is now overturned because of
their interpretation of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
which I presume they were looking at when they gave the
approval in the first place.
Now, there is a possibility they will decide that because
it is a waiver, it is not covered. Many States rely on this
targeted case management component of Medicaid to direct and
coordinate mental health and health care services for kids in
foster care. CMS has been going around the country, frankly,
trying to systematically undo this, which puts a huge financial
burden back on the States to try to provide these kind of
services. We need more of this, frankly, not less of it. A
moratorium would be very helpful.
Ms. BERKLEY. I couldn't agree more. I know my time is up,
but I want to thank all of you for doing what I consider God's
work. Thank you especially for coming and sharing it with us.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Herger will inquire.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talking about doing
God's work, Ms. Tovar, every single person that is listening to
your testimony and observing you is so incredibly impressed
with your spirit, with your tenacity, with your ability to take
the impossible and make something positive, very positive, out
of it.
I am sure, just with what you are doing here this morning
in this hearing before the U.S. Congress, is showing what a
role model you are with these horrible experiences that you
have had to help make it better for those who have been in the
same situation. So, we are very grateful to you.
Where Mr. Chairman and members of the panel were talking
about how important it is, obviously, that we have the funds to
do this incredibly important foster care work that we have
before us, and the challenge, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I
would just like to state that in 2004, I introduced the Child
SAFE Act, legislation that would have increased funding for
child welfare activities by $200 million per year, which States
could have spent on family finding activities, more services
for families, and more and better-qualified caseworkers.
This legislation would have given States more flexibility
over Federal foster care payments, which they could have used
to cover all children and eliminate the 1996 look-back. Yet
States resisted and advocates attacked my legislation, while
those same groups today support your legislation, Mr.
McDermott, and the approach based on your testimony.
Had States at that time supported the legislation which I
had introduced, they would have received more funding and
already be implementing better and more flexible services that
focus on prevention. More importantly, children would be far
better off because States would have had the resources and also
the incentive to focus on the types of treatment and service
everyone at the hearing today suggests are so critical.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a CRS report which reflects that States have lost a
collective $5.3 billion in increased funding that they would
have received during 2005 to 2010 had they supported this
legislation. In 2008 alone, States stand to lose more than $900
million.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.015
Mr. HERGER. Thank you. For the entire panel, I would like
to ask: Does anyone know how much the bill introduced by
Chairman McDermott that is the topic of our hearing today would
cost?
[No response.]
Mr. HERGER. I don't think we have a report on that.
Another question: Aside from the provisions that would
reduce Federal matching rates for foster care and adoption
payments, are there any pay-fors included in this legislation?
Mr. PURCELL. Well, I would simply say that I think we can--
we believe that investments in preventive services to reduce
the need to place kids in foster care, which is always going to
be more expensive for a variety of reasons, would in the longer
run pay for.
The chief mentioned in his testimony the importance of very
early intervention programs, which actually have evidence of
reducing incidence of maltreatment of kids, like home visiting
programs, we think would pay off in the longer run.
Mr. HERGER. I agree with that, by the way, but we are in a
Congress now that is looking at pay-fors for everything we do,
so this is a very pertinent question.
Does anyone have any suggestions for pay-fors to cover
these increased spending proposals of the bill?
Mr. DEIBERT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Herger, I want to comment on
the importance of the flexibility in this funding stream that
is being proposed in this legislation. In Arizona, we are
fortunate to have a waiver from the IV-E funding program to
allow us to provide intensive services to families where there
has been a removal of a child.
In the first year of that program, we have been able to
provide reunification of those children to their biological
families at a rate that is 43 percent higher than a compatible
study group. When we have the flexibility to provide intensive
services to families, to provide post-permanency services to
families, we can shorten the length of time children spend in
foster care.
We can limit the amount of time that we have to provide
services to support a family. We believe that there are ample
opportunities with that flexibility in funding to allow States
to more effectively manage the dollars that we do have
available to address the specific needs that families have.
Mr. HERGER. I thank each of you. I thank you, Mr. Deibert,
for your testimony. Each of you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Mr. Stark will inquire.
Mr. STARK. I want to thank the panel, and Ms. Tovar for her
very poignant remarks about the problems that our clients--I
guess you are a client--face. I also am troubled when we get
into bureaucratic squabbling and causing some problems. We had
a couple of problems with California and New York, one that Mr.
Purcell is probably going to agree with me. I would like Chief
Kerlikowske's comment on this.
In our wisdom a while back, we decided that parents or
grandparents and related foster parents have got to go through
an FBI check. In New York and California, we have--I don't know
whether it is expired or about to, but probably a more thorough
and quick study.
I think that we have never missed a serious problem, but we
have had situations where a grandparent got tagged 15 years
back with maybe a misdemeanor abuse squabble, but it was clear
that he and the grandmother had gone to counseling, had taken
anger management, and the caseworkers decided that these
grandparents were able, and there has been no evidence since
then of any disputes.
Under the Federal law, if the FBI picked that up in their
search, we couldn't have placed the children with those
grandparents. I am hoping that perhaps we can get back to
particularly those States. I would ask the chief: Would it be
an undue burden on you all to have to run those kinds of checks
for the State or King County social workers?
Chief KERLIKOWSKE. No, it is not an undue burden. We run
literally thousands of background checks for everyone who wants
to work in a day care center, for teachers. Some are more
extensive and require fingerprints be submitted. That is a
little bit more expensive and more time-consuming, but the new
fingerprinting methods are actually inkless. They don't involve
cards. They could be----
Mr. STARK. Could you be comfortable with some kind of
standard set by the social workers if you reported old cases
that might not apply? It seems to me that when people get to be
my age, their criminal activity declines rapidly.
Chief KERLIKOWSKE. Congressman, I think that we would be
much more comfortable by providing the information that we
develop as a result of the background check, and having those
people responsible for the program, whether it is a day care
worker, whether it is a foster care parent, or whether it is a
teacher, setting the parameters of what would be the threshold
about denial of that responsibility or not, rather than put us
in that position. This is an area we are probably not expert
in.
Mr. STARK. Yes. The FBI thing is a one size fits all. You
are cool with that, Mr. Purcell, if we let New York continue to
do it their way and set some standards?
Mr. PURCELL. Thank you for suggesting that I am cool,
Congressman, but yes, I would agree with you.
Mr. STARK. Okay. Now we are going to have the part where we
are not so cool, guys. Some of you--and I have some figures for
Arizona; not a whole lot, but it is $800,000 in a year, in
2002. Washington does it, but I don't have the figures--and
that is that we have a group of foster children who are
probably somewhat more disadvantaged than others in that they
are eligible for SSI benefits or Title II benefits, Social
Security benefits, in effect, if their parents were dead or if
the children are disabled, which is--this is even worse.
Many States have gone out and hired these--I don't know
quite what to call them, if there is a polite word--but guys
who run out and search the database to find foster kids who are
eligible for the Social Security payments, and then the States
take the money.
If a child's parent has custody and is receiving, for one
reason or another, these Social Security checks, that parent is
under obligation to Social Security to either certify that they
spend it for the benefit of the child and/or save it for the
child. I am thinking that--this is a couple hundred bucks a
month, maybe. If they are disabled, it is a little more. The
disability payments should go to help the child with whatever
special medical care of equipment, transportation needs, that
disability might cause.
If they just happen to be getting the benefit that comes
from the parents being deceased, it might amount to a little
bit of a nest egg when that particular foster child matures out
of the foster care system. They might have a thousand bucks.
Maybe they could buy a car. Maybe they could use it to pay
junior college tuition.
In Arizona, as I say, it was $800,000. I don't have the
figures on New York. I suspect in California it could amount to
some--it depends on how aggressively these guys go out and mine
this field. I know that in California, the money just goes into
the general fund. We may be paving roads with it, for all I
know, but it doesn't even specifically get back into the--and
the concept is, well, the State is supporting the kids in
foster care; therefore, it ought to get this money.
I am hoping to say that those particular funds,
particularly for children with disabilities but also for those
who have lost their parents, ought to be set aside and managed
for the children; if they have special, unusual needs, spent
there. Can I get New York to help me with that, Mr. Purcell?
Mr. PURCELL. You can get me to help you with that. I can't
speak for the State.
Mr. STARK. It takes some money out of the budget. That is
the problem I am running into. In Arizona, Mr. Deibert, will
you give that $800,000 back to the kids?
Mr. DEIBERT. Mr. Stark, we do give that money to the
children. We identify the specific services that are provided
to the children, the supports provided to the children for
those dollars. What I would ask that you consider is the
limitation of $2,000 of accrued income before these children
are denied access to things like Medicaid and other support
services.
Mr. STARK. Yes. This shouldn't count toward that.
Mr. DEIBERT. It does.
Mr. STARK. It shouldn't. I agree.
Mr. DEIBERT. So, we would appreciate, in the give and take
of the process, that we look at all aspects of----
Mr. STARK. Well, I would like to work with you all in
seeing if we could come to some way to see that the children
get what, in a sense, they are entitled to without having it
just kind of slip into the State treasurer's pocket and then we
lose using it as I think we would all like to use it.
Yes, Ms. Tovar? I am.
Ms. TOVAR. I have really short arms. I can't really reach.
Thank you.
I just wanted to speak for two of the youth in my mentoring
program who I am not sure if they received the funds when they
were in care. I am speaking more toward when they age out of
care. I know that some of the independent living standards or
qualifications for youth to get into that program, to live on
their own, have their own apartment, and all this, there aren't
concrete standards across the State. So, some counties are
asking for you to have $1,000 saved before they can do that.
I aged out at 17, and for someone to expect me to stay into
foster care after I graduated high school because I don't have
$1,000 saved up would put me another year behind to moving
forward towards success, independence, and that route. So, I
really do think that that needs to be worked on, and I really
am grateful that you said that.
We are working to help our youth, but that is one area that
my organization isn't very knowledgeable of. We have two youth
right now in our program who are--one who is disabled and one
whose parents passed away. So, it is two different situations,
but that money would help them tremendously.
Mr. STARK. Thanks very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. I want to thank the panel for your
testimony, all of you. Particularly, Ms. Tovar, it has been
helpful to have some feeling for what is going on on the
ground. Thank you.
We will now move to the next panel. We hope that we can get
this panel done before we have votes. So, if you will step up
to the table. The hearings don't always mesh with what is going
on on the floor.
We would like to begin with Ms. Cooper, who is the project
director for Kids Are Waiting campaign of the Pew Charitable
Trusts. Ms. Cooper?
STATEMENT OF HOPE A. COOPER, PROJECT DIRECTOR, KIDS ARE WAITING
CAMPAIGN, THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS
Ms. COOPER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you very much for holding today's hearing and for
inviting me to testify. On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts
and the Kids Are Waiting campaign, I appreciate the opportunity
to be a part of this important hearing about how we can reform
the child welfare system, and in doing so improve the lives of
hundreds of thousands of children in foster care. They deserve
our urgent attention.
This evening, after this hearing is over and this room has
gone dark and silent, more than half a million children will go
to sleep without their parents at their bedside. During the
next hour alone, 36 children will be removed from their
families due to abuse or neglect.
As we have heard, foster care can be lifesaving for some of
these children, but far too many do not experience foster care
as the temporary solution it is supposed to be. Instead, they
spend years in foster care waiting to return safely to their
families or to join new families through adoption or
guardianship.
Five years ago, Pew launched a national foster care
initiative aimed at reducing the number of children languishing
in foster care. To date, we have invested $23 million toward
achieving this goal. Our initiative began with the Pew
Commission on Children and Foster Care, which was cochaired by
two former Members of Congress, Representatives Bill Frenzel
and William Bell.
Under their leadership, the commission crafted policy
recommendations on making changes in two key areas. The first
was improving the way that State courts oversee cases of
children in foster care, and the second was changing Federal
child welfare funding to facilitate faster movement of children
from foster care into families.
Upon the completion of the commission's work, we launched
the Kids Are Waiting campaign. The campaign collaborates with
dozens of partner organizations to raise awareness about the
urgent need for child welfare reform through research and
advocacy.
Thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee and the
passage by Congress of new State court improvement grants in
2006, nearly every State court around the country is actively
working to reduce the time it takes a child's case to move
through the courts. Courts are the gateway into and out of
foster care, so these court reform efforts are critically
important.
However, it is equally important that Congress take action
to fix the Federal funding of child welfare. Mr. Chairman, one
in five children in foster care, or more than 125,000 children,
have been in care longer than 3 years. Many have been separated
from their siblings and experience ongoing moves and changes to
their school routines. As you stated in your opening statement,
nearly 24,000 young people a year age out of foster care on
their own. We must not allow this to continue.
The good news is that we know we can do better for children
and youth in foster care. We can support adoption and
guardianship, two critical pathways out of foster care and into
families; and we can also look to a vast array of innovative
programs at the State and local level that have proven to be
effective in preventing child abuse and neglect.
One program is in your State of Washington, the Circle of
Security program. This is a 20-week group-based educational
program designed to improve parenting skills in high-risk
parent/child relationships. There are many other programs like
this that are fact-based and evidence-based models that can
help keep families safely together.
Your bill, Mr. Chairman, would take innovations like these
to scale and make Federal financing policies work in concert
with achieving better outcomes for children. We are grateful
for your leadership and applaud your efforts to champion the
needs of children in foster care.
Your bill would go a long way toward fixing foster care and
correcting the inequities of the current system. We are
especially supportive of those provisions in your bill that
replace outdated policies with a new child-focused approach
that accomplishes the following: preventing the need for foster
care before a crisis occurs; supporting permanent families
through guardianship; eliminating barriers to adoption; and
eliminating the outdated income eligibility test that
Congresswoman Berkley spoke about.
Many of these changes will require some new funding, but
some can be achieved by redirecting current funding or by
building stronger accountability for how public dollars are
used. Our goal, like you have stated, is to see legislation
passed this session.
Your bill could be enacted as a complete package or
incrementally. We know that there is strong bipartisan support
for a number of the provisions in your bill, such as bills
sponsored by Representative Davis and others. We hope that
Congress will respond to the urgent need to reform by passing
legislation before the end of the year, and our campaign stands
ready to support you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hope A. Cooper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hope A. Cooper, Project Director, Kids Are
Waiting
Campaign, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Chairman McDermott, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
invitation to testify today. On behalf of The Pew Charitable Trusts and
the national Kids Are Waiting campaign, we applaud you and your
colleagues on the Subcommittee for your dedication to improving the
lives of children in our nation's foster care system, and for your
determination to ensure that all children in this country have the
safe, permanent, loving families they deserve.
In 2003 Pew launched a national initiative aimed at finding ways to
reduce the number of children languishing in foster care without
permanent families. To date, we have invested more than $23 million
towards achieving this goal. The initiative began with the work of the
Pew Commission on Children in Foster care. In 2004, after more than a
year of intensive study, the commission issued a report with policy
recommendations for State court and Federal financing reforms. Thanks
to leadership of this Subcommittee and action by Congress in 2006 to
set aside $100 million in court improvement grants, many court reforms
have been embraced by judicial leaders nationwide and courts are
actively working to improve accountability and case tracking systems.
Less progress has been made on Federal financing reform, but we are
heartened by the introduction of your bill and the Subcommittee's
commitment to reforming the child welfare system to better promote the
safety, permanence and well-being of vulnerable children and youth.
We are pleased to see many of the child-centered principles laid
out by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care represented in the
Invest in KIDS Act, as well as other legislation introduced in the
110th Congress. These proposals have the potential to correct a number
of unintended but serious inequities in current child welfare
legislation and will serve to strengthen families and reduce the number
of children in foster care, ensure that all children in care receive
the services they need, and support relatives who provide permanence
for children through guardianship.
This evening, after this hearing is over and this room has gone
dark and silent, more than half a million American children will go to
sleep without their parents at their bedside. Foster care can be life
saving for some of these children, removing them from situations where
abuse or neglect have occurred. But far too many children who are
victims of abuse or neglect do not experience foster care as the
temporary solution it is supposed to be--instead, they spend years in
foster care waiting to return safely to their families or join new
families through adoption or guardianship.
``Growing up in foster care, a tiny, tattered yellow vinyl suitcase
always accompanied me while I switched families, rules and routines,''
said Aaron Weaver, from Nebraska. ``I hated that suitcase. Packed and
ready to go, it was a constant reminder of how unstable my life was and
how the threat of moving made every day uncertain.''
Jelani Freeman of New York echoes this uncertainty. He spent more
than a decade in foster care and recalls, ``Every day when I got home
from school, I would check to see if my bags were packed.'' That's how
he knew he was moving to yet another new placement.
On average, children spend more than two years in our nation's
foster care system, move to three different homes, and are often
separated from brothers and sisters, friends, teachers, and familiar
schools. In 2005, more than 24,000 youth leave the foster care system
completely to live on their own, ``aging out'' with no support system.
We must not allow this to continue.
Like the recommendations by the Pew Commission on Children in
Foster Care, the Invest in KIDS Act addresses the core, systemic
problem of the current Federal funding mechanism for child welfare.
That problem is an over-reliance on foster care at the expense of other
services to keep families safely together and to move children swiftly
and safely from foster care to permanent families, whether by safely
reuniting them with their birth parents or by adoption or legal
guardianships. While there may be some differences in the approach
recommended by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and that
of the Invest in KIDS Act, we enthusiastically support improvements to
Federal child welfare financing that accomplish the following:
preventing foster care; supporting permanent families through
guardianship; eliminating barriers to adoption; and eliminating the
outdated income eligibility test.
Preventing Foster Care. During the next hour, 36 children will be
removed from their families and enter foster care. Arguably, many of
them might be able to stay with their families if we were doing a
better job of preventing child abuse and neglect.
In 2005, there were nearly 900,000 confirmed cases of child abuse
and neglect, yet 40 percent of those children failed to receive any
services or supports to prevent abuse or neglect or remain safely with
their families.
Last year, the Federal Government spent $7.2 billion to support our
nation's child welfare system. But the bulk of this funding
(approximately 90 percent) was allocated to foster care and some
adoptive services instead of adequately supporting proven and cost-
effective alternative services that can help keep children safe,
strengthen families and, in some cases, prevent the need for foster
care. Due to this financing straightjacket, States are greatly limited
in their ability to operate programs that help families before a crisis
occurs or reunification services that can help keep children safe and
strengthen families.
Imagine the anguish caused to both parents and children, when
families are separated and children are placed in foster care. Eprise
Armstrong from Indiana recalls, ``I was five, and my family was being
ripped apart. I was scared. My mother was alone, too. I remember her. A
broken young woman blurred by my tears, she stood in the middle of the
street and watched as two cars drove away with her life.''
We believe that the Federal Government should partner with States
in supporting programs that strengthen families, keep them safely
together, and reduce the number of children who must enter the foster
care system. A growing body of evidence, from States and cities and
counties across the U.S.--Spokane, Washington; Baltimore, Maryland, and
Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, among others--suggests that a broad
array of services can decrease the incidence of abuse and neglect, keep
children safely with their families, and lessen the need for children
to enter foster care--while at the same time lowering the costs of care
per child.
``Nothing can replace your mom. My mother is a good woman, and she
loved all of us,'' said Jennifer Gibson, who was in foster care in
Utah. ``My mother needed addiction treatment, parenting classes and
jobs skills training. The entire family needed counseling. All of those
things beforehand would have kept us out of care in the first place.''
Providing States with flexible, reliable Federal funding that would
help support a broad continuum of services needed by at-risk children
and families is essential to keeping children safe, promoting their
healthy development and well-being and strengthening families who, with
assistance, can give their children the love, support and nurturing
parenting that they need.
``If I could wish for anything it would be that our family could
have gotten help sooner,'' said Stephanie Lopez Smith, who entered
foster care in Washington State and was successfully reunited with her
family. ``I don't know what life would have been like if I had stayed
in foster care or been adopted, but I know if I didn't have my family
around me--my mom, my brother, my grandparents, and my cousins--I would
be devastated. My family means everything to me.''
Supporting Permanent Families through Guardianship. Many children
in foster care find the safety, stability, and security they need in
the homes of grandparents and other relatives. Research shows that
children in foster care who live with relative caregivers are more
likely to remain in the same schools, close to friends and in familiar
surroundings, and are more likely to be placed with their brothers and
sisters. Living with grandparents and other relatives often allows them
to stay connected with friends, family, and their cultural heritage.
``Unlike many children in foster care who suffer the loss of family
members at a young age and experience an overwhelming sense of
abandonment, I was fortunate,'' said Nicole Demedenko, from California.
``My grandmother gave me support and encouragement in every way she
could, so that I would become successful. Having a family, in my
grandmother and siblings, has been the only thing that kept me going.''
Research demonstrates, however, that relatives of children in
foster care are more likely than non-kin families to need financial
assistance to meet the children's needs. Many are older and living on
fixed incomes, and few have budgeted the unexpected expenses of raising
more children.
Yet, grandparents, or other relatives, who want to provide a
permanent home for children in foster care may lose the financial
assistance they receive as foster parents if they become the children's
legal guardians. As a result, many children stay in the foster care
system longer than necessary, so caregivers can continue to access the
funds they need for food, medicine, and clothing and provide the
children with critically needed health and educational services.
Federal assistance should be available to relatives who create
stable, loving families through legal guardianship. The benefits of
subsidized guardianship are immediate for children who are able to
leave foster care to become full members of their relative families and
who no longer carry the label of ``foster child.''
Eliminating Barriers to Adoption. Currently, Federal adoption
assistance is available only for certain children in foster care.
Children may receive Federal adoption assistance only if it was
initially determined when they entered foster care that their birth
parents were poor enough to meet the income test of Aid to Families
with Dependent Children, a program that was dismantled more than a
decade ago and has not been adjusted for inflation, or if they meet the
requirements of the Federal Supplement Security Income program.
When children are not eligible for Federal adoption assistance,
they may face additional barriers to adoption. Most of these children
have physical, mental health, and development needs that require
ongoing services; without financial support many adoptive families may
lack the resources to meet these children's special needs. A recent
study found that 81 percent of adoptive parents said adoption
assistance was important to their decision to adopt, and 58 percent
said they could not adopt a foster child without support to meet the
child's special needs.
A few years ago, Alissa Tschetter-Siedschlaw and Sean Kearney from
Iowa were considering adopting a little girl with hydrocephalous, mild
cerebral palsy, lung disease, and other serious medical issues. When
they learned there was adoption assistance to help pay for needed
medical treatments and therapy, Sean said, ``It moved us from thinking,
`Can we financially make it work?' and put the focus back where it
should be--`Can we love and care for this child?' That was never in
question!''
Each child in foster care who has a goal of adoption deserves an
adoptive family. And, each child with special needs awaiting an
adoptive family deserves Federal support, so that an adoptive family is
able to step forward for the child. We must ensure that no child in
foster care is denied a family because the necessary financial support
is not available.
Eliminating the Outdated Income Eligibility Test. All abused and
neglected children deserve to be protected by a foster care safety net.
In addition, Federal policies should require concerted efforts to
ensure they leave foster care to permanent, loving families. The
responsibility for these children should be a shared Federal and State
responsibility. However, thousands of foster children and the States
responsible for them are not receiving crucial help from the Federal
Government.
The vast majority of children enter foster care because of abuse or
neglect. Each child who has experienced this trauma and loss needs a
full array of services and supports. Linking children's eligibility for
Federal support with the income of the child's birth family makes
little sense. Yet, under current law, the outdated linkage of Federal
foster care support to a defunct program is resulting each year in
fewer of our most vulnerable children being eligible for Federal
assistance each year. In 2005, less than half of children in foster
care were eligible for Federal support, leaving to States the full
responsibility for providing for these children's many needs.
Conclusion. Now, more than 10 years after the passage of the
groundbreaking Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA) we recognize there
is still more work to be done. We must build on the successes of ASFA
and honor the long-standing, important partnership between the State
and Federal Government to ensure the safety, permanence, and well-being
of children in our Nation's foster care system.
For the sake of the 500,000 children in foster care today and the
nearly one million children nationwide at risk of experiencing abuse
and neglect during the coming year, we must turn our attention to ways
to protect them and promote safe, loving families for every child.
Pew's Kids Are Waiting campaign stands ready to support the
Subcommittee's efforts to achieve this goal by making critically
important changes to current child welfare policy. The time for real,
lasting and meaningful reform is now.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony.
I would ask the witnesses now to cut yourselves to 4
minutes. We are going to turn the red light on you at 4
minutes, and we will submit questions to you. We want to get
this done because we are going to be more than a half hour over
there on the House floor and we will never get back.
Ms. Allen, who is the Director of child welfare for the
Children's Defense Fund.
STATEMENT OF MARYLEE ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CHILD WELFARE AND
MENTAL HEALTH, THE CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND
Ms. ALLEN. Good afternoon, I guess it is, Chairman
McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, and Mr. Stark. I am MaryLee
Allen, director of child welfare and mental health at the
Children's Defense Fund. CDF thanks you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of improving America's child welfare
system. We also thank the Subcommittee for being here over all
these years as we have worked together to try to improve the
plight of many children in the system.
CDF believes that keeping children safe and in permanent
families must be everybody's business. Members of Congress, and
particularly this Subcommittee, have a particularly important
role to play in achieving that goal. You can provide the
framework and a portion of funding needed so that efforts to
improve outcomes for children in States and communities can
move forward.
We must begin now. There is so much to build on. Certainly
young leaders, like we heard with Lupe Tovar, speaking across
the country about the needs of their brothers and sisters.
There is a greater consensus, as we have heard in this hearing
today but also in hearings you have held before, about what
works and the need to move forward as we move ahead.
There are two important things that we ask you to keep in
mind as you move to improve the child welfare system. First is
the outcomes for children that we must achieve; and secondly,
the best ways to increase needed capacity in States to achieve
those outcomes. Let me just mention them briefly.
First, the outcomes. We have to keep children free from
abuse and neglect and from re-abuse. We have got to keep
children safely with their families whenever possible. We must
help to ensure quality care and permanent families for those
children who must enter foster care through safe reunification,
adoption, or permanent placement. Fourth, we have to ensure
post-permanency services for children who do go home or with
adoptive families to make sure that they don't bounce in and
out of care.
Second, how do we achieve these outcomes? We ask to submit
for the record the recommendations of the Partnership to
Protect Children and Strengthen Families, an effort to look at
what improvements we must make in child welfare financing to
better achieve these outcomes.
When we look at the recommendations of that partnership,
they are really focused around five key areas. I think it is
extremely important that in any provisions that you move
forward with, you look at these five areas.
First, what does it do for prevention and early
intervention? We must have targeted funds for prevention.
What does it do for specialized treatment and attention to
the basic needs of children? We also heard about the importance
of education.
What about enhanced permanency options for children and
post-permanency services?
Fourth, improving the quality of the workforce.
Fifth, increasing accountability for improved child
outcomes and system improvements.
Child welfare financing is key. It is essential. Child
welfare financing changes, but it is not sufficient.
Representative McDermott, that is why your bill, the Invest in
KIDS Act, is so extremely important. It recognizes the need to
look at financing, but to also look at some important practice
changes. We applaud it and the attention it gives to keeping
children safely with their families, but also providing
children and relatives, particularly, the extra support they
need to move forward.
It is attention to siblings. It is attention to using
front-end mechanisms like family group decisionmaking, the
kinship navigator program, and also family finders to help make
those connections with children.
We really appreciate the work that you all have done as we
look forward to making changes in the system. We believe that
the time is now to move forward to make changes for our
children.
The Children's Defense Fund urges you to begin this year to
extend help to three critically important groups of children:
first, those in foster care raised by their relatives in foster
care who need permanency; second, the American Indian children
who are being denied basic assistance; and also older youth
transitioning to foster care.
There are tens of thousands of Lupe's brothers and sisters
out there depending upon you, and we look forward to working
with you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marylee Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.026
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony.
Khatib Waheed, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Study of
Social Policy.
STATEMENT OF KHATIB WAHEED, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STUDY OF
SOCIAL POLICY
Mr. WAHEED. Yes. Chairman McDermott, Congressman Weller,
and other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on H.R. 5466, the Invest in KIDS Act. My
name is Khatib Waheed, and I am a Senior Fellow at the Center
for the Study of Social Policy, and I am here today
representing the Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child
Welfare Alliance, which is a partnership among several leading
foundations, agencies, and associations that focus on improving
our Nation's child welfare systems.
The Alliance includes Casey Family Programs; the Annie E.
Casey Foundation and Casey Family Services; the Jim Casey Youth
Opportunities Initiative; the Marguerite Casey Foundation;
parents and alumni of foster care; the Race Matters Consortium;
BACW; and my organization, the Center for the Study of Social
Policy.
On behalf of the Alliance, I would like to thank you and
the Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of broadly
addressing the many needs of children involved in the child
welfare system.
One of the issues is related to over-representation and
inequitable treatment for children of color in the child
welfare system. Although all three waves of the National
Incidence Survey on Child Abuse and Neglect found that there is
no significant difference in the overall incidence of child
abuse and neglect between African Americans and Caucasians
within similar income groups, African American children are two
and a half times more likely to be represented in foster care
than their proportions in the overall population, and they are
over-represented in the foster care system in every State. The
placement rates for African American infants into foster care
is three times higher than for whites.
Similar differences have been found for other children of
color. For example, Native American/American Indian children
are three times more likely to experience foster care and are
over-represented in 24 States, and Latino children are
disproportionately represented in foster care in ten States.
The recent report by the GAO entitled ``African American
Children in Foster Care'' reported that the factors
contributing to disproportionality and disparities are high
rates of poverty, difficulty accessing needed services, racial
bias and cultural misunderstanding between child welfare
decisionmakers and families, and difficulties finding
appropriate permanent placements for children who cannot be
reunified with their families.
The Invest in KIDS Act will help reduce disproportionality
and disparities. Based on the research, the Alliance believes
that it is essential to strengthen the focus in Federal law and
policy on safely preventing children of color from coming into
foster care, and when prevention is not possible, ensuring that
they leave foster care as quickly as possible as members of
safe and permanent families.
I would like to highlight several provisions of the Invest
in KIDS Act that would help advance that goal.
First, the bill will help more children safely avoid
entering into foster care by improving efforts to locate
relatives and engage them in placement decisions that serve
their best interests.
Second, the bill will help children exit foster care on a
more timely basis, and to move to permanent family settings.
Thirdly, the bill will improve services to Indian tribes
and to native children and families.
There are some additional measures that we would like for
you to consider.
To further address racial disparities and
disproportionality, we would like to recommend that the Invest
in KIDS Act build upon important work that is already taking
place in State and county child welfare systems. The States of
Washington, Texas, Illinois, and Michigan, as well as counties
in Minnesota, Iowa, and North Carolina, are all pioneers in
demonstrating how to focus policy and practice on improving
outcomes for children and families of color.
The State and local efforts can and should inform Federal
policy developments because they offer a foundation for Federal
policy improvements. Some of the common elements of those
practices are as follows: tracking and reporting data; engaging
birth parents and youth and other community stakeholders in the
analysis of data; developing State plans to reduce racial
disparities; and enacting specific policies that provide
support to families earlier and in more preventive fashions,
like Texas.
We want to thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Khatib Waheed follows:]
Prepared Statement of Khatib Waheed, Senior Fellow
Center for the Study of Social Policy
Thank you Chairman McDermott and other Members of the Subcommittee
for inviting me to testify today on H.R. 5466, The Invest in KIDS Act.
My name is Khatib Waheed, and I am a Senior Fellow at the Center for
the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) and am representing the Casey-CSSP
Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare (Alliance). The Alliance is
a partnership of several leading foundations, agencies and associations
that focus on improving our nation's child welfare systems. The
Alliance was established to develop and implement a national, multiyear
campaign to address racial disparities and reduce the disproportionate
representation of children of color in the nation's child welfare
system. The Alliance partners are Casey Family Programs; the Annie E.
Casey Foundation and its direct service agency, Casey Family Services;
the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative; the Marguerite Casey
Foundation; parents and alumni of foster care; and my organization, the
Center for the Study of Social Policy. The Race Matters Consortium and
Black Administrators in Child Welfare are also partners in this work.
On behalf of the Alliance, I would like to thank the Subcommittee
for recognizing the importance of broadly addressing the many needs of
children involved in the child welfare system. This hearing and those
you held in 2007 highlight many of the challenges facing the system and
the children in it. The Alliance looks forward to working with you as
you identify strategies to improve the child welfare system.
My testimony will highlight how The Invest in KIDS Act will help to
reduce the disproportionate representation and disparate treatment of
children and families of color who are involved in the child welfare
system. I will also suggest provisions that we believe can further
strengthen child welfare agencies' capacity to achieve equity for all
children and families affected by child welfare services. These
recommendations are consistent with the central purpose of this bill,
which recognizes the essential need for children to have a family they
can count on for a lifetime. That need applies to children of our own,
and it certainly applies to children who interact with the child
welfare system.
As the Subcommittee knows, a recent report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) entitled African American Children in
Foster Care, requested by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel,
found that African-American children are much more likely to languish
in foster care, even though research shows no significant difference in
the overall incidence of child abuse or neglect between African
Americans and Caucasians within similar income groups. The GAO also
documented unequal treatment of African-American children in receiving
services from child welfare agencies. African-American children stay in
foster care longer; they are moved to different foster homes more
frequently; they are less likely to be reunited with their own
families; and they have a smaller chance of finding an alternative or
adoptive family willing to make a lifelong permanent commitment. These
differences in the experiences of children of color in the child
welfare system are evident even after adjusting for income.
Disparities for families of color were further documented in
several reports prepared by Dr. Robert Hill of Westat. Although three
phases of the National Incidence Studies conducted by Westat (1980,
1986, and 1993) found that children of color are not abused at higher
rates than white children, An Analysis Of Racial/Ethnic
Disproportionality and Disparity at the National, State, and County
Levels (2007) found that black and American Indian families were
approximately twice as likely to be investigated for child abuse and
neglect when compared to the average for all families. The same
differences were found for rates of substantiation of abuse and
neglect. In terms of foster care experiences, black children were 2.4
times more likely to be represented in foster care than their
proportions in census populations, and American Indian children were 3
times more likely to experience foster care. Other recent reports
documented the over-representation of American Indian/Native American/
Alaskan Native children in 24 States and Latino children in 10 States.
In A Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in Child Welfare: An
Update, Dr. Hill finds that despite differences in the design and
methodology of the studies under review, much consensus about
disproportionality exists in the professional literature, especially
among more recent studies. Most of the studies that were reviewed
documented racial disparities at every stage of child protective
services: reporting, investigation, substantiation, placement, and exit
from care. The only stage where no racial differences were identified
was the stage of reentry into the child welfare system.
The Invest in KIDS Act Will Help to Address Racial Disparities
Based on this research, the Alliance believes that it is essential
to focus on safely preventing children of color from coming into foster
care, and--when prevention is not possible--ensuring that they leave
foster care as quickly as possible as members of safe and permanent
families. I would like to highlight several of the provisions in this
legislation that would help advance that goal.
First, this bill will help more children safely avoid entering
foster care by improving efforts to locate relatives and engage them in
placement decisions that serve the best interests of the child. When
family members are identified and engaged in all aspects of service
delivery, the outcomes for all children are significantly improved.
This is especially true for children of color. For example, research
has shown that when family members are involved in case plans, relative
placements for children of color increase from 29 percent to 45
percent.
Second, this bill will help children exit foster care on a more
timely basis and to more permanent family settings by authorizing
Federal reimbursement for guardianship payments to relatives and by
providing assistance in navigating the programs and services needed to
achieve permanence. Specifically, these provisions will allow States to
have separate foster care licensing standards for relatives; authorize
funding for activities to connect children in foster care to relatives;
and provide guardianship payments when relatives transition from foster
parents to legal guardians. An important component of this measure is
the continuing medical assistance eligibility for children who leave
foster care into permanent guardianship. The bill will also provide
financial incentives for States to increase the numbers of children
placed permanently with relatives. Together, these sections represent
the most comprehensive Federal approach to date for ensuring that
children in foster care are quickly, successfully and permanently
united with family. These provisions benefit all children in care. They
are especially essential for children of color in that they will
strengthen the ability of extended family members and kin to provide
permanent, loving homes for children when their biological parents are
unable.
Third, this bill will improve services to Indian Tribes and to
native children and families. There are several provisions that will
significantly benefit tribes, and we are highlighting the provision
that establishes access to Federal funding for critical services to
keep families together, and to reunify children with their families. In
too many States, native children are placed in foster care at rates 4-5
times greater than their proportion of the population. While tribes can
offer informal and community supports to their children, they also need
funding for the services that can make the difference between a family
continuing to care for a child and a child being placed in foster care.
Currently, many States do not pass Title IV-E funding through to Tribes
using individual agreements or State laws. This bill will allow the
Federal Government to correct this problem and enable tribes to develop
the resources to maintain native children in their homes and with their
families.
Additional Measures to Reduce Racial Disparities and Racial
Disproportionality
In order to further address racial disparities and racial
disproportionality in the child welfare system, the Alliance recommends
that the Committee add to The Invest in KIDS Act specific policy
changes focused on such goals. We strongly believe that these goals
must be a central part of any efforts to make improvements in America's
child welfare system.
In making these recommendations, we are building on the important
work that is already taking place in State and county child welfare
systems. We believe that these State and local efforts can and should
inform Federal policy developments. They offer a foundation for Federal
policy improvements related to reducing racial disparities and
disproportionality and require the attention of both State and Federal
Governments.
The common elements of these promising activities include:
Tracking and reporting data on the experience of children
at key decision points within the system, and disaggregating these data
by race and ethnicity;
Engaging birth parents, youth, and other community
stakeholders in the process of analyzing these data and informing plans
for improvements;
Developing State plans to reduce racial disparities in
child welfare with targeted outcomes and specific measures of progress;
Enacting specific policy and practice changes that
increase supports and services to children and families or color, and
that provide these supports to families earlier and in a more
preventive fashion; and
Expanding State accountability through the creation of
public annual reports.
A number of States can be highlighted for their innovative work in
these areas:
Michigan--The Michigan State Legislature used
appropriations language to require the Department of Human Services
(DHS) to convene a task force to analyze the disproportionate
representation of children of color in the child welfare and juvenile
justice systems. Examination of State- and county-level data revealed
widespread disparities in treatment of children of color compared to
their white counterparts. More than 2,300 individuals participated in
40 focus groups for front-line staff, supervisors, and community
stakeholders; three tribal focus groups; and two public hearings. The
task force issued a broad range of recommendations. In addition, a
comprehensive, four-part assessment and review process has been
conducted in Wayne County and Saginaw County, and practice reforms and
policy recommendations are being developed. Local accountability groups
have also been established, and 14 additional local assessments are
planned for this year.
Texas--The Texas State Legislature required the executive
branch to analyze data regarding the impact of child removals and other
child welfare actions on racial disproportionality. The legislation
required a report of the findings, an evaluation of policies and
procedures, and a remediation plan. Initial actions include creating
partnerships with community advisory committees composed of local
stakeholders to address disproportionality; hiring a State-level
director and 12 disproportionality specialists within the State child
welfare office; revising training for new child protective services
(CPS) caseworkers to include ``Undoing Racism'' training with court
officials, agency staff and other stakeholders; increasing use of
kinship care with greater financial assistance and training for
caregivers; and increasing use of in-home services and financial
assistance to prevent the need for out-of-home placement.
Washington--The King County Coalition on Racial
Disproportionality analyzed child welfare data and conducted focus
groups. Based on this research, policy and practice actions to reduce
disproportionality were recommended, including efforts to engage
fathers, culturally-competent in-home services to preserve families,
greater use of kinship care, use of concrete services, advocates or
guides for families encountering the system, and post-permanency
support. The statewide approach is beginning by following a cohort of
60,000 children statewide who had a referral for child abuse and
neglect in 2004. The study will analyze the level of involvement of
children of color at each stage, the number of children of color in
low-income or single-parent families involved in the State's child
welfare system, and the outcomes for children in the system.
Illinois--The Illinois Department of Children and Family
Services is working in partnership with the State African-American
Family Commission to improve permanency outcomes for African-American
children. Actions include conducting Permanency Enhancement Symposia
and focus groups with judges, private child welfare service agencies,
public child welfare staff, birth parents, foster parents and youth in
foster care in all regions of the State. The goals of this work are to
mobilize communities and develop local partnerships, gather and examine
regional information, develop policy and practice recommendations, and
create community and local action plans.
These examples help illustrate a common set of data-related
strategies that are emerging as promising approaches for reducing
racial disproportionality in child welfare systems. Additional examples
can be found in local jurisdictions such as Ramsey County in Minnesota,
Guilford County in North Carolina, and Woodbury County in Iowa. To
encourage similar measures across the country, the Alliance strongly
recommends action by both the Department of Health and Human Services
and individual States to track and respond to data on racial inequities
in the child welfare system and to assess progress made over time in
reducing these inequities.
Since States are required in their IV-E State plan to oversee
outcomes for all children in foster care, we believe that elements
similar to the following should be added to the Title IV-E State Plan
so that States will be required over the next two years to develop and
begin to implement a Plan to Reduce Racial Disparities in Child
Welfare. The following steps, at a minimum, are key to moving forward
in a timely fashion to develop such a plan.
1) States shall collect data on outcomes for children by race at
the critical decision points in the child welfare system, including the
initial report of abuse or neglect, the decision to remove a child from
the birth family, movement from one foster home to another,
reunification, and the decision about permanent placement with an
adoptive family or permanent placement with kin. In addition, States
must prepare an annual report on this data, submit it to the Department
of Health and Human Services, and make it public in the State.
2) States shall review these data and identify the policies,
procedures, and practices that they believe contribute to the findings
in the above report.
3) States shall convene a task force of State and local officials,
birth parents, youth, foster parents, adoptive parents, and other
community stakeholders to assist in analyzing the data and identifying
plans for reducing racial inequities in child welfare.
4) The Task Force, based on the annual report and analysis of
policies and procedures, shall prepare for implementation a State Plan
to Reduce Racial Disparities in Child Welfare that includes specific
strategies and measurable benchmarks for reducing racial inequities and
also includes measures for assessing progress in reaching those
benchmarks.
5) The State's Annual Data Reports and State Plan to Reduce Racial
Disparities in Child Welfare should be published and made available to
the public. Where possible, local workgroups that are similar in
composition to the State task force should be convened to assist with
implementation of the plan.
6) Within a designated time period after the establishment and
implementation of the Plan, the State shall submit annual reports to
HHS on progress under the Plan.
The Alliance looks forward to working with you on the specifics and
a timeline for the development of State Plans to Reduce Racial
Disparities. To assist States in the development of such plans and to
enable State and local officials, public and private providers, birth
parents, youth, foster parents, adoptive parents, attorneys and other
advocates to look across States at efforts underway, the Alliance also
recommends that Congress require the Department of Health and Human
Services to take certain steps to reduce racial inequities in child
welfare and to assist States in the development of their plans.
Specific steps might include:
1) Requiring annual State reports on the safety, permanence and
well-being of children who have contact with the child welfare system.
These reports must compare outcomes by race at the critical decision
points in the child welfare system, including the initial report, the
decision to remove a child from the birth family, movement from one
foster home to another, reunification, and the decision about permanent
placement with kin or adoption.
2) Requiring longitudinal data as well as specific data elements.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has suggested changes
to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)
to track outcomes for children in the child welfare system by race and
ethnicity, and we recommend that this type of tracking be required by
Federal law. Similar changes could be considered for the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
3) Compiling and publishing an annual report on the status of
children of color within the child welfare system that includes State
by State data, tracks trends longitudinally, and identifies the range
of strategies that different States are pursuing in their enhanced
State plans.
4) Including in the Child and Family Service Review process
specific performance measures to highlight State progress on reducing
racial, ethnic and cultural disparities.
5) Providing the technical assistance necessary to assist States in
the development of their State Plans to Reduce Racial Inequities.
6) Establishing a program of incentive grants that could be used to
(1) develop comprehensive State plans for addressing issues of
disproportionality and disparities; (2) develop improved tracking and
reporting systems related to these issues; and (3) build community
partnerships that help child welfare agencies increase services for
children and families of color.
In conclusion, The Investment in Kid's Instruction, Development and
Support Act, represents a tremendous opportunity to take national
action toward ensuring better outcomes for all children and families in
the child welfare system, as well as reducing the disproportional
representation and disparate treatment that affect children of color.
We commend Congressman McDermott and the other Members of the Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support for boldly
addressing comprehensive improvements to the child welfare system and
focusing on improving outcomes for our nation's most vulnerable
children. The Alliance welcomes any opportunity to assist the Members
in strengthening this legislation to expand its impact, particularly
for children of color.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to responding to questions
from you and the Subcommittee Members.
Chairman MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Pamela Davidson, who is the vice president for government
relations for the National Council for Adoption. We have about
4 minutes left on the vote, so the quicker you get through this
thing, the quicker we will get to the bill.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA DAVIDSON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION
Ms. DAVIDSON Thank you for this opportunity. I will be very
brief.
The National Council for Adoption supports many provisions
of your bill, and commends you for introducing it to help the
thousands of children in foster care. We definitely want to
express our support for the bill's provisions for federally
subsidized guardianship, which would be a positive reform to
the child welfare system and can be achieved without
undermining children's interests in adoption. Nevertheless,
NCFA is concerned about some aspects of the nature of federally
subsidized guardianship, as envisioned in this bill.
In regard to a child's eligibility for subsidized
guardianship, this bill is correct to state that subsidized
guardianship should only be considered for children for whom
reunification or adoption are not appropriate permanency
options. NCFA would like to recommend amending the bill's
language to clarify that the decision to forego reunification
and adoption should be made by a judge as opposed to State
agency caseworkers.
Furthermore, NCFA has concerns with the bill's stipulation
that the kinship/guardianship assistance payment shall be at
least equal to the amount of the adoption assistance payment
for which the child would have been eligible if the child had
been adopted. By setting the correspondence adoption assistance
payment as the minimum amount to which kinship care givers are
entitled, this bill makes possible a situation in which there
is a financial incentive for a relative or foster care giver to
choose guardianship over adoption.
NCFA would therefore suggest that the kinship/guardianship
assistance payment be made equal to the adoption assistance
payment for which the child would have been eligible if the
child had been adopted.
NCFA also has similar concerns regarding the bill's
extension of the adoption incentive program to cover
guardianship placements. For one, to amend the adoption
incentive program to include guardianship goes against the
program's intent to promote adoption, not all forms of
permanency.
Had the program been intended to promote permanency in
general, States would also have been given financial incentives
for increasing the number of children reunified with their
birth families.
In addition, providing States with the same financial
incentive for increasing guardianship placements as States
receive for increasing adoptions sends States the message that
guardianship and adoption are interchangeable permanency
options. Again, it is true that guardianship may be the best
permanency outcome for a child in certain circumstances.
However, barring these circumstances, adoption is the
preferable permanency outcome.
In addition to expanding the adoption incentive program to
cover guardianship placements, this bill doubles the amounts
States are paid for moving children out of foster care into
adoptive homes, and updates the base year to 2007 in order to
make more States eligible for payments.
While NCFA does not oppose these changes, I would like
Members of the Subcommittee to consider whether there might be
a more effective way to increase the number of States eligible
for receiving adoption incentive payments in the long-term.
For example, the current baseline that States must exceed
to receive adoption incentive payments is the highest annual
number of children adopted since 2002. Yet if a State increases
the number of children adopted out of foster care one year,
there will be that many fewer children available for adoption
in subsequent years. Therefore, the more successful a State is
in getting children adopted, the less likely the State will be
to match the previous annual performance in absolute numbers.
Changing the baseline from an absolute number of children
adopted out of foster care to a percentage of children with a
case goal of adoption out of foster care would provide States
with a baseline that doesn't become more difficult to match in
subsequent years because of prior success.
In conclusion, on behalf of NCFA, I would like to say that
the Invest in KIDS Act represents a significant step forward in
the area of foster care reform. Its passage would open up a
large stream of Federal dollars for the crucial and neglected
child welfare strategies of child abuse and neglect prevention
and family reunification.
Furthermore, NCFA supports the introduction of federally
subsidized guardianship provided the preference for adoption as
a permanency option is maintained. Last, NCFA would like to
urge Members to consider overall comprehensive Federal
financing reform involving both titles IV-B and IV-E of the
Social Security Act and geared toward increasing prevention and
permanency services.
I thank you for letting us testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pamela Davidson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela Davidson, Vice President of
Government Relations, National Council for Adoption
Chairman McDermott and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Pamela Davidson, Vice President of Government Relations
for the National Council For Adoption (NCFA). On behalf of NCFA, I
thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and applaud the
Subcommittee for holding this hearing to review legislative proposals
designed to improve America's child welfare system.
The National Council For Adoption is an adoption research,
education, and advocacy nonprofit whose mission is to promote the well-
being of children, birthparents, and adoptive families by advocating
for the positive option of adoption. Since its founding in 1980, NCFA
has been a leader in advancing adoption and child welfare policies that
promote adoption of children out of foster care, present adoption as a
positive option for women with unplanned pregnancies, reduce obstacles
to transracial adoption, make adoption more affordable, and facilitate
intercountry adoption.
My testimony today will focus on the recently introduced Invest in
KIDS Act. I would like to begin with what NCFA perceives to be the
particular strengths of this commendable bill. By amending Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act to provide Federal dollars for services
designed to safely reduce the number of children in foster care and
safely reduce the length of stay for children in foster care, this bill
will allow States to utilize more resources on child abuse and neglect
prevention and family reunification services. Though such services make
a crucial part of any child welfare system, they are not currently
reimbursable under Title IV-E and therefore do not receive the Federal
funding they deserve. This leads to children entering foster care as a
result of abuse or neglect that could have been avoided in the first
place and languishing there.
NCFA also appreciates the bill's elimination of the requirement
that the family from which a child has been removed must meet the
outdated AFDC financial eligibility requirements from 1996 in order for
the child to receive services provided with Federal dollars. All
children who are victims of abuse or neglect deserve the protection of
both the State and Federal Government, not just those whose parents
meet an outdated financial eligibility requirement for a program no
longer in existence. By eliminating this requirement, the Invest in
KIDS Act rightfully provides all children in need with Federal
protection.
Research has shown that excessive caseworker workloads correlate
with worsened outcomes for children in foster care. The $200 million
per year allocated to States under Title III of the Invest in KIDS Act
to reduce caseloads per child welfare worker and increase worker
training is another laudable provision of this bill which stands to
relieve our overburdened child welfare workforce and improve outcomes
for our nation's children.
NCFA would also like to applaud the bill's provision that all
individuals looking to adopt a child out of foster care be educated as
to their potential eligibility to receive the adoption tax credit
without having to document their adoption-related expenses. Research
has shown that parents adopting children out of foster care are under-
represented among claimants of the adoption tax credit. This provision
will undoubtedly go a long way toward ensuring that parents who have
adopted children from foster care receive the full Federal support to
which they are entitled.
Finally, NCFA would like to express our support for the bill's
provision for federally subsidized guardianship. Federally subsidized
guardianship would be a positive reform to the child welfare system and
can be achieved without undermining children's interest in adoption.
Research has shown guardianship to be as safe a permanency option as
adoption, and that children under the care of guardians are as likely
to feel a part of their guardian's family as adopted children are to
feel a part of their adoptive families.
Nevertheless, NCFA is concerned about some aspects of the nature of
federally subsidized guardianship as envisioned in this bill. In regard
to a child's eligibility for subsidized guardianship, this bill is
correct to state that subsidized guardianship should only be considered
for children for whom reunification or adoption are not appropriate
permanency options. However, NCFA would like to recommend amending the
bill's language to clarify that the decision to forgo reunification and
adoption should be made by a judge, as opposed to State agency
caseworkers.
Furthermore, NCFA has concerns with the bill's stipulation that
``the kinship guardianship assistance payment . . . shall be at least
equal to the amount . . . of the adoption assistance payment for which
the child would have been eligible if the child had been adopted.'' By
setting the corresponding adoption assistance payment as the minimum
amount to which kinship caregivers are entitled, this bill makes
possible a situation in which there is a financial incentive for a
relative foster caregiver to choose guardianship over adoption. NCFA
would therefore suggest that the kinship guardianship assistance
payment be made equal to the adoption assistant payment for which the
child would have been eligible if the child had been adopted.
NCFA also has similar concerns regarding the bill's extension of
the Adoption Incentive Program to cover guardianship placements. For
one, to amend the Adoption Incentive Program to include guardianship
goes against the program's intent to promote adoption, not all forms of
permanency. Had the program been intended to promote permanency in
general, States would also have been given financial incentives for
increasing the number of children reunified with their birth families.
In addition, providing States with the same financial incentive for
increasing guardianship placements as States receive for increasing
adoptions sends States the message that guardianship and adoption are
interchangeable permanency options. Again, it is true that guardianship
may be the best permanency outcome for a child in certain
circumstances. However, barring these circumstances, adoption is the
preferable permanency outcome.
As I've said, NCFA believes that federally subsidized guardianship
can be introduced as a positive reform to the child welfare system
without undermining a child's interest in adoption. However, research
has shown that the introduction of subsidized guardianship can lower
adoption rates if precautionary measures are not taken. The evaluators
of Illinois' Subsidized Guardianship Waiver Demonstration found that
while the introduction of federally subsidized guardianship did
increase permanency outcomes for children, it did so at the expense of
adoption. In the evaluators' own words, several years into the waiver
demonstration ``subsidized guardianship had begun to supplant
adoption.'' For this reason, NCFA would like to suggest that any
legislation introducing subsidized guardianship as a permanency option
be carefully tailored to ensure that adoption remains the preferred,
most incentivized permanency option, and that guardianship is
considered only after a court has ruled that adoption and reunification
are not appropriate permanency options. These principles and the
reasoning behind them are more thoroughly addressed in the attached
publication, Guarding Adoption while Subsidizing Guardianship.
In addition to expanding the Adoption Incentive Program to cover
guardianship placements, this bill doubles the amount States are paid
for moving children out of foster care into adoptive homes from $2,000
to $4,000 per child above the program's baseline for children under the
age of 14, and from $4,000 to $8,000 per older child above the
program's baseline. The bill also updates the base year to 2007 in
order to make more States eligible for payments. While NCFA does not
oppose these changes, I would like Members of the Subcommittee to
consider whether there might be a more effective way to increase the
number of States eligible for receiving adoption incentive payments in
the long term. For example, the current baseline that States must
exceed to receive adoption incentive payments is the highest annual
number of children adopted since 2002. Yet if a State increases the
number of children adopted out of foster care one year, there will be
that many fewer children available for adoption in subsequent years.
Therefore, the more successful a State is in getting children adopted,
the less likely the State will be to match its previous annual
performance in absolute numbers. By changing the baseline from an
absolute number of children adopted out of foster care to a percentage
of children with a case goal of adoption adopted out of foster care
would provide States with a baseline that doesn't become more difficult
to match in subsequent years because of prior success.
In conclusion, on behalf of NCFA, I would like to say that the
Invest in KIDS Act represents a significant step forward in the area of
foster care reform. Its passage would open up a large stream of Federal
dollars for the crucial and neglected child welfare strategies of child
abuse and neglect prevention and family reunification. Furthermore,
NCFA supports the introduction of federally subsidized guardianship
provided the preference for adoption as a permanency option is
maintained. Finally, NCFA would like to urge Members to consider
comprehensive Federal financing reform involving both Titles IV-B and
IV-E of the Social Security Act and geared toward increasing prevention
and permanency services.
The National Council For Adoption applauds and shares your
commitment to ensuring that America's children are reared in safe,
loving families. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on
this and other issues of mutual interest. Thank you very much for
allowing me to testify.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.028
Chairman MCDERMOTT. We thank you, and I apologize for
putting you through an exercise in breath-holding. We
appreciate it, and we will submit questions to you in writing.
Thank you all. The meeting stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Subcommittee meeting was
adjourned.]
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Chairman
McDermott and Mr. Lewis to Ms. Allen follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.045
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Chairman
McDermott to Ms. Cooper follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.046
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Chairman
McDermott to Mr. Purcell follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.050
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Mr. Weller
to Mr. Deibert follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.053
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Chairman
McDermott and Mr. Stark to Mr. Waheed follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.060
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Mr. Weller
and Mr. Camp to Mr. Purcell follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.067
[Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Chairman
McDermott to Mr. Deibert follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.070
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5993A.093
Statement of American Indian Affairs
The Association on American Indian Affairs is an 85 year old Indian
advocacy organization located in South Dakota and Maryland and governed
by an all-Native American Board of Directors. We have been involved
with Indian child welfare issues for decades and played a key role in
the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. We have not only
developed policy and been involved in legal proceedings, but also
worked with tribes to negotiate tribal-State partnerships to better
serve Indian children and have provided training to State employees and
officials about Indian child welfare. We have also had a long standing
interest in the issue of adequate funding for tribal child welfare
programs, having testified before this subcommittee about this issue as
far back as 1990.
We applaud Chairman McDermott for his introduction of H.R. 5466,
the Invest in KIDS Act. There are many portions of the legislation that
would make vital improvements to the child welfare system. Obviously,
the perspective that we have to offer involves the impact of this Act
upon Indian children. That will be the focus of this statement.
Tribal Access to Title IV-E
First and foremost, we urge enactment of the portion of the Invest
in KIDS Act that would make tribes eligible for direct funding under
Title IV-E. As you know, tribes are not eligible for direct funding
from the Title IV-E foster care/adoption assistance entitlement program
because of an oversight when the law was enacted. Currently, tribes
maintain their child welfare programs through a patchwork of funding--
some BIA money, funding through Title IV-B, tribal resources which are
often limited, and occasionally IV-E funds (or even more rarely, State
funds) where there is an agreement between a tribe and the State. Many
of these funding sources are discretionary and tribes are uncertain
from year to year whether they will have enough funding.
The lack of access to Title IV-E, the largest Federal child welfare
program, greatly impacts the ability of tribes to adequately serve
Indian children living in Indian country under tribal government
jurisdiction--jurisdiction which is usually exclusive. In this regard,
it is important to reemphasize that tribal governments are distinct
from State governments and tribal nations exercise their own inherent
sovereignty. Many children in tribal communities live below the poverty
level and rates of abuse and neglect can be significant, but whether
these children benefit from Title IV-E depends entirely upon whether a
tribal-State agreement (which is a totally voluntary arrangement
between the two governments) is in place. It is tragic that we have a
Federal entitlement program to assist abused and neglected children who
must be removed from their homes, but have not extended that
entitlement to children under tribal jurisdiction.
We would note that tribal access to Title IV-E will also benefit
Indian children and families involved with State or county systems as
those children and families would more often be able to access to
tribal services and resources, in addition to those provided by the
State or county. We are pleased that at the hearing, five of the
witnesses most from non-Indian organizations interested in child
welfare--specifically endorsed the tribal funding provision as an
important part of this legislation.
We were also greatly encouraged by the remarks of Representative
Weller at the hearing where he indicated that the tribal provisions had
bi-partisan support and stated that he believed that those provisions
could be enacted this year. We want to thank Chairman McDermott and
Rep. Weller for their support of tribal funding, as well as Rep.
Pomeroy who is a member of the full Committee and who has introduced
H.R. 4688 which provides for direct tribal funding under Title IV-E.
Finally, we would also like to thank Rep. Camp of this subcommittee,
who with Rep. Weller is a co-sponsor of H.R. 4688, and who has
introduced Title IV-E tribal funding legislation in earlier Congresses.
Although there are differences between H.R. 4688 and H.R. 5466, at
their core both bills are the same--they provide for direct tribal
administration of the Title IV-E program. We believe that the two bills
can be easily reconciled and would be happy to work with the
Subcommittee to achieve that goal if this would be helpful.
Kinship Guardianship
The kinship guardianship proposal would be of value to Indian
children and families. In almost all Indian cultures and communities, a
child is thought of as belonging not only to his or her parents, but to
his grandparents, uncles, aunts and other members of his extended
family. Where there is a clan system, that can also be an important
source of identity. Moreover, a child also has a broader sense of
belonging to the child's tribe and his or her culture as well.
This is reflected in many tribal codes. Tribes frequently recognize
the rights of extended family, grandparents and traditional custodians
to participate in judicial and informal proceedings and continued
visitation with such individuals is frequently mandated by tribal
courts or codes even where parental rights have been terminated.
Extended family is defined in many codes to include a large number of
people beyond those typically included in non-Indian definitions--
people such as clan and band members, individuals who traditionally
assist with parenting, any person viewed by the family as a relative,
first cousins of parents (defined as aunts and uncles), step-family and
godparents. Concepts such as grandparents may include brothers and
sisters of the child's lineal grandparents.
Maintaining a child's non-parental connections, unless they are
demonstrably harmful to a child, promotes a child's well-being and
sense of permanency in the larger sense. Thus, including kinship care
within the Title IV-E system would be a positive development for Indian
children and families.
Other Tribal provisions
Finally, we applaud the allocation for tribes in the Child Welfare
Service Quality Improvement Grant Program and the inclusion of tribes
as eligible for Family Connection Grants. We would note only that
tribes need to have full access to Title IV-E to take full advantage of
these programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the
record and for your support of direct funding to Indian tribes under
Title IV-E.
Statement of Ann Harrmann
On behalf of the Coalition for Family & Children's Services in
Iowa, I thank you for the opportunity to provide information to improve
the child welfare system. We are very supportive of the Invest in Kids
bill.
The Coalition is an alliance of 30 agencies that provide most of
the direct treatment services to abused and troubled children in Iowa.
Coalition agencies provide services across Iowa.
We applaud the Invest in KIDS Act. Its provisions will greatly
enhance the child welfare system and improve the lives of abused and
neglected children.
We feel that the Federal and State child welfare system as
currently structured and funded is adding to harm of children who have
already been hurt. The Federal Government has required States to
greatly improve outcomes for abused and neglected children, but, at the
same time, has cut back on Federal resources for these children.
The child welfare system in Iowa (and many other States)
is severely under funded. We ask that the Federal Government take the
lead in allocating sufficient resources to improve the lives of abused
and neglected children.
The provision in Title IVE Funding linking eligibility to
1996 guidelines does not make sense. The formula needs to be changed so
that eligibility is not tied to AFDC in 1996 and is not tied to a child
being in out of home care. There is no longer an AFDC program, so this
provision needs to be revised. The Consumer Price Index has gone up
about 26 percent since 1996 but the funding formula has remained
unchanged. Costs do increase for everyone in the child welfare system
i.e. insurance, heating, gas, housing and staff salaries. Additionally,
if a child can be served safely at home, these services should be
considered for Federal payment.
All abused and neglected children should be eligible for
help. Please change the Federal funding formula so that all abused
children are eligible for the services they need to become productive,
healthy adults. We believe that child welfare services should remain an
entitlement rather than a block grant. All abused and neglected
children should receive the services they need to become healthy,
productive adults.
The under funding of Child Welfare for so many years has
meant that public workers have very high, unmanageable caseloads. We
applaud the effort to reduce these caseloads.
At the same time, because of the under funding of child
welfare, private workers are paid salaries that are inadequate and not
competitive with other similar jobs in other sectors. In Iowa, a social
worker in a private agency with a BA in social work receives a starting
wage of $24,936. This means that many people leave the field because
they can not support themselves or their families. A similar employee
working in a State job would start at $35,381.
Because private salaries are so low, it is very difficult
to recruit high quality staff. Turnover is quite high--the turnover
rate in private agencies in Iowa for direct care staff is about 50
percent. Each time a child has a new worker, their chance of achieving
a permanent family decreases dramatically. We believe private salaries
need to be dramatically improved. We support the provision for training
in the Invest in Children Act. We ask that Congress allow the training
funds be used to train both the public and private child welfare
workforce.
Statement of DePelchin Children's Center, Houston, TX 77007
DePelchin Children's Center, founded in 1892, is Houston's oldest
charity. It is accredited by the Council on Accreditation, and serves
the Houston Gulf Coast region. Our mission centers on enhancing the
mental health and physical well being of children, focusing on 2 major
areas: (1) prevention & mental health services, & (2) serving children
in the Child Protective Services (CPS) system.
Currently, we have nearly 600 foster children in about 400
therapeutic, habilitative, and basic foster care homes and 60 CPS
children in 2 residential treatment centers (RTCs). In 2007, we
provided foster care to a total of 1063 children, facilitated adoption
of 100 CPS children, and supplied post adoption support services to
families who have adopted children from the CPS system. We provide a
continuum of care focusing on the mental health and safety of children.
Our programs include:
Prevention & early intervention (PEI) services, most of
them pursuant to contracts with the State and Federal Governments; they
focus on preventing teen pregnancy, truancy, juvenile crime, child
abuse, and bullying, and several are home-visitation based;
Therapeutic, habilitative, and basic foster care &
residential treatment for CPS children;
Adoption services for CPS children and post-adoption
support services;
Transitional living for homeless young mothers to help
them become self supporting.
Children's mental health treatment, including psychiatric
& psychological care & school-based and office-based counseling;
Child psychiatry residency training with the Baylor
College of Medicine Menninger Department of Psychiatry, and Baylor
psychology post-doctoral training;
DePelchin also has a research and development department. In recent
years, we have been part of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network
(NCTSN), a program of the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), which is developing trauma informed
therapies for children who have suffered complex trauma, like those we
serve. Some of our prevention programs are partially funded by research
and development grants from the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF).
Comments on H.R. 5466:
OVERVIEW
DePelchin Children's Center supports H.R. 5466. Two provisions
relating to the financing provisions are key to DePelchin as a service
provider in Texas and to improving outcomes for children and families
who need child welfare services. Those are:
changing the method of determining the Federal match for
foster care from the 1996 AFDC ``look-back:'' provision to instead
using a measure based upon the State's Medicaid participation;
encouraging the use of Federal child welfare funds for
prevention, early intervention, and temporary and permanent kinship
placements;
Allowing youth to stay in care until age 21.
DePelchin strongly supports the provisions of the bill targeting
the following outcomes:
Safely reducing the number of children in care,
especially through prevention and early intervention;
Safely reducing the lengths of stay in care;
Increasing the use of kinship care and kinship
guardianship;
Authorizing States to retain children in care up to age
21;
Providing post-permanency supports; and
Improving the medical care and educational outcomes of
foster youth.
As in many other States, over 80 percent of Texas' children and
youth in foster care are in the care of community-based and faith-based
charities such as us. Although DePelchin is a large foster care
provider, we strongly support policies that reduce the need for foster
care, other out-of-home placements, and institutional care. Research
supports the intuitive belief that children are best off with their
families where those families can be safe and stable. Children need
safety, stability, and adult mentoring and encouragement if they are to
become productive adults.
DISCUSSION
Use of Federal funds for prevention and family preservation:
DePelchin is currently adapting to cultural groups in Texas a
successful family preservation program developed at the University of
Maryland called Family Connections. The development work is largely
funded with a replication grant from the Federal Administration for
Children and Families (ACF). DePelchin has also developed trauma-
informed mental health treatments which we utilize in caring for the
children in our foster homes and residential treatment facilities. Our
development of this expertise came from our participation in the
SAMHSA-funded NCTSN. By enacting the policies in H.R. 5466, Congress
can encourage the use of Federal child welfare funds in a way that
utilizes and expands upon the knowledge developed in federally funded
research such as these grant programs.
Expanded Federal support for kinship placements: Experience,
especially in Illinois, demonstrates that kinship placements are
generally more stable and successful than foster care with strangers,
so long as the kin can meet certain minimum standards. The reasons are
apparent. The child has continuity of relationships and receives a
message of caring and connection from relatives that is often lacking
in foster care. Relatives also often can make sure that the parents are
taking the necessary steps to achieve a successful reunification. They
are also more likely to keep the children in their care if
reunification is not feasible, and to receive them back if
reunification is unsuccessful.
Research verifies this evidence. Studies vary, but all show that
relative care is at least as safe as foster care. Studies also show
that relative placements are more stable, have much higher rates of
siblings staying together and children return to their parents more
quickly.
Texas has been pursuing expanded use of kinship care for several
years. From 2004 to 2007, Texas nearly doubled the number of children
in relative care, from 4516 to 8775, while increasing the number of
children in foster care by 1260 children. However, financial and
casework supports of kin caregivers is minimal, and with Federal
support as proposed in H.R. 5466, more kin with limited and fixed
incomes could provide care for these children. In 2007, the Texas
legislature emphasized its support for kinship placements when it
unanimously enacted SB 723, which requires the State Department of
Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to monitor and annually report to
the legislature on the number of kinship placements that could not be
made solely because the family did not have the financial resources to
take the children, and the amount of monetary assistance that would be
needed to enable those placements. H.R. 5466's provisions that kin can
receive financial assistance equal to foster care if they pass criminal
background checks and meet basic safety standards should help Texas
expand the number of children who can be cared for by relatives.
Subsidized guardianship: For the same reasons that we, and the
State of Texas, support temporary kin placement, we support the policy
of providing for subsidized guardianship. The Texas legislature in its
current budget adopted budget control language (DFPS Rider 31)
directing DFPS to apply for a Federal waiver allowing Texas to use
Title IV-E or other Federal funds to help fund subsidized guardianship.
However, we concur with the National Council for Adoption that 2
changes should be made in H.R. 5466's subsidized guardianship
provisions: (a) clarify that the decision that reunification or
adoption are not feasible should be made by the judge, not caseworkers;
& (b) to avoid creating a financial incentive to choose subsidized
guardianship over adoption, provide that the subsidy is to be equal to,
rather than ``at least equal to'' the State's foster care or adoption
subsidy payments.
Family connection grants: The grant program provided for in Section
445 to develop kinship navigator, family finding, and family group
decision-making programs has the potential to produce new ways to
safely and effectively expand kinship placements. Implementation of
Family Group Decision Making in Texas is a primary reason our State has
recently been able to expand kinship placements.
Federal funding for post permanency supports: DePelchin Children's
Center has been providing post-adoption support services for adopted
CPS children and their adoptive families for decades. We provide these
services under contract with the State, funded largely by State funds.
The funding has not increased in nearly 2 decades, despite cost of
living increases and significant increases in adoptions. Post-adoption
support services include support groups, therapy, residential
treatment, and respite care, among others. They are provided to
families to preserve the adoptions of special needs children, so the
child and family do not become overwhelmed and relinquish the child.
These programs yield a major benefit for a very small investment. We
encourage the sponsor and subcommittee to clarify this bill to
authorize use of Title IV-E funds for these services. We suggest this
funding also be available for services to children in subsidized
guardianship, since these children are likely to have many of the same
problems.
Services up to age 21: Texas currently provides Medicaid
eligibility for aging out foster youth up to age 21, and in limited
cases up to age 23. It also provides youth the opportunity to re-enter
care for certain purposes related to pursuing education. As Congressman
Danny Davis pointed out in his testimony, a recent comprehensive study
by the Chapin Hall Center for Children found that youth who remain in
care up to age 21 are more likely to enter college, complete college,
and delay pregnancy. * We are encouraged that this bill would recognize
that in today's society, few persons are able to be independent prior
to age 21. If our own children are not, how can the children who do not
have a permanent family be?
Improving health care and education: In addition to increased
kinship care, the State of Texas has been pursuing a number of other
policies that H.R. 5466 would help the State to expand. Effective April
1, 2008, the State is implementing a medical home, electronic medical
passports and managed health care for foster children and youth. It is
also pursuing educational passports. The provisions of the bill
requiring educational stability and funding of education related
transportation costs can be critical to children having educational
stability, especially in a large State like Texas.
Training funds: H.R. 5466 provides that Federal training funds may
be used to train employees of both public and private agencies that
care for children. We commend this policy, especially since over 80
percent of the children in foster care in Texas are in the care of
private charities. Currently, our employees cannot attend trainings for
CPS employees that are funded with Federal monies, even though they are
serving the same children. Allowing the use of these funds for all the
public and private agencies caring for CPS children is efficient and
likely to result in improved continuity and quality of care.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 5466 makes major strides in improving Federal financial
participation in the child welfare system. The bill reflects the growth
in knowledge and best practices that have occurred in the last several
decades. We strongly encourage this subcommittee and the full Ways and
Means Committee to approve this legislation, with minor changes
suggested by us and the other witnesses. The bill should help produce
much better results for children and families with the same investment.
Thank you for considering our input.
Statement of Gladys Carrion
Your attention to child welfare issues is greatly appreciated by
New York State's Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). Your
recent introduction of H.R. 5466, the ``Invest in KIDS Act,'' further
articulates the growing concern Congress has for improving outcomes for
our nation's most vulnerable children and their families. The bill
concurs with many of OCFS' priorities. I applaud your diligence and
effort on behalf of children and families. I am very happy to submit my
testimony for the record and lend my support to these efforts.
I. NEED FOR INCREASED FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION (FFP) TO SUPPORT
CHILD WELFARE
First, it is important that we examine the current method of
regulating and funding child welfare services. The individuality of
States should be recognized in this process. The demographic, cultural
and societal issues that bring children and families into a State's
child welfare system cannot be addressed using the same broad brush
nationwide. New York, for example, is one of the large industrialized
States that provides services in a ``State supervised/locally
administered'' fashion. New York is one of thirteen States that operate
in this manner, meaning that child welfare services, among many others,
are delivered at the county level with the State in a supervisory
oversight role. Support is needed from the Federal Government in
recognizing differences among the needs of States and offering
flexibility to provide the best possible services for children and
families in the manner that effectively serves vulnerable populations.
It is equally important that the States get a firm commitment from the
Federal Government that they will share the responsibilities involved
in supporting children and their families.
Income Eligibility Determinations: It is imperative that Congress
eliminate the outdated ``look back'' provision that ties eligibility
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act (SSA) for federally
reimbursed foster care and adoption subsidies to the income levels for
the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program that
were in effect as of July 16, 1996. To tie FFP for children removed
from their homes to eligibility standards that are more than a decade
old and from a program that no longer exists, calls into question the
fundamental commitment at the Federal level to providing basic services
that protect children. There should be no limitations on the Federal
reimbursement of Title IV-E expenditures. This would eliminate the
burdensome case-specific IV-E eligibility determination currently
required and free up time for caseworkers to spend on providing
services to families to promote the return home of their children.
Regulatory Reform--I would be remiss if I did not offer the
strongest possible opposition to recent rulemaking activities by the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Although I touch on the
Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS) and State Automated
Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) rules later in this
testimony, I wish to add the recent drastic measures that negate
Targeted Case Management (TCM) in the Medicaid Program as well. It is
well documented that children who require out-of-home placement in
foster care have significantly higher physical and mental health
related needs. The services provided through TCM are not in the States'
Medicaid State Plans or the States' foster care system services. When
TCM can be applied to services for foster children treated at the
community-based level, these children receive these services at a much
lesser cost than in an institutionalized setting. It is OCFS' belief
that the recent Medicaid final rule goes beyond what Congress intended
in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) and should never be applied to
children in foster care. It is especially important to New York that
the Interim Final Rules not be applied to the approved Home and
Community Based Medicaid Services waiver programs (H&CBW). Just last
year, New York received approval from CMS for a new H&CBW program to
prevent the hospitalization and institutionalization of children in
foster care. Only in its third month of operation, you can understand
our concern that the approved program model not be compromised.
Subsidized Kinship Guardianship: The number of children living with
relative caregivers has increased sharply in the past decade.
Currently, almost one-third of all children in foster care live with
relatives, and in many cases, with grandparents. The trauma of
placement in unfamiliar settings can often be avoided through kinship
relative caregiver placements. The essential connections to families
for those children who cannot be safely reunified with their biological
parents are vital to the children's emotional growth. However, many
grandparents need assistance in providing the proper care for their
grandchildren. AARP states that the rise of grandparents caring for
their children's children is dramatic. Grandparents often have limited
resources to adequately cope with the financial burden of childrearing.
Several States operate waivers that use Title IV-E funding to subsidize
kinship guardianship. The waiver process was helpful in providing
States with the flexibility to test this model. Given more than a
decade of success with these demonstration projects, and the
unavailability of additional waiver authority, we ask that Congress
amend Title IV-E as described in H.R. 5466 to provide all States the
option of seeking Title IV-E reimbursement for subsidized kinship
guardianship payments to relatives who are willing to assume permanent
guardianship of foster children so as to provide greater permanency and
stability to these children and their families. This should include the
payment of non-recurring expenses within limitations and FFP with those
associated costs.
Limitations on Administrative Costs--The Deficit Reduction Act
(DRA) limits Title IV-E reimbursement for administrative costs on
behalf of children who are living with relatives who have been approved
on an emergency basis but not finally approved as foster parents. This
is inconsistent with the provisions in Title IV-E regulatory language
that relatives should be granted a priority in foster care placements
and that case management activities be provided for all foster children
regardless of whether they are receiving Title IV-E funds or not.
Casework, planning, and supervision activities are funded by
administrative costs. To disparage these activities by stripping away
funding is to belittle the work that front line caseworkers and their
supervisors do every day with needy populations.
Title IV-B, Subpart 2--This minimally-funded stream that could
greatly improve outcomes for children by avoiding costly out-of-home
placements has been overlooked for far too long. Funding for this
program, which supports important services for families involved in the
child welfare system that prevent or reduce the need for foster care,
should be increased. Instead, the current appropriations would reduce
the discretionary funding for this program by $15 million. In addition,
ACF's current regulations require a specified portion of these funds be
spent on each of the four eligible categories States should be provided
greater flexibility to spend these capped child welfare prevention
dollars in the manner that best suits each State's needs.
Title IV-E Eligibility and Federal Child and Family Services
Reviews--The case samples for the Title IV-E eligibility reviews should
better reflect the number of children in the State that receive Title
IV-E funding. Congress also should consider permitting a State that is
the subject of a fiscal penalty (disallowance) as a result of a primary
or secondary Title IV-E foster care eligibility review or a Child and
Family Services Review to reinvest the penalty dollars to correct
deficiencies and to support the State's other efforts and initiatives
to improve its child welfare system.
While no State passed the first round of CFSR reviews, ACF still
insists on maintaining an artificially high and unachievable compliance
threshold. For States to more effectively improve child welfare
outcomes, as intended by the CFSR process, funding is needed for the
CFSR process and, most importantly, for the implementation of Program
Improvement Plans. New York, like many States, has worked hard to
achieve efficiencies with limited new resources since the first CFSR.
However, many of the enhancements needed to truly improve outcomes are
structural in nature and require additional resources, including
additional front line staff to care for children, and caseworker staff
for reducing caseload size, increase the frequency of casework contacts
with families, and reduce staff turnover.
Block Granting of Child and Family Services--Although the White
House has called for legislation that would create a ``flexible funding
stream'' for child welfare services, it is with great trepidation that
I view block granting at the Federal level. The Social Services Block
Grant is an example of how block grants can go wrong. In 1981, Federal
matching funds for social services and funding for social service staff
training were combined into a block grant to States. Most Federal
requirements were removed. This new block grant became the ``Social
Services Block Grant,'' Title XX of the Social Security Act.
Despite the fact that SSBG had been cut in 1996 and had contributed
significant amounts to welfare reform's budget savings, and despite the
entitlement nature of SSBG, it still became subject to the annual
decisions of appropriators. Legislation in 1999 reduced SSBG funding to
$1.7 billion in 2001 and beyond.\1\ The White House has since tried to
reduce this block grant further without Congressional action, violating
the Budget Impoundment Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Child Welfare League of America
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that history of a block grant's vulnerability to offset other
programmatic areas, I fear for child welfare services should they go
the route of other human services block grants. In this day of PAYGO
rules, this drives up the stakes much higher.
Education of Foster Children--H.R. 5466 makes provision for
educational needs of foster children. Although New York supports this
provision, we want to ensure that the bill provides for equal
participation in these incurred costs between the Federal and State
stakeholders. H.R. 5466 could be enhanced by providing clarity on the
quantifying criteria of ``close proximity'' when referring to
children's school assignments in relationship to their out-of-home
placements. It should also be expected that Title IV-E costs could rise
with increased travel expenses to keep children in their originating
schools.
McKinney-Vento Homeless Prevention Act Reauthorization--
Reauthorization legislation should include broader language in the
definitions section of the Act to include runaway youth, youth
returning to the community after release from rehabilitative services,
youth who are at risk of becoming homeless, and families with foster
children that are at risk of becoming homeless.
II. SUPPORT FOR FRONT LINE WORKERS AND FAMILIES
Training--We urge Congress to provide enhanced reimbursement for
Title IV-E training for all individuals involved in meeting the Title
IV-E requirements and simplify the claiming requirements. OCFS approves
of this provision as stated in H.R. 5466. Currently, Title IV-E
reimbursement is available for 75 percent of the training costs for
public child welfare staff and short-term training for private
voluntary agency staff and foster parents that provide direct services
to children. However, only 50 percent is reimbursed for longer term
training of private voluntary agency staff and foster parents that
provide direct services to the children. Furthermore, Title IV-E
reimbursement is not available for other groups that are critical to
the provision of child welfare services and the States' compliance with
Title IV-E, such as law guardians, family court judges, county
attorneys, and probation officers. Finally, there are restraints that
hamper efficient fiscal administration of the training program for the
States' and training contractors, including the strict Departmental
Appeals Board (DAB) 1666 interpretation of contractors' indirect costs,
the requirement to cost-allocate and track both ``training'' and
``administrative'' costs, and the requirement to cost-allocate and
track ``direct'' and ``non-direct'' voluntary agency staff training.
Adam Walsh Act Prescriptive Language Fix--New York applauds your
efforts to allow for flexibility in criminal background checks as
stated in H.R. 5466. States should have the flexibility to opt-out of
the Federal history criminal background check requirements and maintain
the systems they had in place that protect children from predators
without eliminating the possibility of placement with family members.
This should apply to all relative caregiver placements whether they are
subsidized or not.
SACWIS and AFCARS--Congress or ACF should clarify under SACWIS that
a ``single statewide system'' refers only to the infrastructure for
reporting by localities and their contract agencies to the State and
Federal Government. ``State-wideness'' is not impaired if a locality
adopts differing user interfaces, so long as the reporting continues to
operate through the single statewide system. The current lack of
flexibility on the part of ACF could impact the SACWIS compliance in
State supervised, locally administered States because there is
variation in the needs of individual counties. In addition, rule making
activities such as the unfunded AFCARS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) and the Chafee National Youth in Transition Database (CNYIT),
add significant additional fiscal and technological burdens that could
stall or halt SACWIS development in many States. The fiscal sanctions
connected with these new rules would further hinder development and
impact services to vulnerable children. The fiscal penalties that may
be assessed against States that do not attain the required
participation rates for the new AFCARS collection requirements should
be at a minimum, considered for appropriation to the States to support
the significant changes that need to be made to States' computer
systems.
While we fully support collection of data about the longer-term
outcomes for youth leaving foster care, additional Federal funds are
needed to support this new Chafee requirements. Otherwise, States will
be faced with reducing the amount of Chafee dollars spent on services
to youth in order to finance the new data collection initiatives. It is
important to track the progress of children and youth through the
States' foster care systems and to have the right tools to do so. That
said, serious attention must be given to the excessive, new AFCARS data
requirements and the negative effect they will have on the time
caseworkers can spend with families. In 2006, a study of caseworker
workload was conducted in New York State by Walter R. McDonald and
Associates. Among the findings of the study was that on average,
caseworkers spend less than one hour per month in face-to-face contact
with each family on their caseload. The mandatory collection of new
AFCARS data elements from caseworkers will further reduce caseworker
availability to families. We need support from our Federal partners in
reducing the time caseworkers must spend at the computer so we can
increase the time they can spend with children and families. We urge
that these requirements be revised to meet the test of whether they are
essential to promoting the safety, permanency and well-being of the
children and youth in foster care rather than whether they might
advance research or outcome measurement objectives.
Furthermore, the States should be supported financially to offer
incentives to former foster children to participate in the required
CNYIT data collection.
III. PROMISING PRACTICES OUTLINED IN H.R. 5466 AND POSSIBLE
IMPROVEMENTS THIS LEGISLATION
H.R. 5466 shows a lot of promise especially with the provisions
that provide fiscal incentives to improve the quality of child welfare
services. Caseworker practice is paramount to good outcomes for
children. OCFS is supportive of this provision.
As previously mentioned, OCFS agrees with the bill's provisions
that support kinship placement payments, separate criminal history
requirements for relative foster parents, and the deletion of required
criminal history checks on direct placements.
OCFS is also pleased with the provision to expand eligible training
populations and supports this provision with Federal fiscal
participation.
Giving States the option of keeping older youth in foster care up
until age 21 allows the States to develop creative initiatives that
support older youth's independence, and education lessening their risk
of dependency on public assistance. It is also consistent with the
emerging research about adolescent brain development and the need for
young people to be better supported in their transition to adulthood.
Federal participation for this provision is greatly appreciated and
long overdue.
Absent in H.R. 5466 is mention of the CFSR and its drain on States'
resources. All States must participate in the CFSR and in the first
round, all States failed their reviews. At that point all States
provided ACF with their Program Improvement Plans and reported
periodically on benchmark achievements. This is all done without any
FFP. New York State is now involved with the second round of CFSR. We
are expending additional resources for the Statewide Assessment, the
upcoming on-site case review, and the resulting Program Improvement
Plan. This was, and still is, an unfunded mandate. Consideration should
be given to increasing Federal funding for these efforts and not
further penalizing States and the vulnerable children and families they
serve.
Federal participation for supportive, front-end services has been
minimal. H.R. 5466 could be greatly enhanced if it would provide for
improved Federal Medical Assistance Payment (FMAP) and flexibility in
providing children and families with necessary services that keep
children out of costly, out-of-home placements.
Although Chafee funding is available for youth aging out of foster
care, this funding is minimal and does not cover the myriad of supports
needed by this population. The legislation could also offer enhanced
funding for older youths' needs such as support for transportation and
education costs in the FMAP.
In addition, I am concerned with some of the provisions in H.R.
5466 that would reduce the percentage of Federal reimbursement for the
de-linking of foster care payments and adoption assistance payments
from AFDC as it could serve as a disincentive to adoption Perhaps a
method of fiscal incentives for improving outcomes and performance
would better serve children and families? We must invest in the future
of our nation by investing in our children.
H.R. 5466 is a good start in addressing complicated child welfare
needs. I thank you for your time and efforts and look forward to
working with you and your staff as your legislation progresses through
the Congress. I am delighted to offer further insight on these and
other issues affecting children and families and remain at your
disposal for these discussions.
Statement of National Council on Disablility
The National Council on Disability (NCD) would like to thank the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to provide written testimony in
support of the need for improving the child welfare system in the
United States, and to share information from NCD's most recently
released report, Youth with Disabilities in the Foster Care System:
Barriers to Success and Proposed Policy Solutions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Released February 26, 2008. To access the full report, please
go to http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2008/FosterCareSystem--
Report.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
NCD is an independent Federal agency, composed of 15 members
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. NCD's purpose
is to promote policies and practices that guarantee equal opportunity
for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or
severity of the disability, and to empower individuals with
disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living,
and integration into all aspects of society.
In announcing this hearing, the Honorable Chairman McDermott
rightly stated, ``We have no greater responsibility than ensuring the
well-being of American's most vulnerable children . . .'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ News Advisory, Committee on Ways and Means, Jim McDermott
Announces a Hearing on Improving the Child Welfare System (February 20,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Council on Disability would like to bring your
attention to the children who are the most at risk, and the most
vulnerable--youth in the foster care system who have disabilities.
The goal for our country's youth is to live healthy, happy lives
and to become self-sufficient, contributing members of society as
adults. However, there are subsets of youth who cannot reach these
goals with ease. These youth need additional supports to assist them in
their journey toward a healthy adulthood, as they are more vulnerable
than the ``average'' youth and thus are more apt to fall through the
cracks during their journey. Youth development researchers have
determined that some specific youth populations are more vulnerable
than others. One exceptionally challenged group in particular is older
youth (specifically, preteen through young adult) with disabilities who
are involved in the foster care system.
NCD's foster youth report focuses on policy proposals designed to
strengthen the child welfare system and improve the outcomes of
children in care. Given the huge prevalence of youth with disabilities
in the foster care system, foster care is clearly a disability issue--
and NCD has found that no one,at the various levels of government, is
accountable for youth with disabilities in foster care. We recommend
that governmental entities identify an agency to help coordinate
service delivery to youth with disabilities in foster care, to hold
others accountable, and to be held accountable for improving outcomes
for youth.
NCD Recommendations
NCD hopes that the following recommendations provide policymakers,
primarily at the Federal and State levels, with information about youth
with disabilities in foster care, so that policymakers can begin to
understand the characteristics of this population; the challenges they
face; how they fare with regard to safety, permanency, self-
determination and self-sufficiency, enhanced quality of life, and
community integration; and how the complex array of existing programs
and services could be better designed to improve these outcomes.
1) It is imperative to designate a systems-level leader to ensure
that all systems are working together for the good of each young person
and that each system keeps their collective eye on the ball--ensuring
long-term positive outcomes for youth and that each are held
accountable for the overall positive development of the young person.
NCD recommends that the dependency court system act as this systems-
level leader.
2) NCD recommends that States and communities be provided with
increased flexibility so programs and services can be most effectively
structured to meet the needs of youth with disabilities in foster care.
More flexibility awarded to State child welfare agencies can lead to
more help where it is needed for preventative services, alternative
care models, transition services, and school-based mental health
programs, among many other appropriate services for youth with
disabilities in foster care. Allowing a percentage of funds from one
program to be shifted to meet the purposes of another is one possible
approach; allowing waivers and block granting of funds is another.
3) Increased Federal support is needed for the Departments of
Health and Human Services, Education, Justice, and Labor for research
and demonstrations to identify effective policies and practices that
lead to positive outcomes for youth with disabilities in foster care.
High-quality research and program evaluations should be supported at
the Federal level to demonstrate which programs and policies are truly
effective for youth with disabilities in foster care.
4) State child welfare agencies should increase their efforts to
identify and recruit adults who are willing to foster or adopt the
highest-need youth, including youth with disabilities, to reduce the
high numbers of these youth left in the system for long periods.
Training programs for foster parents should include a focus on working
with youth with disabilities and should provide ongoing support to help
these adults best support these youth.
5) The U.S. Department of Education and State education agencies
need to provide additional services to high school students with
disabilities in foster care when needed, such as school-based mental
health services and counseling, with the goal of helping them attain
higher graduation rates. In addition, students with disabilities should
always be educated in the ``least restrictive environment'' possible.
Finally, these education agencies should increase access to and success
in postsecondary learning opportunities by removing the monetary and
nonmonetary barriers that stand in the way of youth with disabilities
in foster care.
6) State child welfare agencies should enhance the transitional
supports that are available for these youth to improve their life
outcomes. They should also extend the availability of transition
services to youth with disabilities through age 24 when necessary to
enable them to lead healthy, self-sufficient lives.
7) The Federal Youth Development Council, authorized by the Federal
Youth Coordination Act (FYCA), needs to be funded. This council is
charged with developing an interagency plan to implement Federal youth
policy more strategically for disadvantaged youth, such as youth with
disabilities in foster care. Federal support of FYCA and its council
would greatly facilitate a stronger Federal role in serving these
youth, as well as more cross-systems collaboration efforts involving
the many systems that interact with these youth.
8) Efforts should be made to increase collaboration among the
education, juvenile justice, child welfare, labor, dependency court,
health, and mental health systems so that youth with disabilities in
foster care can achieve greater well-being in their adolescence and
into adulthood. State dependency court systems can serve as leaders in
many of these collaboration efforts, and cross-system accountability
measures should be developed.
9) A common youth development approach across multiple systems to
improve outcomes for all youth should be required of all States. The
youth development approach is broad enough to be applicable to multiple
youth-serving programs. Research indicates that this approach is
successful in helping a full range of youth, including youth with
disabilities, achieve self-sufficiency and self-determination, as well
as gaining educational, employment, and developmental skills.
10) Multiple Federal and State agencies can and should encourage
and support cross-training of professionals who work with youth with
disabilities in foster care so that all service providers have an
understanding of both the foster care system and all types of
disabilities. The cross-training should include adults working in
schools, child welfare agencies, health and mental health agencies,
youth development programs, and many more. This measure will help these
adults better address young people's needs in a timely manner.
11) Federal agencies that require data collection and reporting,
particularly the departments of Education and Health and Human
Services, must better ensure that information is being collected and
recorded at the local level in a consistent and timely manner so that
youth with disabilities in all programs are tracked accurately.
Additionally, youth with disabilities in foster care could be assessed
more quickly and accurately if all data systems tracked both disability
and foster care statuses and if child welfare agencies were tasked with
reporting on the well-being of youth with disabilities. Resources and
technical assistance should be provided to help States enhance their
data collection and reporting systems.
12) Accountability systems must always be headed by a leading body
that is well connected to all of the systems around it. In the case of
coordinating systems that interact with youth with disabilities in
foster care, some experts see the natural systems-level leader of these
efforts as the dependency courts and, more specifically, the highest
State court, often the State's supreme court.\3\ Judges are in the
unique position of being able to ``rise up above the fray'' and see the
broad picture of what needs to happen to make things better for the
dependent youth. Judges are also in a position to use Federal law--in
the form of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)--to help them
work more collaboratively with the child welfare system.\4\ This
leadership should be jointly managed with executive office to make it
even stronger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sue Badeau, Executive Director, Philadelphia Children's
Commission, Remarks at the American Youth Policy Forum Advisory
Meeting, Washington, DC (March 14, 2007); Telephone Interview with
Cathy Lowe, Program Manager, National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges (March 22, 2007); Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia
Escher, Trial Judge, Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County
(April 24, 2007).
\4\ Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13) To complete the accountability structure, the courts must have,
in addition to their jurisdiction over the child welfare system,
similar control over the health and mental health systems.\5\
Historically, dependency court judges have not had leverage over these
systems.\6\ Aligning this accountability through Federal law would
further ensure that foster youth, and especially those who have
disabilities, receive the services they need in the timeliest manner
possible. One Superior Court judge stipulated that judges are indeed
responsible for child well-being, despite not being direct service
providers, and that they can demonstrate their responsibility by using
their authority to ensure that ``the agencies that are [directly]
responsible for child well-being fulfill that responsibility.'' \7\
However, no system can or should be solely responsible for ensuring the
well-being of foster youth; every system must do its part.\8\ This
point of view further illustrates the importance of joint leadership
with the executive office in order to strengthen the role of the courts
in ensuring child well-being.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id.
\6\ See the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care's child
welfare system timeline for more information. Kasia O'Neill Murray and
Sarah Gesiriech, A Brief Legislative History of the Child Welfare
System, Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, available at http://
pewfostercare.org/research/docs/Legislative.pdf (viewed on January 5,
2007).
\7\ Telephone Interview with Judge Patricia Escher, Trial Judge,
Division 13, Arizona Superior Court, Pima County (April 24, 2007).
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
NCD's report is groundbreaking in that it deals with a
comprehensive view of services and programs affecting youth with
disabilities in foster care. Many reports look at one aspect of the
challenges these youth face--we focused on multiple challenges so as to
create an understanding of the need for a comprehensive approach.
Youth with disabilities who are also in the foster care system are
one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States. Much more
can be done to guarantee that they are provided the complete support,
encouragement, and assistance they need--and deserve--to ensure their
safety, permanency, and well-being.
We commend the Subcommittee for shining a light on the immense need
to improve the child welfare system.
Statement of National Governors Association
The National Governors Association respectfully submits its current
Child Welfare policy (HHS-14. Child Welfare Services) for inclusion in
the official hearing record on Improving the Child Welfare System. NGA
appreciates the opportunity to weigh in on the challenges confronting
our child welfare programs, and the direction needed to ensure the
safety and well-being of all children who come into contact with the
Child Welfare system.
14.1 Preamble
The nation's Governors believe that, whenever possible, children
are best cared for by their families in a safe and stable environment.
Further, Governors support the goals of safety, permanency, and well-
being for all children who come into contact with the child welfare
system, and are committed to accountability to promote positive
outcomes for children and families.
Throughout the nation, States and territories have made significant
progress in shifting towards a child welfare system based on outcomes
and accountability. States and territories are currently working to
develop and implement new, innovative approaches to addressing the
issues of safety, permanency, and well-being for children. All 50
States and Puerto Rico have completed their initial Child and Family
Service Review (CFSR), and have implemented program improvement plans
to increase their performance.
Governors are proud of the dramatic increases in the number of
adoptions from the public child welfare system over the past few years
and of the reforms they are implementing to address the CFSR outcomes.
The Federal method of rewarding this progress, however, actually
creates a disincentive to those States that had high rates of adoptions
from the public child welfare sector during the baseline year. Despite
this progress, Governors believe that changes to the current system of
child welfare financing could help to further improve States' ability
to provide critical child welfare services to families and to meet the
required outcomes. A strong federal-State partnership is needed for the
entire range of child welfare services--from prevention and protective
services to family services, foster care, independent living services
(generally ages 18-25), and adoption assistance. While maintaining the
Title IV-E entitlement, Governors believe States should be given
greater flexibility in the administration of child welfare programs and
in deciding how Title IV-E dollars are spent.
14.2 Current Program Challenges and Recommendations
Greater flexibility in the child welfare system would allow States
and territories to develop a more coordinated approach to serving
children and families, to more effectively direct existing resources
where they are most needed, to more appropriately address family
situations on a case-by-case basis, and to reach desired outcomes. The
financing structure and current challenges of the child welfare system
have become increasingly complex, and these new complexities call for
reform.
Governors applaud recent efforts by Congress and the Administration
to explore options for greater funding and administrative flexibility
for State child welfare systems, and urge continued work in this
direction while maintaining the Title IV-E entitlement and the
protections for children contained in Federal law. Any change in the
financing structure of the child welfare system should be developed in
consultation with States. In addition, while Governors are committed to
improvement in the child welfare system, change in the Federal
financing of the system should not come at the expense of other
valuable human services programs that are also crucial to families in
need.
14.2.1 Flexibility in the Use of Title IV-E Funds
Challenges. While the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA)
created a number of new mandates on States and territories, and set
high expectations regarding outcomes, no additional Federal funds were
provided to meet these requirements. Greater flexibility could help
States and territories maintain compliance with ASFA requirements and
continue achievement of the ASFA outcomes of safety, permanency, and
well-being.
The current child welfare financing structure does not support the
desired outcomes and goals of the child welfare system. Specifically,
the majority of Federal funding for child welfare programs is targeted
towards out-of-home care, with a much smaller portion of Federal funds
focused on services that protect child safety, prevent the need for
out-of-home placement, promote family stability or reunification when
appropriate, and promote adoption.
Recommendations. While preserving the Title IV-E entitlement,
Congress should consider expanding the allowable use of Title IV-E
funds beyond room and board payments so that States and territories
could more appropriately tailor services to the needs of specific
families. For example, additional options for use of funds could
include prevention services, substance abuse treatment, post-adoption
services, educational assistance for child welfare staff, post
guardianship services, services to young adults who age out of foster
care (generally ages 18-25), and emergency funding to help keep
families together. In addition, Congress should restore the
reimbursement of administrative costs for activities related to
placements of IV-E eligible children with relatives who are unable to
be licensed as foster parents.
With a majority of the foster care and adoption placements done
through contracts with private and nonprofit agencies, Governors
believe that States should be eligible to utilize Title IV-E funds for
the purpose of training contract workers and be reimbursed at the same
rate as their State agency workers, with private and nonprofit agencies
providing the required matching funds.
14.2.2 Flexibility in Addressing Substance Abuse, Domestic Violence,
and Mental Health Issues
Challenges. The majority of children who enter the child welfare
system have families with alcohol and drug problems. States and
territories also face the growing concern of increasing numbers of
children from families with domestic violence and mental health issues.
Recommendations. Given the increasing number of children entering
the child welfare system from families with substance abuse, domestic
violence, and mental health issues, Governors believe Congress and the
Administration should explore options within existing programs to
increase State flexibility in order to address these issues.
14.2.3 Title IV-E Reimbursement, Income Eligibility, and Geographic
Location
Challenges. The Federal Government should have a commitment to all
children in foster care and adoption regardless of a family's income
and regardless of the participating jurisdiction in which the child
lives. Because of the link between Title IV-E and the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) rules, many children are not
eligible for Federal foster care assistance. Further, basing
eligibility on the outdated ``look back'' date of July 16, 1996, poses
a heavy administrative burden on States and has the unintended
consequence of causing fewer children to be eligible for Federal foster
care assistance. In addition, funding for foster care services in the
territories is subject to an arbitrary funding cap. States, local
governments, and territories are committed, nonetheless, to providing
fundamental protection services to all children, meaning that, in many
cases, States, local governments, and territories are primarily
responsible for funding services.
Recommendations. Congress, in consultation with States, should
explore options to eliminate the outdated ``look back'' provision that
ties AFDC eligibility to eligibility for federally reimbursed foster
care or subsidized adoption under Title IV-E, and should review the
impact of Title IV-E funding caps in territories on access to vital
services. While recognizing that this could be a costly endeavor,
Governors believe that ideally all children in care, including
abandoned infants, and regardless of family income or jurisdiction,
should be treated equally. At a minimum, the Title IV-E income
eligibility level should be adjusted for inflation to address the
current problem of fewer children being eligible for foster care each
year because eligibility is based on the AFDC income level as of July
16, 1996.
14.2.4 Title IV-E Waiver Authority
Challenges. The recent congressional decision to allow the waiver
structure for Title IV-E to expire places a severe strain on States to
provide services that promote child well-being and family permanency,
such as assisted guardianship, tribal administration, and post-adoption
services. In order to most effectively address the needs of children
and families, State innovation should be encouraged rather than
prohibited.
Recommendations. Governors strongly urge Congress to reauthorize
Title IV-E waiver authority. The waiver process should be viewed as an
opportunity to provide States with greater flexibility to achieve broad
system change to better serve children and families, not as just an
opportunity to test and evaluate new ideas. Governors are supportive of
increased waiver authority within the child welfare system.
14.3 Collaboration with Other Health and Human Service Programs and the
Courts
Given the increasingly interconnected nature of human service
programs, States and territories rely on other Federal funding streams
to assist in providing coordinated services to families. These include
Title XX/Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), especially in the areas of kinship care and
family preservation; and Medicaid, which is often used for targeted
case management. Despite these growing demands, funds for Title XX/SSBG
have been significantly reduced over the past few years--directly
impacting child welfare programs in many States. In addition, the
transfer from TANF to Title XX should be as flexible as possible with
at least the maintenance of the 10 percent transfer amount.
Increasingly, States' abilities to use Medicaid funding to
implement targeted case management for children in the child welfare
system have been restricted. Governors encourage the Administration to
make it easier for States to use Medicaid funding to implement targeted
case management for children in the child welfare system. The Federal
CFSR has identified a need for the States and Federal Government to
focus on improving physical and mental health outcomes for children in
the child welfare system. Governors believe that targeted case
management under Medicaid is a viable resource that the Administration
should encourage States to use to achieve these outcomes, rather than
discouraging its use.
Governors also recognize that it is not possible for States to be
in compliance with the new outcomes and timelines as set forth in ASFA
without adequate resources for, and cooperation and collaboration with,
the courts. Congress and the Administration should, to the extent
possible, encourage such collaboration.
14.4 Federal Reimbursement of Kinship Care and Guardianship
Governors believe that in many cases there are a number of viable
options for children in need of care, including kinship care. While
kinship care and other guardianship arrangements are currently
reimbursable under TANF, Governors believe that Congress should
consider amending Title IV-E to provide States the option of seeking
further Federal reimbursement for children who would otherwise be in
subsidized Federal foster care. Such assistance would provide greater
permanency and stability to children and families. The Federal
Government should also authorize State child protection agencies to run
national criminal history background checks to ensure that children are
not being placed in the home of someone with a history of violent
crimes or sexual offenses.
14.5 Title IV-B Funding
Funding for front-end and preventive services, such as those funded
through Title IV-B, have remained stagnant, with only small increases
at best. Even when accessing Title IV-B funds, the mechanism is very
prescriptive and discourages innovative practice. Governors encourage
increased Federal support for preventive services through Title IV-B
funding.
14.6 Reinvestment Program for Disallowance
States are subject to a fiscal penalty (disallowance) if, upon
completion of a primary or secondary Title IV-E foster care eligibility
review or a CFSR, they are found to not be in substantial compliance
with Federal regulations and requirements. When States are assessed
these disallowances, they must return the Federal funds that have
already been received to provide foster care to abused and neglected
children, eliminating the opportunity for States to use the funds to
correct the deficiencies found in the reviews and improve the program.
Governors support a reinvestment program that would permit States to
dedicate penalty dollars to correct the deficiencies, which would also
support States' other efforts and initiatives to improve their child
welfare system.
14.7 Court Involvement and Title IV-E Eligibility
Governors support allowing a voluntary relinquishment of parental
rights, also known as surrender of custody and consent for adoption,
without court involvement to be an acceptable method by which a State
receives placement and care responsibility for a child, and through
which a child can be determined Title IV-E eligible.
There are occasions when a parent is actively responsible and
appropriately planning for his or her child's future by executing such
a document. In order for a child in these circumstances to currently
become Title IV-E eligible, there would have to be court action with
the requisite judicial determinations concerning best interests of the
child and actions taken by the State agency to prevent placement of the
child.
14.8 Family Placement and Title IV-E
Eligibility Governors encourage and support relative placements.
Governors encourage the Federal Administration for Children and
Families to approve Title IV-E State plan amendments that permit a
child to be determined Title IV-E eligible based upon the home from
which he or she is removed or in the home of some other specified
relative with whom he or she lived at some point during the six months
prior to the child's removal. Many family members step forward to help
care for a child when parents cannot. This can occur several months or
more prior to involvement by State child welfare agencies. For these
situations, it is possible that a child will be found ineligible for
Title IV-E foster care because family members struggled for an extended
period of time prior to seeking financial assistance or placement in
foster care from the State child welfare agency.